In Germany more than 80% still buy cars with manual transmissions: https://presse.adac.de/meldungen/technik/maenner-fahren-auto...
Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
341–350 of 893 posts
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Indeed. Part of the driving test in the UK (which the instructor may or may not choose to ask you to do) is to behave as if a little child just ran out into the road in front of you. You just mash the brake and clutch at the same time and sort it out afterwards. It's quite a natural action.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#343Holy 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…
> Even if you don't intend to go racing, a manual is just a bit more interesting and keeps you paying attention the whole trip
I'd rather pay attention to my surroundings than to the clutch. This goes for both day to day stuff (where it's better for safety), and pleasure road trips (where this lets you enjoy the scenery).
For the most part, the automatic is simply "good enough". And in US there's no peer pressure to drive the stick. Between those two things, it ends up being something reserved for people who really want that extra oomph - and they usually do it in cars specifically designed for it. Well, and immigrants.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#344I 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…
> It's well known that accelerating rather quickly to your cruise speed is the optimal strategy for fuel efficiency, hence the reason to switch from 3rd to 5th gear directly.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but I think your logic is backwards here, ie. It's well known that 5th (top) gear is the most fuel efficient, hence the reason to accelerate to it rather quickly (the optimal rate would vary between cars), I think would be more reasonable.
I don't think the cruise speed factors into it, and neither does switching from 3rd to 5th, unless it's part of the strategy to get to 5th faster.
But then again, I never realised that accelerating harder to get to 5th faster is actually more fuel efficient [1], so thanks for the heads up!
[1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a6827/6-driving-tactics...
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#345I never understood how to use automatic transmission in snowy/icy conditions. To me it's basically a lottery. With manual transmission and clutch I can actually recover from a slide almost immediately (the moment you start sliding you disengage transmission right away with clutch and do initial correcting maneuver which you cut short the moment you feel any kind of traction in order not to oversteer; it takes some pr…
Dude, many Americans can't drive in rain let alone snow and ice.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#346Holy 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…
> Even if you don't intend to go racing, a manual is just a bit more interesting and keeps you paying attention the whole trip, in my experience at least. I drive an E36 M3, a car almost 20 years old. It's a musical instrument, and the driving manual is how you play it. Learning to use a clutch is like riding a bike: at first it's frustrating and you stall a lot, but you learn quickly. Once you've mastered it, it's e…
E36 BMWs are a dream to drive in manual. Its a shame they are getting increasingly rare to buy in Melbourne.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
By holding down the clutch pedal, you are literally destroying the clutch. When I was in the driving school, I was taught to never do this. If you are stopping, even for just few seconds, put in the neutral. It becomes automatic movement in a short time. Few years ago, I had colleagues who came from a certain foreign country and were not used to manual transmission. They got a company car with manual transmission. Th…
I don't think having the clutch down destroys the clutch, how would it do that? It is having the clutch partially engaged for a very long time that would destroy the clutch. A clutch is destroyed by friction - slippage between the two plates that comprise it. This is a useful characteristic when pausing on a hill for a few seconds but I suppose there must be some people that keep the clutch partially engaged for a ve…
That's right. Driving with the clutch partially engaged will wear it out. But having it fully engaged while the vehicle is stopped won't do any harm.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#348You'll know we're serious about climate change when this changes. Manual gets better gas mileage. Sure it might be a small difference but even just 3 miles per gallon is 10% on 30 mpg. Over hundreds of thousands of cars that adds up. But we can't be bothered. It's an inconvenience. You can't drink your soy latte and drive at the same time if the vehicle is manual. I guess you can say it's a matter of priorities.
The problem is also congestion. Manual trasmission is great when there's not a lot of traffic, but it's a pain on your morning commute in LA/SF/NY/... In Europe you either live on the countryside or use public transport. Comparably few people are stuck every morning on the highway on their way to work (still a few though).
How can you make such a ridiculous and broad statement? I'm in the UK and I commute an hour to work down the motorway/highway. With traffic it's an hour and I drive a manual car like just about everyone else.
Most people I know still drive to work, even if the city where we live is pretty good for public transport with a lot of buses and trams available.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#349Earlier 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.
A counter point: In my previous car the screen showed 0.0 when idling, which obviously was false (as the engine was still running). It should probably show infinite instead. (km/l for 0 km).
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The rabbit hole goes deeper: how do you price in externalities like pollution for fuel? Or for an automatic transmission?