Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How America lost its love for the stick shift

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 729 posts

Re: How America lost its love for the stick shift

#161

Post by eric_the_read »

commandlinefan wrote: post #152
Fezzik wrote: post #116

That bums me out, but I get it. My first non hand-me-down car was a beat-up Audi A4 (manual) off craigslist that I loved for years and years as a ski bum. I am definitely one of the many "manual transmissions are more fun" people. But once I got that office job, even 15 minutes a day in city traffic with a manual angered me, so I transitioned to an automatic. Now that I am out of the city I would love a manual again,…

I learned to drive in a manual. Now that my son is getting close to driving age, I wanted to teach him in a manual first, like I learned - and then I found out it's damned near impossible to _find_ one any more.

Same. I bought a Tacoma a couple of years ago, and while there was technically a manual option available, nobody actually had one, or could tell me when I could get one.

Re: How America lost its love for the stick shift

#162

Post by jedberg »

taeric wrote: post #157
jedberg wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found that having a stick in traffic was actually easier for me. I could keep it in one gear which meant not moving my foot from brake to gas (I could just use engine breaking and use just the gas).

This is dangerous, as you aren't signaling people behind you if you are braking... Edit: I would likely soften the "dangerous" wording above. I'm not trying to claim this is guaranteed to get you killed. Just pointing out that bypassing a well established signaling mechanism of your vehicle should be a deliberate act. Not one of convenience.

Engine breaking just means slowing down by letting the foot off the gas. You aren't really slowing down that quickly. Someone has to really not be paying attention to miss it. It would be the equivalent of someone merging.

Re: How America lost its love for the stick shift

#163

Post by t0mbstone »

Speaking as someone who has owned a number of sports cars with manual transmissions, I can tell you why I finally made the switch to automatic:

Adaptive cruise control in stop and go traffic.

I used to have to deal with a six-speed manual transmission in stop and go traffic for an hour every day, and it was pure torture. I mean, sure, it was fun for a weekend drive in the mountains, but it sucked the rest of the time.

Oh, and as a side note, my new car with an automatic transmission and a 400+ HP engine accelerates from zero to 60 faster and smoother than any one of my previous cars. I will never go back! And I have paddle shifters, if I ever want to manually control the gears.

Re: How America lost its love for the stick shift

#164

Post by GordonS »

crunchlibrarian wrote: post #101
Someone1234 wrote: post #48

There's little argument for manual transmission anymore except in larger vehicles. There used to be an efficiency gap, in that a good manual driver was more efficient than an automatic. But two things have happened since then, we have computer controlled transmissions and CVTs. Manual drivers were more efficient because they learned when the vehicle would need to shift, and shifted preemptively. A computer controlled…

I've tried lots of autos and CVTs and still haven't found one that isn't terribly confused about what gearing I want. The worst is when you floor it and it thinks for two seconds before actually downshifting, it can be outright dangerous. And if you're in a powerful car an unexpected upshift that shifts the weight around in bizarre ways, cuts power, and kicks the traction control into overdrive while cornering is a p…

I used to think the same way. But, Mercedes have auto boxes absolutely nailed - and I say this as a car enthusiast from the UK, where most cars are still manual, and almost every car I've owned has been manual. My last car was an E350, and the transmission was amazingly good - every time I would have shifted, the car did it for me. I've a BMW now, and the gearbox is good... but it doesn't quite have the 6th sense that Mercedes have figured out.

Re: How America lost its love for the stick shift

#165

Post by blattimwind »

esaym wrote: post #96

Not sure what "audi" (a German company) has to do with America but what ever. For my own tastes, once my 2000 Ford mustang's automatic tranny started acting funny sometimes (after 15 years and 200k miles), I bought a used manual tranny, flywheel, and clutch pedal set from a wrecked mustang of the same year and did a swap. Much happier now. I also feel more "invincible". If my starter goes out, I won't be stranded, I…

> If my starter goes out, I won't be stranded, I can just do a push start! Heck even if your battery is dead you can normally still push start.

