ALL INVENTION STOPPED IN 1971 STOP THE PRESSES (which we still use BTW because it's 1971-tech)
-
No, no. Those are AT-ATs. Speaking of which, you may like this:
-
Looks like it's getting ready for some doggy style
-
That's because most of the world hasn't yet accepted that automatic transmissions are now more efficient than manuals.
Half an hour and no bites yet? I'm surprised.
-
-
Half an hour and no bites yet? I'm surprised.
Fine, I'll do a nibble.
I wouldn't expect autos to be more efficient than manuals in most cases, assuming the driver knows how to drive, due to differences in weight and less friction losses due to all the hydraulic stuff going on in an auto. However I've been told autos are better in turbocharged engines because they can shift without losing turbo RPM, while in a manual the moment of shift is long enough to lose some boost pressure.
-
-
10 gears is best!
-
Fine, I'll do a nibble.
I wouldn't expect autos to be more efficient than manuals in most cases, assuming the driver knows how to drive, due to differences in weight and less friction losses due to all the hydraulic stuff going on in an auto. However I've been told autos are better in turbocharged engines because they can shift without losing turbo RPM, while in a manual the moment of shift is long enough to lose some boost pressure.
Yeah, pretty much. These days, it comes down to doing your homework on the model you are looking at. If you're looking for improved gas mileage, a manual might buy you up to 5 MPG. Then again, it could cost you just as much. If your looking for better acceleration, an automatic might give you a slight advantage. Then again, it might not. Of course, this is all assuming that the model you are looking at even gives you the choice between manual and automatic.
Sources:
http://consumerreports.org/cro/2012/01/save-gas-and-money-with-a-manual-transmission/index.htm
Manual vs. Automatic Pros and Cons: Which Is Better? | Edmunds
What's the difference between manual and automatic cars? Find out and see which is right for you at Edmunds.
-
-
No, two gearboxes duct taped together
-
-
less friction losses due to all the hydraulic stuff going on in an auto
In a traditional automatic, sure, and that's why manual is reputedly more efficient. But I believe modern automatic transmission is actually more like a computer-controlled manual, and the computer is better at shifting at the right moments than even an experienced manual driver.
-
I skipped the second 30 posts, so I don't know if this is what we're talking about anymore, but I want to reply to this:
But they were shit back then. If we were stuck with 1971 tech, I think I'd rather have a manual.
Personally, I prefer manual even though we have 2004 tech already. Maybe more costly per mile, maybe more prone to damage, but I like manual better - just because. Also, doubles as anti-theft system in USA.
-
Personally, I prefer manual even though we have 2004 tech already. Maybe more costly per mile, maybe more prone to damage
As I said earlier:
These days, it comes down to doing your homework on the model you are looking at. If you're looking for improved gas mileage, a manual might buy you up to 5 MPG. Then again, it could cost you just as much. If your looking for better acceleration, an automatic might give you a slight advantage. Then again, it might not. Of course, this is all assuming that the model you are looking at even gives you the choice between manual and automatic.
Also, doubles as anti-theft system in USA.
I refer you to this:
Frank Scafidi, director of public affairs for the National Insurance Crime Bureau, which tracks car theft trends, says he's not aware of any data to support or refute that idea.
"Some thieves might be thwarted in their attempt to steal a car with a manual transmission, since many thieves possess varying levels of intellect," Scafidi says. "That very personal element is also a factor in the degree of expertise necessary to overcome some of the more sophisticated security systems.
"Most car thieves are just not that swift and therefore resort to stealing older, easier targets," Scafidi says. "But there are those in the car thief ranks who are quite capable of making off with anything that they intend to steal."1
-
I mean, it makes sense to me. It was common for people to start working ~15-16 years old back then and it was mostly manual labor.
-
-
Automatics still require all the hydraulic stuff to actually shift the gears. There's a reason they have a valve body. The amount of computer involvement is moving solenoid valves.
-
so invention actually stopped 10 years ago?
Yes. Dick Cheney and George W. Bush personally saw to it. Or so the news tells me.
-
-
less friction losses due to all the hydraulic stuff going on in an auto.
