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

691–700 of 893 posts

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

#691

Post by [deleted] »

corey_moncure wrote: post #625
rsync wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#692

Post by hx87 »

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…

Engine braking imposes negligible wear and tear on the engine. Instead of fuel-air explosions driving the pistons up and down, the pistons inefficiently compress and expand air at ambient temperature and pressure. Sure, extended use might take 100 miles of life off a 300,000 mile part, but are you really going to worry about that?

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

#693

Post by striking »

Annatar wrote: post #458
viraptor wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have noticed systemic abuse of ad hominem labeling anyone who doesn't lavish high praise and criticizes instead. Please show some emapthy and think about how the code could be improved instead, so these criticisms can be addressed with a practical solution. In this particular case, all my criticisms can be addressed by offering a manual transmission option with a dry clutch, not even code optimization is required.…

> lag between depressing an accelerator pedal

Well, doesn't fuel flow need to be increased before acceleration can begin? That causes latency, much more than software would. Perhaps the software is causing a little bit of that, perhaps there's a simple delay loop instead of a sensor there and it's a little too long.

We'll never know, but there are plenty of guesses you could make.

> why the engine will often konk out unless the accelerator pedal is pressed fully when starting on a hill

That doesn't at all sound like a software problem. It sounds like you're conflating "I don't like my car" with "my car software sucks".

> upshift from 5th to 6th [...] 1,400 RPM [...] 1,200 RPM

Are you certain that upshifting like that would only drop you 200 RPM? Not at least 1000? I'm fairly certain that's not correct.

> [...] all my criticisms can be addressed by offering a manual transmission option with a dry clutch [...]

Just buy a manual car if you care so much. Or buy a journal and vent into that rather than the HN comment section. Goodness gracious.

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

#694

Post by Neil44 »

jfitbsidbfb wrote: post #194
Neil44 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those things have not been true of automatics for the last two or three generations. They have clutches inside the torque converter, they can block shift. But it is only the latest generation of gearboxes that return better economy figures than manuals. Until very very recently auto boxes were indeed much worse for economy.

The TC only locks under light load on the highway, and isn't 100% effective there because the hydraulic fluid still produces a lot of drag.

That's not true any more, for recent transmissions. They can lock from first gear. E.g. ZF 8 speed, Mercedes 5,7,9 speeds.

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

#695

Post by Tsarbomb »

kasey_junk wrote: post #547

My most recent car purchase was a manual transmission Subaru Impreza. Technically, it is the bottom end car that Subaru sell in the USA. I had to get on a wait list and put a deposit on it because of how few were available. I suspect there is higher demand for manual transmission cars in the USA but the distribution costs of them make it just simpler to not drive one.

To be fair, Subaru has amazing CVT technology which probably skews the stats even more again manual.

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

#697

Post by Unklejoe »

corey_moncure wrote: post #625
rsync wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's definitely a real thing. It's usually referred to as "brake fade" in car enthusiast communities. It’s usually more of an issue when racing, but it can happen if you have to do many hard stops during regular driving as well. I think it has to do with the pads releasing a gas when they get hot which creates a thin layer of “air” between the pad and the rotor.

It's the reason that sports cars generally come with bigger brakes. Sure, a Toyota Corolla might be able to stop in a similar distance, but things change when you have to do it 5 times in a row.

For most people, it’s not really an issue though.

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

#698

Post by jakelarkin »

20 years ago automatics were 1) much more expensive 2) had worse gas mileage 3) were slow shifting 4) did not have fast up/down shift controls 5) had sloppy throttle response

thanks to economies of scale and new technology, car makers have bridged the gap on all fronts. So while I personally prefer manuals I can see why most people just get automatics, given the high cost of learning manual.

teaching people to stop-start manual on steep hills is extremely hard and frustrating for all parties. it's hard on the car too.

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

#699

Post by Unklejoe »

CoffeeDregs wrote: post #650
aleh wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you're referring to "Jake Braking", which is very noisy and is banned in many towns (in California). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_release_engine_bra...

"Jake Braking" is similar, but pertains more to diesel engines which have a special valve to support this since they work differently.

Engine braking on a gasoline engine is actually quieter than normal operation.

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

#700

Post by russdill »

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?

Seems that light brake pressure could be translated to CVT downshifting. Any disadvantages? Or the cruise control of the car could control CVT.
Post reply on HN