Electric vehicle sales outpace manual transmission for the first time

Manufacturers: "there isnt a market for manual cars"

Also manufacturers: "ELECTRIFY ALL THE THINGS"

This is why I hate the auto industry. All the positive press and "newness" yet similar sales are seen as an excuse to kill the 3 pedal.
It's about the trend, not one month's statistics. One is going up while the other is going down.

And nothing is killing the manual transmission more than lack of demand. Automatics are good enough and cheap enough nowadays so there is little demand for the stick apart from the apparently 1% of enthusiasts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya and Godel

yRaz

Nigerian Prince
:facepalm: Yeah, and a Hummer was greener over its lifetime than a Prius - at least until that was resoundingly debunked as a paid smear campaign.

I bet most of the :poop: that EVs are MORE resource intensive and MORE polluting than ICE vehicles can be easily traced back to the oil industry. Now why would that be? Oh, yeah, on all fronts EVs use almost ZERO oil, where as oil is indispensable to an ICE vehicle.
Nice strawman argument. Totally not what I was saying, but I'm too hung over to put together a proper argument so here is what I will say.

The manufacturing element of electric vehicles causes way more pollution than just running a standard economy car for what's generally considered the life of a vehicle, roughly 100,000 +/- 3 CrystlerFiat transmissions.

Batteries in an EV are the limiting factor, not engines anymore. That means you can't pick up a 200,000 mile electric Honda's and take them to 300,000. At some point, you're going to need a battery replacement and the used EV market will become null since a new car battery will cost more than a new engine or transmission. Heck, probably both together.

But I really don't think people understand how much manufacturing an EV pollutes the environment. It's kinda like since you don't see the pollution coming out your exhaust it doesn't exist. But it does exist. From lithium mining and refining to the child slave labor putting your battery together in China.

But, yeah, your strawman argument about how Hummers are better for the environment than a Prius, totally true /sarcasm.

Anyway, I need to go pick up some Gatorade and KFC to take care of this hang over so I can actually enjoy the Steeler game tonight.

#goSteelers #goPens
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
@Bubbajim Although this article is entertaining, it's absolute statistical correlation between the two factors is practically meaningless. This is the old "comparing apples to oranges", taken to new "heights", or possibly new lows.

Statistics can be manipulated to illustrate whatever point any entity is trying to make.

In this case, this is almost as absurd as, "if they're going to ban vaping, then they should ban cigarettes, when actually the only correlation between the two actions, is in the minds of those hopelessly addicted to nicotine.

In the case of comparing a drop in manual transmission sales to a rise in electric car sales, the only commonality is overall auto sales..

A drop in stick tranny cars, could be that people are getting lazier, or the manufacturers are simple only offering automatic transmission in pleasure cars, and in some cases if you want stick, you might have to wait while they built one for you. I mean really, they know that if they built 50% of cars with stick shifts, they'd have at least 90% of those laying around on dealer's lots at the end on the model run.

There is no relation to those factors, with a rise in electric car sales. The only direct, culpable, statistic, which could carry any merit whatsoever, is if the people buying electrics are trading in stick shift cars for them, or if people were heading to the dealer to buy a car with stick shift, and some clever salesman sold them off to an electric
 
  • Like
Reactions: yRaz

Bubbajim

TechSpot Staff
Staff member
@Bubbajim Although this article is entertaining, it's absolute statistical correlation between the two factors is practically meaningless. This is the old "comparing apples to oranges", taken to new "heights", or possibly new lows.

Statistics can be manipulated to illustrate whatever point any entity is trying to make.
(snip!)
Morning Cap'n,

While I take the point you're making I'm not sure I've implied in the article that the two figures are actually linked, other than being part of the overall pool of what types of cars are being bought. The point, to me, is one of interest rather than significance. I also wanted to use the article as a vehicle to show that in spite of all the hype around EVs, the actual uptake is pretty dismal - and this is made more appreciable through comparison with the (not-causally-related) uptake of Manual cars.

