Date:         Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:43:17 -0500
Reply-To:     Chuck Mathis <cmathis@HOUSTON.RR.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Chuck Mathis <cmathis@HOUSTON.RR.COM>
Subject:      Re: Manual or AT?
In-Reply-To:  <200309112252.h8BMprBZ006749@txmx01.mgw.rr.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Please explain.

My '85 automatic was excellent in the snow and ice in Ohio (haven't had much
experience with that since moving to Texas).  The smooth power transfer and
forced gradual starts seems to me to be an ideal snow and ice combination
much like the diesel Rabbit I drove in Alaska.

Chuck
'85 Wolfsburg Westy - 'Roland the Road Buffalo'

  on 9/11/03 5:47 PM, Automatic digest processor at
LISTSERV@GERRY.VANAGON.COM wrote:

> Date:    Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:43:32 -0400
> From:    Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@MAC.COM>
> Subject: Re: Manual or AT?
>
> In Sunny California this is probably true enough. In the snowy north
> (and east), a manual transmission is superior to an
> automatic...especially if you already know how to drive in snow and ice.
>
> My automatic cars are essentially inoperable during the frozen days of
> winter.
>
>
> On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 03:24  AM, Tom LaLanne wrote:
>
>> The manual trans has no significant advantage over an AT unless one
>> is seeking high performance.