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

251–260 of 893 posts

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

#251

Post by computator »

vmarsy wrote: post #104
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 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…

> because of Physics, an automatic transmission will always be less efficient

You making that claim based on how automatic transmissions currently work, right? And not on every way they could work.

Purely from logic, your claim has to be false: Imagine a humanoid robot sitting in your driver's seat, driving your manual transmission car, its robot arm doing the shifting exactly as a human would. Your manual car has been turned into an automatic and it is not less efficient.

I suppose you could argue that the robot, being part of the car, has an energy requirement. I would then argue that we could shrink the humanoid robot down to the size of chip with sensor inputs, and replace the robot arm and gear shift with a solenoid or whatever, thereby saving considerable energy.

By this thought experiment alone, I don't see how anyone can make a statement about automatics always being less efficient.

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

#252

Post by ldev »

voycey wrote: post #3

Well when you are only getting around 30bhp / L from your engines you don't really need a manual do you?

Yeah, american car engineering is mind blowing. I have a 2008 Lexus IS350 - 3.5 liters V6, naturally aspirated and it produces 306 bhp. Friend has 2008 Ford Mustang - 4 liters V6, and it makes 210 bhp. What the hell.

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

#253

Post by seszett »

lqdc13 wrote: post #162
micaksica wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 irrespon…

> staying reasonable and safe requires too much self control.

I wouldn't say manual transmission is the main problem here.

I'm able to not break law when driving, and apparently most people in Europe are, even though we are mostly driving manual.

I really hated driving automatics though, especially since my only experience with them was in the mountains of Taiwan and Japan. You just have so little control, and you feel the car struggle when you know it should just shift gears already, or shouldn't shift at all because you're going to slow down in 5 seconds.

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

#254

Post by henrikschroder »

TomMarius wrote: post #190
henrikschroder wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be completely obvious that machines can be made to do things quicker, better, and more reliably than humans.

So why are Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Skoda, Volkswagen and such reporting slower zero to sixty times on automatic transmissions?

Just did a quick check on Mercedes' German website, tried to find some models that are still offered with manuals, and got this:

B160d - faster with automatic

B180 - faster with automatic

B200 - faster with automatic

C180 - slower with automatic

C200 - faster with automatic

C220d - faster with automatic

CLA180d - same

CLA180 - faster with automatic

CLA200 - faster with automatic

E200 - faster with automatic

I'm sorry, but you are wrong for at least one of the manufacturers you listed. I only found one Mercedes model where they reported a slower 0-100km/h time for the version with the automatic transmission.

I'm pretty sure the numbers for the other manufacturers are similar. Automatic transmissions have simply surpassed manuals. Yay, technology!

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

#255

Post by exclusiv »

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…

Most automatic transmissions that people have are crap and are geared much differently. If you took the avg auto, I think youd agree on the sluggishness of getting in the power band on demand.

You might have 100% attention to the road in an auto because you're a good driver but I just saw a report on the number of deaths smartphones cause and it's crazy.

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

#256

Post by kozak »

flamedoge wrote: post #103
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…

It's physically weird. Manual drivers must have left leg bigger than right.

Well, speaking of legs, automatic drivers don't use their left one at all...

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

#257

Post by tdkl »

kybernetyk wrote: post #177
tdkl wrote: post #167

Learning to drive on an automatic is like never learning handwriting and going to typing instead.

Sounds pretty OK to me ;)

Until you're in a position to having to drive one. Being helpless because of technology isn't one of the traits people should look forward to.

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

#258

Post by hanoz »

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.

The fact that you use extra fuel when coasting isn't enough to make it less efficient, you'd have to be using less extra fuel than the extra fuel you would otherwise have to use to replace the benefit you extract from your potential energy by coasting.

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

#259

Post by mattlondon »

jwdunne wrote: post #39

Very interesting. My Mrs asked me if most in the US drive manual after watching Gilmore Girls. Now we know! In the UK, it's quite different. Most I know drive manual. Only 1 swears by auto. I've only ever driven a manual so it's hard to judge. At this point, manual is second nature so it's hard to imagine not doing it. In fact, learning to drive in an auto is considered a fool's game. You are not allowed to drive a m…

I used to 100% drive manuals and it really was second-nature to think about changing gears - in fact the first few times I drove an automatic it was "interesting" as more than once I accidentally slammed the brakes on 100% with my left foot as my brain was on autopilot for where it was used to changing gears around the roads where I live.

The thought process/autopilot my brain was going through was something like "ok, get ready to change down a gear, full clutch please left leg ... WHOA! WTF! WFT JUST HAPPENED?! DID I HIT SOMETHING?!" then the realisation that your left leg just stampted on the brake pedal not the clutch pedal :-)

I blame the super-wide brake pedals some automatics have! Luckily there were no one behind me, but it is quite an experience to get 100% brake application as a driver when you are NOT expecting it! I can only imagine that this experience will become more common with increasing automation/emergency braking in cars.

My daily-drive in the UK these days is a hybrid that is a CVT automatic. I actually really like driving it now around London as its just so so so so much easier and less stressful in traffic. I still keep a manual 2-seat rear-wheel drive car around for fun as I love the feeling of actually driving a car, but the ease of an auto just cannot be beaten. I am a total convert!

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

#260

Post by userbinator »

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…

However, in real life, for real humans, over a longer period of time, the drivers with modern automatic transmissions will be more fuel efficient than drivers with similar cars and manual transmissions, because the automatic transmission is a reliable machine that will do the same thing, every time. It doesn't care if you had your morning coffee or not, if some asshole cut you off, or if you got distracted or bored or spaced out and forgot to change your gear to the right one.

I've experienced quite a few humans who, when driving an automatic, seem to select a speed and throttle position that keeps the transmission right at the top of a gear range, with the engine turning much faster than necessary, instead of going slightly faster and letting it upshift. I doubt that's fuel efficient at all.

Even with an automatic the driver has influence on which gear is used, and a driver who naturally doesn't need to know about gearing may unintentionally be telling the transmission, via other inputs such as throttle position and speed, to select too low a gear than what a manual driver would choose.

Post reply on HN