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

201–210 of 893 posts

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

#201

Post by Ntrails »

dogma1138 wrote: post #193
edoloughlin wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I want to see the people who cycle the clutch twice at a red signal.

When stopped you have two options in a car, sitting with your foot on the clutch (which is flat out bad) and putting the car in neutral.

Putting the car in neutral is basically one meaningful action - changing gear, yes you have to depress the clutch move the gearstick to neutral and then let the clutch go - but to describe that as "cycle the clutch twice" is madness. Am I missing something?

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

#202

Post by Already__Taken »

Annatar wrote: post #145
kweinber wrote: post #7

Manual shifting is neither possible nor even relevant in electric cars or cvt (continuous variable transmission) cars. Their rise will be the true end of the stick shift.

It's possible if an electric car had a manual transmission, but no company had yet built one because electric motors cam regulate revolutions per minute with amperage and voltage. However, no studies that I'm aware of to determine whether the battery range could be extended with gear ratios have been performed.

Best evidence you might find is the logic in formula-e. quickly found a subreddit thread with the question https://www.reddit.com/r/FormulaE/comments/2gbika/why_do_for...

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

#203

Post by allendoerfer »

gambiting wrote: post #164
exclusiv wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 diff…

When you have to stop to not hit a child, a running engine is not your biggest concern. In other situations (still rolling), you can downshift afterwards. You are used to use both feet together anyway, so the reflex would be to kick both pedals into the ground.

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

#204

Post by ollie87 »

cannam wrote: post #183
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…

My driving instructor (in the UK) came from Sweden. He thought automatics were much safer and reckoned everyone should drive one, especially in the city, but he didn't like teaching them because they were so boring.

I'm in the UK and if I lived in a bigger city I'd have an auto, but since I live just outside a small city I keep my manual because I like the feeling of driving. For me driving and automatic is just not as fun.

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

#205

Post by GordonS »

zippergz wrote: post #35

I'm a car enthusiast, and I was a manual transmission purist for many, many years. But then I had to be honest with myself, and admit that the VAST majority of my driving is commuting in traffic. And that driving is much less annoying with an automatic. My leisure driving is maybe 5% less fun without a manual, but that's far outweighed by how much better my daily commute is. At this point, I'd only buy a manual for a…

Agree - I was the same for many years, always refusing to buy an automatic because I thought it would suck all the fun from driving. And like you, most of my driving was spent in traffic.

I eventually got an automatic, and I will never go back to manual! And if you get an automatic with 'flappy paddles', you can still have full control when you're not in traffic.

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

#206

Post by nostrademons »

Ntrails wrote: post #197
nostrademons wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Think about what is required to turn the engine over and prevent stalling. -When the clutch is engaged whilst going down hill the wheels turn the engine. No Fuel Required. -When the clutch is disengaged the engine has to turn itself over - which needs fuel. *Disclaimer, i'm sure carbourettas (sp?) could well be doing weird ass things so whilst conceptually the above holds they may well be different.

It's not the fuel required by the engine, it's the engine braking. Going down a hill with clutch disengaged, the Accord would accelerate. With clutch engaged, it would slightly decelerate. That's fuel that the engine doesn't need to burn to accelerate it back up to cruising speed.

Ditto when coasting to a stoplight - with clutch disengaged (or in neutral), it would coast for a longer distance, which - if you're careful and know your vehicle - means you can let up on the gas a lot sooner.

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

#207

Post by nostrademons »

dogma1138 wrote: post #191
nostrademons wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

92 was 25 years ago, this isn't a modern car, it should not be on the road if you care about economy and road safety.

Oh, it isn't on the road, my dad totaled it in 2008. It was, however, what I drove for my first 3 years in the workforce, so I got a pretty good feel for how to drive it economically.

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

#208

Post by rmc »

ehnto wrote: post #135

Holy crap, I didn't realise it was quite like that. I knew it was rare for people to know manual transmissions but why such a preference for automatic? In Australia pretty much everyone I know can drive manual, most cars come with the option and most cheaper cars are manual. It was somewhat of a masculinity thing too, and still is according to my younger siblings. To be honest I'm surprised the most that America does…

> To be honest I'm surprised the most that America doesn't have that same psuedo masculinity requirement thing happening. I am not saying it's good to have, just that I am surprised it's not there.

Oh there's plenty of masculinity things in the USA. It's just that not every culture/society has the same rules for masculinity stuff.

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

#209

Post by ldev »

baq wrote: post #157
sshanky wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

can confirm with anecdata: in my car the computer reports 0.0 fuel consumption when coasting in gear but non-zero when in neutral/clutch depressed.

Simple understanding on how a car works - "wheels turn the engine" when in gear, otherwise fuel is consumed when in neutral..

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

#210

Post by ollie87 »

0xAA55 wrote: post #199

I recently went to the ends of the earth to get a 2016 manual VW sportwagen in the US -- but it was possible after going to dealerships looking at me like I was insane. Shifting around in my BMW e36 5 speed will always be one of my greatest pleasures People complain about traffic, but I feel the opposite. I mean, in an auto if you see a spot to cut into you are forced to floor it to force the car in a low enough gear…

I also find it funny that people prefer autos for stop-start traffic. But every single car I've ever owned can be moved using the clutch alone, zero throttle input, so moving in stop start traffic is easy.
Post reply on HN