manual cars are the sh1t

[Suicide Bobb 5,000+ posts]

Yes, the guy had some classic threads in the day.....link, fawk that, too tired to look, lol!

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

I'm gunna look through his "started threads"

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

so, you have a 3600 pound street car that does wheelies huh? And you get all this traction on an un-prepped road? Wow man, you have us all by the balls, you win.

I was only looking to get you by the balls, getting everyone elses balls was just a pleasant side effect.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Well this thread certainly went to flame fest hell.

Look, its frightfully simple.

Looking at the statistics, The dual-clutch Semi-automatic transmission such as employed by the GT-R can execute a shift faster than any human paired with a clutched manual possibly can.

This isn't rocket science, its the reason this type of transmission is used on many of the world's most expensive and high performance cars (including THE fastest production car on the planet.)

From a mechanical engineering standpoint, Standard Manuals are yesterday's news.

Fun to drive? Sure, but so are those Zero-turn lawn mowers and 50cc mini Go-carts.

Logically, newer sports cars with newer technologies are simply advantageous in almost every way other than personal preference.

Whether or not you managed to get a good deal on an older car which had many amenities considered luxury at the time remains irrelevant.

As for my car. Logically, When comparing cars. My car proved a good choice in terms of performance, reliability, safety, economy, and luxury.

Logically, It was a very good choice.

Of course, illogically, A bunch of forum trolls like to say it was a "girl's car," and posit that as the only real reason to jeer it.

I feel like I did the other day when a friend was explaining his boner for a 69 chevelle ss 396.

Here we have a car with almost 400 hp performing even at in its best categories no better than cars today with almost half the horsepower.

Why? Engineering. That 400 hp is great, but through an archaic 4 speed manual, it becomes an efficiency nightmare.

even geared low, it can only hope to reach mid 14's in the quarter mile, (hmmm, oddly, so can my eclipse with 263hp.)

So maybe its strength is top end instead? Think again, with it's parachute-like exterior, good luck reaching 130, And good luck not splattering your *** all over the road while doing it. (on the other hand the eclipse has done 140 quite comfortably).

Well geezz maybe handling? (don't make me laugh).

The point, the only real thing this car has on the eclipse is wasted hp, lack of aerodynamics, older, heavier parts, and an unwarranted stigma of "the classic muscle car."

Yet i'm positive all of you would take it over the eclipse. (granted I would too, but merely because of the dollar value of the car.)

So show me this awesome stigma on the specs of the car, or the sticker, cause I can't find it. You seem to think a car only has value if it presents a challenge to you as a driver or take special skill to operate.

You don't love cars. You love yourself, and the feeling you get by imagining that your balls are bigger because you drive something with a large V8 that doesn't and can't use half of its power usefully.

Personally, I love cars for the engineering marvels they are. Not for how much they magnify my ego-maniacal view of myself.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but no stock 1986 F250 will ever beat a stock 06 Eclipse GT in any race... EVER...

(except perhaps a race to the scrap pile)

Who ever told you it could... lied.

 

[roarzorz 10+ year member]

You're not yapping about how awesome el gay audioz is again are you?

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

You're not yapping about how awesome el gay audioz is again are you?

Oh lawdy I sho iz.

 

[Suicide Bobb 5,000+ posts]

Well this thread certainly went to flame fest hell.
Look, its frightfully simple.

Looking at the statistics, The dual-clutch Semi-automatic transmission such as employed by the GT-R can execute a shift faster than any human paired with a clutched manual possibly can.

This isn't rocket science, its the reason this type of transmission is used on many of the world's most expensive and high performance cars (including THE fastest production car on the planet.)

From a mechanical engineering standpoint, Standard Manuals are yesterday's news.

Fun to drive? Sure, but so are those Zero-turn lawn mowers and 50cc mini Go-carts.

Logically, newer sports cars with newer technologies are simply advantageous in almost every way other than personal preference.

Whether or not you managed to get a good deal on an older car which had many amenities considered luxury at the time remains irrelevant.

Wow, once again the whole point of what I was saying just managed to soar over your head again. How fast a car shifts or goes 0-60 is irrelevant if the car is not fun to drive! As I said before, you would rather be in a Ferrari that drives itself from 0-lightspeed in 0.0000581 seconds than drive an E46 M3 (manual). Typical guy who thinks he is a car guy but only cares about numbers.

As for my car. Logically, When comparing cars. My car proved a good choice in terms of performance, reliability, safety, economy, and luxury.Logically, It was a very good choice.

Of course, illogically, A bunch of forum trolls like to say it was a "girl's car," and posit that as the only real reason to jeer it.

I feel like I did the other day when a friend was explaining his boner for a 69 chevelle ss 396.

Here we have a car with almost 400 hp performing even at in its best categories no better than cars today with almost half the horsepower.

Why? Engineering. That 400 hp is great, but through an archaic 4 speed manual, it becomes an efficiency nightmare.

even geared low, it can only hope to reach mid 14's in the quarter mile, (hmmm, oddly, so can my eclipse with 263hp.)

