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

511–520 of 893 posts

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

#511

Post by nkristoffersen »

salex89 wrote: post #483
TeMPOraL wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh so that's what was happening... Two days ago my friend and I were driving a rented car and we've noticed that when coasting, the computer said the fuel consumption is 0, but when the friend disengaged the clutch, the fuel consumption actually went up (!) to some value. We've been wondering what's going on, and we actually suspected a software bug in the fuel consumption indicator. Thanks!

Sure, but it will cause increased wear on the clutch plates. However, idling, keeping the clutch disengaged in neutral for longer periods of time increases wear on the dual-mass flywheel. So, whatever you do, you are damaging something :) . Personally I try to balance it out, but on longer down-hill slopes or when slowly coming to a traffic light I try to keep it in gear. It takes a bit of effort to train, but I real…

Are you sure? I am pretty sure the clutch does not wear when fully engaged. It is only during engagement and disengagement where there is chance of wear. The transmission on the other hand...

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

#512

Post by bigtex »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #482

All of mine are manual. Live on a gravel road - can't properly drive on loose gravel with an automatic. Then you have to creep along at 10mph. I can do 55 in my Subaru. Another downside of auto - they have all sorts of 'traction control features' that take over the accelerator. What that really means is, when driving on loose gravel they start to vibrate like one of those old vibrating-football-game toys and the car…

For the rest of us who have to deal with traffic, manuals suck. First gear, second gear, first gear is not fun.

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

#513

Post by 3poundkilograms »

pkolaczk wrote: post #374
3poundkilograms wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lock-up only locks up in very limited conditions, especially older ones. There's basically a few specific speeds with a 10km/h margin that locks up.

My Mazda CX-5 locks up in all conditions, even if it is cold and in the first gear. And it has better EPA than the same model with MT.

"We’ve combined the best attributes of conventional automatic, continuously variable and dual clutch transmissions. The transmission locks up to couple directly with the engine over a far wider range than other automatics. This delivers a significant improvement in fuel economy and a more direct, manual-like power delivery and driving feel. Shifts are quick, accurate and smooth across the six speeds."

So, as they mention, this transmission is unique. It does, however, not lock up in all conditions - it remains unlocked until you hit 8mph. It sounds like an interesting transmission, but this is not the "norm". All conventional automatic transmissions should be able to do this, although it results in very different wear patterns (brake rings and clutches in the transmission will see much greater wear). It is not quite as interesting as a dual shift transmission, though.

(Having looked at a picture of the transmission, ignore the "combined the best attributes of..." - it appears to be an entirely conventional automatic transmission with a very different operating profile.)

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

#514

Post by emodendroket »

ionised wrote: post #276

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% o…

Unlike most other countries I'm aware of, in the US you're allowed to drive a manual car after taking the test in a car with an automatic transmission.

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

#515

Post by jessaustin »

kozak wrote: post #256
flamedoge wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's physically weird. Manual drivers must have left leg bigger than right.

Well, speaking of legs, automatic drivers don't use their left one at all...

Haha I've certainly gotten stuck behind left-foot-braking drivers.

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

#516

Post by mbrookes »

petercooper wrote: post #453
mbrookes wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Peter - I should have specified that this is for manual shift. What sort of car do you have if you don't mind me asking? (And is it Ruby Red? :) )

Haha, yes, that's why I specified it as a tangent. I did think it was a weird feature though as I knew the controversy over coasting :) And yep, a red AMG A45!

Nice!

Apparently Mercedes call it "glide mode" or "gliding mode" depending which bit of marketing you look at. I couldn't find a technical description though (beyond what you already said).

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

#517

Post by emodendroket »

tehabe wrote: post #418

For most people it is not what is better, but what are they used to in daily life. I learned on manual transmission, the care I mostly use has manual transmission and gear up and down because I'm used to do it. One driving instructor warned us, not to hit the break with the left foot when driving automatic. ;-) (of course this never happened to me) Eventually I don't really care.

> One driving instructor warned us, not to hit the break with the left foot when driving automatic. ;-) (of course this never happened to me)

Yeah, if you go and press the brake down like it's the clutch you will be very viscerally made aware of your mistake.

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

#518

Post by pryelluw »

ohyoutravel wrote: post #472
pryelluw wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Different driving styles. I focus on safe driving. Being able to transfer weight around bad bumpy roads helps me drive safe. Roads are not great in Puerto Rico and I drive a FWD car.

Edit: Downvotes? For driving safely on shitty roads? I hope people don't assume Im being a jackass driver just because I use my left foot.

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

#519

Post by sixothree »

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 had to evacuate for a hurricane and spent more than 12 hours in stop-and-go traffic (traveling just over 100 miles). I did that in a manual transmission and vowed never to own one again.

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

#520

Post by lfowles »

ehnto wrote: post #491
int_19h wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 I'd rather pay attention to my surroundings than to the clutch. This goes for both day to day stuff (where it's better for safety), and pleasure road trips (where this lets you enjoy the scenery). For the most part, the automatic is simply "good enough". And in US there's no peer pressure to…

I think that is part of the issue though. The scenery really isn't where your mind should be while driving, simply looking to the side for 5 seconds is enough distraction to cause an accident. http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/facts-and-sta... I think for an already attentive driver it might be okay, but I would argue that a manual transmission would force people who are in the habit of being distracted…

Related: "Manual Transmission Enhances Attention and Driving Performance of ADHD Adolescent Males" http://jad.sagepub.com/content/10/2/212.abstract
Post reply on HN