On 7/17/2021 10:07 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 7/15/2021 10:26 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 7/15/2021 2:07 AM, Michael Trew wrote:
>>> On 7/14/2021 10:41 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>> "Start/Stop" is no more.  For some reason customers didn't like their
>>>> engine shutting off at every stoplight.
>>>
>>>
>>> I couldn't help but to think that those cars are rather inefficient...
>>> in the manner that, can you think of how fast those starters are going
>>> to wear out?  What happens when that technology fails and the car
>>> fails to restart... then you're stranded at the stop light with people
>>> laying on their horns.  No thanks, just keep my engine running for a
>>> minute.
>>
>> These vehicles have HD starters and upgraded batteries.
>>
>> As far as it failing, no more likely than any vehicle simply stalling
>> and causing issues.
>>
>> You are over thinking it.
>>
>> FWIW I don't care for the start stop feature at all but you get used
>> to it.
>
> I didn't know all of that.  I don't know much of anything about cars
> newer than 20 years old.  I have owned plenty of cars that sometimes
> don't like to start again when shut off, and the thought of the engine
> being off momentarily and needing to be on again at a moments notice,
> such as sitting in traffic, gives me a lot of anxiety.  Out of habit, I
> always park in such a manner that I can bump start the car myself to get
> moving if need be.

I was once there but found that the constant worry of what might happen
was a waste of time. If it happens you deal with it then, not all the
time that it is not happening. LOL
And newer vehicles really start quick. I would not doubt that the
engine is running befor a complete revolution of the engine being turned
by the starter. Gone are the days of listening to the starter run for
2~3 seconds.

On 7/17/2021 10:20 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 7/15/2021 5:08 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> And the programmming can
>> be done by below-US-minimum-wage labor in India, so it's to the
>> benefit of the manufacturer to do it that way.
>
> Yes, cost is typically the root cause of changes.  Whatever makes the
> manufacturer more cash to swim in.
>
>>
>> The thing is the goverment is now requiring electronically controlled
>> braking and electronic stability control among other things.
>
> One of my many reasons for disliking new cars.  If you are uneducated
> and don't know how to properly "threshold brake" or handle a car in poor
> conditions (eg: someone who mashes the brake pedal and prays for dear
> life in a stressful situation), then yes, ESC and ABS are for you -- the
> masses I presume.  The other side to the situation, is that people who
> know how to drive, can be very much hampered with ABS and these systems.
>  I'm glad that none of my cars have this stuff.
>
> https://austonhensley.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/why-abs-is-dangerous-and-how-to-disable-it/
>

FWIW ABS is not dangerous. It can out perform you no matter how well
you think you can stop a car. Any time a tire begins to not turn at a
speed not proportionate to the vehicle speed it is loosing traction.
ABS monitors and prevents that.

The link describes situations that are few and far in between.
Practicing in a parking lot to learn when the tires will break loose
sounds good on paper. BUT not all parking lots afford loose dirt, pot
holes, loose gravel, wet spots, oily spots, fresh asphalt, the list goes
on. The typical seasoned driver can master braking in any one of these
over time. But what if you have a combination of wet, potholes and
sand? What if there is water and oil on asphault? Are you prepared?
Probably not. ABS is always working and not concerned with road conditions.

The situation described in turning into a parking lot with snow on the
road, probably a reckless situation to begin with. I'm guessing that
you should be assuming that you need to slow way down before attempting
that turn to begin with.

