I swore I wouldn't get involved in the debate of which is better,
but...... I'm not saying which is better, which is faster, which is more
practical. I am just pointing out a problem with one of the arguments. I
can't quote the exact line because I subscribe to the digest. It went
something like "You can use your starter motor to move the truck if the
engine is dead." I'll agree to that statement on older cars, but.... Due
to big brother fearing that we're all idiots, and would severely
hurt ourselves given half the chance. Most if not all new vehicles have a
safety switch installed on the clutch. No clutch, no starter. It seems
to me that if the clutch is pushed in to allow the starter to run you
aren't going to get very far.
I know I should let it go, but being one of those engineer types I feel
it is my civic duty to point out any and all errors I can find. Besides
it's fun. :)
Just a random thought.
p.s. I own both standards and autos. I even owned an auto which wouldn't
shift itself because of the shift kit in it (71 Torino 429 C-6 12.5 sec
1/4 mile, and I really miss her). They both have their places. Please
take this message with a grain of salt. It is meant to be in good fun,
and is not a personal attack on anyones statement, or religous beliefs
(which this subject seems to be).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:55 EDT