Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions • Hacker News Board

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

#651

Post by omegaham » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

fh973 wrote: post #64

henrikschroder wrote: post #46

I 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…

Eco driving is also about driving with foresight: don't accelerate if you likely have to stop soon anyway. Braking wastes the most gas.

My mother needs to learn this lesson. Light turns green? Stomp on the gas. Light turns red? Stomp on the brakes.

She drives a minivan with a V8 and uses every bit of it on winding Massachusetts roads. People who haven't grown up with it get carsick.

She's a damn good driver - in 10 years, she racked up about 430,000 miles in a Toyota Sienna without an accident... but holy fuck she's traumatizing to ride with.

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

#652

Post by hx87 » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 4:42 PM UTC

dx034 wrote: post #195

tdkl wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Number of hands on the steering wheel has nothing to do with reaction time.

No, but it determines how well you can steer. Especially in sharp turns you usually have to shift down/up. If there's an obstacle (perhaps a person), both hands on the wheel will give you more room to steer in both directions. You'll be much more limited with one hand.

It really depends on how you one-hand: arms locked at 12 o'clock, leaning toward the center is a terrible position, but left hand at 9/right hand at 3 (for RHD cars) is perfectly fine for steering response.

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

#653

Post by kyrra » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 4:43 PM UTC

rimantas wrote: post #60

henrikschroder wrote: post #46

I 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…

> when automatic transmissions are consistently > outperforming humans at fuel efficiency What? So far each data sheet has shown higher fuel consumption for automatic vehicles.

False. Maybe that used to be true, but it's been shifting. Automatics are more efficient than manuals. Examples:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform...

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2016_Mazda_6.shtml

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

#654

Post by kristjansson » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 4:47 PM UTC

shopkins wrote: post #630

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 think if it's annoying, you're not driving in traffic the right way. Sure, it's annoying for aggressive stop-and-go driving, but if you maintain a consistent speed with the traffic in front of you (see traffic shockwaves [0]), a manual transmission is better than an automatic. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M

I would give nearly anything for 'maintaining a consistent speed' to be an element of my commute-hour freeway driving :)

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

#655

Post by zardo » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 4:47 PM UTC

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…

>Something is getting stressed in order to slow the car down.

The exact same components that are stressed in order to speed your car up.

Since your engine doesn't have combustion raising cylinder pressures, the total power 'absorption?' under engine braking is necessarily less than the full power output of the engine which the drive train was designed to handle.

The exception is if you have rear wheel drive and enough weight transfer to the front to get wheel hop. But, afaik, this is a problem unique to motorcycles.

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

#656

Post by CWuestefeld » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 4:48 PM UTC

ohstopitu wrote: post #592

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…

I can give examples of cases where it's NOT true. Subaru BRZ/WRX manuals have better Milage EPA ratings than their automatic counterparts.

Having spent 12 years with a WRX, and moved a couple years to a Hyundai Genesis Coupe; while my wife still drives a Subaru Forester... Subarus are a bad example here. They've got great engines and other factors, but their automatic transmissions really suck.

Is there anywhere else where you can get what's supposed to be their high-performance car (my WRX was the year before STI came out) or the performance variant of another (my wife's Forester is an XT), where that automatic transmission is just a 4-speed? And subjectively, it's a rather balky one at that, with very slow shifts.

For comparison, my Genesis Coupe's auto tranny is an 8-speed, which maximizes the time that the engine is at its most efficient. It's also got smooth lightning-fast shifts in comparison to either Subaru.

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

#657

Post by sgustard » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 4:49 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #617

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…

Pretty easy. Take your foot off the gas. If you're still sliding, steer into the slide and correct. If necessary, rinse & repeat. IMO, the only real advantage a manual has is the ability to do some engine braking.

Is "steer into the slide" the same thing as the above comment to "steer where you want to go"? I literally don't know what steering into the slide means. If my front end is sliding right and my back end is sliding left then I should steer which way?

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

#658

Post by tvon » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

sgustard wrote: post #657

Spooky23 wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty easy. Take your foot off the gas. If you're still sliding, steer into the slide and correct. If necessary, rinse & repeat. IMO, the only real advantage a manual has is the ability to do some engine braking.

Is "steer into the slide" the same thing as the above comment to "steer where you want to go"? I literally don't know what steering into the slide means. If my front end is sliding right and my back end is sliding left then I should steer which way?

"Steer into the slide" means if your car is rotating clockwise you steer left such that you reduce the friction on the front end (by turning the wheels so they roll instead of slide) and maintain the friction on the back end (given the wheels will not be pointing forward).

(edit: depending on how far you've already rotated, but I'm speaking as if the front of the car is still ahead of the back of the car)

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

#659

Post by CWuestefeld » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

jff wrote: post #626

> Radio host Adam Carolla, who collects and races vintage cars, said with a stick shift, drivers can’t “just lean back and go into autopilot mode.” I think this is an overlooked advantage. Modern cars are ridiculously powerful, yet modern drivers are more less attentive than ever. I feel like the roads would be safer if everyone wasn't just mashing the Go pedal as soon as the light turns green. A manual transmission…

I intuitively agree, but this is based on my own feelings. I'd love to see an actual scientific study demonstrating the effect.

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

#660

Post by luma » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

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…

Everyone feels like they are a better-than-average driver.

The EPA has a standard testing regime, and modern automatic transmissions nearly always score at parity or slightly better than the manual option mounted to the same vehicle.

Interestingly, this is also true for things like 1/4 mile times. "Muscle car" guys hate this, but if you look at the numbers, a modern automatic transmission is both more efficient and more performant than the manual option.