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

#151

Post by viraptor » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:51 AM UTC

jfitbsidbfb wrote: post #87

This is unfortunate given that manufacturers regularly game fuel mileage tests fof automatics to give buyers a sense of better gas mileage(to justify the higher price). Real world tests by consumer reports and others continue to show that manual transmissions get better gas mileage in real world conditions on top of being much more reliable. And before someone mentions it, a clutch wearing out during the working life…

> a clutch wearing out during the working life of a modern manual car is a joke

Could use a reference. The wear will depend a lot on your area - mountain roads will kill it faster than suburban commute. But either way, I tried to find anything more authoritative than a forum post (which say anything between 100k and 300k), and it's pretty hard to do. Have you got a link with an actual survey or producer stats?

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

#152

Post by homero » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:51 AM UTC

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…

My dsg has 2 real clutches

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

#153

Post by photogrammetry » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:52 AM UTC

Annatar wrote: post #132

zippergz wrote: post #35

I'm a car enthusiast, and I was a manual transmission purist for many, many years. But then I had to be honest with myself, and admit that the VAST majority of my driving is commuting in traffic. And that driving is much less annoying with an automatic. My leisure driving is maybe 5% less fun without a manual, but that's far outweighed by how much better my daily commute is. At this point, I'd only buy a manual for a…

I just spent two hours this morning in bumper to bumper traffic. In a diesel. With a manual. Shifting and clutching the entire time. All that monstrous low end torque just made the diesel want to take off the entire time. Still I wouldn't change that for anything in the world. I always hated the lag between stepping on the gas pedal and the car beginning to move in the automatic. No clutch. That's no life, sucking al…

You're going to love electric cars. Zero lag.

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

#154

Post by nappy » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:53 AM 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've never found driving a manual hard on my calves... even a little bit. Maybe just me? Or something you get used to if you drive a manual all of the time?

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

#155

Post by eveningcoffee » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:53 AM UTC

Annatar wrote: post #121

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…

And since the car is most often better than you at knowing when you should shift gears, why have the manual transmission in the first place? From my empirical experiments, and from understanding how modern automatic transmissions work, the assertion above is incorrect, and here is why: a modern automatic transmission is controlled by firmware, a unikernel. The shift points and the shifting logic are based on the deve…

Yeah, downvoted for honest and informed opinion. Unfortunately this is quite common in HN.

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

#156

Post by Tempest1981 » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:53 AM UTC

fazzone wrote: post #108

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…

>gear-shift indicator in the dash. My VW has this. It's useless, I never look at it. It is very simple and clearly intended only to give the best results on the controlled gas mileage testing - I believe that if a manual car has a gear-change indicator, the EPA test drivers are supposed to follow it. The advantage of a human selecting gears is that they can use more information than just the speed and engine rpm; for…

You say it's useless, but then say "maybe you will save a few bucks on gas if you follow the indicator". Isn't that the point? To teach/remind you how to save gas?

I agree that it is imperfect, and imo annoying/distracting. But it may work for a large number of drivers, most of the time.

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

#157

Post by baq » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:53 AM 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.

can confirm with anecdata: in my car the computer reports 0.0 fuel consumption when coasting in gear but non-zero when in neutral/clutch depressed.

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

#158

Post by skrause » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:54 AM UTC

VMG wrote: post #122

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…

Very similar situation in Germany. I think the misinformation could be an historical artifact from times when automatic transmission technology was in early stages.

I don't think there is a lot of misinformation in Germany. I'm German and I simply buy manual transmissions because they are a lot cheaper and I know a lot of people who are they same. I really would prefer an automatic transmission, but spend an extra 2000 euros for that bit of extra comfort? No thanks.

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

#159

Post by viraptor » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:55 AM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #19

RikNieu wrote: post #17

Where I live manual is the norm, but those I know that did switch to auto all to prefer it. It apparently makes the drudgery of sitting in traffic more bearable. However, as one friend noted, once that fancy automatic gearbox goes legs up(and your car also happens to be out of warranty), the virtues of a manual comes calling again.

I honestly don't see the problem of using a standard transmission in traffic. Once you've learned how to drive with it the whole thing becomes instinct and you don't even consciously notice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill

It's an instinct / not a problem as long as you don't know a better option. If you didn't have a running water, the trip to the well would also be something completely normal.

(I'm not saying that one option is universally better - just that it's easy to justify the other position as "I've always done it this way and it's super simple")

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

#160

Post by henrikschroder » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:55 AM UTC

rimantas wrote: post #60

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 What? So far each data sheet has shown higher fuel consumption for automatic vehicles.

I should probably have qualified my statement with an "over time, in real driving conditions".

In a measured test, with a skilled driver, who does the right thing for the entirety of the test, it is most likely that he or she will be more efficient with a manual transmission than with an automatic.

However, in real life, for real humans, over a longer period of time, the drivers with modern automatic transmissions will be more fuel efficient than drivers with similar cars and manual transmissions, because the automatic transmission is a reliable machine that will do the same thing, every time. It doesn't care if you had your morning coffee or not, if some asshole cut you off, or if you got distracted or bored or spaced out and forgot to change your gear to the right one.

And, disregarding the disruption the EVs will be, technology constantly improves, while human skill is fairly constant, so it was just inevitable that automatic transmissions would one day overtake manual transmissions in terms of speed and efficiency. Arguing otherwise is just irrational nostalgia.