On 7/18/2021 7:25 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 23:20:21 -0400, Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/15/2021 5:08 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> And the programmming can
>>> be done by below-US-minimum-wage labor in India, so it's to the
>>> benefit of the manufacturer to do it that way.
>>
>> Yes, cost is typically the root cause of changes. Whatever makes the
>> manufacturer more cash to swim in.
>>
>>>
>>> The thing is the goverment is now requiring electronically controlled
>>> braking and electronic stability control among other things.
>>
>> One of my many reasons for disliking new cars. If you are uneducated
>> and don't know how to properly "threshold brake" or handle a car in poor
>> conditions (eg: someone who mashes the brake pedal and prays for dear
>> life in a stressful situation), then yes, ESC and ABS are for you -- the
>> masses I presume. The other side to the situation, is that people who
>> know how to drive, can be very much hampered with ABS and these systems.
>> I'm glad that none of my cars have this stuff.
>>
>> https://austonhensley.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/why-abs-is-dangerous-and-how-to-disable-it/
>
> I think your article kind of misses the point. It says "practice in a
> parking lot to learn threshold braking". Personally I have never had
> ABS activate on a dry road unless I was deliberately setting out to
> activate it. But many times I have had it kick in on an _apparently_
> dry road where there was oil, residual moisture, or black ice present
> that I could not have detected other than by locking up and starting
> to skid.
>
>
>
>
Agreed! I have ABS kick in on dry down hill stops with my Tundra and
F150. There probably was sand or loose dirt on the road surface.

On 7/17/2021 10:09 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 7/15/2021 2:29 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 03:07:57 -0400, Michael Trew<mt999999@ymail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/14/2021 10:41 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>> "Start/Stop" is no more.  For some reason customers didn't like their
>>>> engine shutting off at every stoplight.
>>>
>>>
>>> I couldn't help but to think that those cars are rather inefficient...
>>> in the manner that, can you think of how fast those starters are going
>>> to wear out?  What happens when that technology fails and the car fails
>>> to restart... then you're stranded at the stop light with people laying
>>> on their horns.  No thanks, just keep my engine running for a minute.
>>
>> You're still of thinking '70s cars.
>
> Well, 70's to 90's cars.  I've only owned one or two vehicles newer than
> 2000, and it wasn't for very long.  The thought of being stuck in heavy
> traffic in a disabled car gives me anxiety, and that's not pleasant to
> drive around with.

If those conditions give you anxiety you really should drive something
more dependable.
Anxiety will kill you.

On 7/17/2021 10:15 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 7/15/2021 10:30 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 7/15/2021 2:00 AM, Michael Trew wrote:
>>> On 7/14/2021 1:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>> Have you ever parked, wanted to turn off the engine but continue
>>>> listening to what's
>>>> playing on the audio system? You have to leave the van in gear and
>>>> press the Start/Stop
>>>> button. The engine will shut off and the audio system will stay on
>>>> (ACC mode). Now you
>>>> can put the van in Park...if you remember.;-)
>>>>
>>>> How do you get out of ACC mode? You push the Start/Stop button again,
>>>> which puts the
>>>> van in Run mode (lamp test runs, relays click and clack, HVAC comes
>>>> on, etc.) then press
>>>> it again to shut the van off.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe all Push To Start vehicles act like that. This is my first one.
>>>>
>>>> I hate it because it's putting extra wear and tear on systems. I
>>>> always let it come
>>>> to steady state in Run mode because I don't want to turn it off
>>>> midway through
>>>> it's "start-up procedure". PITA just to use the ACC mode.
>>>>
>>>> That's just some of the weird stuff that the infotainment system
>>>> does. Terrible
>>>> design, coding, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's awful... I can cut the ignition key and throw the shifter into
>>> neutral, and roll to a stop in a parking lot.  Throw it back in gear,
>>> and engage parking brake (if it works)... key out, and get moving.
>>> Key can come out sooner if you're stopping in a straight line (wheel
>>> locks up with the key out).
>>>
>>> Thank God for my simple cars; I'd lose my mind with all of that
>>> madness.  I get irritated enough hopping back into an automatic
>>> transmission car that has to be in "PARK" to remove the key, or
>>> "NEUTRAL" to start. Radio cuts off when you cut the key off; on when
>>> the key is on.  Nice and simple!
>>
>>
>>
>> HOW OLD are YOU?
>
> 26, but age doesn't matter.

Age does matter! And you have to get older to realize that. You are at
that age, that you don't know enough to know what you don't know. I say
that from having been 26 too. LOL

Simplicity is key!  I also dislike
> automatic transmissions.  I know plenty of younger "car people" that
> also prefer standard transmissions.  It gives you more control, plain
> and simple.

Simple is desirable but also can be inefficient.

