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

751–760 of 893 posts

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

#751

Post by shopkins »

kristjansson wrote: post #654
shopkins wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Most traffic will let you be consistent, even if it's at 2 MPH :)

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

#752

Post by mmagin »

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 :)

I suspect they just put a sensor there and inject fuel if it cools too much. For short coasting it's probably not a problem.

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

#753

Post by RankingMember »

omegaham wrote: post #651
fh973 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What production minivan has a V8? I can't even think of one looking back to the 1980s.

I've ridden with people that drive like that. Self-driving cars can't come soon enough.

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

#754

Post by benmcnelly »

0xffff2 wrote: post #705
pryelluw wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different driving styles. I focus on safe driving. Being able to transfer weight around bad bumpy roads helps me drive safe. Roads are not great in Puerto Rico and I drive a FWD car. Edit: Downvotes? For driving safely on shitty roads? I hope people don't assume Im being a jackass driver just because I use my left foot.

Could you give a specific example of how this makes you safer? I really don't understand how braking could cause an appreciable weight transfer at speeds I consider appropriate for "bad bumpy roads".

I have never been to Puerto Rico, but in Nicaragua and Honduras is highly advantageous for your health and safety to flow with the rest of traffic. He is completely right, this comes in handy because so many roads (especially in mountain areas) are very inconsistent and messy.

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

#755

Post by fnj »

userbinator wrote: post #260
henrikschroder wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should probably have qualified my statement with an "over time, in real driving conditions". In a measured test, with a skilled driver, who does the right thing for the entirety of the test, it is most likely that he or she will be more efficient with a manual transmission than with an automatic. However, in real life, for real humans, over a longer period of time, the drivers with modern automatic transmissions wi…

However, in real life, for real humans, over a longer period of time, the drivers with modern automatic transmissions will be more fuel efficient than drivers with similar cars and manual transmissions, because the automatic transmission is a reliable machine that will do the same thing, every time. It doesn't care if you had your morning coffee or not, if some asshole cut you off, or if you got distracted or bored o…

Correct. A good driver knows how to maximize the efficiency of an automatic, and minimize the wear on it.

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

#756

Post by mikestew »

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…

Even if you don't intend to go racing, a manual is just a bit more interesting and keeps you paying attention the whole trip, in my experience at least.

I'm confident that the same thing was said about manual spark advance in the 1930s when mechanical and vacuum advance became more common. No one today would argue that we need a lever on the steering column to advance and retard the ignition.

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

#757

Post by derptron »

penglish1 wrote: post #748

Just one more reason to get a motorcycle. Or two. Maybe three. Did you know you can fit several motorcycles in the same space as just one car in your garage? Also, I feel compelled to point out that you can get a Porsche, or Lotus or whatever and feel pretty cool with your francy sports car. Or you can get _several_ top of the line motorcycles for the same price. Just sayin'

According to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2006, 13.10 cars out of 100,000 ended up in fatal crashes. The rate for motorcycles is 72.34 per 100,000 registered motorcycles.

Where do I sign up?

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

#758

Post by RankingMember »

JBReefer wrote: post #612
emodendroket wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not all places have trains, and not all buses are unpleasant. My rides in Hartford were all great. A lot of the anti-bus thing in America has some pretty ugly roots, but I'm not going to argue about it on HN.

At least in my experience, it's the bus itself that's unpleasant. Getting whipped side to side while the bus navigates streets it can barely fit on, loud creaking as every fastened component of the bus struggles for freedom as the structure of the bus flexes, and it's usually either too hot or too cold.

Add people to that and you've got a real grab bag.

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

#759

Post by benmcnelly »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #656
ohstopitu wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have a manual 2015 Subaru WRX, and I can get way better MPG number than listed, if I want to. I don't, but I can.

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

#760

Post by photogrammetry »

barsonme wrote: post #178
photogrammetry wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to love electric cars. Zero lag.

It's insane. I visited my uncle in Petaluma and he drives a volt. He's normally a very slow driver ( drives us insane ;), but one day we were running late to dinner (don't do that to my aunt...) so he decides to floor it (again, flooring it for him , so like 45 MPH) and that car just _took_ off. I was very surprised at how much torque the car had. It's one thing to realize, "oh, yeah, of course electric cars have mor…

The Volt isn't really an electric car, more of a hybrid - the gas engine is connected to the driveshaft, and the electric motor is only 82 hp. For a 3500 lb car, that's not much power. The Volt is IMO only marginally more "electric" than the Prius.

It is a similar experience, I'll give you that, but a LEAF (110 hp, 3300 lb) or Model S (300-700 hp, 4700 lb) will give you a much more exciting ride.

Post reply on HN