Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions • Hacker News Board

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

#681

Post by mywittyname » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

ollie87 wrote: post #218

sebcat wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> especially if you are shifting a certain way because you can see traffic or the lack of it, up ahead. Downshifting instead of using brakes is more environmentally friendly as well. Though you can do this with an automatic too (or semi-automatic I guess). My mother has a car with paddle shifters which you can use if you want, or you can just keep it in automatic. Best of both worlds. Edit: I drive stick, though. It'…

It's funny, I just got a new car (manual, of course) and it has "rev-matching" so when you shift down a gear it automatically heel-toes (basically a throttle blip) which means there's not much engine braking going on during downshifts. Granted when driving quickly and dropping a cog or two to overtake a slow moving vehicle it's great. Slowing down for traffic? Not so good. Took some getting used to changing down gear…

What you're describing is not engine braking, it's really clutch braking. Engine braking is what happens when the clutch is fully engaged and the compression of the engine slows the vehicle down.

Downshifting to second so the engine is at 5000rpms and letting it gradually slow the car down is engine braking, and this is good. Putting the gear selector in second and slowly releasing the clutch (with no throttle/rev-matching) to slow down the car is clutch braking and its bad (which is why cars automatically rev-match now).

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

#682

Post by Shorel » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

Reason077 wrote: post #223

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've driven manuals most of my life. Before stop/start came along, I was in the habit of just holding the clutch pedal down while stopped at intersections or in traffic. Anecdotally, I think most drivers do the same. Now, when driving stop/start equipped vehicles, I always try to use it. But in a manual, it does takes more thinking and effort and I wonder how many casual drivers actually bother. The thing is, most of…

I don't hold the clutch for too long because that will increase the effort from my left foot, and I don't like how it feels after a week of driving that way.

So, it may require more thinking, but I can rest my feet while the light is red and it actually feels good.

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

#683

Post by dghughes » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:34 PM UTC

cjrp wrote: post #316

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…

I use engine braking in this way, but I've often wondered how much additional wear this is putting on the clutch. Given that brake pads/discs are cheap, and a clutch is not, maybe in the long run this doesn't actually work out cheaper?

I'd be more worried about wear of the valve train. Brake pads are cheaper.

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

#684

Post by kjetijor » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #295

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…

> I knew it was rare for people to know manual transmissions, but why such a preference for automatic? I think this is twofold. First off, most drivers education doesn't teach a manual transmission anymore, nor is drivers education a requirement. While my parents learned on a simulator in school, I learned it from experience (and so happy I did) - my first car was a manual. But the second part of this is that there t…

Norway is (probably) still a manual transmission holdout, potentially in part because you'll most likely end up being taught driving a manual as there's restrictions attached to your license. If you do your practical on an automatic, you're restricted to automatic, if you do it on a manual you get to drive both manual/automatic.

Anecdotally - early automatic transmissions weren't all that great on the windy mountain roads. My dad had two primary complaints (after having had an automatic rental). Tricking the car into downshifting to maintain speed or accelerate on steep ascents, and passing people on steep ascents, usually involved slamming on the brakes to trick the car into downshifting. (This were in the mid-90ies). My dad held onto the manual transmission until probably 2012-2013.

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

#685

Post by eveningcoffee » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:43 PM UTC

eveningcoffee wrote: post #144

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…

Restricted B category licence in Europe allows you to drive only cars with automatic gear transmissions. If you want to drive only such cars then you are not obliged to do full licence. But manual transmission cars are considerably cheaper and are more likely to be available (previously in the family, rental, friend etc), so it is your choice. Nobody is forcing you to do that. Automatic gear suggester makes the sugge…

For the record: I do not think that drivers who prefer automatic gear box are somehow inferiour, everyone has its preferences. Just driving with the manual gear box car requires very specific additional skills and consensus in Europe is that these skills must be officially validated.

