I wouldn't dispute any of the below but would also add that the British have
a strong preference for actually "driving" their cars and tend to use the
extra performance that a manual box gives the driver.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Macartney [mailto:jonmac@ndirect.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 1:11 PM
To: British Car Mailing List
Subject: Re: R&P ratios TR4
John McEwen wrote:
Greg, the Brits loved to install overdrives, then defeat the purpose
by
using higher numeric axle ratios instead of going the other way. They
felt
that the OD simply offered more gears rather than offering the lower
revs
we all seek. Britain is a nation of people who insist on standard
transmissions but hate to shift gears and won't buy automatics. The
answer
was the semi-automatic OD which was used more as a clutchless
gearshift
than a highway or urban area road gear.
Most interesting. Three key points:
1. The whole point of the Laycock overdrive was to allow a combination
of lower direct drive for faster acceleration, while at the same time
providing opportunities of reduced engine revs (reduced wear) for
highway work, allied to a nominal reduction in fuel consumption. This
is how it was sold - and very successfully
2. For many years, in excess of 70% of new UK car registrations have
been company purchases for employees as a 'job tool' or employment
perk. With the exception of senior management status or employee
disability making clutch pushing potentially injurious, an autobox was
and often still is a zero option
3. As for the 'won't buy automatics' theory where the remaining 30%
fund the cost of the car, a manual is still preferred because many
buyers claim they don't want the autobox making the decision for them.
An archaic attitude perhaps, but still common. The fact that an
autobox substantially increases/ed the new car price is/was another
and probably more important controlling factor.
The UK preference for manual systems has nothing to do with idleness
and everything to do with cost - period.
John Macartney
|