The automatic transmission comment above further proves that you simply
do not know.
Your statement was maybe more true 30+ years ago than now. My son
insisted on a standard shift for his first car. So we bough him a
Cavalier with manual transmission. The next car that he bought, at
about your age, was an automatic. Standard shift requires more driver
input, when I was young, that was "fun" and better than an automatic,
but that was 50 years ago. At about your age I went with the less
trouble automatics. FWIW my son worked at a Chevy dealership while in
school and I retired from the auto industry at 40. So I have some hands
on experience in HS and college. Today's automatic transmissions mob
the floor with manuels. Both in life span and performance.

>
> I drive to Geo Metro car meets twice per year; Minnesota in the Autumn,
> and Florida in the spring.  Most people that drive Metros are extremely
> budget conscience, and will shut off the engine as soon as possible.  It
> was a running joke for a while with how light the cars are that if
> someone has to move one a few feet, the instant reaction is to kick it
> into neutral and push the little car a few feet, rather than adding a
> hint of wear/tear with an unnecessary start or wasting an ounce or two
> of fuel.

Life is tooooo short.

On 7/18/2021 10:26 AM, Leon wrote:

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's awful... I can cut the ignition key and throw the shifter into
>>>> neutral, and roll to a stop in a parking lot.  Throw it back in gear,
>>>> and engage parking brake (if it works)... key out, and get moving.
>>>> Key can come out sooner if you're stopping in a straight line (wheel
>>>> locks up with the key out).
>>>>
>>>> Thank God for my simple cars; I'd lose my mind with all of that
>>>> madness.  I get irritated enough hopping back into an automatic
>>>> transmission car that has to be in "PARK" to remove the key, or
>>>> "NEUTRAL" to start. Radio cuts off when you cut the key off; on when
>>>> the key is on.  Nice and simple!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> HOW OLD are YOU?
>>
>> 26, but age doesn't matter.
>
> Age does matter!  And you have to get older to realize that.  You are at
> that age, that you don't know enough to know what you don't know.  I say
> that from having been 26 too.  LOL
>
>
>
>
> Simplicity is key!  I also dislike
>> automatic transmissions.  I know plenty of younger "car people" that
>> also prefer standard transmissions.  It gives you more control, plain
>> and simple.
>
> Simple is desirable but also can be inefficient.
>
> The automatic transmission comment above further proves that you simply
> do not know.
> Your statement was maybe more true 30+ years ago than now.  My son
> insisted on a standard shift for his first car.  So we bough him a
> Cavalier with manual transmission.   The next car that he bought, at
> about your age, was an automatic.  Standard shift requires more driver
> input, when I was young, that was "fun" and better than an automatic,
> but that was 50 years ago.  At about your age I went with the less
> trouble automatics.  FWIW my son worked at a Chevy dealership while in
> school and I retired from the auto industry at 40.  So I have some hands
> on experience in HS and college.  Today's automatic transmissions mob
> the floor with manuels.  Both in life span and performance.
>

Last stick shift I had I sold in 1978. At the time I was 33. Driving
stick was a bit more fun at times but the fun factor gets less every
year. Last one I drove was about 15 years ago, a rental in Italy.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 03:09:15 -0400, Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com>
wrote:

>On 7/14/2021 12:14 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:38:38 -0400, Michael Trew<mt999999@ymail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/13/2021 6:16 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 17:01:41 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 12:31:38 -0400, Michael Trew<mt999999@ymail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/13/2021 7:04 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> If I was planning on keeping it I would do something like that for my
>>>>>>> current econobox, which does not present a flat floor with the back
>>>>>>> seats down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could always keep it for hauling, to spare the nice vehicle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nahh. The damned thing has some piece of crap Microsoft electronic
>>>>> device built into it that makes it decide not to start at random
>>>>> intervals. Solution is to fish under the dash, pull a fuse, wait a
>>>>> minute, put the fuse back. And of course it won't run if I just pull
>>>>> the fuse out and leave it out.
>>>>
>>>> M$ has proven more than once that it has no idea what it's doing in
>>>> the automotive industry. The Ford Sync-1 was done by them and it's so
>>>> bad there were several class-action suits against them. I have one in
>>>> my truck and it's absolute junk. I don't use any of the "advanced"
>>>> features (phone isn't even paired with it).
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, the Sync-3 in my wife's '19 Mustang is perfect, by comparison.
>>>> It's easy to use and actually does what it's supposed to do without
>>>> losing its mind every time you get in the car. Of course, I know who
>>>> designed Sync-3. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> That's why I'm getting rid of it at my earliest convenience.
>>>
>>> My Grandmother has a Ford Focus (I think? Whatever their small car is
>>> circa 2014 - purchased new), and it has that Microsoft entertainment
>>> thing. Of course, she never uses it, and just drives the car. I assume
>>> that's why it's still "working".
>>
>> Well, it's still "working" because she's never tried to use it. It's
>> designed broken.
>
>
>Yes, that's what I said, worded differently ;)

