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

541–550 of 893 posts

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

#541

Post by Cyph0n »

kaiserama wrote: post #499
exclusiv wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree regarding traffic I think everyone would be way more courteous and the roads would be safer if everyone drove a manual.

Maybe not courteous, but at least attentive. If you're driving a manual in stop and go, it's hard to be playing with a cellphone (not that it doesn't happen). You are being forced to spend some thought on the act of driving, which I think is a good thing.

Not really. An experienced manual driver can do it all with his/her eyes closed. It's just like the change from new driver to experienced driver.

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

#542

Post by maxerickson »

kampsduac wrote: post #539
ferongr wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's completely missing a point of a CVT where you can keep the engine at a its most efficient speed and vary the transmission ratio to accelerate or decelerate in response to throttle input.

But if you drive in the mountains, wouldn't gear simulation in a CVT help to save brakes while going downhill?

You don't need to jump between ratios to engine brake. You just need a way to get the car to do it.

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

#543

Post by jdhawk »

problems wrote: post #537
ecopoesis wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Automatics and manuals have basically the same efficiency. All numbers from fueleconomy.gov 2016 Ford Fiesta FWD 4 cyl, 1.6 L - Auto: 27/36, Manual: 27/35 2016 Ford Focus FWD FFV 4 cyl, 2.0 L - Auto: 26/37, Manual: 26/36 2016 Volkswagen Golf 4 cyl, 1.8 L - Auto: 25/35, Manual: 25/36

These can be pretty inaccurate in my experience. It's annecdata, but my brother's Corolla is rated at 6.7 L/100km on highway for the manual, but he had no problem getting 5.6 L/100km in reality. 16% less than claimed on a 10 hour drive. I think they may be vastly underestimating manual drivers ability to optimize this. EDIT: Actually on the US site the Auto is rated for 6.9 L/100km, 7.1 L/100km on the manual. The Can…

42 mpg, 50.4mpg

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

#544

Post by intrasight »

I've not owned a stick in like 10 years. Everyone around me drives SUVs or hybrids or big sedans - I assume those aren't even available with manual transmission.

One thing I do miss about the stick is that at stop signs I always did come to a full stop in order to shift into first gear.

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

#545

Post by emodendroket »

JBReefer wrote: post #532
emodendroket wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always hear people say this but going from auto to manual I haven't really found commute driving any worse (granted, it's not fun in either case).

This is why I take the bus or train, even in towns where most people drive(when possible). I used to commute from Downtown Hartford to the Airport. 20 minute drive, 40 minute bus ride. I showed up happy and refreshed and having had time to read, my coworkers showed up stressed out and miserable. I mean, I guess you save 20 minutes, but....

I like taking the train but I generally find a bus ride pretty unpleasant.

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

#546

Post by freehunter »

ygra wrote: post #84
dx034 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if that's the case. While I love manual transmission, I would rather argue that it is more dangerous as you're often forced to have one hand away from the steering wheel, which makes it harder to react quickly.

How many people keep both hands on the steering wheel at all times (not counting smokers or idiots on their cellphones)? Also quick reactions are usually done with your right foot on the brake, not by swerving wildly around.

If I'm driving on slippery roads, both hands are on the wheel so I can counter-steer immediately if I need to. If I have to take my hand off the wheel to shift, I've just decreased my ability to quickly counter-steer, which is especially important if I make a mistake with the shift and accidentally apply too much power to the wheels.

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

#547

Post by kasey_junk »

My most recent car purchase was a manual transmission Subaru Impreza. Technically, it is the bottom end car that Subaru sell in the USA.

I had to get on a wait list and put a deposit on it because of how few were available.

I suspect there is higher demand for manual transmission cars in the USA but the distribution costs of them make it just simpler to not drive one.

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

#548

Post by freehunter »

darklajid wrote: post #105
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…

Ego thing? Maybe, but for me it's more of a fun thing. I currently drive an automatic and would love to go back. Random addendum: German licenses do expire for larger classes - I have a license for BCE (aka 'up to 40t/max') that expired a while ago. Legacy licenses in that class expire at the age of 60 I think, current licenses expire every 5 years from the day you got one. And of course there's the whole public tran…

Just take a look at some of the replies in this thread and you can see that for a lot of people, it's an ego thing. "You can't drive properly on dirt roads with an automatic". "You can't drive in the snow with an automatic." "You can't adjust weight distribution with an automatic."

Nearly everyone in this thread fancies themselves a proper rally car driver because they have a stick-shift Vauxhall Astra diesel.

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

#549

Post by justin66 »

yason wrote: post #214
sshanky wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This used to be the case with fuel injected engines from 80's to 00's but because of new regulations current ECUs might, again, inject fuel while coasting just to keep the catalytic converter warm and operational. The amount is obviously negligible but it's quite crazy to spend more fuel in order to reduce emissions :)

This is interesting. How do hybrids handle this? Use electricity to warm the converter?

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

#550

Post by nommm-nommm »

imjustsaying wrote: post #82
attilak wrote: post #70

Meanwhile in Eastern Europe people still can't afford a car with automatic transmission...

Don't be misled; many in America can't afford any kind of car. Even many who have them go into perpetual debt to do so.

8 year (96 month) car loans are becoming a "thing" in America. Sure, a car that's cost more than your yearly salary looks "affordable" if you only look at the monthly payments and you can manipulate those payments by stretching out the loan forever. I believe 30 year mortgages being "standard" are also kinda a scam[1] for this reason.

Basically the idea everyone having many monthly payments is acceptable.

When I bought my car I did finance it but on my own payment schedule because apparently the dealer didn't offer 12 month financing.

[1] I'm using "scam" broadly I don't think it's a real scam in the literal sense of the word but I can't think of another word. Misleading?

Post reply on HN