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

#241

Post by rlpb » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:59 AM UTC

Reason077 wrote: post #101

silon7 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only correct for modern automatic transmissions. Plus sometimes start/stop. Probably not for old "3 gear with torque converter" or similiar.

Modern manual cars have start/stop technology too. However, it's more convoluted to use. You have to engage the clutch, put the shifter in neutral, and release the clutch again. Compared to automatic where you just have to hold your foot on the brake pedal. Stop/start reduces fuel consumption on test cycles like NEDC for both automatics and manuals, but I'll bet in the real world the benefit is mostly seen with autom…

> You have to engage the clutch, put the shifter in neutral, and release the clutch again.

That's both a long-winded and incorrect way of putting it. If you are stopped, then you're either already in neutral with the clutch released or the clutch is already engaged. There is no other way.

Really, the rule is just "you have to have the clutch released". For experienced drivers of manual transmissions, this is one smooth action.

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

#242

Post by Annatar » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:59 AM UTC

photogrammetry wrote: post #153

Annatar wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But no clutch, and no shifting. Just let off the accelerator for instant regenerative braking, and turn the wheel left-right. Acceleration isn't everything when driving; a clutch gives a car challenge, personality.

For me, driving without a dry clutch and without a shifter is no life.

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

#243

Post by dcposch » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:59 AM UTC

ehnto wrote: post #135

Holy crap, I didn't realise it was quite like that. I knew it was rare for people to know manual transmissions but why such a preference for automatic? In Australia pretty much everyone I know can drive manual, most cars come with the option and most cheaper cars are manual. It was somewhat of a masculinity thing too, and still is according to my younger siblings. To be honest I'm surprised the most that America does…

> Even if you don't intend to go racing, a manual is just a bit more interesting and keeps you paying attention the whole trip, in my experience at least.

I drive an E36 M3, a car almost 20 years old.

It's a musical instrument, and the driving manual is how you play it.

Learning to use a clutch is like riding a bike: at first it's frustrating and you stall a lot, but you learn quickly. Once you've mastered it, it's effortless and fun.

I got it for less than $10k.

It is basically open hardware: you can take most of it apart with standard tools, and there's a robust aftermarket for parts.

Old manuals break down less, and have cheaper failure modes than old automatics.

My car has no embedded sim card, no infotainment dashboard ipad, no nothing.

That gives me confidence that it will never be remotely hacked, letting some 4chan troll a thousand miles away disable my brakes[1]. Nor is the manufacturer collecting a detailed database of GPS coordinates, a log of where I go.

Buy a simple car. Learn manual. Enjoy the speed and control. Be the 3%!

[1] https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-hig...

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

#244

Post by 3poundkilograms » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 10:00 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.

When you coast with engaged clutch, you will engine brake. Energy doesn't go to the engine for free. Adding the fuel to counter the engine braking is less efficient than letting the engine run idle while coasting due to losses in the power-train. Plus, more efficient cars still have to inject fuel. The electro-hydraulically controlled conventional gearbox of the Lupo 3L disengages the dry clutch while coasting for a reason.

Of course, engine braking is obviously more efficient than friction braking, but that's not coasting, that's engine braking.

Another funny note is that "conventional" automatic gearboxes have the highest gear (usually the only overdrive gear) have a coasting clutch on it, so it's not even technically possible to coast with engine engaged. You're always idling if you let go of the speeder, losing energy to the torque converter that doubles as oil pump for the transmission.

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

#245

Post by djsumdog » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 10:01 AM UTC

Reason077 wrote: post #223

edoloughlin wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, it's more convoluted to use. You have to engage the clutch, put the shifter in neutral, and release the clutch again This is how you should drive if you know you're going to be stopped for more than a few seconds. 'Convoluted' doesn't come into it - it's the default.

I've driven manuals most of my life. Before stop/start came along, I was in the habit of just holding the clutch pedal down while stopped at intersections or in traffic. Anecdotally, I think most drivers do the same. Now, when driving stop/start equipped vehicles, I always try to use it. But in a manual, it does takes more thinking and effort and I wonder how many casual drivers actually bother. The thing is, most of…

I drove a WRX for five years and the clutch was kinda heavy. Not terrible, but enough that I'd put the car I'm neutral at a red light of I was there for more than five seconds.

I'm glad start stop is supported on manuals this way. It makes sense. I thought the stop start systems didn't really save much fuel, but I've read some real world tests that clock in at 8~10% savings. All that idle time does really add up.

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

#246

Post by lucaspiller » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 10:01 AM UTC

Yaggo wrote: post #20

I'm from Europe and learnt to drive with manual, but after getting used to my Prius' CVT, would never buy a car with manual for daily use. (Besides, my next car won't have an ICE.) If you occasionally like "sporty" driving with manual shifting, modern automatics will paddle-shift quicker than most people with a real stick & clutch. Manual gearbox is just an artifact from ICE's very limited torque curve.

> Prius' CVT

It should be noted the transmission in a Prius isn't really a CVT. A traditional mechanical-CVT can be slow to respond as it still requires the transmission to mechanically move which means it can feel 'soft'. In the Prius' 'e-CVT' there is no mechanical linkage that needs to move, so it responds instantly.

The electric motors can provide their full torque while the ICE is at 0 RPM, so when you push your foot down, you get a good amount of power without waiting for the engine to spin up to higher RPMs, as with a traditional automatic transmission (vs a mechanical transmission, where you can run the engine faster and use the clutch to limit the amount of power delivered to the wheels). This is why the Telsa's ludicrous mode is a thing - unlike an ICE, electric motors provide the highest torque from 0 RPM.

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

#247

Post by phee » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 10:01 AM UTC

lucaspiller wrote: post #94

kriro wrote: post #88

I have a license for manual transmission as that's the default in Germany. My US license is expired now* but I only drove automatics there. I always thought it was curious that the default in the US is automatic and in most other countries I've been to it is manual...in fact there's an ego thing at play here, too. A lot of people in Germany think automatics are for people who can't drive properly. My next car will be…

> German licenses don't expire. It's effectively this in the U.K. (mine will expire in 50 years), but in Italy they do expire - so it's not an EU wide thing.

> but in Italy they do expire

They do expire but you don't have to take a new drive test. It's more about periodically checking you're still physically fit to drive (e.g. you need to take a mandatory eyesight test every few years).

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

#248

Post by Marazan » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 10:03 AM UTC

There are so many different types of gearbixes/engines these days and hat ipresume every conversation on here will be talking about a different flavour of 'automatic'.

As a rule if the technology comes in a car costing more than my annual salary I don't think it is worth discussing in terms of 'normal'

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

#249

Post by Marazan » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 10:03 AM UTC

There are so many different types of gearbixes/engines these days and hat ipresume every conversation on here will be talking about a different flavour of 'automatic'.

As a rule if the technology comes in a car costing more than my annual salary I don't think it is worth discussing in terms of 'normal'

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

#250

Post by 3poundkilograms » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 10:04 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…

Well, engine braking to the red light would have been more efficient. :)

But indeed, automatic cars are less efficient. They do not know what you will do next, so they often make erroneous gear shifts that waste fuel and time. They don't know when to coast or when to engine brake (For older transmissions, the overdrive gear had permanent coasting, and could not engine brake at all), often have lossy pumps, etc.

Dual clutch transmission are awesome, though.