I rented an automatic in Greece, and it was the most malfunctioning, poorly-maintained transmission I've ever used. If that's what Europeans think driving an automatic is supposed to be like, it's no wonder manuals are so popular there.
Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
641–650 of 893 posts
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#642I 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 transmi…
Not true at all, I am not sure what you are even talking about. Automatics are way more complicated and error prone, a stick is literally just gears, synchronizers and some torque shafts. Also manual transmissions having problems with "Gearbox"? What does that even mean?
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#643Earlier quoted context omitted.
The key figure, I think, is number of fatalities per billion vehicle Kilometers. For the USA that is 7.1. Unfortunately, Americans drive A LOT MORE than most other countries, so raw annual fatality count is very high (~34K). By comparison UK has 3.6 fatalities/billion KM and fatality count of 1.8K. Population ratio is ~6:1 US:UK. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... ) There are other coun…
It seems that the fatalities per billion vehicle kilometres will be skewed simply by the average trip length being longer in the US. Fatalities per number of trips is probably a better metric since longer trips tend to use safer roads like motorways. It's just not possible to rack up that many "safe" miles somewhere like the UK, while the number of more high risk miles, ie. towns and country roads, is probably more s…
> It seems that the fatalities per billion vehicle kilometres will be skewed simply by the average trip length being longer in the US.
Trip length figures into the denominator (deaths/billion kilometers), so everything else being the same, longer trip lengths won't skew the statistic.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#644Manual shifting is neither possible nor even relevant in electric cars or cvt (continuous variable transmission) cars. Their rise will be the true end of the stick shift.
It's possible if an electric car had a manual transmission, but no company had yet built one because electric motors cam regulate revolutions per minute with amperage and voltage. However, no studies that I'm aware of to determine whether the battery range could be extended with gear ratios have been performed.
The Rimac Concept_One is a fully electric car that has two gears (DCT though). I'm not sure any one has tested as to whether the range is extended in one gear vs the other. I would assume it would.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#645Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't an "odd European preference". In this case, it is the USA that is the outlier, with most of the rest of the world preferring manuals. Fuel efficiency is not a wife's tale but rather a statistical fact, except perhaps for very new, very expensive high end luxury cars where an automatic can have a slight edge under somewhat dodgy laboratory conditions. And "being more in control" is also a fact. You cannot be…
No, there's nothing weird about it, but the stories about why they are better are pretty much entirely down to "well I like it better." Okay, that's fine. But statistically, CAFE standards aren't being met by manuals, but by automatics and other advanced drivetrains. People can yell "but physics!" all they want, but the aggregate data is showing clearly that manual drivetrains are not the path towards increased effic…
As I said, high end automatics can outperform manuals in lab conditions. This is because obviously they can choose to perfectly and optimally shit up and down gears in a lab better than a human can.
That does not mean that they can do so in real life. A human knows what conditions they are driving in. A human knows if they need to stop in 50ft, a human has all kinds of intelligence about upcoming torque requirements that a gear box simply doesn't. So I am highly doubtful that "physics are favouring non-manuals" because an automatic is not a magical device that can somehow know these things.
I'm surprised that people are suddenly treating emission labs as sources of factual accuracy considering recent events.
So that's efficiency. You can dismiss the superiority of manual for driving on gravel, snow, ice or anywhere as "I like it better" but frankly it is consensus that driving on a manual gives more control.
Consider that if an automatic gave better control, then in situations where control is very important, such as, I don't know, rally driving, people would use automatics. But they don't. Because it doesn't. This isn't "I like it better" - if automatics were better there would be a huge competitive advantage to using them and manual drivers would be outcompeted and swiftly become history.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#646Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am from Brazil, here the population hates "hydramatic" cars as they call automatic cars. I saw one accident that the cause was lack of transmission knowing the future: road crossing, bad road signs didn't made clear who had priority, so both drivers went forward. Both cars tried then to stop, but the automatic car instead had just shifted up, then as the driver tried to stop, it lurched forward and hit the other ca…
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…
Current VW DSG automatics are okay, butter smooth. I drove one from Germany this year. Too bad it's a VW, since I don't like their cars that much. My normal car is a manual Suzuki Jimny DDIS which drives like a tractor.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#647Quote: "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's not hard if the car has plenty of low end torque (e.g. turbodiesel) but yeah, learning in a peaky naturally aspirated sports car can be a handful.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#648I 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 transmi…
Wait, you're suggesting that manual transmissions have more points of failure than automatic transmissions?
Not only are automatic transmissions significantly more complicated, they also fail catastrophically.
Your clutch is a consumable part. Consider it a writeoff. You might replace it once in your time owning the car if you hold on to it forever, and you still haven't made up the $2k difference in MSRP/whatever the difference may be on the used market.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#649I 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…
The love of manual transmissions isn't irrational, it's merely outdated. Manual transmissions were indeed more efficient than automatics up until about 10 years ago.
Governments aren't exactly famous for being completely up-to-date on everything. The driving handbook you're complaining about was probably written 30 years ago... Back then, automatics really did suck badly.
With modern cars, automatics do get better fuel economy than manuals according to all the official fuel-economy tests I've seen. One big difference between the two that I've noticed is that in automatics, they tend to have taller gearing overall, and cruise at lower rpms (because of a taller final gear). This is most likely because it's so fast and easy for an automatic to downshift when it needs to, unlike a stick; this is especially important when using cruise control on the highway. The main problem with automatics (but not DSGs like VWs have) is the inefficiency of the torque converter. But modern automatics have worked around that really well with TCs that lock up and unlock very readily, so they're really not much different than a manual with its slipping clutch.
Luckily, here in the US, for all the things we do wrong with cars and drivers' licenses, there's no automatic restrictions I've ever heard about. I've heard of some states having such a thing on their licenses, but in reality I've never heard of them actually sticking that on someone's license if they took the driving test in an automatic. Almost anyone is allowed to jump in and drive a stick any time they want.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#650Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
When breaking with engine, the kinetic energy of movement is converted to heat not via friction (like breaks do) but via compressing air in cylinders which does not cause extra wear on anything.
I think you're referring to "Jake Braking", which is very noisy and is banned in many towns (in California).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_release_engine_bra...