So maybe its strength is top end instead? Think again, with it's parachute-like exterior, good luck reaching 130, And good luck not splattering your *** all over the road while doing it. (on the other hand the eclipse has done 140 quite comfortably).

Well geezz maybe handling? (don't make me laugh).

The point, the only real thing this car has on the eclipse is wasted hp, lack of aerodynamics, older, heavier parts, and an unwarranted stigma of "the classic muscle car."

Yet i'm positive all of you would take it over the eclipse. (granted I would too, but merely because of the dollar value of the car.)

So show me this awesome stigma on the specs of the car, or the sticker, cause I can't find it. You seem to think a car only has value if it presents a challenge to you as a driver or take special skill to operate.

AudiWorld - Model Guide - Go to S4, scroll down to the bottom and click on the 1994.

My car came equipped with all of the standard options obviously (read the list), and all the optional amenities too, besides the delete sunroof option.

The S4 is more advanced, handles better, is more fun to drive, isn't a chick car, can handle any terrain limited only by the ground clearance, is waaay more comfortable, better built, sounds way nicer, has more gizmos and gadgets, seats 5 better, etc. than your Eclipse. What does your Eclipse have on it? Less miles, better stock sound system, and...that's about it. Not to mention that you paid 3 times as much for it.

You don't love cars. You love yourself, and the feeling you get by imagining that your balls are bigger because you drive something with a large V8 that doesn't and can't use half of its power usefully.
Personally, I love cars for the engineering marvels they are. Not for how much they magnify my ego-maniacal view of myself.

Right. I'm guessing by V8 you mean something with less cylinders than yours (given that yours is a V6, which I assume it is). And it uses it's power about twice as well as yours does, transmitting power separately to twice as many wheels, with the option of locking the rear wheels with the push of a button. The only time I spin the wheels is when I pull insane drifts in a parking lot that you could only dream of in your fwd p.o.s.

I love driving cars. I love the cars themselves. You're the one who gets a big dick about how many milliseconds it takes for your autotragic to shift. All you care about is the technical, soul-less application of vehicles. Anyone can learn those numbers. Hell, I know more numbers about cars than you do, but I don't go throwing them around like a self absorbed douchebag like you do, unless it's to show how much of a failure your vehicle purchase was that you are only denying on the outside.

 

[Suicide Bobb 5,000+ posts]

Even without my presence, you are the laughing stock of this thread. You continue to embarrass yourself more and more. I would say to stop while you're ahead (or behind, I guess), but please continue. This is too good //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[Bassin Buick]

WHAT I SAID:: but contrary to popular believe a automatic (edit: Properly built automatic) is faster (for the average driver)

no

Now , let me put my girlfriend (average driver) behind the wheel of a manual car , and me behind the wheel of an automatic. Same car , same engines , i guarantee i will be faster in every aspect.

now on the other hand , i learned how to drive a manual years before i had a license (muncie 4 speed was the first manual i shifted) if we swap places i will knock her out of the box everytime.

My point was to most drivers an automatic will be faster , if slappin can't take off from a red light without stalling he would fall into the catagory of below average to average driver , i bet if he had an automatic he could launch that camaro a lot harder and use the power under the hood more efficiently.

 

[*SlappinAzz*]

WHAT I SAID:: but contrary to popular believe a automatic (edit: Properly built automatic) is faster (for the average driver)


Now , let me put my girlfriend (average driver) behind the wheel of a manual car , and me behind the wheel of an automatic. Same car , same engines , i guarantee i will be faster in every aspect.

now on the other hand , i learned how to drive a manual years before i had a license (muncie 4 speed was the first manual i shifted) if we swap places i will knock her out of the box everytime.

My point was to most drivers an automatic will be faster , if slappin can't take off from a red light without stalling he would fall into the catagory of below average to average driver , i bet if he had an automatic he could launch that camaro a lot harder and use the power under the hood more efficiently.

I don't stall any more. I learned the balance between clutch and gas. Manual is easy now.

 

[Bassin Buick]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/clap.gif.178cba2c538c68e720c727fcb024b19c.gif

 

[*SlappinAzz*]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/clap.gif.178cba2c538c68e720c727fcb024b19c.gif

I just needed two days to get the hang of it //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[Bassin Buick]

yeah , it's not too hard. what ***** is when you have a really grabby clutch meant for the track in a street car. I made that mistake once. Good thing was nobody else could drive my car. LOL

 

[*SlappinAzz*]

yeah , it's not too hard. what ***** is when you have a really grabby clutch meant for the track in a street car. I made that mistake once. Good thing was nobody else could drive my car. LOL

Whats the problem with a grabby clutch exactly

 

[Bassin Buick]

your clutch is slipping the entire time you are applying pressure to the pedal , a racing clutch slips a hell of a lot less. if you arent on the gas when you let out the slightest bit its like dumping a regular clutch. Bang! Stall everytime , but unlike a regular clutch , when its time to go , and you have 500+ horses under the hood , a racing clutch instantly grabs without slipping , which means instant full power to the wheels.