Either way, glad you found the piece entertaining ;)
 

treetops

TS Evangelist
@treetops This is cute as hell, but I'm a bit confused as to what my takeaway should be in relation to the thread, and/or my posts to it.:confused:

(Although completely off topic is cool. I do it all the time myself).
Ah I skimmed over some posts while drinking Jagermeister, I wanted to remind everyone that life is pointless. Without being a bummer. Why? When considered, even momentarily, insight might be had. So no not directed at anyone in particular. But I'm glad you watched it, I made my old brother watch it when it came out. He was like and? More likely akin to an old flip out wallet full of family photos. To those not aware, I like the showing clip much more then the people I make watch it.

I almost went with a treacherously dark spiel, I posted that clip instead.
 

bviktor

TS Rookie
Makes sense. North America uses automatic transmissions to improve gas mileage.
Europe does it with engines, I think.
The exact opposite is true. At least the official specs always show worse mileage for AT.

The reason why MT is a niche product in the US is that they just don't care about shifting all the time. In the EU most people, especially in Eastern EU actually take pride in having the skill to drive an MT car. Ridiculous, I know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0dium

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
The exact opposite is true. At least the official specs always show worse mileage for AT.

The reason why MT is a niche product in the US is that they just don't care about shifting all the time. In the EU most people, especially in Eastern EU actually take pride in having the skill to drive an MT car. Ridiculous, I know.
Automatics will always shift more efficiently than a driver.
 

bviktor

TS Rookie
Automatics will always shift more efficiently than a driver.
They really don't, check for yourself. Example: Toyota Hilux 2.4, MT is 6.8l/100 km, AT is 7.4l/100 km. (lower value is better, in Europe we use l/100km instead of MPG). I could give you countless examples but I honestly have way better things to do than prove to a random stranger what I already know coz I've been looking at these values for years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: treetops

treetops

TS Evangelist
Automatics will always shift more efficiently than a driver.
I have to lol at this, if I had the money and it was an option I'd get both in the same car. Manual is fun, but I would say I prefer Automatic. The things I've done with manual could never be achieved on auto. I've trail blazed like a sob and scaled terrain that would make you shat your pants.
 

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
They really don't, check for yourself. Example: Toyota Hilux 2.4, MT is 6.8l/100 km, AT is 7.4l/100 km. (lower value is better, in Europe we use l/100km instead of MPG). I could give you countless examples but I honestly have way better things to do than prove to a random stranger what I already know coz I've been looking at these values for years.
So, why buy a manual-equipped car if you're not guaranteed better fuel economy? A manual transmission gives you a little more control over how hard your engine works and how much power gets to the wheels, so if that's something you want, go for the manual. If you think manuals make you look cool, you're right — and you should buy a manual. But if you want the best fuel economy, a manual transmission isn't always the best way to go.
-------------------------------

[SIZE=22px]Myth 1. Manual cars always get better fuel economy than cars with automatic gearboxes.[/SIZE]

In the past, it was pretty much a given that vehicles with manual transmissions would be more fuel-efficient than their automatic counterparts. But as modern automatics gained additional gears and relied less on a torque converter, they have now overtaken manuals in terms of fuel economy.

Let's take the 2020 Chevrolet Camaro as an example. With the base four-cylinder engine, the six-speed manual gets an EPA-estimated 23 mpg in mixed driving conditions. The Camaro's automatic transmission, on the other hand, has eight speeds and is estimated to get 25 mpg in mixed driving — an 8.7% improvement.
 

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
Nice strawman argument. Totally not what I was saying, but I'm too hung over to put together a proper argument so here is what I will say.

The manufacturing element of electric vehicles causes way more pollution than just running a standard economy car for what's generally considered the life of a vehicle, roughly 100,000 +/- 3 CrystlerFiat transmissions.

Batteries in an EV are the limiting factor, not engines anymore. That means you can't pick up a 200,000 mile electric Honda's and take them to 300,000. At some point, you're going to need a battery replacement and the used EV market will become null since a new car battery will cost more than a new engine or transmission. Heck, probably both together.

