What Vehicles fall under this category?
 

In North America, I'm looking for a vehicle with either awd/rwd/4x4,
diesel/turbo diesel, and a manual transmission. Does it exist? All I
can find are diesel VW's that don't have the set up I want since they
are all fwd (terrible). And then there are the full sized trucks that
can be had with big diesels. The full sized trucks are way more
vehicle than I will ever need. The suburus and the audi's are all only
offered with gas engines.

So what gives?

Anything that falls under the category that is not mentioned on the
list.

wrote:

> In North America, I'm looking for a vehicle with either awd/rwd/4x4,
> diesel/turbo diesel, and a manual transmission. Does it exist? All I
> can find are diesel VW's that don't have the set up I want since they
> are all fwd (terrible). And then there are the full sized trucks that
> can be had with big diesels. The full sized trucks are way more
> vehicle than I will ever need. The suburus and the audi's are all only
> offered with gas engines.
>
> So what gives?
>
> Anything that falls under the category that is not mentioned on the
> list.
>

try http://volkswagen.de

they have what you want... just not here :(

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:24:36 UTC, wrote:

> In North America, I'm looking for a vehicle with either awd/rwd/4x4,
> diesel/turbo diesel, and a manual transmission. Does it exist? All I
> can find are diesel VW's that don't have the set up I want since they
> are all fwd (terrible). And then there are the full sized trucks that
> can be had with big diesels. The full sized trucks are way more
> vehicle than I will ever need. The suburus and the audi's are all only
> offered with gas engines.
>
> So what gives?
>
> Anything that falls under the category that is not mentioned on the
> list.

If it doesn't exist and you want it, find a way to make it. Perhaps
a local (experienced) mechanic can recommend a combination of engine,
transmission, chasis, and body that will suit your needs. It will
cost you some time and money though. There are many people out there
who customize engines for other vehicles. I don't see why a diesel
would be particularly special to place in another vehicle.

David

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> In North America, I'm looking for a vehicle with either awd/rwd/4x4,
> diesel/turbo diesel, and a manual transmission. Does it exist? All I
> can find are diesel VW's that don't have the set up I want since they
> are all fwd (terrible).

How is FWD terrible? It saves alot of money to have FWD system. The only
time RWD matters is in a bigger car that you want to have accelerate very
quickly, in every other way FWD is superior.

Dodge and Ford all make 4x4 trucks with diesel engines- and sometimes a
manual transmission option. Though most people who are doing serious
hauling preffer automatic transmissions. The fuel economy is generally
abysmal with these trucks, though.

Magnulus wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>In North America, I'm looking for a vehicle with either awd/rwd/4x4,
>>diesel/turbo diesel, and a manual transmission. Does it exist? All I
>>can find are diesel VW's that don't have the set up I want since they
>>are all fwd (terrible).
>
>
> How is FWD terrible? It saves alot of money to have FWD system. The only
> time RWD matters is in a bigger car that you want to have accelerate very
> quickly, in every other way FWD is superior.

No, the ONLY way FWD is superior is in packaging. RWD provides much
better handling characteristics and more control for the skilled driver.

Now there are some people who prefer FWD in the snow but I respectfully
submit that that's probably because that's what they learned to drive
(much as I learned to drive with RWD so that's what I am comfortable
with <G>)

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:
>Magnulus wrote:
>> How is FWD terrible? It saves alot of money to have FWD system. The only
>> time RWD matters is in a bigger car that you want to have accelerate very
>> quickly, in every other way FWD is superior.
>
>No, the ONLY way FWD is superior is in packaging. RWD provides much
>better handling characteristics and more control for the skilled driver.

However, both advantages are in some ways theoretical. Some FWD cars
are not very space efficient, while some RWD cars don't handle that well.
It makes more sense to look for the actual desired characteristic (be it
space efficiency or handling), rather than assuming that FWD or RWD
automatically tells you whether a car has that characteristic.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> No, the ONLY way FWD is superior is in packaging. RWD provides much
> better handling characteristics and more control for the skilled driver.
>

"For the skilled driver". The consensus is that FWD is more intuitive,
because the tendency is to oversteer rather than understeer. Understeer is
easier for most people to deal with, whereas oversteer can lead to all kinds
of spin-out crashes. The only disadvantage for FWD is with a car with a
high power engine, because then you'll have more torque steer. But given
that the majority of cars in the world are not sports car or performance
cars, this really is not a problem.

AWD rules in all aspects except costs. FWD may cost less up front, but
in the long run they are totally not worth it. I for one don't happen
to enjoy replacing CV joints and FWD cars regaurdless of what make or
model. It's simply a bad design, same as the slush boxes. It doesn't
matter how hard those engineers try to refine the slush box,
regaurdless it will still always be nothing more than a slush box that
offers an uninspirational driving experience, poor gas mileage, high
maintenance costs, higher up front costs, and a subpar/white knuckle
driving experience when hauling a heavy load in hill country (when an
auto slush box is coupled with a fwd set up).

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> It's simply a bad design, same as the slush boxes.

Then why are most cars in the world now front wheel drive, if it is such
a bad design? It's cheaper to build a car with FWD, and usually results in
a car that weighs less and has more room, which means it's more efficient.

"Slush boxes" aren't a bad design, for what they are intended to do. If
there was nothing good about automatic transmissions, they wouldn't account
for 90 percent of the US market.

> It doesn't
> matter how hard those engineers try to refine the slush box,
> regaurdless it will still always be nothing more than a slush box that
> offers an uninspirational driving experience, poor gas mileage,
>high
> maintenance costs,

Actually now days the fuel economy of automatics and manuals is pretty
much identical. Regardless of that, the traditional automatic transmission
is gradually being replaced with alternatives, like CVT's or
computer-controlled, clutch-based transmissions.

An auto is not necessarily high mantainence. You have to factor in all
those clutch jobs. On some cars a new clutch can cost 750-1,500 dollars.
If you tow or drive in heavy traffic, the clutch is going to wear out alot
faster.

You say this only because if it weren't for "slush boxes", you wouldn't
have any means to drive because you never learned to drive a standard
shift. Just face it you fool, you know it's true.

In Europe, manual gear boxes rule the road. Europeaners know how to be
frugal with their resources because they can't afford to waste it the
way the Americans do. Manual transmissions will always be superior to
automatics. Anyone who can not drive a standard shift should never be
issued a drivers license. End of discussion.