Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

881–890 of 893 posts

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

#881
post #784
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a shame though, because manual transmissions are much easier to repair than automatics - according to my mechanic "Come Gato", back in Santa Cruz. -I believe that to be correct based on anecdotal experience. However, from what I've been told time and time again - in the long run, autos are much more reliable than manuals; flush the gearbox every now and then and it is just about ever-lasting. So - it is arguab…

Then you have been "told" by clueless people.

Feel free to elaborate. I keep being told this by professional mechanics, it appears to be the firm conviction of more than one reputable 4x4 magazine - and an experienced overland explorer like Tom Sheppard swear by them.

I am open to arguments to the contrary, but simply saying that those of a differing opinion are clueless is hardly an argument.

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

#882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see research on this. I know that if I'm not in the highway, cell phone conversations (or text based applications) receive low priority - such that, my phone has been thrown to the passenger side when I've needed to shift or I regularly have to tell people I'm talking to to wait a minute.

Please don't hold your cell phone or use text-based applications while driving at all, regardless of transmission.

I must agree! (though we had less knowledge of the dangers it brought in the mid 2000s.)

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

#883

I'm a car enthusiast, and I was a manual transmission purist for many, many years. But then I had to be honest with myself, and admit that the VAST majority of my driving is commuting in traffic. And that driving is much less annoying with an automatic. My leisure driving is maybe 5% less fun without a manual, but that's far outweighed by how much better my daily commute is. At this point, I'd only buy a manual for a…

Agree - I was the same for many years, always refusing to buy an automatic because I thought it would suck all the fun from driving. And like you, most of my driving was spent in traffic. I eventually got an automatic, and I will never go back to manual! And if you get an automatic with 'flappy paddles', you can still have full control when you're not in traffic.

Downvoted for sharing my experience. Nice.

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

#884
post #824

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…

Engine braking does activate brake lights on modern cars. So does throwing an anchor behind your car. Deceleration is included in the algorithm.

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

#885
post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Automatic transmissions back then were quite the hydraulic maze, as they operated entirely on hydraulics. These days, they're electronically controlled. I don't think the failure rate has changed. In a manual, you can of course clutch out as long as your clutch cable (or hose for hydraulic clutched cars) doesn't fail, which is not an option you have for automatics. These kinds of failures do occur today, though. See…

> You can disengage a manual if you're quick with an intact clutch cable, but you're a bit lost in an automatic, especially if it's too powerful to hold on the brake. The typical car has brakes that can dissipate 4x the engine power, so either the driver failed to press hard enough or the brakes failed in that case.

I suspect that your brakes will seize very quickly if you try to battle your engine at full power.

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

#886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Automatic transmissions back then were quite the hydraulic maze, as they operated entirely on hydraulics. These days, they're electronically controlled. I don't think the failure rate has changed. In a manual, you can of course clutch out as long as your clutch cable (or hose for hydraulic clutched cars) doesn't fail, which is not an option you have for automatics. These kinds of failures do occur today, though. See…

There is no such thing as a modern passenger car with an engine more powerful than the brakes. All cases of "unintentional acceleration" where the driver "could not stop" are cases of driver error: the driver refused to use the brake pedal, or was pressing the gas pedal instead. The other thing these dummies are forgetting to do, in their panic, is to simply turn off the engine .

In case of Toyota, the error was not with the driver. Not having ninja reflexes when your car misinterprets throttle input as you are parking is not user error.

Reasons that a driver might not simply turn off the engine: 1. Twisting the key to turn off the engine engages the steering wheel lock, which might not be a good idea if you're moving fast. 2. Modern cars with start/stop buttons might end up with issues that disallow stopping the engine - physical button failure, or software issues related to the button handling. 3. Diesel runaway - diesels are quite difficult to stop, as they need very little external assistance, and can run on basically anything. Oil buildup in the intercooler (which any used car will have) that ends up sucked into the intake is a fairly normal way for a diesel engine to self-destruct if you're not quick enough to clutch in so you can keep the engine under control with some load.

Reasons a driver might not be able to hold the engine at full throttle: 1. Brakes seize up at load, and "full power" is certainly a lot of continuous load. 2. Brake failure. 3. The sheer difficulty of holding the car. I have once in my life stopped a diesel van that was idling in first gear using only the brake (long story), and that required a lot of effort. I would not have been able to do it if any throttle had been applied.

