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

#221

Post by saiya-jin » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:43 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…

wow, you are incorrect in almost every statement. I get it, you like easy driving without worrying about clutch and gears, but not everybody is like that.

I would never want automatic transmission for my car, it's inferior, expensive, less fun and car has no way knowing details of road situation I am facing and choices I am about to make. And I am far from petrolhead person FYI.

Another point - I don't know a single person who has automatic gearbox in their car, not even soccer moms.

Automatic gearbox is faster, and probably better for complete novice drivers so they can focus more on situation on the road. That's it. It is more costly, will wear engine faster, removes some connection between driver and car (includes fun of driving, but not only). Plus it creates desperate and sometimes dangerous drivers when they sit in a car with manual, which will almost inevitably happen.

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

#222

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

VMG wrote: post #198

skrause wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there is a lot of misinformation in Germany. I'm German and I simply buy manual transmissions because they are a lot cheaper and I know a lot of people who are they same. I really would prefer an automatic transmission, but spend an extra 2000 euros for that bit of extra comfort? No thanks.

I was referring to the misinformation about higher fuel efficiency of manual compared to automatic. I heard it too in driving school.

The real question is: Will it save more money in gas than it costs extra to buy?

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

#223

Post by Reason077 » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:43 AM UTC

edoloughlin wrote: post #169

Reason077 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've driven manuals most of my life. Before stop/start came along, I was in the habit of just holding the clutch pedal down while stopped at intersections or in traffic. Anecdotally, I think most drivers do the same.

Now, when driving stop/start equipped vehicles, I always try to use it. But in a manual, it does takes more thinking and effort and I wonder how many casual drivers actually bother.

The thing is, most of the time you don't really know how long you're going to be stopped for. Will that light take 3 seconds or 30? A manual makes you decide whether to stop the engine, but an automatic just does it every time without having to think about it or perform extra steps. (although, you can override it if you know it's going to be a short stop by just pressing the brake lightly.)

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

#224

Post by ollie87 » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:45 AM UTC

jfitbsidbfb wrote: post #185

viraptor wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a clutch wearing out during the working life of a modern manual car is a joke Could use a reference. The wear will depend a lot on your area - mountain roads will kill it faster than suburban commute. But either way, I tried to find anything more authoritative than a forum post (which say anything between 100k and 300k), and it's pretty hard to do. Have you got a link with an actual survey or producer stats?

I can't find anything official either. Most of the guys I know also drive stick and none of them have worn out a clutch unless they take their car to the track. Seems to be a pretty well known among stick drivers that manufacturers build them to last the life of the car these days. Can anyone from Europe chime in on this?

European here, only ever owned manual cars, had about eight cars in my lifetime. Never needed to replace a clutch, mostly a mix of urban and rural driving. My yearly mileage has varied from 25,000 miles a year to around 8,000 now.

It helps that I actually know how to drive and not burn the fuck out of a clutch too I'd imagine. You see very dumb people in my country using their clutch to hold their car stationary on a hill, what the hell that is all about I'll never know.

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

#225

Post by tomohawk » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:45 AM UTC

That explains all the brake lights, then. In a manual, you have a lot more control and it is much less necessary to put your foot on the brake to merely slow down a little. When those brake lights fire off, it causes chain reaction braking.

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

#226

Post by csydas » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:46 AM UTC

fh973 wrote: post #64

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.

Yah, this can make an overwhelming difference in the long run. I used to drive semi-regularly between Wisconsin and Minnesota, a stretch of about 280 miles; others in my family would make the same trip with the same car during the same times of year, and my mileage per tank was always significantly different, and we couldn't figure out why initially.

Turns out they used cruise control for most of the stretch, which I never used, and it was often the difference of 3-5 gallons over the course of the trip. Not a huge deal, but $4 gas did influence it a bit.

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

#227

Post by ldev » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:47 AM UTC

Annatar wrote: post #132

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…

I just spent two hours this morning in bumper to bumper traffic. In a diesel. With a manual. Shifting and clutching the entire time. All that monstrous low end torque just made the diesel want to take off the entire time. Still I wouldn't change that for anything in the world. I always hated the lag between stepping on the gas pedal and the car beginning to move in the automatic. No clutch. That's no life, sucking al…

> I always hated the lag between stepping on the gas pedal and the car beginning to move in the automatic.

There's always a semi-automatic transmission. In my Lexus IS 350 I can set a low gear before overtaking for that "instant throttle response".

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

#228

Post by bborud » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:47 AM UTC

henrikschroder wrote: post #160

rimantas wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I should probably have qualified my statement with an "over time, in real driving conditions". In a measured test, with a skilled driver, who does the right thing for the entirety of the test, it is most likely that he or she will be more efficient with a manual transmission than with an automatic. However, in real life, for real humans, over a longer period of time, the drivers with modern automatic transmissions wi…

Well, those statements need to be qualified because "automatic transmission" is no longer a well defined term now that there are a much larger number of different gearboxes on the market. So saying that "automatic gearboxes" are more fuel efficient is both true and false at the same time.

(For instance, one of my cars has a manual gearbox with an electrohydraulic actuator system and an automatic clutch, operated by flappy paddles. My insurance company says that it is an automatic, while the equivalent of the DMV (correctly) states that it is a manual.)

I drive a manual and I know exactly why it is not fuel efficient: the idiot behind the wheel :-)

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

#229

Post by nepotism2016 » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:47 AM UTC

I got to San Francisco last October and was due to pickup my "top class" rental car from AVIS. I got to the parked car and noticed it was automatic. I straight away thought this was a mistake and ran upstairs to ask for a manual transmission car. The two ladies before the counter looked all confused and said I would be very lucky to find such car...something like a sports car.

So I spent the next 20 minutes inside the car trying to figure out how I'm going to operate a saloon, automtic (I havent driven before), wrong side of the road on a busy motorway (san fransciso airport is next to the highway)...

By the end of my "training" week...I loved the automatic transmission...It even allowed me to roll my window down, hang my arm out while playing California love by Tupac&DR Dre....American dream?

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

#230

Post by henrikschroder » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:48 AM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #206

Ntrails wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 caref…

Anecdotal, but I did some tests in my previous car (a 2014 Mercedes, automatic) and it coasted really, really, really well. In drive, downhill, on the freeway, feet off all pedals, it would accelerate as much as if I put it in neutral, so I think its software and transmission allowed it to perform as good as a manual in that situation.

Not calling you out specifically, but a lot of people arguing for manual transmissions in this thread seem to base their experiences on ~10 year old cars or older, and weirdly assuming that nothing has happened since, that software and technology in cars has been magically frozen in time, despite enormous incentives for car manufacturers to improve it.