On 6/27/2019 9:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:12:39 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 6/27/2019 9:59 AM, wrote:

snip

But they are all available with an AT but people,
- feel manly to stick shift,
- find AT too expensive,
- don't know what they are missing and think AT are still slow and sluggish.

If I simulate my manual shift from my driveway to the main road about 400 m away it would be:
r-1-2-3-2-Corner-3-4-2-speedbump-2-3-4-2-speedbump-3-4-2-corner to main road 15 manual shift in only 400 meter. Crazy. Automatic transmission: choose sport setting or leaving the default comfort setting R-D done!

Not disagreeing that an AT is a better choice. And for vehicles with a
good AT it'll end up costing less because it'll last longer than a
clutch replacement on an MT. But some vehicles have had problematic ATs
i.e. Hondas from 1998 to 2004.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I keep reading this about clutch replacement but I don't remember my
folks ever having to change a clutch on any of their cars and my first
car was a 1937 Chevrolet that I inherited when my folks bought a new
car and it lasted me for two years before it died and I'm pretty sure
that it still had the original clutch in it. Or, at least I know that
my folks never changed the clutch and I certainly didn't. And my
Grandfather had a Model A pickup that he drove for something like 20
years without a clutch change.

Given that a good friends family had about a 1939 Chevrolet and they
seemed to go through about one clutch a year I believe that clutch
wear is largely a matter of the driver's technique and not a matter of
some sort inherent weakness.
--
cheers,

John B.


"largely a matter of the driver's technique"
+1


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971