Why do so few Americans know how to drive a stick shift?

Older automatics in particular were less efficient and heavier. This mattered little when you put one in a 2-1/2 to 3 ton land yacht with a V-8 burning cheap fuel. The extra cost isn’t so much when you are already paying for a huge car with a huge engine, on easy credit terms.

It matters a lot when you have a small, light economical European car, with an engine so small that air conditioning was not the norm until the last couple of decades. Imagine a 1960’s VW beetle saddled with a 1960s automatic transmission…it wouldn’t have been able to get out of it’s own way, yet was passable transportation when equipped as sold.

Further, a lighter car takes a fair amount less finesse on the clutch than a big heavy vehicle, and the clutch pedal will require far less pressure as well. Especially as the normal manual transmission only had three forward gears, so first was pretty tall. A torque converter allowed a very low effective gear ratio, so made for better initial acceleration in the day.

The upshot is that until recent decades, automatics worked better in big cars, and manuals worked better in little cars. Further, American women started driving in large numbers far sooner than their European sisters, in a day when women were still expected to wear heels. The clutch pressure and travel needed for the large V-8 in the station-wagon that 60’s moms drove really was too much for many women to manage. American auto makers pretty well had to supply automatics if they wanted to sell more than one car to each household, while European makers were still dreaming that maybe 1 in 5 households might buy a single car. To sell more cars European makers had to make them cheaper. To sell more cars American makers had to make the sexier and easier to drive.

The main reason that Americans prefer automatics is that Americans prefer larger cars. And the reasons for that are pretty simple: Much lower fuel prices, affluence, easy credit, lack of tax penalties for larger heavier vehicles, vastly longer distances to be covered, and cities that were largely designed after cars were invented, so have wide streets and parking spaces, and a driving population that didn’t mostly live in cities anyway. There is a lot of truth in the saying that a European is someone who thinks 100 miles is a long distance, and an American is someone who thinks 100 years is a long time.

Now most of what has been said of modern automatics is true, but there is strong cultural inertia. Europeans still see automatic transmissions as frivolous luxury, and Americans still see a clutch as something for people who can’t afford a proper car.

A second reason is that American driving licenses require far less training than European standards. The typical American teenager is turned loose with perhaps 1/4 the training that a European would have, and that European would most likely be a decade older. There really isn’t time to learn how to drive a clutch in the time devoted to American driver education.

As for me I hate driving slush boxes, have never owned one, and find it wonderful that I can actually rent a car with a standard transmission in most of the rest of the world. Honestly, if you are not willing to drive a clutch, it is significantly harder to hire a car in Europe.

I was out walking today and decided to discreetly check out if the parked cars I passed by were manuals or automatics. I have to say, I was surprised at how many of them were autos. It seemed like about a quarter of them, including quite a few little hatchbacks. Maybe automatics are more popular here (UK) than I thought.

Does it have a clutch pedal? No? Then it’s an automatic.

The advantage of a dual clutch over a conventional automatic is greater fuel economy, less pumping loss from the torque converter and lighter weight, while still being somewhat smoother and less clunky at low speeds than a single clutch automated gearbox like Ferrari F1 or BMW SMG. Another important advantage for European cars is that since a DSG (or SMG) is essentially a manual box, it can be adapted to engine start/stop systems without much difficulty. Current engine start/stop systems have only been widely adopted on manual transmissions and DSG, because a conventional automatic relies on the engine idling to keep hydraulic fluids circulating and don’t work well with the engine shutting down at every stop.

They don’t have any real advantage over an SMG type gearbox, or even a modern planetary gearset auto, in terms of performance. They are heavier than a single clutch gearbox and most importantly, having 2 clutches instead of 1 increases the weight of the rotating assembling and has an effect on engine performance. This mostly isn’t an issue on regular road cars which already have heavy flywheels and modest redlines - VW and Ford’s first applications of DSG were on their small diesel cars for this reason, but on some new supercars like the Lexus LFA and Lamborghini Aventador, the choice of a single clutch gearbox was an engineering decision (both cars are pretty much in the “cost is no issue” category) where it was decided that removing weight from the rotating assembly to maximize engine response was a worthwhile tradeoff for somewhat clunky and less smooth shifting in the parking lot.

