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

841–850 of 893 posts

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

#841

Post by sf_rob »

vcarl wrote: post #821
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…

I recently purchased a Fiesta ST, which (along with the Focus ST) bucks this trend. The Fiesta is a cheap car, but the highest trim package, ST, is exclusively available as a manual and adds 70 HP. The Focus ST is the same, with an even bigger HP bump. Hopefully somebody else decides to compete with Ford for the budget enthusiast market, and we get a bunch of fun manuals :)

I haven't driven the new Focus/Fiesta ST/RS, but I test drove the previous gen manual Mustang GT. Ford took all of the feel and feedback out of the gearbox, clutch, and steering of that car. I think that they were trying to hit a broader demographic by making things feel smooth and approachable, but I hated it.

Do you feel like the Fiesta is similar?

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

#842

Post by morganvachon »

crznp wrote: post #824
morganvachon wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You maintain better control of the vehicle if you leave the clutch engaged and engine brake instead of slowing down with it disengaged and using the actual brakes. It may not seem that way to inexperienced manual drivers, but once you've driven a manual in traffic a few times you learn that engine braking is safer and more precise. Also, on a large, heavy vehicle with a manual transmission, you can get in trouble wit…

Cars are designed so that you stop the car by pressing the brake pedal, so that is generally the better way to do it. * 4-wheel braking, even if it is a 2wd car. * ABS/Traction control systems are designed around brakes, not engine braking. * Regenerative braking (if equipped) uses the brake pedal * There is a smooth application of braking power from 80mph to 0mph. Engine braking is indexed (I can only choose which g…

> Cars are designed so that you stop the car by pressing the brake pedal, so that is generally the better way to do it.

I wasn't speaking of coming to a complete stop, only of slowing down with the flow of traffic. I should have worded it better, I'm sorry.

> Using the brake pedal is a single action. Engine braking involves at least 3 (clutch in, shift, clutch out).

But if you're already downshifting while slowing down, which you should be, it's actually not extra effort. It's completely natural.

> Brakes are cheaper to replace than clutch/transmission.

That entirely depends on the vehicle and the type of clutch. In my extensive experience (I repair cars on the side, and have done so my entire adult life) the parts themselves often cost about the same. For example, when restoring my Bronco II I bought a clutch kit for $150 and a full set of front brake rotors, pads, and new calipers for about $200.

On my Crown Victoria, which was formerly a police vehicle and therefore has the upgraded heavy duty disc brakes on all four wheels, a shop quoted me $700 for a brake job. The parts alone were $350 through them. Of course I saved a ton by doing it myself, but most people can't or won't do that. The labor for a clutch swap versus a brake job is, again, dependent on the complexity of the vehicle. Most manuals still in use in the US are older model cars, with relatively easy to replace clutch parts.

> The only exception is when...hauling a heavy load.

Which I specifically spoke of. :-)

> The default instinct should be the brake pedal alone.

In an automatic, yes. In a manual, only when needing to stop suddenly or when you've downshifted to 2nd or 1st and you're stopping altogether.

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

#843

Post by viraptor »

Annatar wrote: post #458
viraptor wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted you for random assumptions and insulting people you never talked to. > a modern automatic transmission is controlled by firmware, a unikernel Have you seen the source? If not, how do you know it's a unikernel? > The shift points and the shifting logic are based on the developers' very dim understanding of economy and of performance driving "dim understanding"? Do you have a reference for any of that? Why…

I have noticed systemic abuse of ad hominem labeling anyone who doesn't lavish high praise and criticizes instead. Please show some emapthy and think about how the code could be improved instead, so these criticisms can be addressed with a practical solution. In this particular case, all my criticisms can be addressed by offering a manual transmission option with a dry clutch, not even code optimization is required.…

> I have noticed systemic abuse of ad hominem labeling

You literally said it's due to developers' dim opinions. Lots of people don't like auto transmissions, and that's fine. Just chill about it.

> you know that all such source code is under strict non-disclosure agreements

Nope. Are you saying that all such code is under strict NDA? Likely, you can still say you signed one and cannot talk about it if that's the case.

> I wouldn't be at liberty to discuss or cite

As in, you cannot link to an existing, public article that supports what you're talking about? I call BS.

> any firmware or subsystem concerned with one task - such as running a vehicle - is by definition a unikernel

That's not a definition of a unikernel. You can easily have embedded systems with no kernel to speak of. It may be a unikernel, but since you're possibly under NDA you're not saying that, are you?

> Finally, as a firmware writer, please explain to me...

I'm not a the author of those systems, therefore I will not make assumptions about them. And I recommend the same to you.

What you're describing is behaviour and sure - they may behave like this for some reason. Blaming that on a specific part of the system, or technology, or developers that are dim and do stuff without a reason, without a good proof is neither useful nor helpful.

