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

761–770 of 893 posts

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

#761

Post by antisthenes »

Annatar wrote: post #477
userbinator wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only "automatic" part of that transmission is the clutch. The driver still has to select the gear, and I think that's what the whole discussion here about manual vs. automatic is focusing on.

If there is no dry clutch and no clutch pedal, I consider that to be an automatic. And in such a system, I'm only allowed to signal gear selection: if I make a mistake or request a gear someone else thought I shouldn't request, the software won't comply. This implies that someone is assuming they know better than me how to drive, and enforce this assumption. This notion infuriates me. It's one thing to operate within…

> This implies that someone is assuming they know better than me how to drive, and enforce this assumption. This notion infuriates me.

You get mad because your assumptions about your own superiority get placed under doubt by reality and physics? Must be hell of a way to live.

Sounds like a dunning-kruger effect and some anger management issues rolled into one.

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

#762

Post by benmcnelly »

fnj wrote: post #755
userbinator wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A good driver can do even better with a manual.

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

#763

Post by RankingMember »

mikestew wrote: post #745
barsonme wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah. I drive a 2000 Toyota Corolla, so even a Camry is 'fast' to me. I just have to convince the SO to let me purchase a motorcycle...

I just have to convince the SO to let me purchase a motorcycle... And thereby ruining cars for you forever. Oh, your $250K McLaren does 0-60 in three seconds? Yeah, so does my $10K bike. It does save you money on cars, though. With two bikes in the garage, we're content to drive slow compacts when we need four wheels.

I had a similar "oh wow" experience when I discovered motorcycling, but eventually gave it up because I kept getting nearly hit by inattentive drivers. You pay dearly for that cost:performance ratio advantage over supercars, and the cost is safety.

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

#764

Post by stillworks »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #296

You'll know we're serious about climate change when this changes. Manual gets better gas mileage. Sure it might be a small difference but even just 3 miles per gallon is 10% on 30 mpg. Over hundreds of thousands of cars that adds up. But we can't be bothered. It's an inconvenience. You can't drink your soy latte and drive at the same time if the vehicle is manual. I guess you can say it's a matter of priorities.

There are a few comments in here which are claiming manual is better for fuel economy.

IMHO, the way to get better mileage is

- Drive slow

- Accelerate gently

- Look ahead and coast to slower speed instead of breaking when you need to reduce speed

- If on a motorway, trust your cruise control

- Check you tire pressure EVERY TIME you refuel.

I have an eight year old six speed auto shifter 2 litre petrol engine car.

On motorways, with hard compound tires I have regularly managed 44mpg. With softer tires I have managed 40 mpg. And I think it's down to my driving style rather than the type of gearbox.

If I had a more modern car with seven or eight speed box and modern ECU, I am sure I'd able to achieve even better mileage than stated above. Also, I'd be going mad if I had to manually chose and shift between eight ratios !!!

It seems that outside of U.S., there is some kind of social stigma attached with automatic cars. One is either a MANual shifter xor a WOMANual shifter.

Several of my friends are strong proponents of manual gearboxes. When I ask them why... I don't get to hear much stuff about gear ratios, clutch best practices, torque. It's a plain "I don't like automatic" without much real information. This preference is purely without logic or reason.

One of my such friends I noticed drives a for miles without going above third gear in situations I would have easily been turning the engine a lot slower in fifth gear.

I think drivers who have to deal with icy conditions may have a case for preferring manuals. We don't have much snow/ice where we are... just lots of rain and in that situation I am usually more paranoid about the state of my tires rather than feeling less masculine about letting my gearbox shift on it's own.

I think modern automatic shifters are better for fuel economy (and general peace of mind) than manual ones.

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

#765

Post by nawitus »

rsync wrote: post #600
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.

"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 is very interesting - thank you. I shift cars into neutral while going down…

Coasting down a hill in neutral definitely saves fuel compared to coasting in gear if you can utilize the kinetic energy. If you're coasting down a hill and then need to stop quickly it's better to coast in gear.

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

#766

Post by jperras »

dogma1138 wrote: post #193
edoloughlin wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, it's more convoluted to use. You have to engage the clutch, put the shifter in neutral, and release the clutch again This is how you should drive if you know you're going to be stopped for more than a few seconds. 'Convoluted' doesn't come into it - it's the default.

I want to see the people who cycle the clutch twice at a red signal.

Hi. I do this all the time if I'm going to be stopped for more than 2-3 seconds.

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

#767

Post by Jeema101 »

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…

It's also much easier to get unstuck in the snow with a manual because you can rock the car back and forth between 1st and reverse.

Also you have the option to start in 2nd gear to prevent spinning tires and sliding when starting from a dead stop.

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

#768

Post by jinushaun »

Because you can't actually buy them. I bought a car a few years ago, the option was base trim with manual or all other trims in automatic. It was very frustrating.

If the choice is between automatic windows, dual climate control, heated seats, etc or a manual, you'd be a fool to choose the manual no matter how much you prefer it over an automatic. Then of course, the "sales data" feeds back to the manufacturer and everyone keeps buying into the notion that no one wants manuals.

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

#769

Post by astrostl »

sshanky wrote: post #128
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…

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.

Well, TIL on that, so thx! Still going to pop into neutral w/o engaging the clutch and coast a ton, as I've always done, though :D
Post reply on HN