I said:
"If it can't be had w/a manual transmission then it won't git got by me.
Would never even consider buying any car/truck w/an automatic."
To which Lord Foul asked:
"what do you have against autos?"
Before I could respond Dick (& Geri) Campagna said:
">Lord Foul - I'll tell you what "I" have against auto(matic)s vs 5-speed
>stick trannies: Autos cost more initially ($$$); they cost more in the long
>run (generally higher fuel bill, repairs & maintenance); fewer gears than a
>5-speed (except in certain high-priced imports) mean less versatility to
>handle heavy load conditions; not as effective when driving on snow/ice;
>less fun to drive (for those of us who like to shift for ourselves; autos
>are more likely to be stolen (ask my son, whose business truck was saved
>because the crook who jumped in couldn't drive stick-shift. He saw it
>happen and said it was funny!); generally slower acceleration than a
>5-speed stick, unless you modify it; they enable you to divert your
>attention from the driving process by allowing you to spend too much time
>on your cellular phone <G>; under certain heavy load conditions (like
>pulling a trailer up a hill), you have to floor it to make it downshift;
>and, most importantly, they enable really old/senile people . . . and
>certain others . . . to keep on driving long past when they should stop.
>The only advantage to an automatic is that it enables you to drive without
>shifting. Oh, I'll defend your right to own one. After all, driving with
>one doesn't make you a bad person <G>!"
Dick, or Geri, summed it up quite nicely in my opinion.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:54 EDT