Apropos of this conversation, I somehow happened upon this Youtube
video of a young lady having modern problems with a modern car:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE0dBcuMmGY>

In another video she drops the transmission and fixes it.

On 7/18/2021 9:46 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 7/17/2021 10:03 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
>> On 7/15/2021 5:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 3:04:21 AM UTC-4, Michael Trew wrote:
>>>> On 7/14/2021 6:41 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Well, I used to push my '67 dodge pickup to start it, so long as I
>>>>> remembered
>>>>> to park facing downslope.
>>>> HAHA, that's a good one. I've gone 3 months on a battery that was bad
>>>> enough that it had to be push started every time.
>>>>
>>>> I have a push-button start car now... the key in my '93 Metro
>>>> doesn't do
>>>> anything when you turn it all the way, so you have to push this fancy
>>>> button hacked into the dash board to kick the ignition solenoid on.
>>>> Don't bump it when the engine's running, or you'll shear the teeth off
>>>> of the flywheel -- or the gears off of the starter - maybe both.
>>>
>>> Your mention of shearing teeth reminds me of my 66 Rambler Ambassador.
>>>
>>> That car needed some dental work on the flywheel and sometimes screeched
>>> when I tried to start it. Each "screech" would move the flywheel a
>>> little bit and
>>> the starter would eventually grab enough good teeth to start. 2 - 3
>>> screeches at
>>> most. ;-)
>>>
>>> But what I was really reminded of was the "switch" I installed for
>>> the sound system.
>>> The AM radio in a 66 Rambler Ambassador was not the type that could
>>> be replaced
>>> with an aftermarket AM/FM radio because of the vertical mounting
>>> layout of the
>>> factory radio. Tall and shallow vs. short and deep like most radios.
>>>
>>> https://www.picclickimg.com/d/l400/pict/313568843276_/1966-AMC-Rambler-Ambassador-AM-Pushbutton-Radio-w.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> So I hung one of those FM Radio/Cassette Players under the dash and
>>> used a big
>>> toggle switch to swap the 4 speakers from the OEM AM radio to the
>>> FM/Cassette unit.
>>>
>>> https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/vintage-pioneer-kp-500-dash-cassette-28144815
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If enough teeth break off, it won't be able to catch at a certain
>> point on the flywheel at all. I have a couple missing teeth on my '89
>> Olds Wagon. It doesn't prevent it from starting, but it's sometimes
>> noisy when starting.
>
> Oddly It can only be one tooth on the flywheel/flexplate that can
> prevent the starter from properly engaging. My BIL's Mustang had 1
> broken tooth and it seemed to be in alignment to not engage almost all
> of the time. I suspect where the compression stroke stops the engine
> from turning may have been how that happened. Apparently it happened
> quite often as that particular tooth probably took the brunt of the
> bendex engaging.
>
>
>
>
>

Ah, that makes sense.

On 7/18/2021 9:51 AM, Leon wrote:
> I would not doubt that the engine is running befor a complete revolution
> of the engine being turned by the starter. Gone are the days of
> listening to the starter run for 2~3 seconds.

I've noticed this with late model cars also, like if I ride in my mom's,
super fast start. Some newer cars, turning the key just sends a signal,
you only have to turn it for a moment. On older vehicles, you have to
keep the key turned until it starts - or else the starter will stop
before the engine starts.

