Cars in US

[threetonesun]

I think you just proved that you're an ignorant person who really doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.  First of all, generalizing Americans as bad drivers is a stupid comment.

There is a death caused by a motor vehicle crash every 12 minutes; there is a disabling injury every 14 seconds.

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for people ages 1 to 33.

Yeah, we totally rock at driving :laugh:

In stop and go traffic that really won't even be much of an issue because the speeds are too slow and the space in between cars isn't big enough to avoid using the brakes.  If the traffic is moving slow, but at a steady pace then you could use it, but I can also just have my automatic "idle" ahead without using the gas pedal.  I see that you're in love with manual transmissions and there is no way to get you to realize the facts.  Just realize that both transmissions have their pros and cons.  As I said before, I prefer the automatic for daily driving and the manual for sport, performance, and the fun of driving.

585586701[/snapback]

Where do you think stop and go traffic comes from? It's because everyone drives automatics, and everytime there's a slight gap, they let off the brakes and idle forward. They do it at red lights too.

Get this straight, I drive both types of cars. I drove a automatic into work today. There are pros to some automatics ... if I had a high powered, close geared drag car, I'd rather have an automatic then a manual I could blow through. For the average driver, there's no advantage to learning only how to drive automatic. You know what one of the original campaigns was for automatic cars? So women, particularly in high heels, could drive. :happy:

[tajddin]

For the most part, Americans are hard working people, but I honestly think that we drive Automatic because we're lazy drivers.

I learned to drive on a stick, and I know it's not any more difficult to drive in traffic with manual transmission. I think it's just that most Americans don't like the idea of having to worry about changing gears.

[kombolcha]

For the most part, Americans are hard working people, but I honestly think that we drive Automatic because we're lazy drivers.

I learned to drive on a stick, and I know it's not any more difficult to drive in traffic with manual transmission.  I think it's just that most Americans don't like the idea of having to worry about changing gears.

585586933[/snapback]

i dont know.. i've never met one person here that feels that way.. just like me, they prefer automatic simply because it is easier.

back home i have a 1987 Land Cruiser and a 89 Fiat (Turbo Diesel) waiting for me this summer. :happy:

[Rockwell]

Being that I first learned how to drive in a '88 civic MT, and that my car (1970 nova 307 3 speed manual transmission) I like MT, especially for gas mileage and complete control over the engine(shift later, really loud! =] hehe). There is actually an automatic transmission ive read about that is supposedly just as good as a manual transmission, but eh, I dont like to argue.

[Devil Fish]

I would never want to drive a manual.  Yes, I know how to, it is what I learned on, but it is such an inconvenience and makes eating or holding my dog down in the passenger seat impossible to do.

585581632[/snapback]

I can see the headline now! "Hungry american causes fatal crash wrestling with hotdog and dog."

[kombolcha]

lol^

what about the manumatics/auto stick/auto clutch/whatever you wanna call it.

how are those.. i've never driven a car that has it yet. do you really have control over shifting?

cuz i was thinking.. instead of having the clutch at your feet, why not move it up to the stick,.. so when you're ready to shift, there is a button on the knob, hold it, which is the same as pressing down on the clutch, shift was you would normally and you're done.

[dreamz Veteran]

i've never learned how to drive manual. auto is just so easy, never bothered to learn anything else. then again, i don't care all that much.

[Lazlo Woodbine]

The reason the USA has Automatic over Manual so much is because of the sheer traffic and size of the United States. How many UK's can fit inside the USA?

US land: 9,161,923 sq km

UK land: 241,590 sq km

Also, you say London traffic is bad, and that may be true, but you have to remember that the USA has about 75 cities that are HUGE compared to just a few in the UK. We also have 300 million people. Therefore there are WAY more people stuck in traffic in the USA than the UK, thus the need for Automatics more.

US Pop: 293,027,571 (July 2004 est.)

UK Pop: 60,270,708 (July 2004 est.)

