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

#801

Post by plandis » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:10 PM UTC

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…

If my options are:

1.) I need a car to get around town. First I need to learn how to drive a car

- or -

2.) I need a car to get around town. First I need to learn how to drive a car. I also need to learn how to do the stick-shift part as well

It's obvious why people no longer do manual transmission. It's one more thing to learn that doesn't help me with my end goal of needing to drive around town.

> To be honest I'm surprised the most that America doesn't have that same psuedo masculinity requirement thing happening

Thanks for the negative stereotyping!

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

#802

Post by badthingfactory » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:12 PM UTC

akerro wrote: post #161

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…

>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 manuals It is fair. When you do motorcycle training for up-to 125cc, you can take a scooter which doesn't have gears, or motorcycle with gear. If you learn how to use gears you know how to ride a scooter, but if you take a scooter, you're not allowed to r…

I don't agree with this. Driving a scooter/motorcycle is certainly different from driving an auto/manual car. Your comparison is closer to CDL/non-CDL.

I've never heard of a situation where a person harmed themselves or others because they tried driving a manual transmission without knowing how to do so. People who don't know how to drive them simply don't drive them for one of two reasons: 1) they are too scared to try 2) they can't make it more than 2 feet without stalling.

My sister and I both acquired licenses with automatic transmissions and eventually owned manuals. Being required to take a new test to acquire a new license to manually control the transmission would have been impractical and annoying.

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

#803

Post by fnj » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:14 PM UTC

stillworks wrote: post #764

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…

"Accelerate gently"

Nope. Absolutely incorrect. Best fuel economy is to accelerate rather strongly to cruising speed, getting into top gear quickly. BMW studied this when they brought out the 528e, and found something like 70% throttle is most efficient for this purpose. Upshift at moderate rpm, to be sure, but dawdling in the lower gears taking forever to reach top gear is a waste of fuel.

You don't waste fuel accelerating. Fuel is being converted into potential energy. You waste fuel every single time you touch the brakes. That is turning potential energy into heat.

All your other points are spot on. Most of all, drive way ahead! As soon as you see that light change to red far ahead, let off the accelerator and start coasting.

Tire pressure is important. People look at me cross-eyed when I tell them I run 40+ psi, but it makes a big difference, and my tires do not wear in the middle.

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

#804

Post by bnolsen » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:16 PM UTC

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…

If you look at fuelly you may see different numbers. I know that for my last car: honda accord, and my current car: kia soul, manual transmissions both get noticeably better gas mileage even though the MSRP claims otherwise.

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

#805

Post by blakes » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:19 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #482

All of mine are manual. Live on a gravel road - can't properly drive on loose gravel with an automatic. Then you have to creep along at 10mph. I can do 55 in my Subaru. Another downside of auto - they have all sorts of 'traction control features' that take over the accelerator. What that really means is, when driving on loose gravel they start to vibrate like one of those old vibrating-football-game toys and the car…

I drive an old automatic Subaru, haven't had any problems on the gravel roads. I just put it shift lock and keep it in second gear and keep those wheels spinning.

I mean, most automatics have a sort of semi-auto mode that allow you to lock it in the gear of your choice. But obviously a manual has far more control.

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

#806

Post by bnolsen » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:19 PM UTC

corey_moncure wrote: post #625

rsync wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Oh yeah its real. Back 20 years ago I came down from Guenella Pass to Georgetown in Colorado and just about lost my brakes on those switchbacks just above Georgetown. One of the scariest situations I've been in.

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

#807

Post by fnj » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:22 PM UTC

Accacin wrote: post #348

dx034 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is also congestion. Manual trasmission is great when there's not a lot of traffic, but it's a pain on your morning commute in LA/SF/NY/... In Europe you either live on the countryside or use public transport. Comparably few people are stuck every morning on the highway on their way to work (still a few though).

How can you make such a ridiculous and broad statement? I'm in the UK and I commute an hour to work down the motorway/highway. With traffic it's an hour and I drive a manual car like just about everyone else. Most people I know still drive to work, even if the city where we live is pretty good for public transport with a lot of buses and trams available.

For many years I had a 70 minute commute, too, and it was a breeze in a 5-speed, even though it entailed a lot of through-town and traffic lights. On the whole I enjoyed it very much.

What wasn't any fun at all were all the 10-20 minute traffic jams when all the idiots were bumper-to-bumper, oscillating between 3 mph and zero every few seconds. First gear, neutral, first, neutral; accelerate, brake, accelerate brake. Especially on an upgrade. My clutch foot was killing me.

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

#808

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:26 PM UTC

luma wrote: post #660

problems wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

[deleted]

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

#809

Post by arprocter » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:30 PM UTC

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.

The service schedule for a VW DSG is fluid change every 40k and there's also a filter which needs replacing too.

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

#810

Post by fnj » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:30 PM UTC

tehabe wrote: post #418

For most people it is not what is better, but what are they used to in daily life. I learned on manual transmission, the care I mostly use has manual transmission and gear up and down because I'm used to do it. One driving instructor warned us, not to hit the break with the left foot when driving automatic. ;-) (of course this never happened to me) Eventually I don't really care.

I drove manual for a long time, but after switching to automatics, I got quite good at left-foot braking without much trouble. You can get a slight advantage on reaction time doing it. The trick, besides not instinctively hitting the brake way too hard, is never to ride the brake pedal. You definitely need to build up your lifting muscles in your left ankle if you want to hold it poised one inch above the brake in stop-and-go traffic for absolutely fastest response time.