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

161–170 of 893 posts

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

#161

Post by akerro »

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…

>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 manuals

It is fair. When you do motorcycle training for up-to 125cc, you can take a scooter which doesn't have gears, or motorcycle with gear. If you learn how to use gears you know how to ride a scooter, but if you take a scooter, you're not allowed to ride a motorcycle with gears. It's 100% fair, and it's logical.

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

#162

Post by lqdc13 »

micaksica wrote: post #115
lqdc13 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the parent has the same idea, but from my personal experience, it is almost impossible to not break speed limits in a stick shift car. Same is not true in my case for automatic. Better have other drivers be safe and eco conscious.

What? How? That's like saying because the car has a V8 instead of a four-cylinder it breaks speed limits. What are you doing with a stick shift that requires you to speed?

It is way more fun to drive, weave through traffic and to take turns at higher speed because of heel-toe downshifting than driving the same car with automatic. You feel like you are one with the car sometimes. You feel like you are in control. You hear the engine obey your every command. In an automatic car (only extensive experience with Subaru and Hondas) you feel like you are in a bus. It feels completely irresponsible to break rules.

And the best part is that it doesn't have to be a fast car. My favorite was a Honda.

I got too many speeding tickets in a manual so had to switch to automatic. But every time I go to Europe, where the rental cars are manual and roads are curvy, staying reasonable and safe requires too much self control.

Regarding V8 vs 4-cyl, I think controlling myself in a 4-cyl is much harder than in the 8-cyls I've driven. The reason is that 4-cyls (obviously not true for all of them and one can tune the power band to be of any shape on any car) require you to raise the RPM since they don't have that much torque down low. That engine noise gives you that initial boost of adrenaline that starts the whole thing. This may not be true for all cars though since I've only driven Ford Mustang and Lexus V8s and mostly Hondas and Subarus 4-cyl.

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

#163

Post by Symbiote »

lb1lf wrote: post #97
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…

In Norway, too, we have the same restriction. I think I've driven a manual transmission car once or perhaps twice since my driver's test. As for eco-driving, I was told in no uncertain terms by the guy who examined me that if I tried to drive as eco-friendly as the official course material suggested, he'd fail me for being a hazard to other traffic.

In Britain, eco-driving isn't a requirement of the test, but the examiner has to comment on it afterwards.

He told me I was a bit slow changing gears, but fine at anticipating when I'd need to stop.

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

#164

Post by gambiting »

exclusiv wrote: post #130
gambiting wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would call myself a "car enthusiast" and I drive an automatic - I feel like even in dangerous situations, I have full control of the car. Whether it's sudden need to stop or accelerate, I have full control. In a manual car I've had a few near-accidents where the car just stalled because I was so concentrated on braking and avoiding the obstacle - Which was great, except that I found myself in a middle of a dual car…

Never experienced that but you have way more control in a manual excluding powerful electric cars. You need to stop fast, well you have gears to utilize quickly in a manual. Need a pop to get out of a sticky situation? Drop the gear to get in the power band and pull away. I don't understand your argument other than manuals being more error prone. Certainly you could stall it in an intersection if you aren't experienc…

Sure, but in a manual some percentage of my brain is always dedicated to thinking about which gear I'm in. In an automatic I have 100% attention on the road.

And when I said "stop quickly" I meant "a person steps out on the road in front of you". Gears won't help you here, because I don't believe anyone can downshift in the 2 seconds left to impact - the best you can do is press the brake as hard as you can. The difference is that in a manual every time I had to do that I was left with a stalled car because I didn't press the clutch in time, while with an automatic I could move out of the way very quickly.

I don't know man, I've been driving manuals for the past 7 years, and I bought an AMG car this year - which only comes with a 7-speed DCT transmission. I would never ever go back to a manual, unless it was like a Miata, or GT86 - those cars I want to drive with a manual, because they are super fun on a back road with a manual. But daily drive + almost 400 bhp? Only an automatic.

