What Vehicles fall under this category?

Yep, looks like Magnulus is still using training wheels. Never learned
how to drive a standard shift. Tisk tisk; how pathetic...


This discussion is ENDED!!!

"Magnulus" > wrote
> 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.

Funny, the clutch in our '91 525i with 150K miles has never been replaced,
while virtually no auto boxes in those models made it beyond 120K before
needing a rebuild. If you have ever actually *LOOKED* at the internals
of manual and autos, you would understand why your statement is
completely false. Oh, and the 525i was driven in Seattle commuter
traffic, and the clutch definitely gets used.

Floyd

Hahaha. Having driven countless vehicles with RWD, FWD, AWD, and 4WD in
USA and Europe as well as in Colorado (where I lived for eight years),
I'd choose AWD first then RWD. I hate the FWD and its annoying
understeering and torque steering. Once you start to understeer, you
can't really have much control. With RWD, I could. FWD is ****ing pain
to maintain and service due to tight packaging, especially the ones with
transverse-mounted V6 and V8 motors.


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.
>
> 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.
>
>

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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 this day and age, nobody teaches stick. I imagine alot of people
under 40 don't even have a clue how to use a stick shift.

Having said that, I have driven stick before. My uncle gave me a few
lessons with his truck. It convinced me that while stick shifting is
do-able, there's nothing particularly virtuous about it and it is alot of
work for very little gain. I can't imagine wanting to stick shift in
traffic.

>
> 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.

I lived in the UK for 4 years in the late 80's, so I know about Europe.
What's your point? They also don't have air conditioning in European cars
or homes, for the most part. That doesn't meant I would consider a car
without A/C in the US. In my book its a necessity.

Auto transmissions typically on most cars have 95 percent the fuel
efficiency of the manual versions. So for most people there's no good
reason to get a manual in the US. That kind of penny pinching, IMO, is not
worth the extra hassle of driving a manual. Even Europeans are gradually
starting to change their tune about automatic transmissions, especially in
northern Europe.

> Manual transmissions will always be superior to
> automatics.

No,. The VW/Audi DSG shifts faster and smoother than is humanly possible
with a manual transmission- it most definitely is not a manual transmission,
although it does have a manual shifting mode. The DSG is typically faster
0-60 than a manual transmission, by a few tenths of a second.

You are so convinced a manual transmission is so much more efficient and
demonstrative of driving skill. So I suppose you look back ruefully on the
day that cars ditched things like manual spark advances, manual chokes,
etc.?

Around 5/13/2005 6:23 PM, Magnulus wrote:

> > 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,

You just answered your own question. Like Nate said, the packaging is
cheaper for the manufacturer. That's about the only advantage, from a
driver's perspective.

> <snip>
> An auto is not necessarily high mantainence. You have to factor in all
> those clutch jobs.

Many people go 75 to 100 thousand miles without ever changing the
clutch. I've heard of some going up to 150 thousand. In general, a new
clutch both lasts longer and is far cheaper to replace than an automatic
is to rebuild.

> If you tow or drive in heavy traffic, the clutch is going to wear out alot
> faster.

Not necessarily. At least with the heavy traffic part, it is highly
dependent on driving style.

For example, instead of a true stop-n-go on the interstate, I will just
leave my dad's GLI in first and crawl, rarely having to touch either the
brakes or the clutch.



--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Around 5/14/2005 7:35 AM, Magnulus wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>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 this day and age, nobody teaches stick.

Not in driving schools, no. As it has been done since the advent of the
modern automobile, most people either learn from a relative or teach
themselves.

> I imagine alot of people
> under 40 don't even have a clue how to use a stick shift.

Actually, you'd be surprised; most of the cheapest cars are standards,
and guess who can afford only the cheapest? That's right: Young'ins.
Standards are _extremely_ popular with the under 25 age group.



--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Right on the money! Also, just because the market dictates what
products we get by consumers voting with their cash doesn't mean that
they make the right decisions.

VHS for example! What an autrocity! VHS was terrible from the
begining in comparison to the high quality Beta which was better in
every way, shape and form except for it's higher cost.

Don't you see the pattern here? It's not that FWD is *better* than RWD
or AWD, it's only that it is *cheaper*. That's why, *cheap* sells
better. Cheap does not equate Better.

As for the slush boxes prefered over manual. --- it's lazyness vr.
Practicality. Slush boxes are for the lazy motorists who don't give a
damn and the manuals are for motorists who do care about what they
drive and how it drives.

Final Verdict: Driving a car with a slush box is not driving.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> VHS for example! What an autrocity! VHS was terrible from the
> begining in comparison to the high quality Beta which was better in
> every way, shape and form except for it's higher cost.

Wrong. Beta did not originally allow recording of full length movies.
Beta was only superior in terms of image quality.

> Don't you see the pattern here? It's not that FWD is *better* than RWD
> or AWD, it's only that it is *cheaper*. That's why, *cheap* sells
> better. Cheap does not equate Better.

Cheaper can be better for the consumer. RWD= heavier car, more expensive
car, lower MPG, less interior room. So there's not much reason to have RWD
on anything but a large car.

>
> As for the slush boxes prefered over manual. --- it's lazyness vr.
> Practicality. Slush boxes are for the lazy motorists who don't give a
> damn and the manuals are for motorists who do care about what they
> drive and how it drives.

I think that's an unfair generalization.

My grandfather drove trucks for about 50 years or so. But all his cars
were always automatics. Why? He didn't want to fool with something he did
as "work" all day.

In article >,
Magnulus > wrote:
>
>"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.

Almost all modern RWD cars ALSO have a tendency to understeer. In
fact, a car's tendency towards understeer or oversteer is not
directly related to which wheels are the drive wheels.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article .com>,
> wrote:
>AWD rules in all aspects except costs.

And weight and to some extent reliability.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.