These types of cars cannot really use a regular clutch pedal manual for the same reason. The rotating assembly is so light, and the engine so revvy, that trying to make it work with a manual results in a car that is almost undrivable on the street. The Porsche Carrera GT was the last car of this type to have a manual trans, and while it was very fast in the right hands, I wouldn’t want to try driving it up a hill in traffic.

But guess what? The engine in my car isn’t from a Carrera GT or Lexus LFA so the technical problems faced by those cars are of no concern to me. Maybe when I get one of those cars I’ll consider the merits of an automatic gearbox, but until then they are not a solution for which I have a problem that needs solving. Maybe they taste like pumpkin pie, but I ain’t eating them.

I’m not sure about that. The minimum driving age here is 17, and most of those kids are desperate to get their licence. It’s something of a rite of passage.

I got my license at age 16 in Texas, but you had to have taken Driver’s Ed to qualify for that. (And I still wrecked my father’s car, twice, but not too seriously either time.) At age 15, I had a Learner’s Permit in which I could drive if a fully licensed driver was in the front seat next to me. And IIRC, it was possible for a 14-year-old to get a Hardship License if he or she had to help support the family; it allowed the kid to drive only between home and work.

I can take my car to a full stop. Then press resume and it will go back up to speed. I doubt a manual will do that well.

For someone who doesn’t enjoy something, paying more attention to it isn’t more fun. YMMV. Making it more fiddly doesn’t make it easier.

Why not? The point of a rolling start is to engage the alternator, so it is cranking out juice. A car should run just fine without a battery at all assuming the alternator gets spinning.

Then you missed the point. That comment was about what makes a manual transmission a manual, vs an automatic, not which transmission type you prefer.

Perhaps that terminology issue an element of this conversation. I think the majority of the people in this thread are envisioning “automatic transmission” to equal what some are deploring as “slushboxes” and “manuals” to equate to the old “standard”, i.e. lever shift and foot clutch. The newer paddle shifters and “autosticks” that allow you to select your gear without requiring manual clutch operation are hybrid systems that don’t fit in either category. We’ve been individually categorizing them as one or the other based upon preferences and personal opinions, and then talking past one another.

I am somewhat interested in trying out an autostick or paddle shifter, assuming it doesn’t require manual clutch operation. I’m less interested in a transmission that requires two separate foot clutches. Unless you’re telling me those foot pedals are provided but unnecessary, which seems weird. Why put something in the floorboard in the way of my legs if I don’t have to use them?

Ah, but the cows convert the green grass to red meat.

It is a big factor for me. Yes I get tired of this little podunk town and putting up stop signs wherever somebody that knows the mayor wants one, but if I had to fight city congestion every day, I might once again buy an automatic.

I once got caught behind an old guy in pickup truck on a rural road that had a series of small hills and dips. When I came up to the top of one hill, I could see the next 3 valleys were clear. I dropped into second and gave it the gas. I caught third as I went by him and was out of sight long before high.

Is the actual question in the OP even valid? There’s a lot of argument over which is better or which is preferred, but every person who is debating the topic seems to be able to drive a manual.

Is there any evidence that “so few” Americans can drive a stick? Or that Americans are especially inept at manual transmissions as opposed to other countries?

I don’t know that I know a single person that can’t drive a stick. And I do know that everyone in my family is quite proficient at manual transmissions. As is my wife and everyone in her family.

They were specifically discussing what they preferred, starting with the following comment: “I’m wedded to the idea of a manual clutch.”

When a person uses “real” and “true” as words to establish a distinction between a clutch driven unit, and one without, in this context, it most definitely falls into the realm of subjectivity. The definition I prefer to use, focuses on the actual intent behind manual control, which in both daily and track driven performance, differs from an automatic in all the same ways. I think that’s at least respective of the times and progression of technology.

You’re exactly right, and prior to the claim that “anything that doesn’t have a manually controlled clutch = auto”, I didn’t raise the counterpoint. Gearboxes have evolved to the point, where they don’t have to follow convention, in order to deliver a manual experience to the driver…I applaud this. For most any purpose, there exist support for just why clutch-less manuals are a suitable and relevant evolution of their clutch-driven counterparts (not that I really need to do so, as above all, the market and current trends speak for themselves).