It seems like the older the car, the slower the start. If a 90's car
has a hot engine, it will start in a second or two. 2-3 if it's cold,
unless it's winter perhaps. Back to the 70's and carburetor vehicles
especially, it might be 5-6 seconds while pumping the gas from a cold start.

On 7/18/2021 10:07 AM, Leon wrote:
> If those conditions give you anxiety you really should drive something
> more dependable.
> Anxiety will kill you.

I'm not in traffic too often, maybe call if a very lose form of "shell
shock"... it's happened enough times, that I just prefer when the car is
moving vs. stopped waiting... lol

On 7/18/2021 10:26 AM, Leon wrote:
> The automatic transmission comment above further proves that you simply
> do not know.
> Your statement was maybe more true 30+ years ago than now. My son
> insisted on a standard shift for his first car. So we bough him a
> Cavalier with manual transmission. The next car that he bought, at
> about your age, was an automatic. Standard shift requires more driver
> input, when I was young, that was "fun" and better than an automatic,
> but that was 50 years ago. At about your age I went with the less
> trouble automatics. FWIW my son worked at a Chevy dealership while in
> school and I retired from the auto industry at 40. So I have some hands
> on experience in HS and college. Today's automatic transmissions mob
> the floor with manuels. Both in life span and performance.

I'm not ignorant, I'm well aware that they have developed automatic
transmissions that are far more efficient than manuals. In the cars
that I can drive and afford, standards still win, especially since era
autos were mostly 3 speed, and some you almost have to floor to get them
to downshift.

Personally, as you said, my main point is that I prefer the "drive
input" aspect. I'm a control freak, but more over, I am one of those
people that really enjoy driving, and an automatic sucks the fun out of
it and makes the experience boring.

On 7/18/2021 2:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Last stick shift I had I sold in 1978. At the time I was 33. Driving
> stick was a bit more fun at times but the fun factor gets less every
> year. Last one I drove was about 15 years ago, a rental in Italy.

I've heard that most European countries still have more standard
transmissions than automatics, but I'm sure that will change with time.

I've heard a story similar to yours from many people, as they age they
just don't care to shift anymore. I'm sure that in my 70's I'll likely
feel different than today.

On 7/15/2021 2:53 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 03:11:03 -0400, Michael Trew<mt999999@ymail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/14/2021 12:20 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:34:08 -0400, Michael Trew<mt999999@ymail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/13/2021 5:01 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> Nahh. The damned thing has some piece of crap Microsoft electronic
>>>>> device built into it that makes it decide not to start at random
>>>>> intervals. Solution is to fish under the dash, pull a fuse, wait a
>>>>> minute, put the fuse back. And of course it won't run if I just pull
>>>>> the fuse out and leave it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why I'm getting rid of it at my earliest convenience.
>>>>
>>>> I'll try not to get started on a car rant again, but stuff like that is
>>>> my reasoning for driving 90's and back vehicles. I like the old stuff
>>>> without computers and touch screens!
>>>
>>> No, I've never had wiring fail in old cars or door posts break off,
>>> then the bandaid (weld) attempting to put the humpty car back
>>> together, also failed within days. Fit and finish of those cars was
>>> *perfect* and they never rusted out before they were paid for (when a
>>> 36mo loan was long). Yep, the good ol' days.
>>
>>
>> I think you're referring to 70's cars. I've never seen one of my 90's
>> cars rust out that quickly.
>
> '90s cars didn't operate as you say yours do. Even back in the BT
> (before Trew) era, ignitions were locked out until the car was in PARK
> or the clutch depressed. Oh, and then there was the refusal to start
> as long as everyone in the front had their seat belt fastened. Federal
> DOT rules and all that.
>
>> BTW, my '75 Dart is still going strong!
>
> '75 Darts *never* went strong, even new.

Also, tell that to the dart enthusiasts. I've seen someone that dropped
a 440 in a Dart... vroom!

