Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by ealexhudson » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:37 AM UTC

akerro wrote: post #161

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 r…

This is only partly true. While it's correct for the A1 license (up to 125cc), if you have provisional + CBT you can do that training on an automatic bike and then go out and ride a geared bike for as long as you renew the CBT.

Personally, I think it's a silly restriction. I learned gears on my own, if you know how to ride a bike it's not complicated to pick up - even in the CBT training they expect learners to pick it up in a half hour or so.

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

#212

Post by bradlys » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:38 AM UTC

nappy wrote: post #154

sergiotapia wrote: post #40

Driving manual in heavy traffic is a pain in the ass. RIP your calves. I've driven manual in Bolivia since I learned how to drive, but when I moved back to the States I picked automatic because I would kill myself having to press the clutch every 40cm during heavy traffic. People have this romanticized view of manual driving, going through empty hills, warm sun beating on your raybans. In reality you'll be stuck in t…

I've never found driving a manual hard on my calves... even a little bit. Maybe just me? Or something you get used to if you drive a manual all of the time?

Drive a car with a very stiff and/or difficult clutch.

The difference between a Honda Civic or Miata clutch and something like a Jeep is pretty wide. I've only driven a handful of manuals but I have pulled a muscle in my left leg from driving an YJ Jeep. Stop and go will wear down your leg real fast in that. Not a great feeling to be limping around a bit the rest of the next day or two.

Only happened once in the 10k I drove it but my leg frequently got very tired after crawling traffic.

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

#213

Post by bborud » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:38 AM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #168

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.

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.

Pretty much any engine that has an ECU I would suspect.

The oldest car I have that has an ECU is from 1987 (although judging the fuel efficiency on that car when it was new is a bit hard since the engine has been completely reworked since then -- including an aftermarket ECU, new injectors, new ignition etc which makes the car a tad more fuel efficient than my 2012 car)

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

#214

Post by yason » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:39 AM UTC

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.

This used to be the case with fuel injected engines from 80's to 00's but because of new regulations current ECUs might, again, inject fuel while coasting just to keep the catalytic converter warm and operational.

The amount is obviously negligible but it's quite crazy to spend more fuel in order to reduce emissions :)

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

#215

Post by ldev » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:39 AM UTC

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…

Same here in Lithuania - everyone learns and takes exams with manual transmission or they won't be legally allowed to drive stick. Same with "eco" driving - staying in higher RPMs or downshifting to overtake a car is a no no. But after passing driver's exam most people buy automatic - it's just so much more convenient in the city.

I would rage in traffic if I had to do "clutch, neutral, cluth, first gear" mantra for 20 minutes to move a little in traffic - releasing break pedal to crawl a bit and then pressing it again to stop is a god send after driving manual for 6 years. :)

Manual is good for 300+ bhp weekend cars, not daily use cars.

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

#216

Post by ealexhudson » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:39 AM UTC

lucaspiller wrote: post #94

kriro wrote: post #88

I have a license for manual transmission as that's the default in Germany. My US license is expired now* but I only drove automatics there. I always thought it was curious that the default in the US is automatic and in most other countries I've been to it is manual...in fact there's an ego thing at play here, too. A lot of people in Germany think automatics are for people who can't drive properly. My next car will be…

> German licenses don't expire. It's effectively this in the U.K. (mine will expire in 50 years), but in Italy they do expire - so it's not an EU wide thing.

Except that you will be fined if you don't renew your photocard every 10 years in the UK - so for anyone with that style license, it does effectively expire.

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

#217

Post by rmc » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:39 AM UTC

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…

> They're definitely going away

... in USA. Many other countries which drive on the right sell lots of manual transmission cars. So they'll keep making them.

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

#218

Post by ollie87 » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:40 AM UTC

sebcat wrote: post #34

patrickg_zill wrote: post #13

I prefer stick but can't always get it. Even the cheapest Korean manufacturer can make a 5 or 6 speed manual that is close to unbreakable. And you can, in difficult situations at least, shift better than the automatic - especially if you are shifting a certain way because you can see traffic or the lack of it, up ahead.

> 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'…

It's funny, I just got a new car (manual, of course) and it has "rev-matching" so when you shift down a gear it automatically heel-toes (basically a throttle blip) which means there's not much engine braking going on during downshifts.

Granted when driving quickly and dropping a cog or two to overtake a slow moving vehicle it's great. Slowing down for traffic? Not so good.

Took some getting used to changing down gear and not feeling the car slow.

EDIT: To clarify the folks downvoting me here's and example of how it works:

1) You're in 6th gear doing 60mph. 2) You come up to a tractor doing 25mph. 3) You brake and slow, as you do you compound change from 6th gear down to 3rd. 4) As you place the car into 3rd the ECU gives the engine some extra throttle and match the speed of the gearbox. You can physically see the revs rise BEFORE you release the clutch. 5) You release the clutch and don't feel any transmission shunt or immediate engine braking.

This reduces wear and makes it smoother.

For more detail watch this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnXLZg_O1rk

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

#219

Post by bborud » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:41 AM UTC

jfitbsidbfb wrote: post #192

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.

My 1998 Saturn noticeably cut fuel on deceleration, it was easy to tell since the exhaust system was perpetually breaking

Come to think of it: the car I drove in 1988 cut fuel when coasting and it had a rather unrefined ECU mapping that would cause somewhat hard transitions from the fuel-cut state to feeding the engine go-juice.

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

#220

Post by yason » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:43 AM UTC

vmarsy wrote: post #139

burfog wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lock-up torque converters don't waste power. They started to become popular in the 1970s, and are pretty much universal now.

You're right, however those only work at higher speeds, hence the "especially with city driving" :) From wikipedia : A Lock-up clutch is used in some automatic transmissions for motor vehicles. Above a certain speed (usually 60 km/h) it locks the torque converter to minimise power loss and improve fuel efficiency.

It's typical to omit locking while the transmission is cold, some transmissions may not lock the first gear, or may not lock at lower revs, or at slower speeds, but generally the lock is there and it's just software that controls locking. You can rather safely assume that on most modern cars and in general conditions the torque converter will lock starting from the first gear.