It used to be that automatics gave both worse performance and worse fuel economy. But I don't think that's really true anymore (assuming the automatic in question is better than a three-speed).
You know, it's funny. We went to war never looking to come back, but it's the real world I couldn't survive.
Tracy ,'The Message'
Natter 43: I Love My Dead Gay Whale Crosspost.
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
tommyrot - Mar 28, 2006 12:09:19 pm PST #6855 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
Gudanov - Mar 28, 2006 12:13:05 pm PST #6856 of 10001
Coding and Sleeping
Yeah, with five speed and six speed automatics becoming more common I've seen MPG figures that are better for automatics. CVTs seem to be starting to catch on too and they should be even better for fuel usage.
I still think four cylinder engines really suffer from automatics though. Manuals seem a lot peppier to me in cars with small engines. I don't really notice it with six cylinder engines.
shrift - Mar 28, 2006 12:15:28 pm PST #6857 of 10001
"You can't put a price on the joy of not giving a shit." -Zenkitty
Wow. I just got caught in the neverending loop of conference call HELL.
The gulf between expectation and reality yawns wide enough to swallow Mars, or some other really big thing.
§ ita § - Mar 28, 2006 12:18:51 pm PST #6858 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
None of my six cylinders are doing me any good right now. And tow truck #1 has left, yet #2 has not arrived. I want lunch.
tommyrot - Mar 28, 2006 12:20:40 pm PST #6859 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
I still think four cylinder engines really suffer from automatics though.
I think a manual is better for a multi-valve four cylinder engine. Multi-valve engines produce the most power at higher rpms, and it's easier to keep the engine in a higher rpm range with a manual than an automatic. Unless you have one of those automatics that lets you shift manually.
With an automatic and a four cylinder engine, if the engine is at a low rpm (and you're not in first gear) you won't have much power available until you push the gas pedal down far enough to force a downshift, and then you might have more power than you want. (However, most cars with an automatic overdrive transmission have a button that allow you to shift out of overdrive when you need more power on the highway.)
Huh. I think we've had this discussion before....
msbelle - Mar 28, 2006 12:20:40 pm PST #6860 of 10001
I remember the crazy days. 500 posts an hour. Nubmer! Natgbsb
HA! right chistoso is funny, right? My silly brain.
Bizcochos.
sarameg - Mar 28, 2006 12:24:40 pm PST #6861 of 10001
Given the way spanish is slurred down there...
Gudanov - Mar 28, 2006 12:28:06 pm PST #6862 of 10001
Coding and Sleeping
I think a manual is better for a multi-valve four cylinder engine. Multi-valve engines produce the most power at higher rpms, and it's easier to keep the engine in a higher rpm range with a manual than an automatic.
You'll also lose power through the automatic and it makes more of an impact when you have less power to begin with.
DavidS - Mar 28, 2006 12:31:13 pm PST #6863 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
Did somebody post this already? Arrested Development is NOT going to Showtime after all. Is kaput.
DavidS - Mar 28, 2006 12:32:40 pm PST #6864 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
Also, ita do you know any krav practitioners who are into parkour?
Seems like the kind of thing they'd do.