On 7/18/2021 8:25 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 23:20:21 -0400, Michael Trew<mt999999@ymail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/15/2021 5:08 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> And the programmming can
>>> be done by below-US-minimum-wage labor in India, so it's to the
>>> benefit of the manufacturer to do it that way.
>>
>> Yes, cost is typically the root cause of changes. Whatever makes the
>> manufacturer more cash to swim in.
>>
>>>
>>> The thing is the goverment is now requiring electronically controlled
>>> braking and electronic stability control among other things.
>>
>> One of my many reasons for disliking new cars. If you are uneducated
>> and don't know how to properly "threshold brake" or handle a car in poor
>> conditions (eg: someone who mashes the brake pedal and prays for dear
>> life in a stressful situation), then yes, ESC and ABS are for you -- the
>> masses I presume. The other side to the situation, is that people who
>> know how to drive, can be very much hampered with ABS and these systems.
>> I'm glad that none of my cars have this stuff.
>>
>> https://austonhensley.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/why-abs-is-dangerous-and-how-to-disable-it/
>
> I think your article kind of misses the point. It says "practice in a
> parking lot to learn threshold braking". Personally I have never had
> ABS activate on a dry road unless I was deliberately setting out to
> activate it. But many times I have had it kick in on an _apparently_
> dry road where there was oil, residual moisture, or black ice present
> that I could not have detected other than by locking up and starting
> to skid.
>
>

Honestly, I can't remember the last vehicle that I owned with *working*
ABS or even ABS at all... it's been years; I'm not sure that I recall
what it feels like working.

On 7/18/2021 9:13 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 7/18/2021 2:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> Last stick shift I had I sold in 1978.  At the time I was 33.  Driving
>> stick was a bit more fun at times but the fun factor gets less every
>> year.  Last one I drove was about 15 years ago, a rental in Italy.
>
>
> I've heard that most European countries still have more standard
> transmissions than automatics, but I'm sure that will change with time.
>
> I've heard a story similar to yours from many people, as they age they
> just don't care to shift anymore.  I'm sure that in my 70's I'll likely
> feel different than today.

Many of the small cars had little power and the old automatics really
killed any performance.

I'm not adverse to driving a stick once in a while, just don't want it
for my daily driver.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 23:35:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:

>On 7/18/2021 9:13 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
>> On 7/18/2021 2:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> Last stick shift I had I sold in 1978.  At the time I was 33.  Driving
>>> stick was a bit more fun at times but the fun factor gets less every
>>> year.  Last one I drove was about 15 years ago, a rental in Italy.
>>
>>
>> I've heard that most European countries still have more standard
>> transmissions than automatics, but I'm sure that will change with time.
>>
>> I've heard a story similar to yours from many people, as they age they
>> just don't care to shift anymore.  I'm sure that in my 70's I'll likely
>> feel different than today.
>
>Many of the small cars had little power and the old automatics really
>killed any performance.
>
>I'm not adverse to driving a stick once in a while, just don't want it
>for my daily driver.

This is a tricky statistic--CVT, dual-clutch, and electric are all
regarded as not being "automatic" even though all of them shift for
themselves. To get an accurate picture you need to look at manual vs
non-manual, not manual vs automatic. Worldwide about 57% are
non-manual but only 34% are "automatic".

On 7/18/2021 8:04 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 7/18/2021 9:51 AM, Leon wrote:
>> I would not doubt that the engine is running befor a complete revolution
>> of the engine being turned by the starter.  Gone are the days of
>> listening to the starter run for 2~3 seconds.
>
>
> I've noticed this with late model cars also, like if I ride in my mom's,
> super fast start.  Some newer cars, turning the key just sends a signal,
> you only have to turn it for a moment.  On older vehicles, you have to
> keep the key turned until it starts - or else the starter will stop
> before the engine starts.
>
> It seems like the older the car, the slower the start.  If a 90's car
> has a hot engine, it will start in a second or two.  2-3 if it's cold,
> unless it's winter perhaps.  Back to the 70's and carburetor vehicles
> especially, it might be 5-6 seconds while pumping the gas from a cold
> start.

You can thank all of those mass air flow sensors, temperature sensors,
computer modules, injectors, crank shaft sensors, barometric pressure
sensors, and what ever else is involved for today's fast starts.

And they are much more reliable today than they were 30 years ago.

