| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Sun, 21 July 2002 05:16
 
|
 |
autos are better for burnouts aslong as you fit a good trans cooler, autos are also kinder on the driveline (most of the time) and also do not try to push the crank forward everytime you put your foot on the clutch, as for puting you back out if you drive alot you will notice you use the clutch more then anything else and its allways full travel its also a lot heavyer then the acel causes your lower spine to twist truck drivers and delivery drivers suffer most you will notice most buses are autos and a lot of new trucks are comeing with auto transmisions.
the problems with autos where fixed back in 1979 with the lock-up torque converter (for toyota the MkI supra the 2nd car behind merc to have a 4 speed auto with lock up torque converter)
the main reasons autos in most cars today are lazy is thats what the market wants if everyone enjoyed neck snaping engine braking and hard shifts there would not be a clutch pedal in any car, only a T-Bar! those of you who knock autos go jump in any post 86 toyota with a A340 auto trans(MkIII supra, 7m-ge powered cressida or soarer) pull it back into 1st floor it then while floored drop it into 2nd then drive then come back and tell me its not as good as a manual!
Allan
Can the admin please trim the stupid post whores crap from this otherwise serious threed!
|
|
|
| | Subject | Poster | Date |
|---|
 |
semi-autos?
|
0zwilly | Fri, 12 July 2002 17:02 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Allan | Fri, 12 July 2002 23:54 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
manipulate | Sat, 13 July 2002 00:19 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Soarer | Mon, 15 July 2002 00:53 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Allan | Mon, 15 July 2002 07:20 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
KDog | Thu, 18 July 2002 03:32 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
GIN51E | Thu, 18 July 2002 05:01 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Allan | Fri, 19 July 2002 02:03 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
GIN51E | Sat, 20 July 2002 07:10 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
wilbo666 | Sat, 20 July 2002 07:31 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
GIN51E | Sat, 20 July 2002 08:01 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Cool1 | Sat, 20 July 2002 08:08 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
GIN51E | Sat, 20 July 2002 09:46 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Soarer | Thu, 18 July 2002 09:44 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Cool1 | Sat, 20 July 2002 09:50 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
GIN51E | Sat, 20 July 2002 10:12 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Cool1 | Sat, 20 July 2002 10:15 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
GIN51E | Sat, 20 July 2002 10:23 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Cool1 | Sat, 20 July 2002 10:30 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
GIN51E | Sat, 20 July 2002 11:13 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Cool1 | Sat, 20 July 2002 11:17 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
GIN51E | Sat, 20 July 2002 13:14 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Helmann | Sat, 20 July 2002 15:48 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
GIN51E | Sat, 20 July 2002 23:36 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Apollo | Sun, 21 July 2002 08:34 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Allan | Sun, 21 July 2002 09:03 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Helmann | Sun, 21 July 2002 01:01 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
mrshin | Sun, 21 July 2002 03:00 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
manipulate | Sun, 21 July 2002 03:14 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Allan | Sun, 21 July 2002 05:16 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Helmann | Sun, 21 July 2002 07:05 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
GIN51E | Sun, 21 July 2002 07:59 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
GIN51E | Sun, 21 July 2002 08:04 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
stonz | Sun, 21 July 2002 08:16 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Cool1 | Sun, 21 July 2002 08:30 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
Cool1 | Sun, 21 July 2002 08:34 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
0zwilly | Sun, 21 July 2002 18:26 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
KDog | Sun, 21 July 2002 22:54 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
stevevp | Wed, 24 July 2002 04:23 |
|
Re: semi-autos?
|
mx83toy | Fri, 26 July 2002 12:01 |
| Current Time:
Sat Feb 8 08:32:55 UTC 2025 |
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.0043120384216309 seconds |