Most modern-ish cars really don't like this, regardless of transmission.

Re: How America lost its love for the stick shift

#166

Post by taeric »

jedberg wrote: post #162
taeric wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is dangerous, as you aren't signaling people behind you if you are braking... Edit: I would likely soften the "dangerous" wording above. I'm not trying to claim this is guaranteed to get you killed. Just pointing out that bypassing a well established signaling mechanism of your vehicle should be a deliberate act. Not one of convenience.

Engine breaking just means slowing down by letting the foot off the gas. You aren't really slowing down that quickly. Someone has to really not be paying attention to miss it. It would be the equivalent of someone merging.

I know what it means. And I've seen some folks do it fast enough to catch followers by surprise. Especially at night.

To that point, I'm not trying to claim it is insurmountably dangerous. It is more dangerous that just using the brakes, though.

Re: How America lost its love for the stick shift

#167

Post by gregcrv »

taeric wrote: post #157
jedberg wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found that having a stick in traffic was actually easier for me. I could keep it in one gear which meant not moving my foot from brake to gas (I could just use engine breaking and use just the gas).

This is dangerous, as you aren't signaling people behind you if you are braking... Edit: I would likely soften the "dangerous" wording above. I'm not trying to claim this is guaranteed to get you killed. Just pointing out that bypassing a well established signaling mechanism of your vehicle should be a deliberate act. Not one of convenience.

That can happen with a automatic transmission as well. You should not rely on the "brake lights" to realize that the car in front of you is slowing down or stopped.

Re: How America lost its love for the stick shift

#168

Post by gnicholas »

taeric wrote: post #157
jedberg wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found that having a stick in traffic was actually easier for me. I could keep it in one gear which meant not moving my foot from brake to gas (I could just use engine breaking and use just the gas).

This is dangerous, as you aren't signaling people behind you if you are braking... Edit: I would likely soften the "dangerous" wording above. I'm not trying to claim this is guaranteed to get you killed. Just pointing out that bypassing a well established signaling mechanism of your vehicle should be a deliberate act. Not one of convenience.

I've wondered how this is issue is addressed in EVs that offer one-pedal driving. Do they show the brake lights when deceleration exceeds a certain rate?

Similarly, when I'm braking very lightly in my plugin-in hybrid in order to charge the battery all the way down a long hill, I wish there were a way to not have the brake lights activated the whole time. It's only barely slowing me down, and I've driven other cars that decelerated more going down the same hill just due to wind drag and rolling resistance.

Re: How America lost its love for the stick shift

#169

Post by pssflops »

t0mbstone wrote: post #163

Speaking as someone who has owned a number of sports cars with manual transmissions, I can tell you why I finally made the switch to automatic: Adaptive cruise control in stop and go traffic. I used to have to deal with a six-speed manual transmission in stop and go traffic for an hour every day, and it was pure torture. I mean, sure, it was fun for a weekend drive in the mountains, but it sucked the rest of the time…

My previous car, a 2008 Subaru WRX, in manual had cruise control; while it wasn't adaptive, it was the most important thing I will consider in any other manual transmission going forward. Stop-and-go traffic to my previous job made driving a chore and weekends weren't enough. I miss having that kind of control over the car, but the automatic Mazda3 I replaced it with has made that traffic an afterthought.

Re: How America lost its love for the stick shift

#170

Post by taeric »

gregcrv wrote: post #167
taeric wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is dangerous, as you aren't signaling people behind you if you are braking... Edit: I would likely soften the "dangerous" wording above. I'm not trying to claim this is guaranteed to get you killed. Just pointing out that bypassing a well established signaling mechanism of your vehicle should be a deliberate act. Not one of convenience.

That can happen with a automatic transmission as well. You should not rely on the "brake lights" to realize that the car in front of you is slowing down or stopped.

Agreed.

In particular, I agree with both points that "you should signal folks behind you that you are slowing down" and "you should pay attention to how fast the car in front of you is going." Neither point diminishes the other.

Post reply on HN