Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The end of the manual transmission is near?

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–840 of 875 posts

Re: The end of the manual transmission is near?

#831

Post by freetime2 »

freetime2 wrote: post #194

Adding to the list of places where manual transmissions are still common - I still see them in a lot of Japanese kei trucks[1]. These are super minimalist trucks used for agricultural and other jobs that cost less than $7,500. Upgrading to a CVT transmission adds an extra $500 or so to the price - which seems worth it to me - but when you consider that a lot of the work these are used for is low-margin to begin with,…

Oops, should read "I think automatic transmissions are increasing in popularity"

Re: The end of the manual transmission is near?

#832

Post by rightbyte »

euroderf wrote: post #382
rightbyte wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> misunderstanding that higher revs = higher fuel consumption That is a good approximation. Each revolution has to do a somewhat fixed amount of work due to resistance. However too low revs will mess up milage too due to bad combustion.

A question tho. A manual transmission makes engine braking possible. But I never quite understood whether engine braking actually does suck a lot more gas thru the carb. In other words, when your foot is off the gas but there is high airflow thru the carb, does it draw gas ?

Modern cars use injection systems and usually cut of injection when you request no torque (unless the motor need to keep idle rpm to not die).

Note that engine braking is possible with automatic too.

Re: The end of the manual transmission is near?

#833

Post by jbverschoor »

lupire wrote: post #645
jbverschoor wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In NL, a RAM can be bought as a company car, effectively dodging road tax. (50 euro vs 200 euro per month). For comparison, you pay 100 euro per month for a tiny car if it runs on diesel (these were 'green' and exempt from road tax 10 years ago). Or between 30 and 70 per month for gasoline cars.

Do company cars not use roads?

A "company car", usually means a van. Something with no passengers except the front row, and it needs to have certain dimensions. The RAM is therefore classified as one of those. And because vans are meant for business, you pay less.

Re: The end of the manual transmission is near?

#834

Post by jbverschoor »

badpun wrote: post #506
jbverschoor wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In NL, a RAM can be bought as a company car, effectively dodging road tax. (50 euro vs 200 euro per month). For comparison, you pay 100 euro per month for a tiny car if it runs on diesel (these were 'green' and exempt from road tax 10 years ago). Or between 30 and 70 per month for gasoline cars.

There's 200 euros road tax PER MONTH in NL? OMG and TIL.

Sometimes over 200.. And then we pay super high excise (lowered until the end of the year) and tax over fuel. Basically we pay about half on taxes over fuel. To finance that, you pay with money your earned and payed 50% income tax. So basically the gov takes 75ct out of your euro, and we still can't manage treasury

Re: The end of the manual transmission is near?

#835

Post by woodruffw »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #790
woodruffw wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this comment. SUVs are classified as passenger vehicles. They're also getting larger (and more dangerous for pedestrians), but to nowhere near the same degree that pickup trucks have. The danger posed by pickup trucks is chiefly a function of the absence of regulation: the US has decided that you can role-play as a farmer and get treated as one for safety purposes, without actually demonstrating a…

Can you offer an example of any consumer product where you have to "demonstrate a need" before you're allowed to purchase it?

I'm not saying that we ought to restrict truck sales based on need -- I'd be perfectly happy restricting them to county roads only and requiring additional licensing and/or certification (similar to a CDL).

But since you asked: just about anything that can be turned into an explosive. Or, you know, prescription medicine.

Re: The end of the manual transmission is near?

#836

Post by dzhiurgis »

petre wrote: post #811
mritun wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they’re classified as pickup trucks i.e. a farm vehicle even though most of them will never drive through mud.

They should probably be limited to 55 mph then. You don't do 85 with your farm vehicle.

You’re not going to mow anyone at these speeds. Even hitting someone at 55mph means the road is designed poorly.

Re: The end of the manual transmission is near?

#837

Post by kuhewa »

FabHK wrote: post #791
kuhewa wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm probably missing your point, but I don't mean in the sense of them being a common type of footwear, I mean they were on runways, worn by celebrities, etc. https://www.whowhatwear.co.uk/crocs-shoes/slide4

My point was just that they definitely were a thing 15 years back. Whether they're more fashionable now or then: no idea, neither do I care much :-)

Ah. I forgive myself for not parsing the point made because that is a non sequitur

Re: The end of the manual transmission is near?

#838

Post by jrumbut »

IMTDb wrote: post #702
jrumbut wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that's what the OP is requesting: larger, more spacious cars.

And also: heavier, less fuel efficient, and more dangerous cars. Basically, OP is "graciously" willing to give up his manual transmission if we provide him a car that suits his style and comfort at the expense of everyone else. Luckily for us, he isn't able to find one.

Unless he buys a pickup truck, as noted in the sibling thread, where all the rules go out the window.

And judging by their popularity, that's where a lot of people who may just want a little bit larger car are going.

It seems like a set of rules that locked the window and left the door open.

Re: The end of the manual transmission is near?

#839

Post by sacrosancty »

rightbyte wrote: post #376
sacrosancty wrote: post #195

> Higher gears require fewer revs on the highway, leading to improved gas mileage. He seems to be suffering from the common misunderstanding that higher revs = higher fuel consumption. Those extra gears aren't at the top end to reduce torque at high speed (what?), they're spread more uniformly to keep the engine operating in an efficient or powerful region.

> misunderstanding that higher revs = higher fuel consumption That is a good approximation. Each revolution has to do a somewhat fixed amount of work due to resistance. However too low revs will mess up milage too due to bad combustion.

Resistance in the engine isn't a major source of power loss. RPM should be whatever is optimal for the power output. You don't reduce highway fuel consumption more and more by using a higher and higher gear because then the engine is running below its optimal rpm for efficiency.

Re: The end of the manual transmission is near?

#840

Post by Fire-Dragon-DoL »

euroderf wrote: post #451
Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many techniques to start uphill. In Italy the driving test is on manual transmission and many people use manual. I trained in Rome, parking on the left side downhill (so backward is uphill), it was tough, but learned a lot of tricks in the process to prevent stalling. You also become very attuned to the clutch I do love manual transmission, but the purpose is to have fun, not for daily usage.

Yes the clutch becomes your BFF. But can you really say that a manual is not for daily use ? It certainly helps when dealing with ice & snow.

I'm not implying that you cannot, I drove 10 years with manual transmission. I'm suggesting that if possible, auto would be better for daily use.

In the end, it's up to the person.

Post reply on HN