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

#686

Post by usaar333 » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:43 PM UTC

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…

> but why such a preference for automatic?

American here. From experience driving both, automatic is just so much.. easier. This is especially true on steep grades; since you can keep one foot on the brake and one of the gas, you avoid any risk of lurching backwards from a stop and parallel parking becomes vastly easier.

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

#687

Post by striking » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:43 PM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #173

eveningcoffee wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, downvoted for honest and informed opinion. Unfortunately this is quite common in HN.

I downvoted you for random assumptions and insulting people you never talked to. > a modern automatic transmission is controlled by firmware, a unikernel Have you seen the source? If not, how do you know it's a unikernel? > The shift points and the shifting logic are based on the developers' very dim understanding of economy and of performance driving "dim understanding"? Do you have a reference for any of that? Why…

>> sensors

More to the point, the sensors are either wired directly to the controller or data is retrieved over CAN. And there may not even be a spin-lock waiting for that data, data acquisition could very well be interrupt-driven.

The latency claim is totally unfounded, and anyone who has made use of an embedded platform (even as weak as PIC or Arduino) to collect data can see it as totally and utterly wrong.

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

#688

Post by mywittyname » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:47 PM UTC

ldev wrote: post #252

voycey wrote: post #3

Well when you are only getting around 30bhp / L from your engines you don't really need a manual do you?

Yeah, american car engineering is mind blowing. I have a 2008 Lexus IS350 - 3.5 liters V6, naturally aspirated and it produces 306 bhp. Friend has 2008 Ford Mustang - 4 liters V6, and it makes 210 bhp. What the hell.

The Cologne V6 was a truck engine designed in the 1960s with a 5500rpm redline. Which are all good reasons why it made no power. The reason it was used in the Mustang after so many years was for cost/marketing reasons that had little to do with engineering.

If your friend instead had a 2011+ Mustang V6, it would have a modern(ish) engine making 305hp out of 3.7L on 87 octane, where the 2GR in the IS350 needs premium gas to make 306hp.

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

#689

Post by briankereszturi » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:51 PM UTC

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.

The A45's dual clutch transmission engages in 100ms after touching either the brake or the throttle. Losing control isn't an issue in this case.

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

#690

Post by Unklejoe » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

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…

I don’t have data on hand, but there are some issues with your claims. They're accurate when comparing a manual transmission to an automatic from the 70's, but newer automatics have essentially closed any efficiency gap.

1. On most automatic transmissions (probably anything newer than the early 90's), the torque converter has clutches inside of it which allow the pump to be directly locked to the turbine. This makes it behave basically the same as a clutch in a manual transmission - no constant slipping. The converter will usually “lock up” once you’ve reached a cruising speed. So, it is less efficient during acceleration, but once the converter locks up, it’s much more comparable to a regular manual transmission. The only thing that still hurts the automatic at that point is the fact that there’s a hydraulic pump which must be driven at all times to maintain pressure to keep the various clutches clamped. So yes, this is where city driving can show some efficiency differences. However, ...

2. On newer automatic transmissions (i.e., transmissions from probably around 2006 and up, such as the ZF 6HPxx series which is found on many Fords, BMWs, and some other brands), the torque converter actually behaves even more like the clutch in a manual transmission in the sense that it’s far more “aggressive” regarding when it locks up. For example, my 2011 BMW will usually lock the torque converter as soon as you take off in first gear (it even sort of feels like when you’re taking off in a car with a manual transmission). Then, it remains locked the entire time after that (even during shifts and wide-open-throttle conditions).

3. Newer automatic transmissions (such as the ZF mentioned above) do in fact have the ability to jump to any gear. I believe this is one of the main things that separate transmissions like the ZF 6HPxx from older style electronic automatics like the 4L80E which use a sprag system. The newer transmissions have a clutch pack for every gear which allows them to jump to any gear rather than following the sequence.

4.I believe that many CVT transmissions still use a torque converter anyway.