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

581–590 of 893 posts

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

#581

Post by kps »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #319
computator wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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…

  > It will happily shift up 2 seconds before I hit the brakes because
  > it has no idea I'm planning to take a left turn in 20 meters.
Purely hypothetically, a car could be fitted with an operator control to convey that sort of intent. It could be something the driver could operate without taking their hands off the wheel — perhaps a stick on the left of the steering column?

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

#582

Post by aleh »

irishcoffee wrote: post #552
po wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

When breaking with engine, the kinetic energy of movement is converted to heat not via friction (like breaks do) but via compressing air in cylinders which does not cause extra wear on anything.

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

#583

Post by torrent-of-ions »

vinay427 wrote: post #454
torrent-of-ions wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, many Americans can't drive in rain let alone snow and ice.

I'm not sure where you're getting that. There are hundreds of thousands in my area that seem to do it for several months every year.

Many Americans live outside of your area. Anyone who has experienced rain in California knows that people don't know how to drive in the rain. But it's not just there. You see people driving just as close to cars in front, without headlights or sometimes using high beams, unable to demist their windscreens etc.

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

#584

Post by rizowski »

Wooo! I am the 3%.

I purchased a 2015 Subaru WRX and it is a huge upgrade from a 1996 Dodge Neon when it comes to using a manual. It isn't jerky when you shift and has features to keep you from rolling back on a hill when you press in the clutch.

I learned to drive on a standard, and I feel like I have much more control over the car with a standard transmission.

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

#585

Post by CoffeeDregs »

irishcoffee wrote: post #552
po wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

The Car Talk guys addressed this and agreed with you. It's better to use the brakes to slow down since they're ablative and designed to be replaced with wear. Causing the engine to do extra revolutions means extra wear on something that's quite difficult to replace/repair...

That said, I drive a manual and use the engine for braking...

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

#586

Post by petercooper »

mbrookes wrote: post #516
petercooper wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, yes, that's why I specified it as a tangent. I did think it was a weird feature though as I knew the controversy over coasting :) And yep, a red AMG A45!

Nice! Apparently Mercedes call it "glide mode" or "gliding mode" depending which bit of marketing you look at. I couldn't find a technical description though (beyond what you already said).

I've seen it called "sailing" (and the icon on the dashboard is of a sailboat). See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4N8BlXro9w (see 48 seconds in) - but this could be a language difference between territories.

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

#587

Post by petre »

72deluxe wrote: post #361
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.

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…

Honda Civic 06 i-Drive (CVT) will shift into lower gear, thus engine brake, if you brake hard enough to trigger the shift threshold. And you can go directly into manual override whenever you hit the wheel paddles or push/pull the stick.

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

#588

Post by at-fates-hands »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #562
irishcoffee wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

Just what the previous commentor said: saves on wear and tear on the brake pads. As for wear on the engine: the engine is actually designed to mesh with the transmission. Engine braking is not much different than accelerating.

>> Just what the previous commentor said: saves on wear and tear on the brake pads.

When I was learning how to drive a manual, my Dad was a huge fan of them and all of our family cars were manual. I was taught that it makes a huge difference when you're driving in the mountains to use engine braking instead of your brakes. He also explained the difference in braking in traffic and using engine braking to do so and how it supposedly saves on gas as well - something about idling the engine versus continuing to have the engine running?

I'd be interested to hear from people who regularly drive in the mountains and the advantages/disadvantages of engine braking versus using your brakes and if that was some myth or actually real.

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

#589

Post by sbalea »

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…

That was certainly true for older automatics. However, the tranny in my 2 yrs old bmw 3 seems to be freaking prescient. It seems to always be in the right gear at the right time and transitions are buttery smooth. I tried playing with manual gear control, via stick or shift paddles for old times sakes. But the result is noticeably messier. And btw, it's not a dual clutch.

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

#590

Post by goodcanadian »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #482

All of mine are manual. Live on a gravel road - can't properly drive on loose gravel with an automatic. Then you have to creep along at 10mph. I can do 55 in my Subaru. Another downside of auto - they have all sorts of 'traction control features' that take over the accelerator. What that really means is, when driving on loose gravel they start to vibrate like one of those old vibrating-football-game toys and the car…

I grew up in a rural area with gravel roads. You can totally drive 55 mph with an automatic. I will agree with you on the traction control features; they are not very helpful when they engage on gravel or in any significant accumulation of snow. However, if the traction control is engaging regularly, you might be driving a bit too aggressively.
Post reply on HN