US Highway roads total: 6,406,296 km

UK Highway roads total: 371,913 km

Your figures just go to show that British roads have, on average, much heavier usage than US ones - the complete opposite of what you seem to believe they show.

Divide the population (which I will assume is proportional to the number of drivers) by the length of roads, and it becomes clear that British roads are more heavily used than American ones.

USA 293,027,571 / 6,406,296 = 45.74 people/km

UK 60,270,708 / 371,913 = 162.06 people/km

[DarkMindsProject]

i learned on an auto and now i taught myself on a manual, i will NEVER go back to auto unless i get a mini-van

[randy_tho]

Your figures just go to show that British roads have, on average, much heavier usage than US ones - the complete opposite of what you seem to believe they show.

Divide the population (which I will assume is proportional to the number of drivers) by the length of roads, and it becomes clear that British roads are more heavily used than American ones.

USA 293,027,571 / 6,406,296 = 45.74 people/km

UK  60,270,708  /  371,913 = 162.06 people/km

585587226[/snapback]

Your forgetting to factor in public transportation. Population densities in areas also. The US has a ton of land that isn't even occupied. I am under the impression that many cities in the UK use tracks for public trans.

Plus UK cars are much smaller than in the US. jk.

[threetonesun]

lol^

what about the manumatics/auto stick/auto clutch/whatever you wanna call it.

how are those.. i've never driven a car that has it yet. do you really have control over shifting?

cuz i was thinking.. instead of having the clutch at your feet, why not move it up to the stick,.. so when you're ready to shift, there is a button on the knob, hold it, which is the same as pressing down on the clutch, shift was you would normally and you're done.

585587160[/snapback]

They kind of make what you're talking about. Manumatics just allow you to control the shift point, they're still a viscous resistance transmission. Not a bad compromise, but also not as smooth as a full manual.

An electronic transmission uses a clutch system that is control by a computer. Some race cars have these, they're massively expensive, but it's basically a full manual setup that you shift with push buttons. Faster and more acurate than a human, although most still have a clutch pedal for getting out of first.

IMO, if people want automatics, more companies should just make CVTs. That's something a manual transmission can never do.

[MR_Candyman]

IMO, if people want automatics, more companies should just make CVTs. That's something a manual transmission can never do.

585588523[/snapback]

Agreed. CVT trannies are very nice and beneficial. I'm not sure how the failure rate is on them though. I'd imagine hydrostatic cvt's are going to last longer though. Still it's the best automatic system, and possibly the best system, period.

[threetonesun]

Agreed. CVT trannies are very nice and beneficial. I'm not sure how the failure rate is on them though. I'd imagine hydrostatic cvt's are going to last longer though. Still it's the best automatic system, and possibly the best system, period.

585588606[/snapback]

The only thing I ever heard bad about them was the complaint that most drivers thought they were "weird". Most of the ones around here were sold in Toyotas and other Japanese cars, so I'd assume their reliability was on par for those companies.

I think as more people buy fuel economic cars, more will adopt CVT transmissions.

[MR_Candyman]

well, they definitely are more fuel efficient. I can see them being pretty weird though. I haven't personally seen any that weren't just cut out models, so I find the fact they're starting to be introduced very good.

I'd also like to see radial squish flow come to be more popular. For those who don't know about it, you can read about it here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...115/ai_98901449

[kombolcha]

CVT?

thanks

[MR_Candyman]

http://cvt.com.sapo.pt/toc_en.htm

there ya go

[John Veteran]

CVT?

585589929[/snapback]

cvt transmission

[macf13nd]

i'll tell you all something though... Nothing is more infuriating than driving an OLD AT car after living with manuals your whole driving career. Those boxes are so out of sync and continually my friend and i would find ourselves shouting "SHIFT, F*KING SHIFT!" at no-one in particular.. :) Self inflicted road rage is not psychologically healthy! lol.

