Why do British people have such a dim view of Automatic cars?

American manual/stick driver here.

Manuals are cheaper, more responsive, lower maintenance than wet-automatics. So even here where automatics are common, knowing that my skill gap vs you is literally saving me thousands in maintenance costs is definitely a big portion of my superiority complex.

However, with the dawn of CVT automatics, this is no longer true. CVTs are nearly maintenance free, have instant response, ideal power delivery.

So technology has changed, but not everyone recognizes the new era of advanced automatic transmissions.

But I'll absolutely still look down on any old-style wet clutch / torque converter based automatic.

Manuals are also an effective anti-theft measure here in the US, as most of us (myself included) don't know how to drive them properly.

I've read multiple stories of thiefs realizing they were stealing a manual transmission, and literally just giving up after driving a few feet. Pretty hilarious.
This answer hits the nail on the head.
Autos used to be really shit, in a country where fuel is expensive, and distances smaller, you'd only get an auto if you physically couldn't use the clutch.

Nowadays, they're much better.
If I don't end up fully electric on the next car, it will definitely be CVT.
Define "instant response"
- CVTs are always "in gear", and quickly adapt to whatever torque vs RPM band your engine needs. At no point is your engine every "out of gear". Their "noise is wrong" to anyone used to older transmissions, but their performance cannot be denied or ignored. I'm very impressed with their tech. Its just a matter of getting used to it IMO.
  
  Manual transmissions can "shift ahead of time", so with enough brainpower and paying attention, you should usually be in the correct gear for any situation. But any particular gear-shift takes time to accomplish. The exception are 0-60 kind of drag-races (erm, 0-100km/hr for yall Brits), where the manual effort to gearshift is unavoidable, but typical driving with a manual is very pleasant because normal roads are far more predictable and no one is trying to drag-race around every corner on public roads.
  
  Traditional Automatic transmissions all take time, and the clock starts after the user pushes the pedal (unlike manual which starts when the driver notices that another gear would be useful, often ahead of time).. So automatic transmission is always slower.
How many dragons have you tamed?
Even the zf8?
- I can't say I'm a car buff unfortunately, so I can't say I've experienced that particular transmission yet.
  
  Reading up on the transmission: it sounds like the torque converter could be replaced with mild-hybrid electric engines to help kickstart the transmission. This is very interesting to me, and I think that's a great way around the problems of traditional torque-converters.
  
  I'd imagine that Mild-Hybrid ZF8 (torque converter replaced with electric motor) would be a serious contender in feel and response.
  
  There's too many different cars with the ZF8 and too many different configurations to generalize. It seems like a promising design, but I'm going to bet that mild-hybrid ZF8 is the best feel. There's just a lot of downsides to the traditional wet-clutch / torque-converter frontend of transmissions IMO.

Automatic cars used to be slower and less fuel efficient than manual. This is of course no longer true, but public perceptions are very slow to change.

Brit here who used to hate driving automatics. I used to drive on my gears a lot. A mix coasting/hyper-miling and gear breaking. Every time I drove an automatic it felt really wrong as it never changed gear as I would. I felt I was less in control.

Now I drives EVs, no gears for it to get wrong. I thought not changing gear would bother me, but it never feels in wrong gear, so I don't notice. Though this is a hybrid I drive and it's so odd to hear and feel the complete disconnect with the drive and engine.

This is a debate is thing that is just going to go away with ICE cars.

Quickly becoming a moot point. EVs don’t even have gears to shift. Single speed forward or reverse. Shifting gears will eventually be like dialing a rotary phone.

I'm not sure if that's the most efficient use of resources. EVs can only be gearless if they have over a half-ton of batteries providing huge amounts of power to their electric motors.

PHEVs, such as Prius Prime, Volvo or other cars (US Market, sorry I don't know UK market too well), do have an EV-only mode. But the smaller batteries force them to use CVT or other automatic transmissions so that their torque/horsepower bands can be better matched.

I'm not convinced that having all of our cars filled with half-ton to 1-ton batteries is the best design.
- I’m going to knock your socks off… The vast majority of “normal” EVs don’t have gears as such. There are one or two supercar EVs that have a high and low gear but that’s it. Many hybrids don’t have gears either. My Accord Hybrid has an “eCVT” which is just marketing bullshit for covering up the fact that it’s functionally an EV with a gasoline powered generator. Honda has programmed the ECU to do fake shifts to make boomers feel more comfortable with the new technology. It’s only imitating an automatic transmission with software trickery. The gas engine isn’t even mechanically connected to the wheels for like 95% of the driving I do. IIRC that tech was borrowed or heavily influenced by the Prius.

I just like changing gears

For the same reason that cars with engine sizes above 2-litres are rare, and always have been rare - petrol is more expensive. Automatics used more fuel, so they were only standard on high-end jaguars, mercedes, etc. Simple as that.

A bad auto can be pretty terrible, but a good (or even half decent) auto is better than a manual in almost every way.

These days modern automatics allow you to select any gear in a manual fashion. Aside from the lack of clutch to control at very low speeds (on ice the wheels might just spin instead of gaining traction) it basically makes manuals obsolete.

