What Vehicles fall under this category?

In article >,
Magnulus > wrote:
>
> Actually now days the fuel economy of automatics and manuals is pretty
>much identical.

No, it isn't, as I've pointed out to you several times before.

>Regardless of that, the traditional automatic transmission
>is gradually being replaced with alternatives, like CVT's or
>computer-controlled, clutch-based transmissions.

Not really. CVTs have grabbed a niche, computer-controlled standard
transmissions a very tiny one. The traditional automatic is showing
no signs of being replaced.

> 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.

Certainly a manual actually is higher maintenence than an auto; you
don't need to do much to the auto other than change the fluid now
and then. But when the auto fails, you're pretty much stuck replacing
the whole thing at several thousands of dollars.


--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

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.

Why does the size of the car matter?

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

I agree, but FWIW there is an annual competition here where
people drive their car around a slalom course on grass. The
FWD cars always win.