[kombolcha]

http://cvt.com.sapo.pt/toc_en.htm

there ya go

585589945[/snapback]

cvt transmission

585589948[/snapback]

is this the same transmission Buggati and VW are working on?

where one gear is in place and a second gear is ready to engage, so pretty much you can't feel it when gears change.. i think VW has "perfected" it, they have it controlled so that the gear engages in a hundredth of a second. then the gear that was originally in gear will move and get ready to engage for the next gear. something like that.

[QuarterSwede]

is this the same transmission Buggati and VW are working on?

where one gear is in place and a second gear is ready to engage, so pretty much you can't feel it when gears change.. i think VW has "perfected" it, they have it controlled so that the gear engages in a hundredth of a second. then the gear that was originally in gear will move and get ready to engage for the next gear. something like that.

585591174[/snapback]

No.

CVT is even smoother because there is no gear change. The system is constantly is changing the transmission ratio and from what I understand, there is only 1 gear.

"C.V.T. (Continuously Variable Transmission) is a system that makes it possible to vary progressively the transmission ratio. So it allows selection of a infinite number of ratios, (between a minimum and a maximum value)."

"They allow the engine to operate always in it's optimum R.P.M., whatever the vehicle's speed."

Edited March 9, 2005 by Jstphish

[threetonesun]

Yup. The reason people find CVTs odd is because the engine speed never changes. Basically, the engine always runs at a peak power/fuel point, and the transmission constantly changes to keep it at that point given any speed. So imagine if you got in your car, and it drove at 3000 RPMs everywhere you went.

[MR_Candyman]

i'll tell you all something though... Nothing is more infuriating than driving an OLD AT car after living with manuals your whole driving career. Those boxes are so out of sync and continually my friend and i would find ourselves shouting "SHIFT, F*KING SHIFT!" at no-one in particular.. :) Self inflicted road rage is not psychologically healthy! lol.

585591098[/snapback]

Depends on the transmission. The 727 Transmission that was introduced in 1956 (as the 488, revamped and called the 727 in 1962) is STILL considered the best automatic transmission of all time. Both Ford and Chevy bought a licence to the technology. Ford was so impressed with the Torqueflite that it attempted to quietly buy the rights to manufacture a sort of "copycat." The story, however, was quickly picked up by the automotive magazines. Ford reportedly had paid Chrysler $7.5 million, which was a big chunk of change in 1957! The direct result was the 1958 Ford built "Cruise-O-Matic" that was available on all standard Ford engines. It was not, however, a Torqueflite, but a Ford automatic built around the Simpson gear set. It was heavier, with more parts, keeping the Ford derived clutch band controls. Early models, especially those put behind "performance" engines liked to split the case, right down the middle! It was a problem that plagued Ford for a couple of years until the redesign incorporated into the 1961 models. In all fairness, however, in fleet applications, for the most part, the Cruise-O-Matic was reliable, and gave little trouble with regular maintenance. It certainly outshone Chevrolet's 1957 "Turboglide."

[+Random Stranger Subscriber¹]

one thing is not clear to me. is CVT better or not. i mean if you cannot get into lower gear for brink acceleration then it is not as fast? or is it set up to be stuch at the high enouhg rpm to be fast accelerating? or it varies all the time but not around the same rpms and rpms change according to how hard you press the gas pedal?

i am confused on this one.

[ahfunaki]

My first two cars were auto, I bought a stick this time and I like it alot...

Much more fun, faster even with my little 4 banger. My friend has a similar car but it's an automatic and he gets upset because he can never keep up with me...hah

[Fantmx]

one thing is not clear to me. is CVT better or not.  i mean if you cannot get into lower gear for brink acceleration then it is not as fast?  or is it set up to be stuch at the high enouhg rpm to be fast accelerating?  or it varies all the time but not around the same rpms and rpms change according to how hard you press the gas pedal?

i am confused on this one.

586216278[/snapback]

That is not a concern. Snowmobiles and some ATVs have something that could be considered a CVT. Granted they work by centrifugal force, but it is the same idea.