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

781–790 of 893 posts

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

#781

Post by Grishnakh »

ohstopitu wrote: post #592
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…

I can give examples of cases where it's NOT true. Subaru BRZ/WRX manuals have better Milage EPA ratings than their automatic counterparts.

I call bullshit. Last time I looked up the BRZ, the automatic was far better than the manual, something like 36mpg vs 30mpg (highway). Most likely, the manual has much lower gearing than the automatic.

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

#782

Post by fnj »

mhkhung wrote: post #631
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…

Automatic transmissions are way more reliable, with the computer shifting gears at perfect timing each time. None of my automatic transmission cars (1st hand, sold after 4-8 years) ever need to have its gear box repaired. Manual transmission, on the other hand, more than 1 thing would break for sure after 4 years (right after the warranty expires of course) for sure. Gearbox, clutch cables, ... Cars with auto transmi…

Obviously you don't drive VWs!

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

#783

Post by crims0n »

penglish1 wrote: post #748

Just one more reason to get a motorcycle. Or two. Maybe three. Did you know you can fit several motorcycles in the same space as just one car in your garage? Also, I feel compelled to point out that you can get a Porsche, or Lotus or whatever and feel pretty cool with your francy sports car. Or you can get _several_ top of the line motorcycles for the same price. Just sayin'

I agree and have come to the same conclusion. I wanted a nice (manual) sports car here in the states - but for the same price I can get a nice sports bike, ADV bike, AND cruiser. As much fun as it would be to have a sports car, being able to walk out to the garage and pick which bike fits my mood for the day beats it every time. Furthermore, motorcycles are far more engaging, exhilarating, and challenging than a sports car could ever be.

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

#784

Post by fnj »

lb1lf wrote: post #116
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…

> It's a shame though, because manual transmissions are much easier to repair than automatics - according to my mechanic "Come Gato", back in Santa Cruz. -I believe that to be correct based on anecdotal experience. However, from what I've been told time and time again - in the long run, autos are much more reliable than manuals; flush the gearbox every now and then and it is just about ever-lasting. So - it is arguab…

Then you have been "told" by clueless people.

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

#786

Post by Grishnakh »

3poundkilograms wrote: post #531
speeder wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am from Brazil, here the population hates "hydramatic" cars as they call automatic cars. I saw one accident that the cause was lack of transmission knowing the future: road crossing, bad road signs didn't made clear who had priority, so both drivers went forward. Both cars tried then to stop, but the automatic car instead had just shifted up, then as the driver tried to stop, it lurched forward and hit the other ca…

Automatic transmissions back then were quite the hydraulic maze, as they operated entirely on hydraulics. These days, they're electronically controlled. I don't think the failure rate has changed. In a manual, you can of course clutch out as long as your clutch cable (or hose for hydraulic clutched cars) doesn't fail, which is not an option you have for automatics. These kinds of failures do occur today, though. See…

There is no such thing as a modern passenger car with an engine more powerful than the brakes. All cases of "unintentional acceleration" where the driver "could not stop" are cases of driver error: the driver refused to use the brake pedal, or was pressing the gas pedal instead.

The other thing these dummies are forgetting to do, in their panic, is to simply turn off the engine.

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

#787

Post by pkolaczk »

nkristoffersen wrote: post #511
salex89 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but it will cause increased wear on the clutch plates. However, idling, keeping the clutch disengaged in neutral for longer periods of time increases wear on the dual-mass flywheel. So, whatever you do, you are damaging something :) . Personally I try to balance it out, but on longer down-hill slopes or when slowly coming to a traffic light I try to keep it in gear. It takes a bit of effort to train, but I real…

Are you sure? I am pretty sure the clutch does not wear when fully engaged. It is only during engagement and disengagement where there is chance of wear. The transmission on the other hand...

This is true, but the clutch bearings and spring may wear faster if the clutch is kept disengaged for too long, instead of switching the gearbox to neutral.

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

#788

Post by pryelluw »

mrkurt wrote: post #677
J-dawg wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. It's also incredibly difficult for those who haven't practiced as you have. The few times I have tried it (in safe conditions) I have ended up braking far too hard. My left foot somehow doesn't have the "feeling" of my right foot on the pedal. One racing driver technique that can be useful in normal conditions (in a manual) is heel-and-toe braking. I use it to avoid excessive engine braking while downshiftin…

It doesn't take long to get smooth with a left foot. Also left foot braking is much more useful day to day than heel-toe. Especially if you ever deal with suboptimal traction. Plus, faster reaction times.

Heel-toe is also dependant on the pedal placement and clutch weight. But I don't see it being useful in day to day. Rev matching is not something you do on daily driving. You usually tend to short shift at lower rpm.

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

#790

Post by fnj »

ollie87 wrote: post #224
jfitbsidbfb wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't find anything official either. Most of the guys I know also drive stick and none of them have worn out a clutch unless they take their car to the track. Seems to be a pretty well known among stick drivers that manufacturers build them to last the life of the car these days. Can anyone from Europe chime in on this?

European here, only ever owned manual cars, had about eight cars in my lifetime. Never needed to replace a clutch, mostly a mix of urban and rural driving. My yearly mileage has varied from 25,000 miles a year to around 8,000 now. It helps that I actually know how to drive and not burn the fuck out of a clutch too I'd imagine. You see very dumb people in my country using their clutch to hold their car stationary on a…

Correct. It is very possible to burn out a clutch in less than 3000 miles if you are clueless, but if you are a good driver, 300,000+ miles is not unusual.
Post reply on HN