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

431–440 of 893 posts

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

#431

Post by saiya-jin »

henrikschroder wrote: post #329
saiya-jin wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> wow, you are incorrect in almost every statement. And yet you didn't refute a single one of them, and only offered subjective preferences and personal anecdotes. You like driving a manual. Bless your heart. Modern automatics still accelerate faster and are more fuel efficient than manuals. Just take a look at what the car manufacturers themselves report.

faster? yes, I stated that, everybody knows that. more fuel efficient? people asked for you to prove it, so far nothing. have some facts into the discussion? all info I've seen so far in past 10 years (which doesn't mean all of them of course, I may be wrong on this), automats have higher reported consumption compared to manuals. So do 4x, obviously for different reasons, but it's consistent and expected.

All other points I mentioned - you don't care about neither. Just bashing swedish system because you don't like it from you own personal view (if you cannot skip gear and whine about it, you are complete beginner, there ARE good reasons they have it and it happens in real world). My opinion might be biased since I always drove manuals for my own car, and rental automats have been consistently horrible/mkay boring at most (this includes latest Porsche and Ferrari 458 btw)

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

#432

Post by pryelluw »

J-dawg wrote: post #356
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.

Some ECUs also cut fuel on braking. I remember reading a review of a car where the reviewer (obviously an "enthusiastic" driver) was disappointed that he couldn't do left-foot braking because it kept cutting the fuel. (Left-foot braking is a technique where you keep the power down in a bend but dab the brake to adjust the fore-aft balance of the car. It is common in rallying - there is some awesome footage somewhere…

This is one of my pet peeves. Sometimes I use left foot braking to transfer chassis weight from one side to tve other. Having a throttle cut off sucks. I won't buy a car with it anymore.

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

#433

Post by TeMPOraL »

geff82 wrote: post #165

Manual transmission is not somehow cool, it just shows the inefficiencies of a regular gas engine more openly: that the engine has to run in a certain small band of RPM to provide the energy for driving. Automatic transmission covers the deficiency best - and will be the standard on the electric car future ahead. In that way, Americans are already used to the future.

I don't get why you're downvoted, it's exactly the case - the very need for having a gearbox is a problem of ICEs. Electric engines don't have gears because the RPM/efficiency curve is pretty much flat.

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

#434

Post by bluetomcat »

glenndebacker wrote: post #379
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…

Here in Belgium the majority are the ones with a manual transmissions. The resell value of a car with an automatic shifter is also a lot less than the version with the manual shifter. But the car market is also changing. We are (regarding cars) a diesel country but as the government want to promote (as they are less polluting) petrol and electric cars, the taxes are becoming a lot higher for those who want to drive w…

> If I'm not mistaken (not a car enthousiast) diesel cars with automatic shifters are rare.

Pretty much any European diesel executive car (Mercedes E-class, Audi A6, BMW 5 Series) is equipped with an automatic.

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

#435

Post by forgetsusername »

gerbilly wrote: post #427

I wonder of anyone else here does this. I drive manual[1], but rarely use the clutch. I use it to start moving in 1st gear then can shift between all tho other gears without it. You have to get to know the speed where the engine and drivetrain are matched. It's not that hard after a while. Shifting between 3-4th is easiest, 1st and 2nd the hardest. I can even downshift too without clutch. You have to rev the engine a…

>I wonder of anyone else here does this.

I never use the clutch to put the car in neutral when coming to a stop. Blip the throttle and it will fall out of gear.

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

#436

Post by rascul »

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.

carburetor (American and Canadian spelling), carburator, carburettor, or carburetter (Commonwealth spelling)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carburetor

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

#437

Post by ebbv »

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…

Manuals are better for fuel economy because they are more efficient. A torque converter loses more power as part of its design, it is unavoidable.

Manual transmissions are also typically lighter which also results in an efficiency gain.

If you prefer an auto that's fine, you're in a huge majority. But the idea that they are more efficient than manuals is factually wrong.

If you run across an individual model of car where the EPA estimates give an advantage to the auto that is because of gearing and nothing else. That tells you the manual transmission was given much more aggressive or "sporty" gearing, probably starting with the final drive ratio.

But that's a rare situation.

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

#438

Post by Aaargh20318 »

beeglebug wrote: post #384
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You're forgetting a very important factor: the automatic transmission can only respond to the drivers actions. Unlike the driver it has no…

A lot of cars today are probably more aware of what is going to happen in 20 meters than the driver is. Surely the same data that is used for automatic braking, lane assist etc could be used to improve timings on automatic gear shifts?

> Surely the same data that is used for automatic braking, lane assist etc could be used to improve timings on automatic gear shifts?

I don't think that data is very useful in city driving where most of the shifting happens. No radar or lane detector can detect my intention of taking the next exit on the left.

That being said, I remember reading a piece a while back about a car manufacturer working on linking the car's navigation/GPS to the automatic transmission. So as long as you enter the destination in the GPS it can make more informed decisions.

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

#439

Post by forgetsusername »

barsonme wrote: post #178
photogrammetry wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to love electric cars. Zero lag.

It's insane. I visited my uncle in Petaluma and he drives a volt. He's normally a very slow driver ( drives us insane ;), but one day we were running late to dinner (don't do that to my aunt...) so he decides to floor it (again, flooring it for him , so like 45 MPH) and that car just _took_ off. I was very surprised at how much torque the car had. It's one thing to realize, "oh, yeah, of course electric cars have mor…

>I was very surprised at how much torque the car had.

The torque curve on EVs is awesome for sure; I can't wait to own one. But I'll bet that most people have never driven a ICE car with any real power or an automatic transmission tuned for acceleration as opposed to gas mileage. They also "take off" with minimal lag.

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

#440

Post by crispyambulance »

dcposch wrote: post #243
ehnto wrote: post #135

Holy 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…

Yes, people talk about fuel efficiency but the differences are effectively negligible and more dependent on driving style than manual vs automatic transmission.

The reason lots of people drive manual by choice is simply because of the way it FEELS. The driving experience is more engaging and stimulating. I think people driving manual in the city pay more attention simply because they have to.

Post reply on HN