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

631–640 of 893 posts

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

#631

Post by mhkhung »

sturmeh wrote: post #621

I highly recommend everyone learns to drive a manual before it becomes a dead art, it's truly a lot more fun and engaging experience. That being said there's obvious cause for the shift to all-automatic, just like we'll all be using self-driving cars not long in the future. However what concerns me is that automatic transmissions are not only more expensive in general, but harder to maintain / less reliable. That a t…

Automatic transmissions are way more reliable, with the computer shifting gears at perfect timing each time. None of my automatic transmission cars (1st hand, sold after 4-8 years) ever need to have its gear box repaired. Manual transmission, on the other hand, more than 1 thing would break for sure after 4 years (right after the warranty expires of course) for sure. Gearbox, clutch cables, ...

Cars with auto transmission costs and extra thousand but you get it back when you sell the car, plus you won't rack up expensive repairs and towing.

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

#632

Post by bischofs »

One of the things HN always harps on is automation of work and effort that humans do as to free us up time to work on stuff that we really want to do ( creative efforts, time with family etc).

But if in the process of automating everything in life we remove the simple joys that many get out of things like driving then we are moving in the wrong direction.

If I didn't have to do the dishes or grocery shop I would probably fill that time driving my various cars because they give me great joy rowing through the gears and connecting with the machinery of the car. We should be hesitant trying to make life too efficient and removing the things people enjoy doing.

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

#633

Post by wvenable »

corey_moncure wrote: post #625
rsync wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have always thought this. Growing up in the mountains, in Colorado, it was drilled incessantly into me how important it was to use engine/transmission braking on long hills, etc. I know it, I understand it ... and it always irked me. I never liked the idea that I would save wear and tear on a consumable that is meant to be regularly worn and repaired and instead transfer that wear and tear to an integral part of th…

I believe the reasoning here is that braking all the way down a steep grade can cause your brakes to overheat and become temporarily inoperable. I don't know whether this is a real effect or not, but I have heard it given as a justification for engine-braking.

This happened to a friend of mine driving through the rocky mountains in Canada; brake system overheated and he had no breaking ability until it cooled down.

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

#634

Post by hx87 »

exclusiv wrote: post #117
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…

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

Manuals would probably shift driving away from the ignorant/nice/slow style of bad driving found in the southern US towards the attentive/aggressive style of bad driving found on the east coast. Definitely not more courteous, but probably more efficient and safer.

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

#635

Post by [deleted] »

hx87 wrote: post #613
3poundkilograms wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Automatic transmissions back then were quite the hydraulic maze, as they operated entirely on hydraulics. These days, they're electronically controlled. I don't think the failure rate has changed. In a manual, you can of course clutch out as long as your clutch cable (or hose for hydraulic clutched cars) doesn't fail, which is not an option you have for automatics. These kinds of failures do occur today, though. See…

> You can disengage a manual if you're quick with an intact clutch cable, but you're a bit lost in an automatic, especially if it's too powerful to hold on the brake. The typical car has brakes that can dissipate 4x the engine power, so either the driver failed to press hard enough or the brakes failed in that case.

[deleted]

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

#636

Post by vondur »

Not surprised, if you spend any time in traffic, manual transmissions get to be a pain after a while. Having said that, I learned to drive a manual and my first car was manual, in fact it was really bare bones. (no AC, power steering, power brakes etc...)

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

#637

Post by Rzah »

irishcoffee wrote: post #552
po wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've always wondered about this. In my head, using the engine/transmission to "brake" when in gear going down hills or slowing down seems like a bad idea. Something is getting stressed in order to slow the car down. Having to replace my brakes makes sense, they get worn out, and its relatively inexpensive (especially if I do it myself). I have always been wary of staying in gear to brake. And, as it so happens, my ma…

Your drivetrain is designed to withstand the stress of acceleration, normal engine braking isn't going to register.

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

#638

Post by hx87 »

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…

Don't most traction control equipped cars have a button to turn it off? Mine (Lexus LS600h L) does.

> Try to do that in an automatic.

I did that in my car with TC disabled with no problems.

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

#639

Post by CWuestefeld »

morganvachon wrote: post #576
po wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

This makes particular sense for a pickup. When unloaded the truck's weight balance significantly skewed toward the front, allowing for less traction in the back, and so you need to rely on the front wheels more for braking. When you're loaded, that's sitting more-or-less over the rear axle, increasing traction there. So you can afford to rely more on the rear (driven) wheels with engine braking in addition to the conventional brake balance that's biased to the front.

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

#640

Post by omegaham »

csydas wrote: post #451
kitd wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For clarity, did cruise control produce better or worse mpg figures?

Ah, yeah, I see how what I wrote was not clear. Cruise control was significantly worse than driving it normally, at least when I was at the wheel. The route is a very hilly one, so I somewhat suspect it's that the cruise control was not very good at knowing when to accelerate and when to coast.

It's definitely that.

My 2007 Civic doesn't account for incline when doing cruise control. It has some sort of lookup table that says, "When the owner sets me to 65 miles per hour, I go at this RPM." If I keep slowing down because I'm on a hill, it downshifts a gear and accelerates hard until the car goes back up to 65 miles per hour. Wash, rinse, repeat. I always disabled cruise control on hills because of it.

My fiancee's 2014 Nissan Rogue accounts for hills with cruise control, and it never has these intervals.

Post reply on HN