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

551–560 of 893 posts

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

#551

Post by ferongr »

kampsduac wrote: post #539
ferongr wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's completely missing a point of a CVT where you can keep the engine at a its most efficient speed and vary the transmission ratio to accelerate or decelerate in response to throttle input.

But if you drive in the mountains, wouldn't gear simulation in a CVT help to save brakes while going downhill?

So, when you step off the accelerator on a car with an automatic transmission, the ECU has to decide whether it will switch to the tallest ratio to let the car coast and save on gas, or keep the same ratio and engine brake using the intake vacuum. On a traditional automatic, you either use the paddles to keep in the required gear, or on older transmissions use the 3 or 2 position on the column lever.

CVTs have no fixed ratios, and do not need to in order to engine brake. My preferred control would be a small column-mounted stick with 2 or 3 positions that would enable automatic engine braking at varying strengths, kinda like the controls for an electric retarder on big trucks or buses.

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

#552

Post by irishcoffee »

po wrote: post #470
TeMPOraL wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh so that's what was happening... Two days ago my friend and I were driving a rented car and we've noticed that when coasting, the computer said the fuel consumption is 0, but when the friend disengaged the clutch, the fuel consumption actually went up (!) to some value. We've been wondering what's going on, and we actually suspected a software bug in the fuel consumption indicator. Thanks!

Not only that but staying in gear when going down hills or slowing down will reduce the wear on your breaks by using the inertia of the engine to slow the car instead of break pad friction/heat.

I've always wondered about this.

In my head, using the engine/transmission to "brake" when in gear going down hills or slowing down seems like a bad idea. Something is getting stressed in order to slow the car down.

Having to replace my brakes makes sense, they get worn out, and its relatively inexpensive (especially if I do it myself). I have always been wary of staying in gear to brake. And, as it so happens, my manual has 130k miles on it, stock engine, transmission, and clutch. Never had any problems.

I would love to understand the science behind why using the engine/transmission/clutch to brake is better for the car than just using the brakes.

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

#553

Post by ryandrake »

mdimec4 wrote: post #526

Quote: "And it takes a really patient instructor to teach it." That is bullshit. It is not that hard, everybody can learn it with little guidance and practice. The law here in some parts of Europe (e.g. Slovenia) states, that if you make licence with automatic, then you are licensed only to drive automatic, but if you make it with manual, you can drive everything. So literally everybody here learns manual. Most of th…

I learned to drive manual when I bought a manual transmission car and had to drive it home from the previous owner's house. It's really not a difficult skill. But people look at me as though I'm a wizard when I'm driving my own car. It's kind of crazy.

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

#554

Post by J-dawg »

ohyoutravel wrote: post #472
pryelluw wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't think of any situation outside of a race course where this would be a necessary maneuver. If you're going so fast on public roads where you need to left foot brake to transfer weight to avoid skidding off the road, it sounds like something is wrong. Where are you doing this enough where having a car with throttle cut off is enough of an annoyance where you won't buy a car with it anymore? For reference, I got…

I agree. It's also incredibly difficult for those who haven't practiced as you have. The few times I have tried it (in safe conditions) I have ended up braking far too hard. My left foot somehow doesn't have the "feeling" of my right foot on the pedal.

One racing driver technique that can be useful in normal conditions (in a manual) is heel-and-toe braking. I use it to avoid excessive engine braking while downshifting, and sometimes for hill starts without using the handbrake.

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

#555

Post by mikepurvis »

yason wrote: post #214
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.

This used to be the case with fuel injected engines from 80's to 00's but because of new regulations current ECUs might, again, inject fuel while coasting just to keep the catalytic converter warm and operational. The amount is obviously negligible but it's quite crazy to spend more fuel in order to reduce emissions :)

Emissions per mile, miles per gallon, capital cost. You can only optimize two of them.

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

#556

Post by 6stringmerc »

mdimec4 wrote: post #526

Quote: "And it takes a really patient instructor to teach it." That is bullshit. It is not that hard, everybody can learn it with little guidance and practice. The law here in some parts of Europe (e.g. Slovenia) states, that if you make licence with automatic, then you are licensed only to drive automatic, but if you make it with manual, you can drive everything. So literally everybody here learns manual. Most of th…

It can be picked up rather easily in a modern car, sure, but I'd like to note that not all manual transmissions are the same. As in, to drive many of them well, it does take a patient instructor and diligent student to understand the fundamentals, timing, muscle coordination, etc. To your point, yes, everybody can probably do it, but can they do it well?