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

#887

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 True 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 It is a bit hard to understand where you're trying to go here but assuming that you state it takes fuel to 'counter the engine braking' you're wrong. Engine braking is ju…

It's a bit hard to understand where you're trying to go here but assuming that you state it doesn't take fuel to "counter engine braking", you're wrong.

Engine braking is just that, using the engine as a brake. If no fuel is added, pumping losses will make it act as a (relatively weak) brake. If you want to coast without braking, with the clutch engaged, you will need to inject fuel to counter the pumping losses of the engine, losses which are higher if the engine is not idle. Losses in the power train add to the braking effect, which must further be counted with additional fuel.

If you're going downhill with clutch disengaged and maintaining your speed, engaging the clutch will very likely increase your fuel consumption for the same task (maintaining speed). Automatics have a coasting gear (usually the last or only overdrive gear) for this very reason.

(Sorry, I had to do that.)

Side notes: 1. Coasting is not braking. People seem to be mixing "coasting to a stop" and "coasting" in general. Engine braking, when your intention is to reduce your speed, is more efficient than friction brakes, but coasting does not mean that you intend to reduce your speed. 2. Who drives a car with a 2-stroke petrol engine? :)

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

#888

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as a modern passenger car with an engine more powerful than the brakes. All cases of "unintentional acceleration" where the driver "could not stop" are cases of driver error: the driver refused to use the brake pedal, or was pressing the gas pedal instead. The other thing these dummies are forgetting to do, in their panic, is to simply turn off the engine .

In case of Toyota, the error was not with the driver. Not having ninja reflexes when your car misinterprets throttle input as you are parking is not user error. Reasons that a driver might not simply turn off the engine : 1. Twisting the key to turn off the engine engages the steering wheel lock, which might not be a good idea if you're moving fast. 2. Modern cars with start/stop buttons might end up with issues that…

>In case of Toyota, the error was not with the driver. Not having ninja reflexes when your car misinterprets throttle input as you are parking is not user error.

That wasn't what happened. People were driving at high speeds on the highway and claiming they couldn't stop. They were wrong.

>1. Twisting the key to turn off the engine engages the steering wheel lock, which might not be a good idea if you're moving fast.

That's why you turn the engine off and then turn the key back on, or don't take the key out. Usually you have to take the key out to engage the steering lock.

Besides, which is worse, accelerating uncontrollably until you reach the car's maximum speed, or killing the engine and not being able to steer?

>2. Modern cars with start/stop buttons might end up with issues that disallow stopping the engine - physical button failure, or software issues related to the button handling.

Wrong. All such designs let you turn off the engine by either holding the button down, or by pressing it multiple times. People just were too dumb to learn how their cars worked.

>3. Diesel runaway - diesels are quite difficult to stop, as they need very little external assistance, and can run on basically anything.

Wrong and stupid. We're not talking about 1960s diesel engines with mechanical fuel pumps here, we're talking about modern vehicles with engine computers and electric pumps. Kill the power and they stop.

>1. Brakes seize up at load, and "full power" is certainly a lot of continuous load.

That's why you press them hard right away instead of trying to modulate the engine power with them....

>2. Brake failure.

Impossible. The odds of having a separate brake failure at the same time as an unintended acceleration failure are astronomical.

>3. The sheer difficulty of holding the car. I have once in my life stopped a diesel van

We're not talking about big diesel vans here, we're talking about regular cars in America which run on gasoline having unintended acceleration problems. Americans do not drive diesel cars, and certainly not diesel vans.

Do you have any more completely irrelevant anecdotes to try to disprove my assertions?

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

#890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case of Toyota, the error was not with the driver. Not having ninja reflexes when your car misinterprets throttle input as you are parking is not user error. Reasons that a driver might not simply turn off the engine : 1. Twisting the key to turn off the engine engages the steering wheel lock, which might not be a good idea if you're moving fast. 2. Modern cars with start/stop buttons might end up with issues that…

>In case of Toyota, the error was not with the driver. Not having ninja reflexes when your car misinterprets throttle input as you are parking is not user error. That wasn't what happened. People were driving at high speeds on the highway and claiming they couldn't stop. They were wrong. >1. Twisting the key to turn off the engine engages the steering wheel lock, which might not be a good idea if you're moving fast.…

1. I may misremember, but I do seem to recall a case where the unintended acceleration happened in a Toyota as the person was parking, with the car accelerating into the wall in front of them. But, indeed, that may be misinformation, so I'll retract the statement.