But I really don't think people understand how much manufacturing an EV pollutes the environment. It's kinda like since you don't see the pollution coming out your exhaust it doesn't exist. But it does exist. From lithium mining and refining to the child slave labor putting your battery together in China.

But, yeah, your strawman argument about how Hummers are better for the environment than a Prius, totally true /sarcasm.

Anyway, I need to go pick up some Gatorade and KFC to take care of this hang over so I can actually enjoy the Steeler game tonight.

#goSteelers #goPens
Sorry, but the science does not support your viewpoint.
 

treetops

TS Evangelist
@Bubbajim Although this article is entertaining, it's absolute statistical correlation between the two factors is practically meaningless. This is the old "comparing apples to oranges", taken to new "heights", or possibly new lows.

Statistics can be manipulated to illustrate whatever point any entity is trying to make.

In this case, this is almost as absurd as, "if they're going to ban vaping, then they should ban cigarettes, when actually the only correlation between the two actions, is in the minds of those hopelessly addicted to nicotine.

In the case of comparing a drop in manual transmission sales to a rise in electric car sales, the only commonality is overall auto sales..

A drop in stick tranny cars, could be that people are getting lazier, or the manufacturers are simple only offering automatic transmission in pleasure cars, and in some cases if you want stick, you might have to wait while they built one for you. I mean really, they know that if they built 50% of cars with stick shifts, they'd have at least 90% of those laying around on dealer's lots at the end on the model run.

There is no relation to those factors, with a rise in electric car sales. The only direct, culpable, statistic, which could carry any merit whatsoever, is if the people buying electrics are trading in stick shift cars for them, or if people were heading to the dealer to buy a car with stick shift, and some clever salesman sold them off to an electric
I grapple with a quandary of moral dilemmas. Of which like Rome all roads seem to lead too. Everything from why there aren't enough cash registers open at Walmart to why Foxconn has suicide nets. Our place in this global economy seems paltry to the common man while lining the pockets of those in the right position. A global dollar after looking at the math puts us all in bad position. However the economy is an illusion, in favor of what happens to be the country with the mightiest or rather most costly military in the world 3 fold. That illusion while benefiting some of the upper still pales in comparison to things that matter to the rest of us like health care. Food etc. Then my mind wanders to why I complain vs the people working 80 hours work weeks 100 years ago for even less scraps. You could say that's why things improved. The complainers, then you look at what the USA gained by taking over the global economy after ww2, purposely waiting for the UK to be utterly destroyed before intervening. And even something as simple as Nazis being the epitomy of evil becomes cloudy in the sense the USA waited for financial gain to help. Now this rattles around hitting the heart and mind. Of what is already obvious, I think the little recipe designed to keep people content until their old enough not to matter didn't work as well on me. And I'm not sure what to do to help. If anything can be helped, it's all pointless anyways. Don't take that as a depressed outlook. Rather looking at reality in the face, like the sun trying not to be blinded.

my little big rant I'm still ironing out, anyone can complain, the question is how to fix things, despite it being pointless

things are a bit confusing for an herbivore

p.s. the crimes of nature of the animals and plants we seem to revere conflict with the very fabric of what we try to be and cannot be, we all have pain receptors when it comes down to it, just because I can type on some forum I'm somehow better? for instance cows, say we didn't slaughter them, then they wouldn't live, apply the same math to humans, should we spawn great colonies of caged people just to have the experience of being alive? no, but where is that line drawn, where is the not worth it to life is worthit point, grey as such devolves almost to the point of non existence makes the most sense in light of the fact those on the positive side who prefer to live do it at the cost of those that don't. but that can be seen as melodramatic but in the face of the sun who is to say any beings mental or physical receptors of negative activity are any less then our own, I guess this is where my thought on the subject ends for the time being, any enlightenment?

