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

771–780 of 893 posts

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

#771

Post by nawitus »

mbrookes wrote: post #353
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…

Coasting in neutral or with the clutch disengaged is both more dangerous and less efficient then engine braking. In the UK you will fail your driving test if you coast, and in some countries / states it is illegal - with good reason. Just google it - not a single article supporting your argument.

In some cases coasting in neutral will save fuel, in others it will not. This depends on the specific situation.

If you're coasting down a hill to a stop, then it's better to coast in gear to use approximately no fuel. If you're coasting down a hill to long level stretch of road it's better to coast in neutral to obtain kinetic energy. If one wants to follow speed limits it's sometimes necessary to first coast in neutral then use engine braking at the bottom of the hill.

The optimal strategy in all cases is actually coasting in neutral with the engine turned off, and then starting the engine when you need to increase your speed. (This advanced technique may be illegal, though).

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

#772

Post by kmonsen »

rsync wrote: post #602
CoffeeDregs wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Car Talk guys addressed this and agreed with you. It's better to use the brakes to slow down since they're ablative and designed to be replaced with wear. Causing the engine to do extra revolutions means extra wear on something that's quite difficult to replace/repair... That said, I drive a manual and use the engine for braking...

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…

The theory is if you go down a long mountain the brakes will be very hot when you are getting towards the bottom which means the performance is not as great. So if you then suddenly need the full power of the brakes it is not available anymore.

Also if the mountain is tall enough the brakes might not make it all the way down which has happened a few times in Norway with catastrophic results for large vehicles like busses.

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

#773

Post by jperras »

hx87 wrote: post #628
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…

> but harder to maintain I'd have to dispute that--ATF change intervals are about the same as clutch change intervals (disregarding the "lifetime ATF" crap that manufacturers peddle) but cost far less, and otherwise automatic transmissions today last the lifetime of the car.

I think what he was getting at is:

if so inclined, you can repair or replace your own clutch (as a hobbyist or someone who is mechanically inclined), but doing the same to a hydraulic-based automatic transmission or a CVT is a tall order unless you are professionally trained.

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

#774

Post by igfnow »

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…

Tesla tried to have transmissions with multiple gears in their electric cars... thankfully it didn't work out the way they hoped.

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

#775

Post by emodendroket »

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.

I mean, sure, the relative safety of neighborhoods has some ugly roots too, but I'm not personally going to go live in a bad neighborhood just to prove a point.

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

#776

Post by pc86 »

strictnein wrote: post #734
torrent-of-ions wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nor is drivers education a requirement This is it really. Americans aren't very good at driving. In the UK we are taught that it's one of the most dangerous things you'll do in your life, which it is. In America it's just like learning to walk. You have to do it and it doesn't matter how you learn. Check out the road safety stats. USA is pretty much an outlier amongst first world countries by most metrics.

> nor is drivers education a requirement Not sure what state they're referring to, but it's a requirement in every place I know of. The general process when you're 15-16 typically includes: - A number of Driver's ed classes that typically end with behind the wheel training - Learners permit granted that only allows you to drive with an adult (21+) in the car. - Drive without incident for a certain period of time - Pa…

I went to HS in rural PA in 00-04 and the only "drivers ed" we got was one class a week for a month or two where we just went over the DMV handbook. No practical training or testing, it was expected that your parents taught you how to actually drive.

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

#777

Post by TylerE »

henrikschroder wrote: post #740
TylerE wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Golf R isn't really a fair comparison as it's a dual clutch, not a traditional automatic, and more importantly, it gets a (quite aggressive) launch control while the manual doesn't.

My argument was that machines can do simple things better than humans, the Golf R automatic transmission is a machine that does shifting better than a human, and you are complaining that the comparison is unfair because the machine is too good at what it does?!? Come on.

I'm just saying it's not apples and apples... the launch control helps the time a lot more than the DSG does.

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

#778

Post by ptmcc »

jinushaun wrote: post #768

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 ev…

Exactly this. Plus dealers don't ever stock any, either, so you have to special order as well. I'd be fine special ordering, but seems most people are not willing to wait.

I'm a diehard manual enthusiast, but nearly all of the few remaining models out there that even offer a manual transmission only offer it on the base stripped-down model. They seem to think that the manual is the "frugal jerk" option, and only offer it in the trim levels that hardly anyone even buys in the first place regardless of transmission.

My current car is a 2004 BMW 330 with a 6-speed manual, but it also has all the options. Leather, power everything, adaptive xenon lights, moonroof, heated seats, etc., etc.

Every time I get the urge to buy a new car I'd have to give up most of those nice features to get a manual transmission because you can't option it with the fully loaded packages or engine/drivetrain combos.

BMW, for the moment, continues to be the exception by offering manuals in nearly all configurations of the 2/3/4 series, but man the prices on them these days has really gotten up there, plus all the new turbo and electronic stuff likely isn't going to hold up as well as the old N/A straight sixes.

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

#779

Post by fnj »

hx87 wrote: post #628
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…

> but harder to maintain I'd have to dispute that--ATF change intervals are about the same as clutch change intervals (disregarding the "lifetime ATF" crap that manufacturers peddle) but cost far less, and otherwise automatic transmissions today last the lifetime of the car.

ATF change - 30,000 miles. Clutch service - maybe 300,000 miles if your car body lasts that long before rusting to hell. That's if you know how to drive.

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

#780

Post by int_19h »

ehnto wrote: post #491
int_19h wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 I'd rather pay attention to my surroundings than to the clutch. This goes for both day to day stuff (where it's better for safety), and pleasure road trips (where this lets you enjoy the scenery). For the most part, the automatic is simply "good enough". And in US there's no peer pressure to…

I think that is part of the issue though. The scenery really isn't where your mind should be while driving, simply looking to the side for 5 seconds is enough distraction to cause an accident. http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/facts-and-sta... I think for an already attentive driver it might be okay, but I would argue that a manual transmission would force people who are in the habit of being distracted…

Pay more attention to what, though? The road? Or the car controls?
Post reply on HN