Shopping for a manual now. So few options in awd.
Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
471–480 of 893 posts
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some ECUs also cut fuel on braking. I remember reading a review of a car where the reviewer (obviously an "enthusiastic" driver) was disappointed that he couldn't do left-foot braking because it kept cutting the fuel. (Left-foot braking is a technique where you keep the power down in a bend but dab the brake to adjust the fore-aft balance of the car. It is common in rallying - there is some awesome footage somewhere…
This is one of my pet peeves. Sometimes I use left foot braking to transfer chassis weight from one side to tve other. Having a throttle cut off sucks. I won't buy a car with it anymore.
I can't think of any situation outside of a race course where this would be a necessary maneuver. If you're going so fast on public roads where you need to left foot brake to transfer weight to avoid skidding off the road, it sounds like something is wrong. Where are you doing this enough where having a car with throttle cut off is enough of an annoyance where you won't buy a car with it anymore?
For reference, I got pretty good at this technique while driving autox, which for those unfamiliar is basically a race course around cones in a giant stadium parking lot, one car at a time. But in my 10 years of driving on public roads, I've never felt the need to use it even once.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure, for professional racing drivers. But note that the transmission in F1 cars is semi-automatic [1] [1] https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/inside-f1/understan...
The only "automatic" part of that transmission is the clutch. The driver still has to select the gear, and I think that's what the whole discussion here about manual vs. automatic is focusing on.
They drive to the beeps, so the computer is beeping in their ear when it is time to change. And they don't shift through neutral to select a gear. They may as well be automatic for all the input an F1 driver has
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#474I 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…
That is absolutely untrue. Go look at EPA estimates for the same cars in Auto/Manual.
Besides, most manuals are 5 or 6 speed. I was reading about new ZF transmissions and they stated a 14% fuel efficiency gain over a standard 5 speed
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
> wow, you are incorrect in almost every statement. And yet you didn't refute a single one of them, and only offered subjective preferences and personal anecdotes. You like driving a manual. Bless your heart. Modern automatics still accelerate faster and are more fuel efficient than manuals. Just take a look at what the car manufacturers themselves report.
People can invent points and refutals. Physics, dictates manuals to be more efficient. Automatic transmission 'learn driver habit' multiplies the above, and yet everybody in this discussion ignores it. CVT comes closer to efficiency of manual, but it's not popular because "the car just doesn't have the power on demand dude". This subject is a horse beaten to death, and then to a pulp, where people that have sporadic…
And, yet, here's an example where EPA numbers on a car model where the automatic has better gas mileage:
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2015_Scion_FR-S.shtm...
Now, perhaps this doesn't accurately represent real world driving conditions but nonetheless, physics notwithstanding, it does suggest that an automatic can be more efficient using standard measurements.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#476I never understood how to use automatic transmission in snowy/icy conditions. To me it's basically a lottery. With manual transmission and clutch I can actually recover from a slide almost immediately (the moment you start sliding you disengage transmission right away with clutch and do initial correcting maneuver which you cut short the moment you feel any kind of traction in order not to oversteer; it takes some pr…
Automatics have traction control. The computer that operates the traction control is much faster at taking power from the wheels than a human using a clutch.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure, for professional racing drivers. But note that the transmission in F1 cars is semi-automatic [1] [1] https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/inside-f1/understan...
The only "automatic" part of that transmission is the clutch. The driver still has to select the gear, and I think that's what the whole discussion here about manual vs. automatic is focusing on.
If there is no dry clutch and no clutch pedal, I consider that to be an automatic. And in such a system, I'm only allowed to signal gear selection: if I make a mistake or request a gear someone else thought I shouldn't request, the software won't comply. This implies that someone is assuming they know better than me how to drive, and enforce this assumption. This notion infuriates me. It's one thing to operate within mechanical / physical limits of the system, and quite another were someone who is not me forces arbitrary limitations. I take the "we know better than you" extremely personally.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#478I was living San Francisco when I got a job in Las Vegas. I needed to buy a car to live in Vegas, I never owned a car before then. This is 1998 and I bought a beautiful late eighties standard transmission Toyota pickup. I already had my license for a few year but I really learned to drive with a standard transmission living on a hill in Cole Valley for two weeks. Fun times.
When I bought a car with a manual transmission quite a few years ago (I also owned a vehicle with an automatic), for the first few weeks I basically planned my commute around not having to be in stop and go traffic on a hill anywhere with the stick. I've said on a number of occasions that I couldn't imagine learning to drive a stick in SF.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#479Well when you are only getting around 30bhp / L from your engines you don't really need a manual do you?
Yeah, american car engineering is mind blowing. I have a 2008 Lexus IS350 - 3.5 liters V6, naturally aspirated and it produces 306 bhp. Friend has 2008 Ford Mustang - 4 liters V6, and it makes 210 bhp. What the hell.
Isn't Lexus a Japanese car company?
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Having driven manual pickup trucks for hundreds of thousands of miles, I'm sure this will happen eventually, but it hasn't yet...