However, this does not mean that people all had the time or ability to stop. Unintended acceleration can happen in many cases, such as in a case of highway driving where, as they try to brake, they notice that the throttle is held. If this happens as someone needs to perform an emergency maneuver, the braking distance will be greatly increased, and they might lose control over car as power is still transferred.

In most cases, it might be very easy to handle the situation when you're prepared, but when you have very little time to observe the problem and correct it, things are less likely to turn out well. You might not have enough time to realize "Ah! My car is not reducing throttle, so I must set the automatic transmission to Neutral!", let alone perform the action prior to collision.

2. The steering wheel lock is different from car to car. My current car (VW) engages the lock when the key is removed and the gear is in "STOP", but my previous cars engaged when the key was rotated counter-clockwise two clicks, making it easy to hit the lock instead of simply stopping the engine. Not being able to steer is quite a fatal thing - see the accidents caused when steering wheel locks were first introduced. Especially when the electric kind was introduced (Chevrolet?), which had problems with spontaneously engaging the lock. This caused people to crash as they were suddenly unable to exit, or enter a turn, with only a second or two to stop the car. On a highway, you ultimately end up crashing into the barrier if your steering wheel lock engages.

3. And how are such designs implemented, if I may ask? Oh, software? Right. Do I need to say more, or do I have to explain exactly why this makes the mechanism entirely untrustworthy?

4. Wrong - you really at least read a bit on diesel engines. First of all, modern diesel engines (That is, 2016 model cars) have two diesel pumps - a low-pressure, electric pump in the fuel tank, and a high-pressure (that is, 1-2000 bars) pump driven mechanically by the drive belt. The electric pump is needed to bring fuel up when starting the car, as cold diesel is difficult to pump, and the starter won't result in significant pumping pressure from the high-pressure pump. However, once started, the low-pressure pump is irrelevant to engine operation, providing only a slight pumping assistance. Killing the engine the "proper" way is done by not opening the injectors, causing the pumps to simply recirculate fuel.

However, this has nothing to do with diesel runaway. During runaway, the diesel engine is not running on diesel, but on engine-oil leaking into the cylinder, often through the air-intake. Modern diesel engines almost always have turbochargers, which leak engine oil into the intercooler once their sleeve bearing, through which engine oil is actively pumped to avoid metal-to-metal contact, have been worn down, increasing the gap between turbine axle and bearing. Once enough oil has built up in the intercooler (which acts as an oil reservoir in this case), you risk sucking it in - and as any diesel engine will happily run uncontrolled on engine oil, this causes engine runaway. This can of course also happen due to other leaks, such as piston or injector seals. The lack of control means you either get to engage a gear and minimize damage as you wait for engine oil to stop flowing into the intake, or if you cannot provide any load, wait for the engine to explode, leaving behind melted pistons in what is now an expensive paper-weight. Remember that a diesel engine ignites fuel with compression (with fuel injected normally injected a full compression to allow for slight ignition timing adjustments, hence the crazy fuel pressure), not spark.

While gasoline engines can also suck in engine oil, they have electric rather than mechanic ignition, and they cannot burn engine oil well enough to run on it anyway.

5. You still need to overpower the engine, even when slamming the brake with all your might. A small gasoline car is probably easy to kill, but a more torquey engine will take quite some effort to stop.

6. Brake failure impossible? What? Brake pipes can burst, caliber piston seals can leak, and regular brake disks seize.

The first two modes of failure usually happen when you apply brake pressure. The more you apply, the more likely that you will break your old brake lines and piston seals. In other words, if your brakes are going to fail this way, they're going to fail when you need them. The dual fluid system of modern cars mean that in some cases, you will get more than one braking attempt (an attempt being a press on the pedal of any kind), but not many, and not in all braking modes.

Brake seizing is of course a possibility, unless you drive around with carbon fiber brakes.

7. Going up to the parent comment - "I am from Brazil", talking about the car reputation there. Feel free to join the comments, but don't try to pretend we're talking about something else now. I don't particularly care about Americans and their poor taste in cars, or your incorrect information about them not driving diesel cars (although they are not nearly as popular as in the rest of the world). Of course, the original post was about American transmission statistics, which are quite unrelated to the engine type.

Do you have any more incorrect or just plain uninteresting comments to try to disprove my assertions, or shall we let it be? :)

Post reply on HN