Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday November 18 2016, @01:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the lost-art-of-double-clutching dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by yarp on Friday November 18 2016, @10:39AM

    by yarp (2665) on Friday November 18 2016, @10:39AM (#428779)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by toddestan on Saturday November 19 2016, @01:16AM

    by toddestan (4982) on Saturday November 19 2016, @01:16AM (#429222)

    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

      by yarp (2665) on Tuesday November 22 2016, @12:26PM (#431181)

      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

    by RS3 (6367) on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:28PM (#429600)

    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.

    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

      by yarp (2665) on Tuesday November 22 2016, @11:45AM (#431169)

      The automatic version has the poorer economy.

      • (Score: 1) by RS3 on Tuesday November 22 2016, @05:17PM

        by RS3 (6367) on Tuesday November 22 2016, @05:17PM (#431341)

        The automatic version has the poorer economy.

        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

          by yarp (2665) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @01:58PM (#431811)

          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

            by RS3 (6367) on Saturday November 26 2016, @05:09PM (#433294)

            Mine is computer controlled but predates the full implementation of OBD-II so has less data to work with compared to a modern system.

            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?