Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:40:57 -0700
Reply-To: eve Appleton <appleton_eve@YAHOO.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: eve Appleton <appleton_eve@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Automatic vs Manual trans. ( Friday )
In-Reply-To: <061301d0ecbc$290c8ec0$7b25ac40$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Stuart, i have to question mpg rationale as more then a successful marketing tactic from back in the day. Manual is disappearing because of convenience whoredom that has become our way. Thank god sticks r cheaper. And why? Because they're considered by the uninitiated as harder to drive. Hence, auto transmission a cashable luxury item.
I drive a lot. My 84 is my daily driver. My work has me all over western wa, in city n out. I get 17 mpg in stop n go traffic. 18-20 on highway. I'd probably get better if i'd fix the air n oil leaks. I do tend to drive efficiently, planning, coasting, catching the odd 80mph downhill to make the uphill at 60. I think i can speak for all when saying mpg is probably our only envy that keeps us thinking bout the possibility of hydro conversion.
I worked in advertising for years. Got out of it because i couldn't live with being a hypocrite anymore. Convincing the general public an item is more then it really is was my job, n i did it well. Like when Lexus came on the market. My company did the initial campaign. We test drove those babies all over western wa n oregon, n they're crap. High priced plastic with ever breaking components. But we successfully made them look worthy of the claims. I wouldn't touch one with a ten foot pole, n laugh everytime I'm behind one in traffic.
I ask u. How much gas is actually saved when comparing manual to auto mpg. Read the fine print just to the rgt of the claim. Like prices, mileage is suggested. The reality another thing all together.
I'm no great mechanic. Certainly not an engineer. So i can stand to be corrected. Still, it blows my mind that manual trannys are still accused of less efficient gas use. Logic alone would dictate otherwise. I really thot the american consumer public had become more sophisticated. U can throw an auto in neutral n think ur coasting, but r u really? My understanding of modern engines, however flawed, would say not.
Just sayin...
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From:"Stuart MacMillan" <stuartmacm@GMAIL.COM>
Date:Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:03 AM
Subject:Re: Automatic vs Manual trans. ( Friday )
I have a tired '85 Westy, and my son has a strong '87 Westy, both with
autos. With a pretty heavy load, we both get 16-17mpg on the highway at 65
to 70 (flat terrain only for me). Autos are 1:1 top gear, and there is
always some torque converter slip, so they will have poorer mileage than the
manual.
The Vanagon auto is probably about the same as the '65 Mustang, a three
speed hydraulically operated unit.
Modern transmissions have four to eight+ speeds, locking torque converters,
and are controlled by their own computer. They will get better gas mileage
than a manual transmission in the same car, which is why most manuals have
disappeared (CAFE standards).
All it would take for you manual diehards to wish you had an automatic is
driving for 60 miles (about two hours) in stop and go traffic whenever you
enter or leave Seattle on a trip!
Stuart
| 
