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

#721

Post by rconti » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 6:28 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #305

datashovel wrote: post #304

I'm in US, and am always struggling to find new cars when I'm ready to buy because of this probably. Just recently I visited a dealership where the sales guy told me flat out "manual transmissions are extremely rare anymore". It may be a diagnose-able issue :) but I was a wreck (literally) when I first started driving because I would lose focus on the road. Manual transmission, it seems to me, gives me a far better "…

Have you tried a car with paddle shifters? There is no clutch, but you still select gears. Now they don't provide every advantage of a manual transmission, but you can for example downshift to avoid excessive breaking.

I've tried to force myself to use paddle shifters but I just hate it. It's not remotely enjoyable, and you just ask why you're pushing plastic buttons when the car could just shift itself. Even after forcing myself to do every shift with the paddles or a day or two, I get bored and go back to automatic mode.

.. and then you still don't get the enjoyment of driving a manual, and you STILL have that thing where 10% of the time the car is in the wrong gear.

I'd rather just be "forced" to drive a manual that is zero disadvantage to me (yes, even in traffic) and guarantees I am always in the gear I want to be.

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

#722

Post by chrisper » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 6:29 PM UTC

jakelarkin wrote: post #698

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-s…

Newer cars (even manual ones) have hill assist which avoids your car rolling back on the hill.

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

#723

Post by rconti » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 6:29 PM UTC

datashovel wrote: post #304

I'm in US, and am always struggling to find new cars when I'm ready to buy because of this probably. Just recently I visited a dealership where the sales guy told me flat out "manual transmissions are extremely rare anymore". It may be a diagnose-able issue :) but I was a wreck (literally) when I first started driving because I would lose focus on the road. Manual transmission, it seems to me, gives me a far better "…

VW and BMW are still pretty good about offering manual options in the US.

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

#724

Post by danans » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 6:29 PM UTC

An unusual use of a manual transmission (in a motorcycle) is Brammo's Empulse R, which is fully electric, but has a 6 speed manual transmission just to give it a classic ICE motorcycle manual-shifting experience, and to give it a tiny bit more acceleration from a dead stop.

This review comparing it to Zero's single-speed electric motorcycle seems to suggest it's mostly not worth the added complexity:

http://www.cycleworld.com/2013/10/31/brammo-empulse-r-vs-zer...

EDIT: apparenly Brammo sold their motorycle business to Victory: http://www.victorymotorcycles.com/en-us/electric/empulse-tt-...

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

#725

Post by henrikschroder » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 6:29 PM UTC

quickben wrote: post #364

henrikschroder wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wow, you are incorrect in almost every statement. And yet you didn't refute a single one of them, and only offered subjective preferences and personal anecdotes. You like driving a manual. Bless your heart. Modern automatics still accelerate faster and are more fuel efficient than manuals. Just take a look at what the car manufacturers themselves report.

People can invent points and refutals. Physics, dictates manuals to be more efficient. Automatic transmission 'learn driver habit' multiplies the above, and yet everybody in this discussion ignores it. CVT comes closer to efficiency of manual, but it's not popular because "the car just doesn't have the power on demand dude". This subject is a horse beaten to death, and then to a pulp, where people that have sporadic…

So far in this thread multiple people have brought up that the numbers reported by the car manufacturers themselves, for current model year cars, across a bunch of manufacturers, show that automatic transmission cars are more fuel efficient than manuals.

I see two explanations for this:

1) They're all lying

2) Technological progress has finally caught up to a system that is bounded by human skill and hand-foot-coordination.

(I'm betting on technology, are you betting on the human?)

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

#726

Post by Cyph0n » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

mikelward wrote: post #664

Cyph0n wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. An experienced manual driver can do it all with his/her eyes closed. It's just like the change from new driver to experienced driver.

One hand on the gear stick, one hand on the steering wheel, you shouldn't have a spare hand to use your phone. Or do you steer with your knees? :)

So you need to keep your hand on the stick while cruising on a long stretch of road or highway? That's where smartphone use becomes dangerous imo.

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

#727

Post by gens » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

sshanky wrote: post #128

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…

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.

There is nothing preventing cars with manual clutches from doing that. People going down hills with manual transmission also keep the car in gear (they teach you that). And it doesn't matter as it is not much fuel compared to the fuel used when accelerating, where automatic transmissions are less efficient.

If that is the only reason for automatic transmission to be more efficient, then i doubt it is.

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

#728

Post by Zazezizozuzy » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

sergiotapia wrote: post #40

Driving manual in heavy traffic is a pain in the ass. RIP your calves. I've driven manual in Bolivia since I learned how to drive, but when I moved back to the States I picked automatic because I would kill myself having to press the clutch every 40cm during heavy traffic. People have this romanticized view of manual driving, going through empty hills, warm sun beating on your raybans. In reality you'll be stuck in t…

I ride my bike to work three days a week. Driving my car (manual) the other two is my calf relaxation.

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

#729

Post by rconti » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 6:33 PM UTC

Most of the systems and network engineers I know drive a manual transmission car. Perhaps it should be an interview question :)

I specifically skipped the BMW I wanted to buy in order to buy a 2016 VW that had a manual.

"My" first 2 cars were automatics as they were hand-me-downs before I was an adult. All 5 cars and 2 motorcycles I've purchased have been manuals, and I don't see that changing.

I'll probably never buy an automatic transmission vehicle in my life. I'll go straight to electrics.

I simply hate the feeling of driving an automatic, even a paddle shift dual clutch. Not for me.

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

#730

Post by Unklejoe » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 6:34 PM UTC

jpindar wrote: post #429

Reason077 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's right. Driving with the clutch partially engaged will wear it out. But having it fully engaged while the vehicle is stopped won't do any harm.

It will wear out the throwout bearing.

And crankshaft thrust bearings, which could ultimately lead to crank walk. It's more of an issue on high performance AWD cars which require extremely strong clutches. All of that clamping force (probably thousands of pounds) is essentially pushing the crankshaft "into" the engine.

Some engines are more susceptible to this than others.