The test I grew up with was a 1991 Ford Ranger, V6, 5 speed manual. The clutch engagement was extremely narrow and the V6 was kind of underpowered, especially with the A/C on in Texas, so learning how to make smooth take-offs was very difficult. I wasn't allowed to take that truck out on my own until I could drive around a passenger with a cup of coffee, not to the brim but definitely there, and not be rough to cause a spill. It was a high bar in my opinion.

Years later, my VW GTi 5 speed and clutch felt like an absolute dream, buttery, easy. Learning on the much harder transmission, in my opinion, was beneficial.

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

#557

Post by nommm-nommm »

bitwize wrote: post #18
toomuchtodo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Automatics are faster. Cammisa, Jason. "Here's what's really killing the manual transmission." Road & Track. March 10, 2014. (April 10, 2015) http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a6308/whats-really-k... Lachnit, Carroll. "Five Myths About Stick Shifts: Manual vs Automatic Transmissions." Edmunds. Sept. 26, 2013. (April 10, 2015) http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/five-myths-about-stick-s...

If you're not driving a stick, eating paleo, and listening to your music on vinyl with a 100% analog mastering process, then you're doing it wrong.

I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not.

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

#558

Post by johngalt »

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…

There used to be a similar theme in the US, but it slowly disappeared from 1990-2010. Primarily because they are so rare they are now more of a quaint oddity more than a sign of driving competence.

The game theory on why manuals are disappearing is obvious. Drivers who can drive MT can also drive AT, but the reverse is not true.

I love MTs, but buying one means dealing with the following hassles:

1. Finding a dealership that actually has any MT cars. Let alone with the options I want. Often MTs are only available on stripped models or 60k sports cars. There are entire segments of vehicles where manuals are no longer offered. Full size truck with a manual? Nope.

2. Owning a car that only I can drive without becoming a driving instructor to whoever needs to borrow it.

3. Reselling the car when my needs change. I.E. Find someone who both wants the specific car I have, and also can drive an MT.

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

#559

Post by luca_ing »

salex89 wrote: post #483
TeMPOraL wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh so that's what was happening... Two days ago my friend and I were driving a rented car and we've noticed that when coasting, the computer said the fuel consumption is 0, but when the friend disengaged the clutch, the fuel consumption actually went up (!) to some value. We've been wondering what's going on, and we actually suspected a software bug in the fuel consumption indicator. Thanks!

Sure, but it will cause increased wear on the clutch plates. However, idling, keeping the clutch disengaged in neutral for longer periods of time increases wear on the dual-mass flywheel. So, whatever you do, you are damaging something :) . Personally I try to balance it out, but on longer down-hill slopes or when slowly coming to a traffic light I try to keep it in gear. It takes a bit of effort to train, but I real…

> Sure, but it will cause increased wear on the clutch plates.

Only if your clutch is so badly broken as to make the car undriveable.

It shouldn't slip if it's fully closed.

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

#560

Post by mikepurvis »

Steuard wrote: post #461
72deluxe wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you're coasting down a hill and not braking, your engine is idling and you're making use of gravity. The engine will be turning over at ~1000rpm instead of 2000rpm in my diesel. Understandably it is dangerous as you are not in control of the transmission and therefore the wheels, hence the failure in the UK. But I got through some incredibly scarce times by coasting a bit on the commute to work... With automat…

Every automatic car I've ever seen has had the ability to downshift to engage engine braking. (Even the CVT in cars like the Prius has an engine braking mode.) I've seen advocates of manual transmissions cite a lack of engine braking as a reason to switch in multiple conversations, so I've gotten the impression that a lot of people just aren't taught how to drive an automatic properly. (Do they not talk about this in…

The e-brake in my automatic Volvo is shot, so my wife and I were practicing how to engine brake down from 50 km/h to a crawl. She was surprised that she was never made to learn this in driver's ed.
Post reply on HN