You really should try it out, then (what do you have to lose?). While I also enjoy driving my car with three pedals, I don’t miss the manual-clutch at all, when using my paddle shifted car. It’s one less car operation I have to micro-manage, and one less source for error, which detracts from my being able to focus on my heading. It makes actual course driving a lot easier (so far as vehicle control goes), as well.

I suspect it makes a difference where you grew up. As I said in my post above, my car is manual transmission. I only know of two non-European persons in my local group of friends and family who knows how to drive a stick. I was at a wedding not too long ago where somebody needed to drive my car and nobody in the wedding party or within earshot of the wedding party admitted to knowing how to drive a stick. Until I bought my car, hell, I didn’t even know a single person with a manual transmission automobile, except for one roommate back in college (from Wisconsin.) Hell, I was 20 years old before I sat in a car with a stick shift.

I thought most cars refused to engage the cruise control at all below a certain speed (20-30 MPH?). You’re right in that my car won’t manage a launch from zero, but one I’ve manually accelerated up to the point where I’ve shifted into an appropriate gear, I can hit resume and the cruise will bring me back to my old speed.

A car may run fine without a battery, but it won’t start without it. The alternator can’t produce any voltage unless there is current flowing through the field winding. The alternator itself can provide that current once it’s running, but if the battery is not present to provide that current during the start sequence, the alternator can’t begin to make electrical power.

But if you choose not to have a manual clutch, doesn’t that make you lazy?
This is a serious question that I hope you respond to - I’m pretty curious to see your answer.

Well, I did a quick tally from this thread:

Poll: Can you drive a stick?

I only did the first page, but my count was:
32:3 USA
10:2 Non USA

Meaning that 9.4% of Americans and 20% of non Americans can’t drive a stick.

Now, I realize that this is a small sample size. And, there might be a bias since there seems to be some pride involved with being able to drive a stick and only those who can would bother to open the thread to vote.

Well, while we’re WAGging, the guesses here here seem to all fall within the range of 65-80% of Americans not being able to drive stick. In my experience and my generation (I’m 36), that’s still a good deal more than I personally know. I would have guessed in the 80-85% range myself, but my peers mostly grew up in urban areas and the opportunities to drive stick here are more limited. Like I said, I don’t recall even sitting in a stick-shift car in America until I was 20.

That SD poll must either be very self-selective or simply not representative. I would have a very, very difficult time believing a majority of Americans know how to drive a stick. Maybe if I really think about all the older drivers out there who learned on them–I could very well be undercounting those. But no way on the level of 90%+.

Well, duh. Everything here is self-selected and unrepresentative.

Yes, I do have a tendency to state the obvious. Still, I’m a little surprised at how self-selective and skewed that poll seems to me. It’s not like it’s a thread about politics, or anything.

Looking online, I can only find uncited “factoids” about how many Americans can drive stick. A number of sites repeat the figure of 30%. Another group of sites give a figure of 71%. This SDMB thread asking people to report what percentage of people they know who can drive a stick is all over the place, so I suspect it is very much dependent on how old you are (obviously) and where you grew up.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Once I get moving, I can go from a slow crawl in 1st gear all the way up to 160+ in my highest gear without ever touching the clutch pedal again. The actual pedal has nothing to do with how the car feels. It’s the clutch itself, between the engine and transmission. When I’m off the pedal, the entire drive train is locked together. An automatic doesn’t do that. It changes the whole feeling of the car.

Well, things are getting more and more complicated…in the CVT Subaru we rented, It’s got a torque converter, but it locks up quickly. The transmission has flappy paddles on the steeringwheel, and it emulates a six-speed, even though it’s got an ‘infinite’ number of ranges.

Subaru has made it act ‘like’ a discrete transmission because that’s what people are used to. It’s mated to a 170 hp motor, and gets 30 mpg.

So, 3,4,5,6,7 speed slushboxes, CVT, DSG, Manual, Manual with hydraulic servos…and lets not include Tesla…with a one speed transmission…

A friend of mine thought he knew how to drive a car with a manual transmission. Until he burned out two clutches in three years.

He sold that car and got an automatic.

Stick shifts are a huge PITA in urban environments where red lights are encountered every few blocks. I’m not sure how anyone keeps from burning out the clutch in heavy city traffic.