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

731–740 of 893 posts

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

#731

Post by fnj »

wil421 wrote: post #474
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…

That is absolutely untrue. Go look at EPA estimates for the same cars in Auto/Manual. Besides, most manuals are 5 or 6 speed. I was reading about new ZF transmissions and they stated a 14% fuel efficiency gain over a standard 5 speed

What is your point? Lots of automatics are 6-8 speeds now.

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

#732

Post by kazinator »

TomMarius wrote: post #42
esturk wrote: post #25

Another issue with manual transmission that others have not mentioned is the annoyance as a passenger. I can understand the joy for the driver but as a passenger, I always find it quite annoying in older cars. In fact, I would probably cancel my Lyft/Uber ride if I knew the coming car is a manual.

Manual transmission, no matter how old, is only annoying if the driver doesn't know how to drive it. It's less likely in the US, but with European taxi drivers, it's much less noticeable than an automatic transmission.

Exactly. The ride is completely smooth with a skilled manual transmission driver, much smoother than with an automatic. The small maneuvers of parking, in particular, are smoother with the skilled use of a manual transmission: parallel parking, backing into a spot and adjusting the position, and such.

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

#733

Post by gregors »

Retric wrote: post #315
yason wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This used to be the case with fuel injected engines from 80's to 00's but because of new regulations current ECUs might, again, inject fuel while coasting just to keep the catalytic converter warm and operational. The amount is obviously negligible but it's quite crazy to spend more fuel in order to reduce emissions :)

Smog is a real health issue, and US city's are vastly better now. So, IMO it's well worth a tiny bit more global warming.

Check out what's going to go into Chinese cars ..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3cFfM3r510

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

#734

Post by strictnein »

torrent-of-ions wrote: post #366
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> nor is drivers education a requirement This is it really. Americans aren't very good at driving. In the UK we are taught that it's one of the most dangerous things you'll do in your life, which it is. In America it's just like learning to walk. You have to do it and it doesn't matter how you learn. Check out the road safety stats. USA is pretty much an outlier amongst first world countries by most metrics.

> nor is drivers education a requirement

Not sure what state they're referring to, but it's a requirement in every place I know of.

The general process when you're 15-16 typically includes:

- A number of Driver's ed classes that typically end with behind the wheel training

- Learners permit granted that only allows you to drive with an adult (21+) in the car.

- Drive without incident for a certain period of time

- Pass a written test

- Pass a full road course

- Full license granted

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

#735

Post by fnj »

torrent-of-ions wrote: post #352
andrewwhartion wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's well known that accelerating rather quickly to your cruise speed is the optimal strategy for fuel efficiency, hence the reason to switch from 3rd to 5th gear directly. I don't mean to be pedantic, but I think your logic is backwards here, ie. It's well known that 5th (top) gear is the most fuel efficient, hence the reason to accelerate to it rather quickly (the optimal rate would vary between cars), I think wo…

Low gear is best for acceleration and overall control, high gear best for cruising. So accelerate in 3rd (or 2nd if your car is fun) to cruising speed, put straight in 5th/6th and activate cruise control. It's a waste of energy and clutch/gearbox actuation to use the in between gears and there's never anything wrong with being in a low gear at any point unless your engine hits the red line. On most cars fourth gear i…

I learned to tease my 4-speed automatic TDI into shifting from 2nd directly into 4th, by accelerating strongly to 40-50 and then abruptly lifting throttle.

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

#736

Post by barsonme »

forgetsusername wrote: post #439
barsonme wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's insane. I visited my uncle in Petaluma and he drives a volt. He's normally a very slow driver ( drives us insane ;), but one day we were running late to dinner (don't do that to my aunt...) so he decides to floor it (again, flooring it for him , so like 45 MPH) and that car just _took_ off. I was very surprised at how much torque the car had. It's one thing to realize, "oh, yeah, of course electric cars have mor…

> I was very surprised at how much torque the car had. The torque curve on EVs is awesome for sure; I can't wait to own one. But I'll bet that most people have never driven a ICE car with any real power or an automatic transmission tuned for acceleration as opposed to gas mileage. They also "take off" with minimal lag.

Oh yeah. I drive a 2000 Toyota Corolla, so even a Camry is 'fast' to me. I just have to convince the SO to let me purchase a motorcycle...

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

#737

Post by Bartweiss »

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…

This was my general impression - especially the early shift issue. I learned to shift manuals ~500 rpm higher than where most automatics seem to, a decision that seems made to produce the smoothest possible automatic acceleration at a cost to efficiency.

Notably, this feels way less pronounced with faster, sporty automatics, which are willing to give you a feel of acceleration and shift more like manual drivers.

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

#738

Post by e28eta »

giardini wrote: post #706
corey_moncure wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

unkeljoe: "braking all the way down a steep grade can cause your brakes to overheat and become temporarily inoperable. " That condition is known as brake fade/fading and occurs mostly with drum brakes and can occur on bicycles, motorbikes and automobiles. Braking heats the brake drums, which then expand. The drum may expand in diameter to the extent that the brake pads no longer contact the drum sufficiently enough t…

I recently saw this video of a car & trailer oscillating based on how the trailer is loaded, and thought it was really interesting to watch.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SXQt-8SZYT8

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

#739

Post by ubercore »

nostrademons wrote: post #206
Ntrails wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about what is required to turn the engine over and prevent stalling. -When the clutch is engaged whilst going down hill the wheels turn the engine. No Fuel Required. -When the clutch is disengaged the engine has to turn itself over - which needs fuel. *Disclaimer, i'm sure carbourettas (sp?) could well be doing weird ass things so whilst conceptually the above holds they may well be different.

It's not the fuel required by the engine, it's the engine braking. Going down a hill with clutch disengaged, the Accord would accelerate. With clutch engaged, it would slightly decelerate. That's fuel that the engine doesn't need to burn to accelerate it back up to cruising speed. Ditto when coasting to a stoplight - with clutch disengaged (or in neutral), it would coast for a longer distance, which - if you're caref…

I'm pretty far out of my element here, but as I understand even that isn't universal. BMW's Valvetronic for instance doesn't engine break the same way as other engines, because they don't have a throttle valve and don't have a vacuum outside the intake valves:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKfcV7hITYI

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

#740

Post by henrikschroder »

TylerE wrote: post #569
kylec wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are? Not in the US: BMW 340i: Auto 4.8s, Manual 4.9s http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2017/3/340iS... BMW M3: DCT 3.9s, Manual 4.1s http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2017/M/M3Sed... C&D review of the VW Golf R: "The manual loses to the automatic Golf R against the stopwatch. The 0.7-second deficit from zero to 60 mph, which takes 5.2 seconds, is almost fully attributable to the two s…

The Golf R isn't really a fair comparison as it's a dual clutch, not a traditional automatic, and more importantly, it gets a (quite aggressive) launch control while the manual doesn't.

My argument was that machines can do simple things better than humans, the Golf R automatic transmission is a machine that does shifting better than a human, and you are complaining that the comparison is unfair because the machine is too good at what it does?!?

Come on.

Post reply on HN