Question for jmfcst

[opebo]

Most middle easterners are situationally homosexual to this day.  As for stick shifts, well, they're unamerican.

[opebo]

jmcfst is doing an effective job of trolling you, BRTD (and a lot of others at this forum).  I can see that you are falling for it (much like some fell for opebo's game).

I have never played any game.  You don't think jmfcst is really so dumb?

[opebo]

I have never played any game.  You don't think jmfcst is really so dumb?

Of course you're playing a game; you've been playing it for at least a year now, maybe longer.

It is absolutely no different from the game I play in real life...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I meant dumb as in religious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Stupid"?  Not at all, Spade.  Those are the most brilliant utterances upon this forum.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have never said anything 'outrageous' - all my analysis is obvious common sense.  If anything is outrageous it is the fact that so many of you are so deluded you can't think critically.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Neither of these types fits me, Spade.  Are you suggesting that certain political points of view are inherently 'trollish'?  If so, my how convenient for you - simply eliminate the opposition rather than go to the trouble of argumentation.

[opebo]

What's your opinion of stick-shifts?

the only reason why my 2000 Excursion isn't manual is because they didn't make a manual Excursion.

My 97 Corolla is a stick, as was every other new car I have ever bought (89 Probe, 91 Mustang, 93 Civic Del Sol, 94 Isuzu Pickup)...except for the Excursion.

Manuals are cheaper to buy, get better gas mileage, and are cheaper to repair.

Well, I generally agree with you, jmfcst, about transmissions, but I really don't see the point of a stick in a large vehicle with a torquey V-8.  I think something like a Civic is pretty much ruined by an automatic, while something like a Lincoln would be rather silly with a stick. 

Basically if the car's engine displacement is under 3.0 liters, stick, over, auto.  Of course if it is a pushrod engine (how I miss those!), it is even better with an automatic.  I really hate the newer excessively complex motors.

This brings back memories - back in the 90's I was tooling around in a big old 80's Chevy Caprice with a five litre V-8 and I stopped to test drive a VW Golf.  My god what a peice of sh**t!  I climbed back aboard the comfy old cruiser thinking to myself - 'who can stand to drive those things?'  Meaning high-revving stick shift cars.

[opebo]

Err...my japanese car has a 3.0 litre V6. Its an automatic.

I'm sure it is fine, bullmoose.. I'm just saying that in general stick shifts are more of an advantage with smaller displacement engines.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really.. if anything the opposite.  But the main point is they do sap power, particularly torque.  The classic automatic is a 3 or 4 speed paired with a big pushrod v-8, for relaxed motoring.  Such engines tend to have so much torque there is little need for downshifting to rev the motor.  There's nothing like loafing along with a big, understressed, quiet, low-vibration motor.