SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Visitors to the upcoming Los Angeles Auto Show will see supercars, hoverboards, self-propelling luggage and all manner of new transportation options.
But they'll be hard pressed to find a clutch pedal or a stick shift. Available in nearly half of new models in the U.S. a decade ago, the manual transmission is going the way of the rumble seat, with stick availability falling to about a quarter this year.
Once standard equipment on all motor vehicles, preferred for its dependability, fuel efficiency and sporty characteristics, the four-on-the-floor is disappearing from major car manufacturers' lineups — and subsequently from the sprawling auto show's floors.
Consider, too, that electric vehicles don't even have a transmission.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Disappearing Stick Shift: Less Than 3% of Cars Sold in the U.S. Have Manual Transmissions
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 123 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Remember Darwin; building a better mousetrap merely results in smarter mice.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday November 18 2016, @04:17AM
My dad always claimed you got better mileage on a stick (at least, if you didn't gear-head around). While I don't know for certain how true that is, maybe automatics improved to the point where the difference is negligible?
Also an anecdote: A friend of mine has a manual Ford Fusion. He loves it in the country but bitches all the time about constant shifting you have to do in the city. I can technically drive one, but I'd probably owe the owner of the car a new clutch by the time the trip was over. Never had one, so my experience was limited to driving other people's cars.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 18 2016, @05:52AM
It was very true, until about (guessing) 1985 or so. Given two cars, with all the same specs, except one was auto and the other standard, the standard would get at least 1/4 mpg better mileage, and sometimes 2 mpg better mileage.
Today, I think the autos actually get better fuel mileage. I'm not certain of it, I just think they do.
As you say though, it depends on how you drive. Jackrabbit starts are the major killers of fuel efficiency, and it doesn't matter what you're driving in that respect.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @06:03AM
The real killer of fuel efficiency is wasted braking. It kills your brake pads, too. Some drivers seem to think they must either be accelerating or braking at all times. The idea of maintaining a constant speed, or slowly decelerating by coasting, or just maintaining a reasonable distance behind the car in front so they don't need to react abruptly to every little thing that happens, just doesn't seem to ever occur to them.
Of course, the little indicator light on the dashboard that tells you if your driving meets with the approval of the car's computer, does not have anything to say about this. It only complains if you accelerate too hard, or go too fast.
I have read somewhere that the best way to improve the fuel efficiency of the average driver is to put a real-time live MPG readout right in front of them, so they can actually learn what in their driving style impacts fuel efficiency. I know Toyota does this, although you can select lots of other things to display on that readout. Other manufacturers have the same information but put it in silly places. My Dodge Ram, for example, has the MPG readout in the ceiling, near the dome lights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @09:07AM
It's called a Honda.
The newer Hyundai's have it too.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday November 18 2016, @11:08AM
"I have read somewhere that the best way to improve the fuel efficiency of the average driver is to put a real-time live MPG readout right in front of them."
I set my '95 Vettes fuel monitor to that once. It just made me cry.
In all seriousness however, I use that setting frequently, and it really does make a difference. Over the last year I have owned it I have improved my overall average about .9 mpg. I averaged 13.6 city with a short highway stretch to work originally, and it currently stands at 14.5 as I get ready to bed it for the winter.
On road trips I averaged about 25.2 and never managed to improve that, but freeway travel is pretty consistent compared to the city and I was a pretty decent driver to begin with.
I used it in my Freightliner as well, but, never managed to make a significant improvement as driving a truck is far different than a car. You go full throttle going uphill in a semi, and use your gears to control torque going uphill and gears and snub braking to control downhill, so it is much more difficult to improve on if you are a relatively smooth driver to begin with.
On-topic: I am saddened by the demise of the manual transmission. I personally love them and the majority of my vehicles over the years had every thing from three-on-the-tree to 18. I know automatics have improved to the point that reliability and performance are near-equal, but I'll always have an affinity for that 1959 two toned brown Rambler coupe I learned to drive in three feet of snow in 1975.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by yarp on Friday November 18 2016, @10:39AM
I have empirical evidence that it held true for some marques up to at least 1995, having two versions of the same car from that era with different transmissions.
The auto has only 4 gears versus the manual's 5, but also a different final drive meaning faster engine speeds for given road speeds. I've seen a reduction in economy of up to 5 (Imperial) MPG.
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Saturday November 19 2016, @01:16AM
I've noticed the opposite in many cars. The automatic may have less gears, but the gears are set up so that when the automatic is in overdrive the engine is turning slower than the manual in its highest gear. That's certainly the case for my car, which has a 4-speed auto. I've driven the manual 5-speed version and on the highway I'm constantly wanting to shift into the non-existent 6th gear because the RPMs are noticeably higher than my car on the highway so it feels like it's not in the highest gear. That's also why if you look at the stated mileage on many cars, the manual version gets better mileage in the city but the automatic gets better mileage on the highway. So manual transmissions are still more efficient, all other things being equal. But since the gearing is not equal, often the automatic will have an edge on the manual in some situations.
