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

421–430 of 893 posts

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

#421

Post by JetSetWilly »

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…

> A lot of people in Germany think automatics are for people who can't drive properly.

In a country that overwhelmingly drives manual that is a reasonable assumption.

Many Americans seem to get quite defensive about driving automatic. In America, driving manual is a choice, and a weird thing to do. Therefore driving manual there has many value judgements associated with it. It is "macho" or something for driving elitists and gearheads to do.

In overwhelmingly manual countries, this is not the case. Here in the UK, your 85yo grandmother drives a manual. Your 16yo daughter drives one. Everybody but everybody drives a manual, nobody goes around thinking that driving a manual is novel or macho or in any way notable.

The very few people that I have ever known who drive automatic were truly awful drivers. They took the easier automatic-only test because they kept failing the manual one. It is not an unreasonable assumption to think that someone driving an automatic who chooses to do so, is a poor driver - but only in a country that is strongly manual.

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

#422

Post by losvedir »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #296

You'll know we're serious about climate change when this changes. Manual gets better gas mileage. Sure it might be a small difference but even just 3 miles per gallon is 10% on 30 mpg. Over hundreds of thousands of cars that adds up. But we can't be bothered. It's an inconvenience. You can't drink your soy latte and drive at the same time if the vehicle is manual. I guess you can say it's a matter of priorities.

Can you find me an example of a modern car that this is true for? I'm one of the few Americans (I guess) who can drive a manual transmission car; I just hate it. But if it were really better for the environment and better gas mileage I would consider it.

HN has spurred me to look into it, but the Honda Accord had 1 mpg better for manual, the Toyota Camry had exactly even, and the BMW I looked at had better gas mileage for an automatic.

So for now I'm chalking it up as HN'ers being irrationally in favor of manuals because that's their culture (since the U.S. hasn't really woken up yet).

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

#423

Post by timthorn »

barsonme wrote: post #178
photogrammetry wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's insane. I visited my uncle in Petaluma and he drives a volt. He's normally a very slow driver ( drives us insane ;), but one day we were running late to dinner (don't do that to my aunt...) so he decides to floor it (again, flooring it for him , so like 45 MPH) and that car just _took_ off. I was very surprised at how much torque the car had. It's one thing to realize, "oh, yeah, of course electric cars have mor…

I drive the UK variant of the volt, and while it has good acceleration, it also has a variable lag from the pedal being fully depressed to the acceleration starting.

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

#424

Post by [deleted] »

kbart wrote: post #385
baq wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

another anecdata: I once drove a car that reported negative fuel consumption when driving down the hill. EDIT: no, it was neither electric nor hybrid car, but some old petrol car with manual transmission (Saab 900 or similar).

[deleted]

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

#425

Post by Colex »

aianus wrote: post #416
saiya-jin wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wow, you are incorrect in almost every statement. I get it, you like easy driving without worrying about clutch and gears, but not everybody is like that. I would never want automatic transmission for my car, it's inferior, expensive, less fun and car has no way knowing details of road situation I am facing and choices I am about to make. And I am far from petrolhead person FYI. Another point - I don't know a single…

You don't have traffic where you live? I like driving manuals too but 45 minutes of stop and go traffic each way would be torture in a manual so I have an automatic.

I have a manual in London, I don't feel it's a torture. Nothing against automatic, it will definitely make it a bit easier, but it doesn't take too long to put a first gear and move nor is it painful to hold the clutch if necessary.

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

#427

Post by gerbilly »

I wonder of anyone else here does this. I drive manual[1], but rarely use the clutch.

I use it to start moving in 1st gear then can shift between all tho other gears without it. You have to get to know the speed where the engine and drivetrain are matched. It's not that hard after a while. Shifting between 3-4th is easiest, 1st and 2nd the hardest.

I can even downshift too without clutch. You have to rev the engine a bit while in neutral to anticipate the higher RPM speed that the lower gear would require, then it slips in easily.

I never grind gears doing this.

I injured my left leg which made it hard to use the clutch and drove like this for a year.

[1] I prefer manuals because of the onboard computer, especially in Toyotas which are suspect to me due to the 'unintended acceleration'[2] problems from a few years back. Even if the computer pegs the gas due to a bug, I can disengage the transmission. Done. Apparently they reviewed the code as a result of the problems, and it is a horrible mass of spaghetti code with hundreds of global variables.

[2] The problem may not have been software and might have been driver error + statistical clustering. E.g.: the driver puts his foot on the gas thinking it's the brake, and due to the stress of the situation can't switch pedals because the urge to stop the car overrides any other thinking.

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

#428

Post by TeMPOraL »

philoye wrote: post #399

This is so sad to me. Manual transmissions are just more fun, no matter which car you have. I have a 10 year old Subaru Outback and even that (top) heavy PoS gives me joy on a curvy road. Of course I know that a modern auto is _way_ faster than a human, but I don't care in the slightest. My father in law has a Mercedes C63s and holy shit is it fast, but it would be 10x better with a stick. Spending a ton of money on…

> Life is too short, find fun where you can. Don't let the robots win.

Well, the thing is, you've found fun in how ICEs suck. You (like everyone saying the manual is better) have turned a bug into a feature ;). Personally I hope electric cars will win, and there's no manual transmission for electric cars, because electric engines have flat(ter) efficiency curve and don't need gears.

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

#429

Post by jpindar »

Reason077 wrote: post #347
JetSetWilly wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think having the clutch down destroys the clutch, how would it do that? It is having the clutch partially engaged for a very long time that would destroy the clutch. A clutch is destroyed by friction - slippage between the two plates that comprise it. This is a useful characteristic when pausing on a hill for a few seconds but I suppose there must be some people that keep the clutch partially engaged for a ve…

That's right. Driving with the clutch partially engaged will wear it out. But having it fully engaged while the vehicle is stopped won't do any harm.

It will wear out the throwout bearing.

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

#430

Post by JetSetWilly »

bane wrote: post #403

Just got back from another trip to Europe where I encountered the slightly odd European preference for manuals. I can kind of see why, the car culture is quite different from the States -- where most cars are two or three generations beyond the kind of automatics most Europeans associate with the transmission type. The inverse is that most European diesels are two or three generations beyond what most Americans assoc…

It isn't an "odd European preference". In this case, it is the USA that is the outlier, with most of the rest of the world preferring manuals.

Fuel efficiency is not a wife's tale but rather a statistical fact, except perhaps for very new, very expensive high end luxury cars where an automatic can have a slight edge under somewhat dodgy laboratory conditions.

And "being more in control" is also a fact. You cannot be more in control of a mechanical device when your control of that device is mediated by a complicated technology that behaves in ways you can't easily predict. If you want to precisely control torque and engine behaviour yourself, which can be useful in many situations from the mundane to icy or snowy conditions, a manual is superior.

It simply is a non-debate in most of the world. Americans seem to get quite defensive about it for some reason, perhaps because they associate manuals with being "macho" or an elitist gearhead or something. There's nothing weird abotu driving a manual.

Post reply on HN