wrong and wrong. you're just presenting underinformed opinion as fact.
ah, the uk-frod fanboi. yeah, there /is/ a difference between ukfrods and usafrods - we drive them for more then 40k miles - frod's euro "reliability" design spec. [i know that number for fact because a buddy of mine used to be a design engineer at dagenham].
so, you come over here and drive our usa freeways at usa freeway speeds and our potholed city streets for 100k miles, then come back and we'll have this conversation again. bring a wheelbarrow to carry all the bits you've had to replace.
[ps. don't ever drive that thing to continental europe either fanboi - the germans, french, italians, spaniards, poles, [etc] don't like your kind.]
My guess is that an automatic was originally seen as a luxury item and highly desirable. Most Americans could afford to pay for automatics. These days, manuals are offered on stripped models so the dealers can print a really cheap price in the papers. Of course, they'll want to upgrade you an auto because "you don't want to be messing with a standard." Most Americans associate manuals with cheap cars and mostly they'd be right.
Because they came from the factory that way and purchasers would be loathe to absorb the exorbitant costs and inconvenience of having them retro fitted?
Why do computer programmers confuse halloween with christmas? Because Oct 31 = Dec 25.
Like wild animals, car live in environments that suit themselves. A 7 liter V8 muscle car probably wouldn't be suitable for Europe but it worked fine in the highways of America. A Fiat 500 probably wouldn't work well over here. Well, not if it actually had a 500 cc engine anyway.
Test that theory by looking at the extremes. If I walk into a dealership with $500K or a couple of million to spend on an exotic car, I'll find more with manual transmissions than slush boxes.
you won't find a single one with a manual in that segment these days - they're all electronically controlled with paddle/steering wheel switch shift.
and i really object to the term "slush box". it's an incredibly retarded misrepresentation of what is generally a fine piece of analog computing, hydraulics and mechanical engineering.
Actually some early slushomatics actually had lockup TCs... the Detroit Gear DG-xxx series and Packard Ultramatic come to mind. I guess they were deleted in later iterations when the extra cost wasn't justified by the fuel savings (which really didn't make much difference back in the days of dirt cheap gasoline) but as far as slushies go I really prefer the feel of one that locks up and stays locked up unless there's a good reason to unlock.
a "slushy" is a semi-frozen drink, not the product of substantial engineering development.
you don't want the converter to stay locked. people bleat about their converters unlocking on down grades. what they don't understand is that the engine braking plus the energy loss of the converter is greater than just engine braking alone. on an appropriately designed automatic anyway.
What's your point? My guess is that most folks don't buy cars costing millions. The reality is that this is of interest only to car nuts. Manual vs automatic is pretty much a non-issue for everybody else.
It's also true that being able to drive a standard doesn't make you special nor is it difficult. I got into a manual and drove it home without any training at all.
I'm interested in getting to my destination in comfort and ease, not play boy-racer on the public roads.
yeah, i trust you, the car makers switched to fwd crap for the public good
just the kind of a thing you'd expect from someone claiming that torque steer has some benefits
wow, I can pass for a pom. sweet. thanks. and no, I haven't driven in uk, and i can assure you the roads over here are FAR worse than what is left of the pavements even in east palo alto grade ghettos
A flat out lie. *I**DO* want the converter to stay locked. Don't tell me what I do and don't want, you're as bad as the "engineers" that programmed the damned things. I absolutely HATE it when the converter is constantly locking and unlocking when I'm simply maintaining a constant speed down a not-quite-flat highway. It can't possibly be good for the box, and it's not good for the driving experience. It also sucks when you have to brake in situations where normally lifting off the gas would be sufficient.
I was merely relating a few pertinent facts and expressing an opinion, your own mental issues are causing you to interpret it that way.
Because I have a good amount of experience with those particular models, and have an interest in automotive history. Clearly you don't. (nor do you even know what a DG transmission is, clearly. I'll give you a free clue - that series was the predecessor to the arguably more robust but simpler and non-lockup Borg-Warner Model 8 AKA Flightomatic, Fordomatic, Flashomatic etc. depending on to whom it was sold. The model 8 was the basis for the subsequent FMX, which I assume at least even you have heard of.)
Most autoboxes suck. Most modern autoboxes suck (not even addressing durability, just addressing their behavior) worse than the older ones. (the break seems to have come sometime in the early 2000's.)
You don't? Is your ass made of bricks?
Oh f*ck off. Someone might find the information interesting; clearly you don't, so don't read it. It's not like you understand a damned thing you read anyway. And German machinery *is* almost always superior to American, at least anything American made since the early 70's. Except for the autoboxes, German autoboxes are often rolling disasters, although I understand they've gotten better. I think that's their way of punishing people who order BMWs or Mercs with automatics.
I'd include myself in your last statement, but I still prefer manual for two reasons.
1) Without unlimited funds, if I do want to play boy-racer on non-public roads (e.g. a track day or autocross) I'm going to have to use my regular ride.
2) The most recent two vehicles with automatic transmissions that I've driven are so unpleasant due to the programming of the transmission and TC lockup that I'd rather shift it myself than be constantly annoyed by the automatic. Which is a shame because I've driven many automatic-equipped vehicles ranging in model year from 1955 to 1993 and none of them were nearly as offensive as the newer ones. I can only assume that this is "CAFE tuning" in action.
This makes sense. OTOH, my guess is that some automatics might work better than a manual. My Sonata has a sidegate that allows for easy upshifts and downshifts. I think it's a stupid idea but it might be the thing for actual racing. Heck, paddle shifting might make sense in such a setting. As it is, it's just another gimmick.
My Subaru GLC was the most unpleasant manual I've ever had. First was geared too low and there was a big gap between 2nd and 3rd. That thing got 21 MPG. I replaced it with a Chevy Cavalier with auto and that never got less than 25 MPG and worked just spiffy. It's all a mystery how this can be possible. Just because it's an automatic, doesn't automatically mean it's second rate.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.