-hh
I hate front wheel drive, send most torque to the rear, please wrote:

I hate front wheel drive, send most torque to the rear, please
On 2/26/14, 19:38, David Fritzinger wrote:

David Fritzinger
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>wrote:

-hh
Brake Dive, Acceleration Squat, Body Roll Works LLC wrote:

Brake Dive, Acceleration Squat, Body Roll Works LLC
On 2/26/14, 15:48, -hh wrote: [...]

-hh
FYI, you apparently missed the posts where Nashton revealed that he's just a "mash the pedal" straight-line type. Feel free to ask him why - - despite his prior declarations - - he's now spent more than $70K for a vehicle that cannot do 0-60mph in < 6sec.

Brake Dive, Acceleration Squat, Body Roll Works LLC
Well, I suppose it could if it weren't for a slushbox that will be fried

-hh
FYI, over here, manual transmissions are now also on the Endangered Species List because of government regulations that are trying to drive for higher fuel efficiencies.... less than 7% of US vehicles have manual transmissions, which means fewer well-engaged drivers:

I hate front wheel drive, send most torque to the rear, please
Hmm. I thought it was 1% or less. 7% is like: A LOT!

-hh
Sure, 7% is better than 1%, but the decline has really hurt what's sold, as the automakers stop their engineering development and streamline their production, abolishing the option at any price. Last I heard, the vehicle with the highest percentage of manual transmission USA sales was the VW GTI ...at _only_ 50%.

IIRC, even the Porsches were at something like 20% and dropping.

David Fritzinger
FWIW, "slushboxes" have always been far more popular than manual transmissions, since the '50s. I believe this is, in part, to the fact that US cars were always big, with engines, and fuel economy wasn't really that important.

-hh
Not quite. The manual transmission was functionally a "barrier to adoption" for the public to buy vehicles, because of the skill(s) it required.

As such, the invention/introduction and popularization of the automatic was a market enabler in that it dramatically increased the available customer base ... overly simplistically, doubled it to include women ... which increased product sales.

FYI, the market effects/transitions on this can also be tracked by how & when the Automatic was an extra-cost option, instead of a zero cost as it is today.

David Fritzinger
The first generation of auto transmissions only had 2 speeds. Indeed, there is a large segment of the US population that has never driven a manual transmission car.

I hate front wheel drive, send most torque to the rear, please
I was under the impression that's because being a car nut in the US is something that's looked down upon. I suppose judeomasonic media helped with that perception of some underlclassy guy in a proletarian 'stang in a plaid shirt. So lots of folk are under pressure to buy something that won't be perceived as a sports or a muscle car to avoid ridicule.

-hh
Nah...an automatic simply was easier to learn to drive, and many people did not see any reason to become any better at the task.

Couple that with how an automatic is a lot more human-friendlly in congestion (traffic jambs) and there was also a reason for people to prefer an automatic even if they knew how to drive both.

David Fritzinger
Now, even high performance European cars come with automatics. I don't think it is possible to get a manual transmission on a Ferrari anymore, and, IIRC, automatics even rule in F1 racing. Personally, I don't like the fact that fewer and fewer cars are available with a manual transmission, as I've always preferred them in my cars. A friend of mine

I hate front wheel drive, send most torque to the rear, please
No wonder. Compare the cost of ownership of a manual to ANY automatic the cost of clutch notwithstanding.

-hh
For the performance enthusiast, it isn't a cost issue. What it was was the DSG technology which got into racing ... and from there, into the hottest lap times around the Nürburgring - - that's was where the "tech push" came from for performance street cars. And the bonus is that the design also gets better fuel economy, so it helped with regulatory compliances.

David Fritzinger
needed to buy a station wagon, and he chose a Subaru (even though his previous cars had been Audis, Mercedes and BMWs) for the sole reason that it was available with a manual transmission. [snip]

I hate front wheel drive, send most torque to the rear, please
Manual transmission feel is horrible in Subaru. At least it was so in Outback sport. WRX STI might have a crisp shift feel but I believe plain WRX at the time shared the shitty manual of a lesser impreza.

-hh
Sounds like another cable-based shift linkage; I don't know how long ago it was that solid shift linkages disappeared.

In any case, the philosophical question is - just how 'bad' can a manual be until it is no longer preferable over an automatic?

I hate front wheel drive, send most torque to the rear, please
Manuals in Mazdas and Hondas I think are slick, the rest of the japs are having difficulty getting it right.

-hh
Honda does seem to be the benchmark.

I hate front wheel drive, send most torque to the rear, please
I love the shifter feel on my A4. It's hondasmooth, might be better with the manual tranny oil that VW specified anyway.

-hh
Had to go look at Audi USA ... a manual is actually still available in the A4 and S4 in the USA: a pleasant surprise! Unfortunately, that's not the case for the Allroad, despite what should be 'identical' mechanicals forward of the B column. Apparently, not enough of a consumer market to pay for it, again.