>
> At 02:41 PM 10/9/97 -0400, Buce wrote:
> "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."
>
> -So am I to infer by that statement that you would actually buy, say a,
> Porsche w/an automatic transmission?
I never said that, a sportscar is a whole different breed, they are
designed to be driven with a stick, although I did see a Ferrari (SP?) in
I think Car and Driver, with an auto in it, and it still kicked ass, it
had 2 settings, one was for street, and they said it shifted so smooth
that you couldn't even feel it shift, then it had a setting for racing,
and in that setting they said it would shift like a Stick, it would let it
run up to almost redline between every gear and would chirp the tires in
the shift between 1st and 2nd and 2nd and 3rd, and it did like an 11 or 12
in the 1/4 mile (Sorry don't have exact number, been a month since I read
article) and well over a 100 mph.
> Dick sed about automatics:
> "less fun to drive (for those of us who like to shift for ourselves;"
>
> -Eggzactly!!!
> In considering the purchase of any vehicle you have to consider the "fun
> factor." If you don't actually like driving your particular vehicle then
> what's the point, other then getting from one place to another, in owning it?
> In con petition w/the truck was a Firebird Formula w/a 6sp manual.
>
>
> In not considering the fun factor it just becomes another common place tool
> which, like a fork, you use w/out really thinking about it. Which, IMHO,
> leads to driver inattention.
>
> Once you become familiar w/a "tool" you tend to use it w/out thinking.
> Call it what you will "going thru the motions" or "auto-pilot, it amounts
> to the same thing, inattentiveness. W/a manual transmission you have to
> remain mentally alert to changing conditions around you in order to shift
> accordingly to meet those conditions. Also w/a manual transmission you
> simply don't have time to talk on the phone, read the morning paper, drink
> your morning cup of coffee, eat your McDonalds breakfast meal, and lest I
> forget...drive all at the same time.
> I don't know, call me anal or a control freak but I prefer a car/truck to
> shift when I want it to, not when it thinks it should.
I don't know, about that, I have lots of fun driving an auto, for me it's
the driving itself, there's nothing like having to fight the wheel with
both hands to get it to stick a curve, and hearing the squeel of tires as
your on the edge of out of control, the feeling you get when you
succesfully work your way through traffic and are now the leader of the
pack or just the rush of going fast... I've been in cars with people
driving a stick who were paying hardly any attention to road(Didn't ride
with them much tough <G>), just having to shift gears doesn't make you
more attentive, after a while it becomes instinct, you don't even have to
think about it. A tranny doesn't make you any more or less attentive,
that is determined by how much you have on your mind, and/or how tired you
are. And I have seen people eating, talking on phone, etc. while driving
a stick (Needless to say I passed them as soon as possible)
> Bruce sed:
> "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."
>
> -Purely a matter of opinion.
> This kind of thinking leads to what I've come to term "lazy drivers".
> (not a slam on you Bruce only an opinion.)
> It's like folks who cook ribs in the oven then call it bar-b-q.
> Nope, that's "lazy-Q". Any "smokers" out there?
>
> Bottom line is that it's all a matter of personal preference and how you
> view the driving "experience".
> Myself, I've always owned sports cars. We've never owned a car w/more than
> two (2) seats. Up until the '94 Camaro the last car we'd owned w/a rear
> seat was my '68 Mustang Fastback in 1970. Some of us, I guess, have a
> relationship w/our vehicles that transcends simple "ownership".
>
> Also, believe it or not, there is a concerted effort on the part of car
> manufactures to get rid of manual transmissions altogether. When you go to
> a lot what's the ratio of auto to manuals? Something like 20 to 1. Why
> should they provide you the option when they can get 1k more plus by
> forcing you to buy an automatic? To make matters worse is American instant
> gratification. Most folks, I think, would rather compromise and take
> what's on the lot rather than wait for what they want.
>
> Lastly, it true.
> I'm constantly amazed by the number of young(er) folks who can't drive a
> car w/a manual transmission. Another nail in the coffin. When there's no
> one left who knows how to drive one...
>
> Like I said, only my opionion(s).
> And we all know what they say about those. 8-)
>
Oh well, I must agree there are some lazy drivers out there, but I'm not
one of them, I mean I can be half asleep, but when I get in a car, it's
like a switch is flipped, and I'm wide awake, and 100% alert. I agree it
is wrong to try and phase sticks out, because everyone should have the
right to choose for themselves what they want to drive... How's about we
call a truce everyone and agree that both autos and sticks have their
merits, and that it is a matter of personal preference which we drive.
Later-
Bruce
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:54 EDT