Edit: also, you are saying that in a sticky situation you can just drop a gear to get in the power band, like you can't do it in an automatic - in an automatic, you just press the throttle down and it drops as many gears as needed. Want full maximum acceleration that the car can technically offer at the moment? Press it fully. Want to accelerate quickly but without dropping 3 gears down? Press it half way. I feel like that's tons more control than in a manual.

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

#165

Post by geff82 »

Manual transmission is not somehow cool, it just shows the inefficiencies of a regular gas engine more openly: that the engine has to run in a certain small band of RPM to provide the energy for driving. Automatic transmission covers the deficiency best - and will be the standard on the electric car future ahead. In that way, Americans are already used to the future.

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

#166

Post by ptaipale »

gotofritz wrote: post #98
jfitbsidbfb wrote: post #87

This is unfortunate given that manufacturers regularly game fuel mileage tests fof automatics to give buyers a sense of better gas mileage(to justify the higher price). Real world tests by consumer reports and others continue to show that manual transmissions get better gas mileage in real world conditions on top of being much more reliable. And before someone mentions it, a clutch wearing out during the working life…

Do you have any data to back up your statement?

Huge amount of different tests. Manual gearboxes are generally more efficient, but not in all situations, and the modern dual-clutch automatic boxes outperform manual transmission in many cases.

But overall, there are hydraulic losses in classic planetary automatic gearboxes, and they are also heavier.

For instance,

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/01/save-gas-and-mone...

Personal experience: I regretted buying a Renault Laguna with automatic box. Horrible fuel economy. Even the torque lock didn't help, also highway economy was quite bad which was very surprising. Other than that, a nice car.

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

#168

Post by nostrademons »

sshanky wrote: post #128
vmarsy wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>when automatic transmissions are consistently outperforming humans at fuel efficiency Do you have data to back this up? Unless you're driving a dual clutch "dry" transmission or a CVT, because of Physics, an automatic transmission will always be less efficient. The Automatic transmission Torque converter [1] will waste some of the energy provided by the engine, especially with city driving. Also, most automatic cars…

In modern cars, disengaging the clutch (or using neutral) when coasting (toward a stop or down a hill) is less efficient than staying in gear. This is because it takes some fuel to keep the engine idling, where staying in gear allows the computer to completely cut fuel flow, as long as the forward motion is keeping the engine turning.

How modern is modern? I could believe this of my 2009 Honda Fit, but I'm fairly certain that my dad's '92 Civic, '99 Civic, and '92 Accord got better mileage when coasting with the clutch disengaged.

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

#169

Post by edoloughlin »

Reason077 wrote: post #101
silon7 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only correct for modern automatic transmissions. Plus sometimes start/stop. Probably not for old "3 gear with torque converter" or similiar.

Modern manual cars have start/stop technology too. However, it's more convoluted to use. You have to engage the clutch, put the shifter in neutral, and release the clutch again. Compared to automatic where you just have to hold your foot on the brake pedal. Stop/start reduces fuel consumption on test cycles like NEDC for both automatics and manuals, but I'll bet in the real world the benefit is mostly seen with autom…

However, it's more convoluted to use. You have to engage the clutch, put the shifter in neutral, and release the clutch again

This is how you should drive if you know you're going to be stopped for more than a few seconds. 'Convoluted' doesn't come into it - it's the default.

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

#170

Post by fazzone »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #156
fazzone wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>gear-shift indicator in the dash. My VW has this. It's useless, I never look at it. It is very simple and clearly intended only to give the best results on the controlled gas mileage testing - I believe that if a manual car has a gear-change indicator, the EPA test drivers are supposed to follow it. The advantage of a human selecting gears is that they can use more information than just the speed and engine rpm; for…

You say it's useless, but then say "maybe you will save a few bucks on gas if you follow the indicator". Isn't that the point? To teach/remind you how to save gas? I agree that it is imperfect, and imo annoying/distracting. But it may work for a large number of drivers, most of the time.

My point is that they far over-prioritized fuel economy. If you actually drive like that you will be spending a lot more time changing gears than necessary, and that almost any acceleration will require a downshift. I wouldn't recommend trying to stretch the gas mileage in the snow, for example, since you might need power to recover if you start to slide.
Post reply on HN