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

271–280 of 893 posts

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

#271

Post by fuj »

computator wrote: post #251
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…

> because of Physics, an automatic transmission will always be less efficient You making that claim based on how automatic transmissions currently work, right? And not on every way they could work. Purely from logic, your claim has to be false: Imagine a humanoid robot sitting in your driver's seat, driving your manual transmission car, its robot arm doing the shifting exactly as a human would. Your manual car has be…

How the hell does this make any sense?

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

#272

Post by kybernetyk »

tdkl wrote: post #257
kybernetyk wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds pretty OK to me ;)

Until you're in a position to having to drive one. Being helpless because of technology isn't one of the traits people should look forward to.

I was referring to handwriting. :)

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

#273

Post by henrikschroder »

TomMarius wrote: post #190
henrikschroder wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be completely obvious that machines can be made to do things quicker, better, and more reliably than humans.

So why are Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Skoda, Volkswagen and such reporting slower zero to sixty times on automatic transmissions?

Did a quick check on Audi's German website:

https://www.audi.de/de/brand/de/neuwagen/a6/a6-limousine.htm...

The A6 2.0 TDI accelerates faster with an automatic transmission (8.2s vs. 8.4s), and is more fuel efficient (4.4l/km vs 4.5l/km)

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

#274

Post by mnw21cam »

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 was in the habit of just holding the clutch pedal down while stopped at intersections or in traffic.

If you take a driving test in the UK and do this, that would be a minor fault. You can only have a few minor faults before you fail the test. The rationale is that you need to be in full control of the car at all times, and when you set off you mustn't drift backwards at all. The easiest way to do this without needing three legs is to use the handbrake. Unless you have a diesel engine that has enough torque without any pressure on the accelerator pedal to pull away.

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

#275

Post by kylec »

TomMarius wrote: post #190
henrikschroder wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be completely obvious that machines can be made to do things quicker, better, and more reliably than humans.

So why are Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Skoda, Volkswagen and such reporting slower zero to sixty times on automatic transmissions?

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 shifts required to reach 60" http://www.caranddriver.com/volkswagen/golf-r#eztoc8578403_0...

I couldn't find a manual Mercedes on their website, Skoda isn't for sale here, and I couldn't find 0-60 numbers on VW's website so I quoted an automotive review instead.

The general consensus I've seen is that automatic transmission cars are faster than manual transmission cars 0-60.

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

#276

Post by ionised »

Weird.

Passed my test in the UK a couple of weeks ago (I'm 30 years old) it was just assumed that I would be learning manual. In fact I had everybody I know tell me to learn manual (even the people that learned automatic) simply because it means I can drive both with a manual licence.

I'd say most cars in the UK are manuals, far fewer automatics. I don't have exact numbers to hand, but from googling I'm seeing ~20% of cars on the roads are automatics.

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

#277

Post by mnw21cam »

dogma1138 wrote: post #193
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 want to see the people who cycle the clutch twice at a red signal.

Most people in the UK? At least, if they want to pass their driving test.

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

#279

Post by beefield »

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…

> Stop/start reduces fuel consumption on test cycles like NEDC

I would like to know:

1. How long you need to idle to recharge the electricity to battery you use to restart the engine?

2. Does NEDC and others require that the battery has same state of charge at the end of the cycle as when beginning?

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

#280

Post by usrusr »

dogma1138 wrote: post #193
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 want to see the people who cycle the clutch twice at a red signal.

What else is there to do? I don't text in the driver's seat, putting the gear in neutral gives my limbs something to do.

(It happens to involve the clutch, but that is "automatic", as in "muscle memory", even though I drive less than once a month)

Post reply on HN