p.s.s. nothing short of living in rags or getting and using a small fortune to "tech" to something better for all seems the least bit honest. Then say we all had food shelter helathcare and clothing, what could we complain about then. As long as the power hungery people are content it might not be so bad. A pretopia might exist someday. idk why I'm so negative, oo the sun

furthermore then what we correct nature, stop murder and rape in the wild? eventually down to the level of micro organisms? not feasible. we could strap vr onto a lion to simulate killing and preserve it's way of life. I don't see a solution

short of maybe simulating the mind of beings and letting them play out intended roles in a virtual landscape
 
Last edited:

mark kram

TS Enthusiast
Reparing the clutch on a rwd mt is relatively easy compared to a fwd mt. When the big 3 began producing mostly fwd cars we decided it was time to switch to ats. Paying someone else to repair the clutch costs more than what I was saving in gas.
 

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
Reparing the clutch on a rwd mt is relatively easy compared to a fwd mt. When the big 3 began producing mostly fwd cars we decided it was time to switch to ats. Paying someone else to repair the clutch costs more than what I was saving in gas.
I never owned a front wheel drive car and likely, (or rather "hopefully"), never will. But correct me if I'm wrong, with front wheel drive, don't you have to pull the motor to either replace the clutch or a transmission?
 

Gus Fring

TS Enthusiast
I think the "facts" were that MT could get better MPG than AT if driven by a highly trained and motivated driver. In normal everyday driving by normal everyday drivers AT would get better MPG. This has also improved as AT have moved from only having 3 forward gears to having 5 6 or even more (admittedly only in more top-end cars). Plus better mfr allows the weight of the transmission to be brought down.
 

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
Plus better mfr allows the weight of the transmission to be brought down.
Actually you're a little off target with this portion of your post.

Using the GM "Turbo-Hydromatic" as an example, the way the trans was numbered, indicated the engine displacement (C.I.D.), with which it was designed to be coupled (give or take). Thus, a "400 Turbo" would be mated to a 400 CID motor (or larger).

Obviously the new 4 cylinder cars are lighter themselves, have a lot less torque, and the transmissions can be built commensurately lighter duty.

Although granted, newer materials and better manufacturing might play somewhat of a role.

Here's an interesting article about Allison's 10 speed automatic for tractors the TC-10

As well as Kenworth and Peterbilt tractors:

I can assure you this automatic isn't "smaller & lighter, but fuel savings are being claimed against the traditional 10+ speed manuals.

Allegedly another Allison 10 speed auto is going into the new GM "Sierra's" as well


Tractors designed for jockeying trailers around shipping yards commonly had earlier Allison automatics as well.
 

yRaz

Nigerian Prince
I stand corrected, the information I had seems to be out of date.

On a side note, and you may find this interesting, the technology exists to pull CO2 out of the air and turn it into hydrocarbon chains. The problem is it takes far more energy than simply pulling oil out of the ground and distilling it into gasoline. If we could do that using 100% renewables, gasoline powered vehicles would effectively carbon neutral. I certainly understand why large cities would want to reduce their use to keep smog and pollution down. Just some food for thought
 

Markoni35

TS Maniac
Unfortunately electric cars have no future until we create usable nuclear fusion reactor (even if it's cold fusion, wink, wink). Because if all the gasoline cars would be replaced by electric cars, there wouldn't be enough electric power plants in the world to satisfy the demand for electricity.

So, how do we satisfy the demand? By more classical nuclear power plants? That just sucks. Not only they are dangerous, but they are deliberately manufactured to be inefficient and waste more fuel than needed. Which also means they produce extremely radioactive waste. If we build all those power plants, the amount of very radioactive waste would be a lot bigger ecological problem than CO2.
 

mark kram

TS Enthusiast
I never owned a front wheel drive car and likely, (or rather "hopefully"), never will. But correct me if I'm wrong, with front wheel drive, don't you have to pull the motor to either replace the clutch or a transmission?
No. The engine compartment is a busy place so stuff usually has to be removed just to get to the transmission. Both front tires, both ball joints, and both drive shafts have to be removed on top of the stuff that usually has to be unbolted. The transmission has to be dropped. Automatics that last for two clutch changes pay for themselves.