Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 893 posts

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#61

Post by TadasPaplauskas »

well, here's the ultimate theft protection for ya.

Of course driving manual in traffic is pain in the ass, but I would prefer to skip heavy traffic anyways, instead of trying to make it somewhat more bearable.

Had some experience driving automatic in Cyprus, which is very mountainous. It was impossible to keep constant speed, as car was constantly trying to find "optimal" gear for every hill and slope, instead of finding optimal gear for the whole trip. Ended up using sport mode, which just kept the engine working at higher RPMs. Not optimal in any way.

I'm sure there are great automatics, but unfortunately not in my price range. There's a difference between automatic ferarri and automatic hyundai.

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#62

Post by topspin »

bcook wrote: post #11
sliken wrote: post #8

I was looking for a nice AWD hatchback. Subaru cancelled the WRX and STI version. Focus RS sadly goes with a manual only. Seems kind of silly to work so hard on performance/acceleration and then waste time on shifting.

Do any performance-focused vehicles use CVT? Answer: No.

A 2017 Subaru WRX with a CVT and 268hp will deliver 5.9s 0-60. Certainly not a supercar but it fits the definition of 'performance-focused' for most people.

It is odd to see in action; accelerating from a stop using launch control causes the car to not simulate gear shifts for maximum performance; the engine quickly climbs to about 6700 and just hangs there while the speed increases. No shifting drama at all. Almost boring.

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#63

Post by CamperBob2 »

jaggederest wrote: post #50
Yaggo wrote: post #20

I'm from Europe and learnt to drive with manual, but after getting used to my Prius' CVT, would never buy a car with manual for daily use. (Besides, my next car won't have an ICE.) If you occasionally like "sporty" driving with manual shifting, modern automatics will paddle-shift quicker than most people with a real stick & clutch. Manual gearbox is just an artifact from ICE's very limited torque curve.

Paddle shifting is in no way equivalent to the level of torque and engine control a manual transmission provides. I drive a car with paddle shifters, coming from a manual, and it's just night and day different. The connection is entirely missing without the feedback provided by the physical linkage of the clutch pedal.

Try a PDK.

The idea that it's so important to be able to uncouple the driveline as to warrant a dedicated pedal just for that purpose is completely silly.

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#64

Post by fh973 »

henrikschroder wrote: post #46

I got my driver's license in Sweden, and the official driving handbook completely worships manual transmissions, and makes several untrue claims about how much better they are than automatics. You can choose to do your road test in an automatic, but that'll earn you a restriction on your license, barring you from driving a manual. It's probably fair, but almost everyone (myself included) chooses to practice in manual…

Eco driving is also about driving with foresight: don't accelerate if you likely have to stop soon anyway.

Braking wastes the most gas.

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#65

Post by sniglom »

sliken wrote: post #38
sebcat wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> especially if you are shifting a certain way because you can see traffic or the lack of it, up ahead. Downshifting instead of using brakes is more environmentally friendly as well. Though you can do this with an automatic too (or semi-automatic I guess). My mother has a car with paddle shifters which you can use if you want, or you can just keep it in automatic. Best of both worlds. Edit: I drive stick, though. It'…

Downshifting more environmentally friendly? Because burning more gas is better than heating up break pads? Reference?

Basic understanding of an injected engine and power conservation should be enough here.

When you're downshifting you're braking with your engine. This means two things:

1. Less fuel is burned. The injectors are closed while the engine is braking.

2. Momentum, not fuel, is used to drive the alternator, AC etc.

If you instead were to brake the car, it would need to use fuel just to keep the engine running. In the same way as it would if you were idling parked. Even more fuel is needed to combat the resistance from your AC and alternator.

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#66

Post by WalterBright »

A stick is the only way to go for a muscle car. My first muscle car was a '67 Mustang, which had a problematic transmission. The first thing I did was convert it to a 4 speed manual.

My '72 Dodge has a Tremec 5 speed manual heavy duty. It's a sweet shifter, indeed.

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#67

Post by trynumber9 »

rimantas wrote: post #60
henrikschroder wrote: post #46

I got my driver's license in Sweden, and the official driving handbook completely worships manual transmissions, and makes several untrue claims about how much better they are than automatics. You can choose to do your road test in an automatic, but that'll earn you a restriction on your license, barring you from driving a manual. It's probably fair, but almost everyone (myself included) chooses to practice in manual…

> when automatic transmissions are consistently > outperforming humans at fuel efficiency What? So far each data sheet has shown higher fuel consumption for automatic vehicles.

DCTs are typically 3–5% more fuel-efficient than manual transmissions.

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#69

Post by wastedhours »

sliken wrote: post #38
sebcat wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> especially if you are shifting a certain way because you can see traffic or the lack of it, up ahead. Downshifting instead of using brakes is more environmentally friendly as well. Though you can do this with an automatic too (or semi-automatic I guess). My mother has a car with paddle shifters which you can use if you want, or you can just keep it in automatic. Best of both worlds. Edit: I drive stick, though. It'…

Downshifting more environmentally friendly? Because burning more gas is better than heating up break pads? Reference?

Engine braking in most petrol cars is an efficient tactic due to DFCO[0] - less efficient than coasting in neutral, but you're not as in control of the car when not in gear, so the combination of both being in control and getting a "free" slowing effect (especially when judging upcoming traffic, as opposed to coming to a complete halt) can be better than just mashing the middle pedal.

[0] Deceleration fuel cut off

Post reply on HN