I'm not sure why they do that. Perhaps they think people don't want to have to downshift to pass on the freeway? Or maybe they figure that people buy the manual version because it's more fun and hence want the closer spaced gears?
(Score: 2) by yarp on Tuesday November 22 2016, @12:26PM
With my automatic gearbox, engine speed is higher in top gear as compared to the manual (but not by more than a couple of hundred RPM). Top is also the only gear which is mechanically-linked rather than hydraulically so drivetrain losses ought to be at their lowest, as I understand it.
After more than a decade of driving only a manual I've found the auto can be just as much fun when you've learnt its quirks. It has an automatic "sport" mode which changes shift points based on how hard you mash the accelerator pedal. One downside is that the car is a little more front-heavy.
(Score: 1) by RS3 on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:28PM
You lost me- which car got you the better mileage, automatic or manual?
Being a bit of a car hacker (the good kind, of course) including engine control computer tuning, I can tell you that manual trans. cars have different engine computer tuning than automatics, so comparing their mileage is not simple.
And for sure driving styles, conditions, terrain, highway vs. city, etc., all affect the result.
(Score: 2) by yarp on Tuesday November 22 2016, @11:45AM
The automatic version has the poorer economy.
(Score: 1) by RS3 on Tuesday November 22 2016, @05:17PM
I thought that's what you were implying but I wanted to be sure. I don't have any stats but I've generally heard for the past 10-15 years that since automatics have come a long way, are more efficient, also being fully computer controlled, and some with 6-8 speeds, they get better mileage than sticks. Ultimately the stick should always win but it should be obvious that with a stick there's a very wide range of human input involved. IE: some people may drive very conservatively, and others may like to "feel the gears", wind the engine up a bit, etc. YMMV
(Score: 2) by yarp on Wednesday November 23 2016, @01:58PM
No doubt they have improved significantly! Mine is computer controlled but predates the full implementation of OBD-II so has less data to work with compared to a modern system.
(Score: 1) by RS3 on Saturday November 26 2016, @05:09PM
Mine too! I have several vehicles. [(For the official record, I am politically _very_ independent and am somewhat amused by the political show...) Once a deranged crazed blurred-vision very vociferous liberal freaked out at my tiny collection. I was too unnerved, somewhat frightened, and mostly flummoxed to explain that it allows me to drive the most efficient vehicle for the need. Sorry- I don't mean to wax political- just the thought of my several vehicles reminded me of that guy.]
Anyway, the one I mostly drive is a 1994 Chevy Astro van. I've taken to reprogramming the PCM. From '93-'95 GM used a very advanced OBD-I computer series which is now popular among the gearhead crowd. I would prefer OBD-II but as far as I can tell, it costs upward of $2000 for a programmer.
Do you have a similar vintage GM vehicle? If so, does it need some tuning?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 18 2016, @02:22PM
Given two cars, with all the same specs, except one was auto and the other standard, the standard would get at least 1/4 mpg better mileage, and sometimes 2 mpg better mileage.
My experience has been that the gas mileage improvement was much better than that, but I was driving vehicles that were pretty good in fuel economy (35-55 MPG, such as Datsun 510, Mazda 323, Honda VX, Nissan Maxima, Honda Civic, and now Nissan Versa). There was a big difference between manual and automatic in the old systems when it came to fuel economy.
Even now, there's more energy loss in the automatic transmission systems than in a manual system though the shifting is better particularly with the infamous stop-and-go traffic that is so common to most of our lives. I have an automatic 2008 Nissan Versa. It gets almost as good gas mileage as a 1992 manual Honda Civic, that I replaced (er, something like 35-37 mpg versus 38-40 mpg for the Honda with head gasket problems) and I don't have the shifting fun in heavy traffic (unfortunately, I get a lot of that driving just about anywhere I want to go).
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday November 19 2016, @02:06AM
My sister used to be a stick shift bigot. Swore up and down it was all she'd drive.
Lately she wound up driving an automatic, cuz that's what was supplied by her office.
Says to me: "I can't believe I spent all those years working that hard just to drive the damn car!"
Me: I told you so...
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:50PM
That's because torque converters waste energy by slipping, now not an issue with electronic lock-up converters. They also rob horsepower, it was estimated that GMs TH400 wasted 100hp by the time it got to the output shaft, TH350 were not as bad but then not as heavy duty. The same (but less) between Fords C4 & C6. When I swapped the drivetrain in my van from an L6 to a high performance V8, I had a C4 custom built with extra clutch plates and high stall converter. More horsepower to the rear wheels instead of loosing it in the trans. No problem roasting 33x10.50x15 tires or blowing away corvettes.