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

281–290 of 893 posts

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

#281

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?

Spot-checked BMW as well:

http://www.bmw.de/de/neufahrzeuge/3er/limousine/2015/technis...

Innerorts in l/100 km: 5,2 [5,0] / 4,7 [4,6]

Außerorts in l/100 km: 3,8 [3,6] / 3,4 [3,3]

Kombiniert in l/100 km: 4,3 [4,1] / 3,9 [3,8]

Beschleunigung 0-100 km/h in s: 7,9 [7,8]

Numbers in brackets are with automatic transmission, and it outperforms the manual transmission in both fuel efficiency and acceleration.

Not gonna do Skoda and Volkswagen, feel free to prove me wrong though!

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

#283

Post by blub »

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 would skipping a gear be more "eco"?

I find the shift indicator annoying. Depending on the car (e.g. my diesel 1.6L), it will probably be unreliable. One example is suggesting to shift up when driving on a light ramp when going over 2000rpm - this might be more eco, but it will put strain on the engine and also decrease your reaction time if you need to accelerate.

The only useful thing that the indicator does convey is to keep it between ~1200 - 2000rpm and don't go over 130km/h if you want to save fuel.

Interestingly my car model has the best fuel efficiency available only on manual, the same engine automatic uses slightly more fuel. But an automatic is generally safer (instant reaction time) and less troublesome (can't choke the engine). I don't think one has any chance of doing things like controlled drifts with an automatic.

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

#284

Post by caf »

computator wrote: post #251
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…

> 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 be…

"automatic transmission" is usually taken to specifically mean a torque-converter based hydraulic transmission, rather than a general class of self-shifting transmissions. I'm sure that's the sense in which the parent comment to yours meant it.

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

#285

Post by IshKebab »

computator wrote: post #251
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…

> 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 be…

You're just repeating what he said. A dual clutch automatic can be more efficient, but the more common torque converter type won't be.

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

#286

Post by klagermkii »

computator wrote: post #251
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…

> 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 be…

What you describe already exists but it doesn't get called "automatic". The car companies don't call it that, the drivers don't call it that. It'll be called DCT or the older sequential manual gearbox.

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

#287

Post by IshKebab »

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.

True, but the amounts of fuel needed for idling is minuscule.

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

#288

Post by henrikschroder »

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…

In another subthread to this I posted numbers for various models of BMW, Audi, and Mercedes. I could find one Mercedes model where they report worse fuel economy and slower 0-100km/h acceleration time for the version with an automatic gearbox, in all the other models I looked at, the manufacturers rate the automatics as more efficient and having better acceleration than the manuals.

These are of course high-end current model year vehicles, if the tech they have hasn't already trickled down into cheaper cars, it will do so very shortly, making my statement even more broadly true.

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

#289

Post by exDM69 »

pmontra wrote: post #124
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.

Actually most Formula E cars do use gears and manual shifting. This is why [1] http://www.fiaformulae.com/en/news/2015/november/boxing-clev... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/FormulaE/comments/2gbika/why_do_for... None of that probably matters for road cars. I'm using a car sharing service's single gear electric cars. They have great acceleration and are easy to drive. Better than automatic transmission cars.

For this year, the regulations of Formula E were changed to be more flexible and there's more diversity in the drive train.

Now there are cars with no transmission and cars with 4 or 5 forward gears. The engines are slightly different to compensate.

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

#290

Post by [deleted] »

pmontra wrote: post #124
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.

Actually most Formula E cars do use gears and manual shifting. This is why [1] http://www.fiaformulae.com/en/news/2015/november/boxing-clev... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/FormulaE/comments/2gbika/why_do_for... None of that probably matters for road cars. I'm using a car sharing service's single gear electric cars. They have great acceleration and are easy to drive. Better than automatic transmission cars.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN