Percy, As an automotive enthusiast, I'll take my BMW 5 speed manual any day. It all depends on whether you want to control the car, or let it control itself. Some observations: Manuals get better gas mileage if properly driven. Brakes last much longer. I have 125,000 miles on my ORIGINAL brake pads and rotors, and they are cheked every 3,000 miles at the oil change. I seldom use the brakes, since with a manual, the engine can do most of your "slowing down". Once the engine is broken in, you can drive at higher gears, with lower rpm's. An automatic will keep you in a lower gear at slower speeds. If you have a flat torque curve, like the BMW has, I'll drive at 30mph in 5th gear, turning under 1500 rpm. But, in the end, it all depends on how you like your machinery. Jerry Eichenberger Columbus, Ohio N2906H >>> Percy Pwood Georgia Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/22/98 07:18PM >>> All right, `coupers. Some real food for thought appeared in the Wall Street Journal last week. The Wednesday edition (August 18) said that the "stick shift"
is going out of cars. The cell phone may be the death knell in it's
declining popularity. "I was always having to put people on hold to
change gears," according to one driver. Like the bumper sticker says,
"Hang up and drive!"
Manual transmissions have gone from 17.5% on new cars in 1989 to
13.6% in 1997. Oldsmobile had the first automatic transmission in 1940.
Wasn't that about when the Ercoupe came out?
Of course, the driver can do more. "With the stick and controlling
the gears, you have total control of the car," according to a race
driving
teacher. Are all drivers racers? Are all pilots flying fighters in
combat?
The article points out that cheap gas and electronically controlled
transmissions have erased most of the economic incentive for buying a
manual
gear box. Driving schools don't teach stick shifts because of
maintenance
costs - fixing the ground gears! Automobile manufacturers have to
collect
gas milage and exhaust emissions for every engine/transmission
combination,
so eliminating the manual transmission would save them bucks. Computer
controlled gear shifting is much more efficient than the old hydrolically
operated "goo boxes" of yesteryear
My wife has a policy: "If a car is too dumb to shift gears, it is
too dumb for me to deal with." My take is "If an airplane is too dumb to
keep
its tail behind it in a turn, it is too dumb for me." Now you know why I
fly
what I fly. Granting it is not for every one, but:
* Easier to learn to start with. The minimum to solo was reduced from 8
hours to 5 in 1940 for the Ercoupe over the Cub and similar.
* Less ongoing training. I, like most of you, don't fly often enough.
I
once read somewhere that it takes 35 hours a year to keep proficient
in
an airplane. You fly that much? If not, isn't it nice to have
something
that takes care of itself?
* Safer. Moving the tail around in a near-stall situation can convert
it
into a spin real quick.
So remember this when the local "coupe bigots" snear at you.
Percy in Portland
"Why haven't we won yet?"
!
!
!
!
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
