----------
> From: Bruce Aaron Hefner <gt9742a@prism.gatech.edu>
> To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> Subject: Re: Auto vs 5-spd; was Re: DML: 1998 Dakota R/T (question about
the R/T!)
> Date: Thursday, October 09, 1997 2:41 PM
>
> > >
> > 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 (& Geri) Campagna, Mt Laurel, NJ campagna@nothinbut.net
> > (Per favore, non mi rompere i coglioni. Grazie!)
> >
> >
>
> 1st, autos have just as much power as sticks (The other day I pulled
> about a 8,000 lb trailer with a '86 Ram with an auto, and still had
enough
> power to pass a guy going 40 mph in a 55, while going uphill,
And a Dak wouldn't do that? How do you know? And, automatics DON'T always
have as much power as sticks. The Ram with Cummins is a good example.
Check it out. The Cummins in auto Rams is de-rated.
> not to mention the fact it would pull the trailer at about 15 mph without
even
> hitting gas),
That's scary. How fast will it go at idle without the trailer? This
sounds like "unintended acceleration." Better get it repaired.
> 2nd I've never been beaten at a stop light with a stock
> automatic (No mods) so I disagree with the less acceleration,
OK, you're young and have better reaction time than the old farts (like me)
you pick on <G>.
> 3rd, when pulling a trailer up a hill all you have to do is move the gear
selector
> down a notch or 2 and it downshifts.
So . . . you DO have to shift <G>.
> 4th The only maintenence I've had to
> do to the Ram in the 7 years we've had it is to put new floor pan seals,
> which I consider normal maintenence on any tranny, stick or auto.
Seven years could be 7,000 miles, or 70,000 miles. Or, whatever? And, I'd
be willing to put money down that, in the long run, sticks are cheaper,
even including clutch replacement.
> 5th, the Ram which is a fullsize, 4X4, still gets about 18 MPG on the >
Highway,
> which is actually better than my brothers shortbed '96 Ford P/U with a
> stick (About 17 MPG).
That's comparing apples and oranges. And, what do you mean "on the
highway?" 45 . . . 55 . . . 65? For how many miles? Have you checked the
accuracy of your odometer against highway mile markings? Have you changed
tire size from stock? Even if you replace tires with same-size tires, most
folks don't realize that different-brand tires THE EXACT SAME SIZE may have
a different circumference!
> So the only arguments left is that a stick is more
> fun to drive, which is an opinion that I don't agree with, but you have
> the right to believe.
I already stated this in my original response. And you didn't address the
stick's advantage while driving on snow and ice!
> Besides the fact that if your doing a lot of
> driving in heavy traffic, and/or have to stop on hills a lot, an auto is
> definitely the better tranny to have with all the stop and go.
OK . . . you win this one. Autos are better if you constantly drive in the
city. But, stopping on any hill is just no problem! Haven't you ever
driven a stick?
> As far as the auto distracting people, I've seen just as many
absent-minded > people driving sticks as autos.
In my defense, I put a grin (<G>) after that one <G>.
> Don't know about the theft thing, but I'd have
> to see the statistics to believe it.
I don't know the stats, but my son's incident was funny. He and a
co-worker were dropping off appliances in a real scummy section of
Philadelphia
(a lot of Philadelphia IS nice!), and the driver left the keys in the
truck. While they were talking to the customer, they heard the grinding of
gears, and turned to see a dirtball trying to drive their stick-shift
delivery truck . . . and couldn't do it! The driver (a big guy) ran up to
the truck, reached in the open window, and pulled the perp through the
window and beat the hell out of him. Of course, most of the injuries
occurred when the guy fell out of the truck <G><G><G>.
> You might be right about the old
> people, but you know you'd do the same thing, try to keep your driving
> privileges as long as possible, I know I will. Later-
>
> Bruce
You're right. But I hope that I'm honest enough with myself to stop
driving "when it's time," like my mother did several years ago (after she
pulled in front of an oncoming car and was broadsided. Fortunately, she
had her safety belt on.)
Please note that I qualifed my "really old" comment with the word "senile,"
and I included "others."
I enjoy these friendly debates.
Dick (& Geri) Campagna, Mt Laurel, NJ campagna@nothinbut.net
(Per favore, non mi rompere i coglioni. Grazie!)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:54 EDT