I loved my manual car when I lived in a state with little traffic. Now that I'm in CA, a manual sounds like a nightmare.
I live in Seattle where traffic sucks, and there are hills. I drive a manual. You get used to it.
Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
791–800 of 893 posts
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#792I 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The love of manual transmissions isn't irrational, it's merely outdated.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 fu…
> The driving handbook you're complaining about was probably written 30 years ago
No, it's continually updated, and featured lots of other modern facts about cars. For example, from a safety perspective, it urged people to stay the fuck away (maybe not using those words) from cars manufactured before 2000, because safety ratings increased a lot between 1990 and 2000, across the whole board.
The eco-driving requirements are 10 years old, at the most, but the manual still states facts about automatic transmissions that were true 30 years ago.
It's also important to remember that getting a license in European countries is generally a lot harder than in the US, so the eco-driving requirements results in people having to spend time learning the "theory" behind it, spending valuable driving lessons with an instructor to learn it, practice it, and getting evaluated on it during your final road test, and failing to drive "eco-friendly" will result in you failing the test.
So it's a big deal, it affects a lot of people, and it's mostly been obsoleted by technology. The gains from forcing people to learn eco-driving are minuscule, and the whole piece of shit could be replaced with one simple sentence: "Please buy a modern car". The last 10-15 years have seen crazy efficiency gains, and buying a new car will do more for the environment than a lifetime of eco-driving in an older one.
And that grinds my gears. :-)
> Almost anyone is allowed to jump in and drive a stick any time they want.
Fortunately that is pretty self-regulating, because it's incredibly hard to drive a manual if you haven't had practice and training. :-)
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#793Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the reasoning here is that braking all the way down a steep grade can cause your brakes to overheat and become temporarily inoperable. I don't know whether this is a real effect or not, but I have heard it given as a justification for engine-braking.
unkeljoe: "braking all the way down a steep grade can cause your brakes to overheat and become temporarily inoperable. " That condition is known as brake fade/fading and occurs mostly with drum brakes and can occur on bicycles, motorbikes and automobiles. Braking heats the brake drums, which then expand. The drum may expand in diameter to the extent that the brake pads no longer contact the drum sufficiently enough t…
Thank you for the writeup! I hope I never need to use that information, but I'm glad I have it now.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#794I 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 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…
Here, we are instructed to use the clutch only for switching gears. At least in your driver's licence test.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#795Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't be misled; many in America can't afford any kind of car. Even many who have them go into perpetual debt to do so.
8 year (96 month) car loans are becoming a "thing" in America. Sure, a car that's cost more than your yearly salary looks "affordable" if you only look at the monthly payments and you can manipulate those payments by stretching out the loan forever. I believe 30 year mortgages being "standard" are also kinda a scam[1] for this reason. Basically the idea everyone having many monthly payments is acceptable. When I boug…
The difference is that you can get an honest 3.5% fixed APR on a 30 year mortgage, but nothing close to that for a car loan, unless it is a subsidized scam.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#796Earlier 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.
They drive to the beeps, so the computer is beeping in their ear when it is time to change. And they don't shift through neutral to select a gear. They may as well be automatic for all the input an F1 driver has
The computer beeping is merely a reminder and I'm betting most drivers will even disregard it after they are familiar with the track they are on. Gear changes happen so often and so quickly that waiting for a computer to tell you when to shift is a sure sign of unfamiliarity with the track layout and it's also a hit to one's concentration (ex. if they're trying to pass the car ahead or block the one behind). Anyone that does any sort of track driving consistently should know what gear their car should be in for each corner long before a race.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#797Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm nearly hit by inattentive drivers on a daily basis. I've been riding bikes for so long that I just roll with it. I knew they were going to invade my space probably before they did because I read traffic ahead and to some degree predicted the possible outcomes.
But unfortunately that comes with time and experience. I've said in the past that if you can survive the first five years, you'll probably be pretty safe on a bike. I survived my first five years, despite of myself in retrospect, and the only time I've been down on asphalt was last year on a patch of black ice 400m from my garage. 35 years of not hitting pavement, only to be brought down by a stupid piece of slick road at 15mph.
I would never argue that a motorcycle is as safe as a car. For the youngsters under 25, I'm amazed that anyone survives, including myself. :-P But it's been mostly accident-free for me for 35 years. YMMV, in fact it probably will.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#798Earlier quoted context omitted.
My Mazda CX-5 locks up in all conditions, even if it is cold and in the first gear. And it has better EPA than the same model with MT.
I also drive a CX-5. When I test drove it, one of the things that stood out to me was how it felt "heavy" when taking your foot off the gas. I guess that was just the engine breaking that I wasn't used to on my previous vehicle. Over the last year I've averaged 30-31mpg (mostly highway), which I don't consider too bad for an AWD compact SUV.
Yup, and it is also nice that if you just touch the brakes when going downhill the AT downshifts to engine-brake stronger. I can also feel when the converter locks up when accelerating. Particularly when the engine / AT are cold the acceleration is not ideally smooth because of this (well, it is still much smoother than I can do with my other car with MT).
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#799In late 90s, when I was young and beautiful :-), I was joking about americans being too unskilful to drive car with manual, so they need automatic. But honestly, now I thing we europeans were just too stubborn not accepting auto transmission and thinking we're kind of superior because of it. And nowadays automatic transmission is becoming so popular, my 65y old dad is willing to have it.
Ah yes, 1997. I was a mere lad of 50, driving a 5-speed sports coupe. Funny how at 69 my idea of driving is now a diesel econocar with an automatic transmission.
Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions
#800Earlier 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.
When you coast with engaged clutch, you will engine brake. Energy doesn't go to the engine for free. Adding the fuel to counter the engine braking is less efficient than letting the engine run idle while coasting due to losses in the power-train. Plus, more efficient cars still have to inject fuel. The electro-hydraulically controlled conventional gearbox of the Lupo 3L disengages the dry clutch while coasting for a…
When you coast with engaged clutch, you will engine brake
Energy doesn't go to the engine for free.
Adding the fuel to counter the engine braking is less
efficient than letting the engine run idle while coasting
due to losses in the power-train
This is also why it is a bad idea to use engine braking with a 2-stroke petrol engine: 2-strokes rely on oil mixed in with fuel for lubrication. When using the engine as a brake no - or hardly any - fuel is added to the incoming air while maintaining high engine speeds, starving the engine of lubrication.