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

571–580 of 893 posts

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

#571

Post by mdimec4 »

6stringmerc wrote: post #556
mdimec4 wrote: post #526

Quote: "And it takes a really patient instructor to teach it." That is bullshit. It is not that hard, everybody can learn it with little guidance and practice. The law here in some parts of Europe (e.g. Slovenia) states, that if you make licence with automatic, then you are licensed only to drive automatic, but if you make it with manual, you can drive everything. So literally everybody here learns manual. Most of th…

It can be picked up rather easily in a modern car, sure, but I'd like to note that not all manual transmissions are the same. As in, to drive many of them well, it does take a patient instructor and diligent student to understand the fundamentals, timing, muscle coordination, etc. To your point, yes, everybody can probably do it, but can they do it well? The test I grew up with was a 1991 Ford Ranger, V6, 5 speed man…

Yes some older cars are I imagine were rely hard.

My mom is totaly non car person, but in old days she had a car with non Non-synchronous 1-st and 2-nd gear. And she managed to figure it out and drive it.

This sounds hard to me :)

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

#572

Post by analog31 »

civilian wrote: post #29
rwbt wrote: post #9

A few years ago I had to learn stick shift because there was a good deal on a car I liked and decided to see if it's worth it. Ever since, all my cars are standard transmission and I wouldn't have it any other way. They're definitely going away, but I'll keep buying as long as they're available. There is something very satisfying about the mechanical nature of a stick shift car. Mind you, I drive in traffic heavy Los…

I delivered pizza one summer in a manual. I can't ever go back. :D I really think that driving manual requires you to be more attentive... and I should look to see if traffic accidents data backs me up.

It should be reflected in your insurance rates.

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

#573

Post by qdog »

72deluxe wrote: post #361
mbrookes wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coasting in neutral or with the clutch disengaged is both more dangerous and less efficient then engine braking. In the UK you will fail your driving test if you coast, and in some countries / states it is illegal - with good reason. Just google it - not a single article supporting your argument.

But if you're coasting down a hill and not braking, your engine is idling and you're making use of gravity. The engine will be turning over at ~1000rpm instead of 2000rpm in my diesel. Understandably it is dangerous as you are not in control of the transmission and therefore the wheels, hence the failure in the UK. But I got through some incredibly scarce times by coasting a bit on the commute to work... With automat…

My current car has "regenerative breaking" that charges the battery(not a hybrid, just a normal BMW). I haven't tried any testing without cruise control on, but with cruise on it will definitely do a little breaking on highway downhills to maintain speed.

Every generation of car is getting better at all these things, so statements about efficiency almost all need a "cars built prior to 20XX".

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

#574

Post by lmm »

luca_ing wrote: post #570
lmm wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The engine will be turning over at ~1000rpm instead of 2000rpm in my diesel. Right, but when you're coasting you're burning fuel to turn over, unless you have a perpetual motion engine. Whereas engine braking (on a car with an ECU i.e. one made since 1996 or so) you could be doing 2000rpm but burning no fuel (gravity is turning the wheels which are turning the engine).

> (gravity is turning the wheels which are turning the engine). ... which brakes the car, so you still lose energy. Can't find literature at the moment, but ISTR that the valve train can take several kW to operate.

Sure. Turning the engine is going to take energy one way or the other. But you can use energy that would otherwise be wasted heating up the brake pads rather than energy from burning fuel.

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

#575

Post by busterarm »

mbrookes wrote: post #353
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…

Coasting in neutral or with the clutch disengaged is both more dangerous and less efficient then engine braking. In the UK you will fail your driving test if you coast, and in some countries / states it is illegal - with good reason. Just google it - not a single article supporting your argument.

I used to coast off of exits with sharp turns in my RX-7. Usually at well above the limit for the turn. Fun times, but potentially very dangerous.

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

#576

Post by morganvachon »

po wrote: post #470
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!

Not only that but staying in gear when going down hills or slowing down will reduce the wear on your breaks by using the inertia of the engine to slow the car instead of break pad friction/heat.

You maintain better control of the vehicle if you leave the clutch engaged and engine brake instead of slowing down with it disengaged and using the actual brakes. It may not seem that way to inexperienced manual drivers, but once you've driven a manual in traffic a few times you learn that engine braking is safer and more precise.

Also, on a large, heavy vehicle with a manual transmission, you can get in trouble with misjudging braking time/distance if you only rely on the brakes to slow down and stop. When I have a full load in my pickup (1982 C10) I have no choice but to engine brake as the wheel brakes lose more stopping distance the heavier the load, not to mention it keeps them from overheating and failing early over time.

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

#577

Post by mjhoy »

johngalt wrote: post #558
ehnto wrote: post #135

Holy crap, I didn't realise it was quite like that. I knew it was rare for people to know manual transmissions but why such a preference for automatic? In Australia pretty much everyone I know can drive manual, most cars come with the option and most cheaper cars are manual. It was somewhat of a masculinity thing too, and still is according to my younger siblings. To be honest I'm surprised the most that America does…

There used to be a similar theme in the US, but it slowly disappeared from 1990-2010. Primarily because they are so rare they are now more of a quaint oddity more than a sign of driving competence. The game theory on why manuals are disappearing is obvious. Drivers who can drive MT can also drive AT, but the reverse is not true. I love MTs, but buying one means dealing with the following hassles: 1. Finding a dealers…

Ah, but when you're young and have many carless friends, #2 can be a very good thing!

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

#578

Post by goodcanadian »

bitL wrote: post #339

I 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…

Let off the gas and steer where you want to go . . . it really is that simple. Letting off the accelerator is more-or-less equivalent to pushing in the clutch. I've never (well, hardly ever) had trouble recovering from a slide in an automatic, and I've never really practiced it except by accident. Anyway, if you are sliding regularly in snowy/icy conditions, you might be driving too aggressively or you might just need snow tires.

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

#579

Post by TomMarius »

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?

Seems like automatic transmissions have really evolved over years. I was wrong.

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

#580

Post by morganvachon »

justin66 wrote: post #549
yason wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This may be a bit too much information, but it's a good read if you're interested in the technology behind it:

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01062316/document

Post reply on HN