Automatics don't use swishing oil anymore, and haven't for some time.
-
I've not heard of an automatic that doesn't use ATF. Then again, I've not have a CVT.
My Mom has a car that has a sealed case so maintaining the ATF isn't
possible nor is it necessary.EDIT: After using The Google
they should still be maintained and it's just not easy for someone to replace it themselves because there's no fill funnel under the hood.Why is that emoji so giant. TM should be a small symbol.
-
so invention actually stopped 10 years ago?
No - in Poland, we buy used cars from Germany. In ten years, we'll have 2014 technology in our garages.
-
-
™
huh.... well then i have some macros to program if that works.....
edit... it does.
-
For the record, I work in the print industry. The correct phrase is still "stop the presses". Just because (most of them) are far removed from Johannes Gutenbergs printing press doesn't mean we renamed the things.
The farthest you get is "digital press", referring to an overgrown laser printer, and we've had those since the early 90s. In fact some of the core models are only incremental improvements over the ones from the early 90s. We have units with single digit serial numbers that have been updated over the years sitting next to identical brand new units.
[EDIT: post earned a whoosh badge -b]
-
I'll just leave this here ...
-
-
I wouldn't expect autos to be more efficient than manuals in most cases
Automatics have improved a lot. Of course, if you're familiar with your vehicle you can control, to an extent, when the transmission shifts, by use of the gas pedal.
I've noticed that the latest generation of cars are getting automatics with more gears, as well.
-
A badge is born:
-
Of course, this is all assuming that the model you are looking at even gives you the choice between manual and automatic.
And of course, you might wind up doing all your driving in stop-and-go city traffic, which seems like it would suck for a manual. It's one of the reasons I have never bothered learning. The last place I lived, my commute was an entire hour each way, and about 80% of that was stop-and-go on city streets. I'd be shifting what would probably feel like nearly constantly.
-
And of course, you might wind up doing all your driving in stop-and-go city traffic, which seems like it would suck for a manual. It's one of the reasons I have never bothered learning. The last place I lived, my commute was an entire hour each way, and about 80% of that was stop-and-go on city streets. I'd be shifting what would probably feel like nearly constantly.
You get used to it. I pretty much forgot I was driving a manual and it was all subconsciously automatic for me, until I traded for an automatic and my subconscious was wrong about everything.
-
And of course, you might wind up doing all your driving in stop-and-go city traffic, which seems like it would suck for a manual. It's one of the reasons I have never bothered learning. The last place I lived, my commute was an entire hour each way, and about 80% of that was stop-and-go on city streets. I'd be shifting what would probably feel like nearly constantly.
I learned to drive stick in the mountains of New Mexico, but never really cared for it. Now that I live in a city, I'm glad that I don't have one.
-
<sup><sup><sup>Why is that emoji so giant. TM should be a small symbol.</sup></sup></sup>
Just use what you used in the footnote instead of the emoji.
-
-
-
Fwiw, I was going for pedantry
-
Fwiw, I was going for pedantry
Pedantry fail?
but hey at least you got a shinny badge just like me now!
-
I think you were plenty pedantic, but much more whooshy than dickweedish.
-
:effort:
-
Doesn't work on emoji, it's an image.
-
he meant to do this:
<sup><small>TM</small></sup>see?TM
-
You don't even need the smallTM tag if you don't want.
-
You don't even need the smallTM tag if you don't want.
true, but i like the look of the slightly smaller TM symbol.
it's a style thing.
-
he meant to do this:
<sup><small>TM</small></sup> ```</blockquote> @FrostCat <a href="/t/via-quote/5264/92">said</a>:<blockquote>You don't even need the small<sup>TM</sup> tag if you don't want.</blockquote> Seems like more effort than my solutions.
-
true, but i like the look of the slightly smaller TM symbol.
It's already smaller by virtue of the sup tag; you're just ensmallerizing it.
-
-
-
Seems like more effort than my solutions.
well thanks to discoparsing you can leave out the close tags if you arrange for the ™ to be at the end of a line.
-
Hmmmm
TM.
-
:effort:
