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

71–80 of 893 posts

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

#71

Post by Gibheer »

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?

You can downshift and use the motor for breaking. When doing that, you don't burn any fuel at all, as the kinetic energy of the car will help keep the motor turning. You have the same effect in automatic transmissions when letting go of the gas pedal.

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

#72

Post by dx034 »

civilian wrote: post #29
rwbt wrote: post #9

A few years ago I had to learn stick shift because there was a good deal on a car I liked and decided to see if it's worth it. Ever since, all my cars are standard transmission and I wouldn't have it any other way. They're definitely going away, but I'll keep buying as long as they're available. There is something very satisfying about the mechanical nature of a stick shift car. Mind you, I drive in traffic heavy Los…

I delivered pizza one summer in a manual. I can't ever go back. :D I really think that driving manual requires you to be more attentive... and I should look to see if traffic accidents data backs me up.

Not sure if that's the case. While I love manual transmission, I would rather argue that it is more dangerous as you're often forced to have one hand away from the steering wheel, which makes it harder to react quickly.

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

#73

Post by Scaevolus »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #6

And it isn't all because people don't want to buy them, according to a VP at Subaru it is the cost of taking the car with a manual transmission through the California emissions qualification process, and maintaining records for a car that only 10% of the customers will buy. And they don't offer a non-California model because people were upset about moving to California with a car and then having the state DMV reject…

Similarly, California's laws on furniture flammability generally mean that upholstery is soaked in carcinogens in an attempt to make it burn slower-- but it doesn't actually have any benefits in a fire.

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

#74

Post by TheNewAndy »

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?

No reference, but engine braking means you don't need to send petrol to the engine (since the engine is being driven by the car's momentum), so there should be no fuel usage. When the car is stopped, then it will use more petrol (to keep the engine from stalling). Assuming all things are equal, then when you brake with your foot brake, the energy that gets turned into heat in the brake pads could have instead been turned into energy that keeps the engine spinning (and so it doesn't need to come from petrol).

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

#75

Post by silon7 »

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.

It's only correct for modern automatic transmissions. Plus sometimes start/stop.

Probably not for old "3 gear with torque converter" or similiar.

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

#76

Post by jfitbsidbfb »

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?

Downshifting to slow down uses zero fuel. Modern cars cut fuel completely when coasting is detected based on throttle position and whether gear is engaged among other sensors. This is only used a lot in manuals since the torque converter causes freewheeling at lower rpms. It's known as deceleration fuel cut and it's standard in OEM and aftermarket engine controllers.

Typically the engine "restarts" when rpm drops to a bit above idle speed but as mentioned it doesn't happen as much in automatics because of the freewheeling. In automatics it only occurs when deceleration starts at high rpm or the clutch within the torque converter is locked during steady highway driving. I assume shifting into "low" may enable deceleration fuel cut in more situations assuming the driver may be using it to slow down, but I have no evidence of that usage

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

#77

Post by mantas »

wastedhours wrote: post #69
sliken wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you're slowing down to traffic light, it's more efficient than coasting in neutral. You've to slow down anyway and slowing down with engine braking is 0.0l/km. While coasting still burns some fuel.

In addition to that, some newer cars charge battery when engine braking. Which is effectively saving fuel later.

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

#78

Post by Matthias247 »

angerbot wrote: post #27
TomMarius wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get better 0 to 60 time with manual.

Certainly not. A modern DCT or even a regular torque converter (such as the ubiquitous ZF 8-Speed) will be faster to 60 than a manual with even the best driver by several tenths.

That's true. A good automatic transmission will be slightly faster. However I also get his point, as most of the last-gen cars with automatic transmission were slightly slower than their manual counterparts.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by geon »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #56
sliken wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Uses engine compression to bleed off kinetic energy (no additional fuel use). Not more environmentally friendly, but saves on brake wear. Semis utilize this mode of braking heavily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_release_engine_bra...

Actually, it uses a tiny bit less fuel, since it doesn't have to idle.
Post reply on HN