Am*ricans like them.

Therefore we are duty bound to hate them.

The correct answer, we can close this down now.

It’s historic. If you’d ever driven a Mk1 Ford Escort with 1289cc and a 3 speed slush-box automatic you’d understand.

Of course modern automatics are completely different but the preference for manual transmission is a hangover from those times.

There's also a cost factor, traditionally automatics cost more to build, weighed more and performed slightly worse. Now, automatics are probably cheaper to build, perform better, but still cost more.
- Manual will always be cheaper. Even CVTs cost more.
  
  A Manual clutch is just a drum-brake (like object) controlled by a a reversed 3rd pedal (brake-like system engages when the pedal is released. While pushing the pedal releases the clutch, its "backwards") that allows the engine to engage with the transmission system. The gearbox has no computers, just one hydraulic line (only those associated with the 3rd pedal), and unlike a disc-brake its barely used so the drum-like system (which is even cheaper than disc brakes and lasts for 100,000+ miles easily).
  
  The important thing is this "how do you deal with disconnecting the engine from the tires" problem. When 3rd gear is 5000 RPM for your speed, 4th gear might be 4000 RPM (depending on your gearbox of course). A Manual clutch just has the user push on the drum-brake like clutch (releasing the engine, allowing it to spin freely), then you slowly release the clutch, which causes this "brake" to slowly connect the engine with the tires (tires speed up while engine slows down).
  
  Manual drivers get very good at this, and add engine speed / accelerate on downshifts (ex: going from 4000 RPM to 5000 RPM as you go from 4th gear to 3rd gear), you can just apply the accelerator thereby adding engine speed to assist the clutch in matching RPMs for a smooth transition.
  
  Alternatively, manual drivers can heel-toe: apply the accelerator, brake, and clutch simultaneously. Not only is the accelerator helping push the RPM from 4000 RPM and upwards with engine... the brakes are slowing down the car bringing the "target RPM" down to 4500 RPM. So the manual driver can assist in both directions thanks to the use of all three pedals. This technique is called heel-toe because your left-leg controls the clutch, while your right-toe hits the brakes, while the right-heel hits the accelerator, and your heel/toe does different things to help match the RPMs to the Tires.
  
  Modern automatics are:
  
  Traditional Wet Clutch -- A Wet Clutch uses a highly viscous liquid (aka: the torque converter) that is "always slipping", no matter the conditions of the car. This means that your car is now always smooth, but the "slush" can take a while before the fluid spins-up to the speeds that matches the engine-with-the-wheels. This is the longest running technology, and someone pointed out that modern wet-clutches like ZF8 are considered quite good. So yeah, "always be disconnected" and use liquid viscosity to help match RPMs as needed.
  
  CVTs -- unpopular due to the weird noises, but Subaru WRX has shown that its a superior system with relatively cheap manufacturing. A computer controls two hydraulic systems push upon the chain, changing the effective-gear-ratio smoothly. Early models were unreliable and broke, and some bad CVTs still exist out there. But after a few years, all CVTs are long-life and reliable. Subaru has also changed it so that modern CVTs make noises closer to traditional engines, as it turns out that the human ear of an advanced driver is constantly evaluating the engine, so our ear-training is important part of the driving experience.
  
  Dual Clutch -- A computerized manual transmission. Computers still can't do all of the manual application that I described above. But... if you add two clutches, and switch between even-gears and odd gears. (ex: Clutch#1 controls gear 1-3-5-7, and Clutch#2 controls 2-4-6-8), then you can switch to the 2nd clutch, and then perform a computerized switch while disconnected. This cheats at the "slippage" problem, but cheating means cheaper assembly and better performance.
  
  In all three cases, modern automatics are heavier, require more parts, more assembly. Reliability is getting better however, and as computers minimize engine slippage the transmissions are having less stress applied to them in general.

I don't understand this either. I guess they used to be really bad and the attitude has stuck around?

We like to think we're better than the Americans. /j

Traditionally automatics were much less efficient, giving a significant power loss and substantially worse MPG. In the UK with smaller cars with smaller engines and expensive petrol this was a much bigger disadvantage than in the USA.

However modern automatic gears have improved so it's not longer a big disadvantage.

Petrol head here, we tend to like to row our own gears and heel tow downshifts it's more engaging and satisfying especially on track. So people who drive autos tend to be seen as not into cars and looked down upon a bit. (Not saying that's my view).

It shows a laziness and a lack of interest in the skill of driving! I bought my first automatic last year. I generally like it, with auto hold and cruise control it makes driving very easy. I don’t like it on ice and snow, no idea what the car is doing. Similarly pulling away quickly, never quite now which gear it’s going to choose when or when the turbo is going to kick in which can make things a bit unpredictable.

For those who do care about driving, I’d agree. Where I am in Europe currently, I can hear many cars out of the proper gear, I can see it from the exhaust too. So many people stall trying to park, at stop signs and cross walks. Automatics are smarter and more efficient than humans now- for the majority of people the better choice, since they are lazy, distracted, and/or lack interest in the skill of driving.