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

621–630 of 893 posts

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

#621

Post by sturmeh »

I highly recommend everyone learns to drive a manual before it becomes a dead art, it's truly a lot more fun and engaging experience.

That being said there's obvious cause for the shift to all-automatic, just like we'll all be using self-driving cars not long in the future.

However what concerns me is that automatic transmissions are not only more expensive in general, but harder to maintain / less reliable. That a trend of laziness has created this demand, to the point where 97% of US consumers choose to pay more to automate the process I find so enjoyable.

To be fair a majority use case for driving is daily commute, and it's not nearly as fun to drive a manual in heavy traffic as it is to cruise windy roads on the weekend.

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

#622

Post by martin-adams »

I found that when I drove in LA (lots of traffic lights), and drove from NY to SF, having an automatic was really helpful.

I drive a manual every day here in the UK, but when you have to stop/start (traffic, lights, etc), I wish I had an automatic.

But then, I love driving around normally with a manual. It's not really something I think about when driving.

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

#623

Post by justin66 »

ygra wrote: post #593
justin66 wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so simple. Until recently, a standard ICE couldn't stop injecting fuel while coasting (unless you turned the car off, which brings other problems...). I remember when I was learning to drive being taught about engine braking (with an automatic) and the tradeoff between using up the brakes or burning fuel.

For every fuel-injected engine the ECU should cut injection when coasting. So "recently" in your case applies to carburettors which will behave as if the engine were idle and thus still feed fuel to the engine. I'm not sure 25 years ago counts as "recently".

> For every fuel-injected engine

Well, I own a 911 that says otherwise. It's an older fuel injection system (Bosch K-Jetronic), but it's most certainly fuel injection. Porsche wasn't the only maker to use Bosch fuel injection.

I just don't think DFCO (deceleration fuel cutoff) was a feature of most of the early electronic fuel injection systems. Perhaps it was standard by the time EFI made it to economy cars. I'm fighting a massive urge to go down this historical rabbit hole and read about it, but there's work to be done today.

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

#624

Post by recursive »

joncalhoun wrote: post #331
rsp1984 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An often lost fact in automatic vs. stick-shift discussions is that in practice automatic transmission causes much heavier wear on the brakes of the car. This is because with a stick-shift you can just gear down when going downhill or before a foreseen stop and let the engine do most of the breaking for you. You then only use the brakes to bring the car to a full-stop on the last couple meters. This gets you much bet…

Some new cars (and likely some older ones) offer paddle shifters and other ways to kinda pretend to be a manual. Eg most Subarus have this now. As someone who preferred cars with a manual transmission until recently, the paddle shifters are useless when accelerating (they just don't work well, and rarely feel "smooth"), but I really appreciate them for engine braking in the snow. I wonder if you could get similar bra…

Hey, I have a Subaru with those paddles! I never knew what they were. I've never pressed them.

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

#625

Post by corey_moncure »

rsync wrote: post #602
CoffeeDregs wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I have always thought this. Growing up in the mountains, in Colorado, it was drilled incessantly into me how important it was to use engine/transmission braking on long hills, etc. I know it, I understand it ... and it always irked me. I never liked the idea that I would save wear and tear on a consumable that is meant to be regularly worn and repaired and instead transfer that wear and tear to an integral part of th…

I believe the reasoning here is that braking all the way down a steep grade can cause your brakes to overheat and become temporarily inoperable. I don't know whether this is a real effect or not, but I have heard it given as a justification for engine-braking.

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

#626

Post by jff »

> Radio host Adam Carolla, who collects and races vintage cars, said with a stick shift, drivers can’t “just lean back and go into autopilot mode.”

I think this is an overlooked advantage. Modern cars are ridiculously powerful, yet modern drivers are more less attentive than ever. I feel like the roads would be safer if everyone wasn't just mashing the Go pedal as soon as the light turns green. A manual transmission promotes more mindful driving.

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

#627

Post by city41 »

zippergz wrote: post #35

I'm a car enthusiast, and I was a manual transmission purist for many, many years. But then I had to be honest with myself, and admit that the VAST majority of my driving is commuting in traffic. And that driving is much less annoying with an automatic. My leisure driving is maybe 5% less fun without a manual, but that's far outweighed by how much better my daily commute is. At this point, I'd only buy a manual for a…

I live in Silicon Valley and sit in nasty traffic daily in my manual transmission car. It's such second nature it doesn't even register.

A motorcycle is a different story. Holding the clutch in with your left hand gets downright painful after a while. Thankfully lane splitting is legal here.

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

#628

Post by hx87 »

sturmeh wrote: post #621

I highly recommend everyone learns to drive a manual before it becomes a dead art, it's truly a lot more fun and engaging experience. That being said there's obvious cause for the shift to all-automatic, just like we'll all be using self-driving cars not long in the future. However what concerns me is that automatic transmissions are not only more expensive in general, but harder to maintain / less reliable. That a t…

> but harder to maintain

I'd have to dispute that--ATF change intervals are about the same as clutch change intervals (disregarding the "lifetime ATF" crap that manufacturers peddle) but cost far less, and otherwise automatic transmissions today last the lifetime of the car.

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

#629

Post by svdree »

rsync wrote: post #602
CoffeeDregs wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I have always thought this. Growing up in the mountains, in Colorado, it was drilled incessantly into me how important it was to use engine/transmission braking on long hills, etc. I know it, I understand it ... and it always irked me. I never liked the idea that I would save wear and tear on a consumable that is meant to be regularly worn and repaired and instead transfer that wear and tear to an integral part of th…

It's not about wear and tear. Brakes heat up when they're used, and descending an entire mountain on the brakes is likely to overheat them to the point where you have no braking power left at all. Not a good situation to be in on a steep slope. Using engine braking to keep your speed under control prevents this.

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

#630

Post by shopkins »

zippergz wrote: post #35

I'm a car enthusiast, and I was a manual transmission purist for many, many years. But then I had to be honest with myself, and admit that the VAST majority of my driving is commuting in traffic. And that driving is much less annoying with an automatic. My leisure driving is maybe 5% less fun without a manual, but that's far outweighed by how much better my daily commute is. At this point, I'd only buy a manual for a…

I think if it's annoying, you're not driving in traffic the right way. Sure, it's annoying for aggressive stop-and-go driving, but if you maintain a consistent speed with the traffic in front of you (see traffic shockwaves [0]), a manual transmission is better than an automatic.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M

Post reply on HN