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

441–450 of 893 posts

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

#441

Post by macintux »

Retric wrote: post #305
datashovel wrote: post #304

I'm in US, and am always struggling to find new cars when I'm ready to buy because of this probably. Just recently I visited a dealership where the sales guy told me flat out "manual transmissions are extremely rare anymore". It may be a diagnose-able issue :) but I was a wreck (literally) when I first started driving because I would lose focus on the road. Manual transmission, it seems to me, gives me a far better "…

Have you tried a car with paddle shifters? There is no clutch, but you still select gears. Now they don't provide every advantage of a manual transmission, but you can for example downshift to avoid excessive breaking.

I've tried them on rental cars, and never found them remotely satisfying. If I had no other option, maybe, but fortunately I prefer Jeep Wranglers and there are still many, many manuals out there.

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

#442

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

finchisko wrote: post #131

In late 90s, when I was young and beautiful :-), I was joking about americans being too unskilful to drive car with manual, so they need automatic. But honestly, now I thing we europeans were just too stubborn not accepting auto transmission and thinking we're kind of superior because of it. And nowadays automatic transmission is becoming so popular, my 65y old dad is willing to have it.

The US is richer than Europe, excepting like Switzerland and such. When manuals became available they were a luxury. A luxury Americans could more easily afford. And so, like many other luxuries, they became common over time.

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

#443

Post by mbrookes »

petercooper wrote: post #405
mbrookes wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coasting in neutral or with the clutch disengaged is both more dangerous and less efficient then engine braking. In the UK you will fail your driving test if you coast, and in some countries / states it is illegal - with good reason. Just google it - not a single article supporting your argument.

Slight tangent but my car could fail the test then :) It automatically coasts (yep, engine back to idle and everything) when in it's most economical automatic mode.

Hi Peter - I should have specified that this is for manual shift. What sort of car do you have if you don't mind me asking? (And is it Ruby Red? :) )

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

#444

Post by vgrafe »

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…

Disengaging the clutch is not recommended, since it modifies the balance of the car. When you are accelerating, the rear wheels are supposed to be under more pressure, then have better grip. The opposite when using the brakes. Not having that balance (for which the car is designed/tested) can lead to dangerous situations in certain conditions. Also, the gain in gas consumption is very debatable.

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

#445

Post by Yaggo »

lucaspiller wrote: post #246
Yaggo wrote: post #20

I'm from Europe and learnt to drive with manual, but after getting used to my Prius' CVT, would never buy a car with manual for daily use. (Besides, my next car won't have an ICE.) If you occasionally like "sporty" driving with manual shifting, modern automatics will paddle-shift quicker than most people with a real stick & clutch. Manual gearbox is just an artifact from ICE's very limited torque curve.

> Prius' CVT It should be noted the transmission in a Prius isn't really a CVT. A traditional mechanical-CVT can be slow to respond as it still requires the transmission to mechanically move which means it can feel 'soft'. In the Prius' 'e-CVT' there is no mechanical linkage that needs to move, so it responds instantly. The electric motors can provide their full torque while the ICE is at 0 RPM, so when you push your…

Agree, calling Prius transimission a "CVT" is understatement, "electro-mechanical torque converter" would be more accurate term. Despite the Prius drivers having a reputation of being slow, the car is pretty quick, especially from red light start. Actually it makes you feel that other cars accelerate annoyingly slowly.

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

#446

Post by Reason077 »

aluhut wrote: post #363
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…

Just have to hold your food on the brake? It's a pain...and depending on the break, it really may become pain. Usually if I drive my manual private car, I disengage the gear already on the way to the red light. It just rolls. I break, motor turns off. When I want to start, I push the clutch, motor turns on, off you go. The good thing is, If I want the motor to launch, I can by pushing the clutch slightly. I can also…

Just have to hold your food on the brake?

It's a pain...and depending on the break, it really may become pain.

Oh, with an automatic you have the option of putting it in Park also. Certainly, it's a good idea to do that if you're stopped for more than a few seconds. You don't have to keep your foot on the brake, but doing so is enough to activate stop/start.

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

#447

Post by rascul »

dogma1138 wrote: post #193
edoloughlin wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 want to see the people who cycle the clutch twice at a red signal.

You can often take it out of gear without the clutch.

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

#448

Post by _rav »

PanMan wrote: post #349
baq wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Some cars show liters per hour when stationary, which always seemed logical to me.

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

#449

Post by codelitt »

datashovel wrote: post #304

I'm in US, and am always struggling to find new cars when I'm ready to buy because of this probably. Just recently I visited a dealership where the sales guy told me flat out "manual transmissions are extremely rare anymore". It may be a diagnose-able issue :) but I was a wreck (literally) when I first started driving because I would lose focus on the road. Manual transmission, it seems to me, gives me a far better "…

I'm always in the same situation. I have only driven manual transmission cars and trucks my entire life. I grew up in the mountains and with a lot of snow, so it was the preferred transmission for almost everyone. Now I live in sunny Florida, but I still prefer it for the feeling of being more connected to the car, more control, more enjoyable for me, and just really as a car guy I'm a bit of a purist.

What I've resorted to now that I don't live in a state where they're as common, is to buy all my cars via Autotrader/similar. It opens the market up to much more variety and choice as well as I usually find a better deal than I would locally.

Give it a try. It's scary to buy a vehicle long distance, but even with the cost of flying out and driving it back, I usually save money and always get exactly what I want. Just make sure before you go out yourself to ask a ton of questions and get a local mechanic to go take a look.

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

#450

Post by speeder »

3poundkilograms wrote: post #250
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…

Well, engine braking to the red light would have been more efficient. :) But indeed, automatic cars are less efficient. They do not know what you will do next, so they often make erroneous gear shifts that waste fuel and time. They don't know when to coast or when to engine brake (For older transmissions, the overdrive gear had permanent coasting, and could not engine brake at all), often have lossy pumps, etc. Dual…

I am from Brazil, here the population hates "hydramatic" cars as they call automatic cars.

I saw one accident that the cause was lack of transmission knowing the future:

road crossing, bad road signs didn't made clear who had priority, so both drivers went forward.

Both cars tried then to stop, but the automatic car instead had just shifted up, then as the driver tried to stop, it lurched forward and hit the other car, then it spun and crashed on the wall of a school.

The automatic car was a sports car from the 70s though, so I guess the transmission was even more dangerous.

Post reply on HN