RE: Re: 5 Speed vs. Automatic -Reply

From: Jason Jennings (jason@spray-tech.com)
Date: Thu Feb 25 1999 - 09:29:23 EST


Tell me about it. I blew about 5000 miles a piece last night at the
track. I will be cleaning that poor traction of my fenders for days....
Junk was caked on in huge chunks $$$$$$ down the toilet. I can't wait
for my slicks..... Even though she spun a bit, a still pulled out a
14.66 @ 91.34. Imagine if I had traction, ahhhhh maybe I could break
that 2.00 60' strangle hold....

Jason
2/25/99 9:32 AM

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Robert Trottmann [SMTP:rotrottmann@davidson.edu]
        Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 9:23 AM
        To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
        Subject: Re: DML: Re: 5 Speed vs. Automatic -Reply

        What's with all this traction talk? If we were discussing
actual racing
        or performance, people would be whining about no traction, not
bragging
        about it. Any Dak can lay a patch, but that doesn't do you jack
when
        there's a mustang hooking up in the lane next to you. If your
Dak can't
        lay a patch, it has nothing to do with your tranny, its just
missing a
        few cylinders, Mike. :-)
        Autos are more convienient, and only worse when racing from
about 30
        MPH....Auto's rule, that's why they're taking over. :-)

        David Gloff wrote:

> >yup! any schmoe can leave rubber with a clutch, but with an
auto, it
> takes finesse and cat-like reflexes =)<
>
> Or a brake pedal. :) Manuals rule.
>
> David Gloff
> Computer Technician
> Valcom Professional Computer Center; Kemper/Scudder/Zurich
Funds
> aolim: dgloff
> Loaded Intense Blue '99 Dakota Sport CC 318 5-speed 3.92SG
>
> "This is a litigation-free zone. Prosecutors will be
Violated."



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:12:44 EDT