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

#844

Post by datashovel »

Retric wrote: post #305
datashovel wrote: post #304

I'm in US, and am always struggling to find new cars when I'm ready to buy because of this probably. Just recently I visited a dealership where the sales guy told me flat out "manual transmissions are extremely rare anymore". It may be a diagnose-able issue :) but I was a wreck (literally) when I first started driving because I would lose focus on the road. Manual transmission, it seems to me, gives me a far better "…

Have you tried a car with paddle shifters? There is no clutch, but you still select gears. Now they don't provide every advantage of a manual transmission, but you can for example downshift to avoid excessive breaking.

Are there a lot of cars on the market with paddle shifters? I am not much of a "car enthusiast", so I'm somewhat ignorant in this area. Just need one to get from point A to point B.

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

#846

Post by jpindar »

jessaustin wrote: post #480
jpindar wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will wear out the throwout bearing.

Having driven manual pickup trucks for hundreds of thousands of miles, I'm sure this will happen eventually, but it hasn't yet...

But do you hold the clutch in when stopped?

I generally don't. I too have driven several manual pickups, and only once had a squeaky throwout bearing. But I bought that one used so who knows what it had gone through before me.

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

#847

Post by darklajid »

freehunter wrote: post #548
darklajid wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ego thing? Maybe, but for me it's more of a fun thing. I currently drive an automatic and would love to go back. Random addendum: German licenses do expire for larger classes - I have a license for BCE (aka 'up to 40t/max') that expired a while ago. Legacy licenses in that class expire at the age of 60 I think, current licenses expire every 5 years from the day you got one. And of course there's the whole public tran…

Just take a look at some of the replies in this thread and you can see that for a lot of people, it's an ego thing. "You can't drive properly on dirt roads with an automatic". "You can't drive in the snow with an automatic." "You can't adjust weight distribution with an automatic." Nearly everyone in this thread fancies themselves a proper rally car driver because they have a stick-shift Vauxhall Astra diesel.

Right. I cannot even comment on the whole 'stick is better for rally cars' debate, because I don't care about that sport and certainly don't qualify as a driver.

For me it feels closer, more direct, more fun. And .. that's about it. If someone provides convincing evidence that it's less fuel efficient (maybe?) and that automatic transmissions accelerate faster (a given?) then I shrug and say .. "But this is fun!".

On the other hand: Given that I drove manual most of my life and only drove really crappy automatics so far (Smart occasionally, Prius now) I might be biased twice. Both because manual's the norm and everything else feels off by default and because probably not every automatic transmission is created equal.

(Advanced challenge: Drive a Citroën 2CV - still one of the cars I love the most. 4 gears, unusual layout, weird stick position)

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

#848

Post by dvtv75 »

hx87 wrote: post #603
irishcoffee wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always wondered about this. In my head, using the engine/transmission to "brake" when in gear going down hills or slowing down seems like a bad idea. Something is getting stressed in order to slow the car down. Having to replace my brakes makes sense, they get worn out, and its relatively inexpensive (especially if I do it myself). I have always been wary of staying in gear to brake. And, as it so happens, my ma…

Your engine is designed to withstand fuel-air explosions. When engine braking, all it does is compress and expand air, at much lower pressures, so revolutions during engine braking are easier on your car than those during regular driving. Clutches get less wear during engine braking because it doesn't slip. When you disengage and reengage the clutch because you're using the regular brakes to slow down, the clutch sli…

> Clutches get less wear during engine braking because it doesn't slip. When you disengage and reengage the clutch because > you're using the regular brakes to slow down, the clutch slips and damages itself.

And when you have to change down, while engine braking? (I have an odd learning style. Please don't mistake this for "You're wrong because..." It's a case of "I don't understand why, so...")

A friend once told me that the UK required you to half-engage the clutch while using the brakes and the engine together. I've also read something to the effect of modern brakes are much more efficient so (at least one) UK "advanced driving school" teaches that it doesn't really matter.

I have an older car (1998 Mazda 626 wagon). It's a manual, and when I drive downhill I put it into third and let it coast, braking to reduce speed. Should I be putting it into second, and letting it run up to 3500-4000 revs? Should I leave it in third, and use the brakes? Does it consume more fuel to do this, in a car of that era?

I've often meant to ask my local mechanic about this, but never think about it when I'm there.

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

#849

Post by jaggederest »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #63
jaggederest wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paddle shifting is in no way equivalent to the level of torque and engine control a manual transmission provides. I drive a car with paddle shifters, coming from a manual, and it's just night and day different. The connection is entirely missing without the feedback provided by the physical linkage of the clutch pedal.

Try a PDK. The idea that it's so important to be able to uncouple the driveline as to warrant a dedicated pedal just for that purpose is completely silly.

I actually daily drive a dual clutch gearbox. It's definitely not the same.

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

#850

Post by monk_e_boy »

rlau26 wrote: post #796
monk_e_boy wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I'm not sure I agree, if they served no purpose the engineers would remove them. I think when they are in 'lift and coast' the gear changes are different, and I'd guess when they turn the engine modes up they would change again.
Post reply on HN