Um, what?
Manual transmissions deliver better fuel economy because they are lighter and provide less drive train loss. That is why you see manual transmissions in lower power european cars?
the bottom line is that they do great when they hit things, not so well when hit by things (aka SUV).
because of they way a frame works, an SUV would have done worse in a head on 70mph accident with a wall. but the overall reality is more accidents are not head on into something like a concrete barrier that won’t move.
fuel economy is just one factor… cost, and the fact that automatics are annoying in low power cars are among others.
I remember growing up in London, that if somebody had an automatic car it meant they were probably pretty poor at driving and needed one.
you really going to tell me you haven’t noticed low power automatic cars hunt all over trying to find a gear when all you wanted to do was accelerate a little bit more on the highway.
:word:
And in regards to theblue, he wont read this unless someone quotes it, but i’ve driven low power automatics. Not a thrilling experience, but a hell of a lot better than driving a low power manual in a traffic-y commute. If i’m going to maneuver a clutch, I want it to be an enjoyable experience. There’s nothing fun about shifting a double-digit horsepower car. It’s a chore.
I never said that, tho I do know the dynamics of an accident, I raced circle track for years.
ITS crumble zones are stupid I agree, But the smart car faired pretty well considering its size.
Driving anycar into a wall at 70mph, you probably wont live, unless its a fully caged car with an approved racing restraint system and a helmet.
Ive wrecked at well over 70mph before on the circle track.
fucking:picard:
W
T
F
?
I SHOULD HAVE SAID IT’S!
:fail: are fail boat tickets still available?
Revise that to say buying a new car for gas savings.
If someone was to buy a crx HF for 1000 - 1500$
they could enjoy 50mpg on 87.
I wouldnt mind it only costing $800 in gas to drive 10,000 miles.
It would buy itself several times over.
That’s the way the cookie crumples?
If I was going to get a small low-power car, say a stock older Civic, I wouldn’t even consider an auto unless it was dirt cheap, they usually suck in those applications. Unless you commute in heavy traffic every day, which is not the norm in Buffalo, it’s not a pain to own a manual in those cars. It makes small gutless cars somewhat fun to drive. That said, I wouldn’t want a manual transmission in a Cadillac.
No CA version, no care.
Jesus, no it does not, i’m not even trying to be a dick, but my dad had a duramax with the allison 6spd and doing 72 with a tail wind it would get hand calculated 20 mpg.
NO truck, will get 32-35 mpg.
Bully dog, k&n magnaflow even the dam trans kit. Trust me the trucks awsome on fuel. Got an atv? Come with me next time i go to PA to see for yourself.
I made it back from washington Dc pulling my 68 camaro on a heavy ass u-haul trailer and still had 1/4 left. Never filled it once on the way back.
Here that was my fleet in 2005. Can also see my duramax and my daily 2001 alero with adr 18’s on it.
is that hand calculated?
The tuners fool the truck with how much fuel it’s actually using, and the computer will read really high MPG
Done on paper, this truck gets great mpg, noone belives me including my friend who went with me last week. Now he does.
I’ll sell you my Fit for $13k.
Paddle shift 5 speed. Triple digit hp. Same mileage.
Fewer people laughing at you.
They still laugh.
But there’s less of 'em.
Hmm, i dont understand why people laghf, everyone looked at me when i drove around in the bug? Why its good on gas and a fun little car. I was having fun at least. I enjoy everything.
I think Honda Fit is a good idea for you. the 2009 Fit looks bad-ass…
you should invest in a TDI of some sort, especially considering the new generations coming out in a few months… 50-60mpg and biodiesel capable if you put in the time