Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (November 1999, week 2)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:26:40 MST
Reply-To:     CARY CHIANG <chiang1@USA.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         CARY CHIANG <chiang1@USA.NET>
Subject:      Re: [Re: Carat: Manual vs Automatic]
Comments: To: vanagon@vanagon.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Ken: I agree with most of your points regarding Auto vs manuals, with the exception of the gas mileage and (somewhat) the acceleration comparison. I don't think its fair to compare a 2.1l auto Carat with a 1.9l '85 stickshift because of the power difference. Your Carat should accelerate at least as fast as a 1.9l. I have owned '85 vanagons with both types of trannys: the automatic accelerated about the same as the stick because it wasn't burdened with a crappy shifter, but definitely had worse gas mileage because of the inherent slippage and lack of an overdrive gear. Manual-trannied vans tach at about 100-200 RPMs less at 70MPH than automatics. Of course, comparing two "identical" engines is problematic.

Cary

KENWILFY@AOL.COM wrote: In a message dated 11/11/99 8:48:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, lindgre@ONLINE.NO writes:

<< Why shift manually? Heck, that's easy! Because its BORING to drive an automatic!!! The Autotranny was invented for people too lazy to shift for themselves, or those that cant shift for themselves, but that's a whole'nother matter. >> I used to say the exact same thing until I got my automatic Carat Vanagon

after driving my '85 manual Vanagon. My opinion is that the manual Vanagon is no fun to shift but actually a chore that can be very annoying and even exhausting in heavy traffic (just sit in Philly traffic for two hours with a manual anything and you will be praying for an automatic). I have a manual '81 Jetta that I actually enjoy driving (and shifting). The three advantages of the manual transmission: long life, more fuel mileage, and quicker acceleration don't apply to the Vanagon as far as I'm concerned. Automatic trannys last longer than manuals (on the average), I get the same fuel mileage with my autobox as I did with the manual (19 town/22 highway), and how can you really take off any faster with the first gear on the manual transmission being so low? Sorry for the rambling. This is only my opinion after all.

Thanks, Ken Wilford http://www.vanagain.com John 3:16 Office (856)-765-1583 Shop (856)-327-0027 Fax (856)-327-2242

____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.