On 7/18/2021 8:05 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 7/18/2021 10:07 AM, Leon wrote:
>> If those conditions give you anxiety you really should drive something
>> more dependable.
>> Anxiety will kill you.
>
>
> I'm not in traffic too often, maybe call if a very lose form of "shell
> shock"... it's happened enough times, that I just prefer when the car is
> moving vs. stopped waiting... lol

Understood but your experience is with unreliable vehicles. I live in
the Houston area. Traffic is heavy just outside of my drive way. Well
maybe not that bad, but I don't give being stranded a second thought.

On 7/18/2021 8:13 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 7/18/2021 2:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> Last stick shift I had I sold in 1978.  At the time I was 33.  Driving
>> stick was a bit more fun at times but the fun factor gets less every
>> year.  Last one I drove was about 15 years ago, a rental in Italy.
>
>
> I've heard that most European countries still have more standard
> transmissions than automatics, but I'm sure that will change with time.
>
> I've heard a story similar to yours from many people, as they age they
> just don't care to shift anymore.  I'm sure that in my 70's I'll likely
> feel different than today.

Don't like shifting and replacing clutches. :!)

On 7/18/2021 10:35 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 7/18/2021 9:13 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
>> On 7/18/2021 2:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> Last stick shift I had I sold in 1978.  At the time I was 33.  Driving
>>> stick was a bit more fun at times but the fun factor gets less every
>>> year.  Last one I drove was about 15 years ago, a rental in Italy.
>>
>>
>> I've heard that most European countries still have more standard
>> transmissions than automatics, but I'm sure that will change with time.
>>
>> I've heard a story similar to yours from many people, as they age they
>> just don't care to shift anymore.  I'm sure that in my 70's I'll
>> likely feel different than today.
>
> Many of the small cars had little power and the old automatics really
> killed any performance.
>
> I'm not adverse to driving a stick once in a while, just don't want it
> for my daily driver.

LOL that comment, small cars had little power, reminded my of when "The
Smart" car was introduced on the Today show.

Mat Lauer asked the rep about relatively poor gas mileage for such a
small car. IIRC the car got a bit over 40 MPG.

The rep responded that they wanted to focus more on the performance and
sacrificed gas mileage for more HP. IIRC the HP was around 46.

To put that into perspective, My son drove a much larger Chevy Cavalier.
More than twice the HP, possibly triple, and got about 36 MPG.

On 7/18/2021 8:11 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 7/18/2021 10:26 AM, Leon wrote:
>> The automatic transmission comment above further proves that you simply
>> do not know.
>> Your statement was maybe more true 30+ years ago than now.  My son
>> insisted on a standard shift for his first car.  So we bough him a
>> Cavalier with manual transmission.   The next car that he bought, at
>> about your age, was an automatic.  Standard shift requires more driver
>> input, when I was young, that was "fun" and better than an automatic,
>> but that was 50 years ago.  At about your age I went with the less
>> trouble automatics.  FWIW my son worked at a Chevy dealership while in
>> school and I retired from the auto industry at 40.  So I have some hands
>> on experience in HS and college.  Today's automatic transmissions mob
>> the floor with manuels.  Both in life span and performance.
>
>
> I'm not ignorant, I'm well aware that they have developed automatic
> transmissions that are far more efficient than manuals.  In the cars
> that I can drive and afford, standards still win, especially since era
> autos were mostly 3 speed, and some you almost have to floor to get them
> to downshift.
>
> Personally, as you said, my main point is that I prefer the "drive
> input" aspect.  I'm a control freak, but more over, I am one of those
> people that really enjoy driving, and an automatic sucks the fun out of
> it and makes the experience boring.

Understood, I was in the camp one time too. That said, the newer, and
especially dual clutch auto transmissions also out perform manual
transmissions as well as being more efficient.

The latest Corvette for instance does 0-60 in 2.9 seconds. Top speed,
194 MPH. It is only available with a dual clutch auto trans mission.

Today I look at most manual transmission vehicles as being entry level
"engineering", regardless of the quality vehicle.

Like a car with manually operated windows vs. electric.

On 7/18/2021 8:21 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 7/18/2021 8:25 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 23:20:21 -0400, Michael Trew<mt999999@ymail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/15/2021 5:08 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> And the programmming can
>>>> be done by below-US-minimum-wage labor in India, so it's to the
>>>> benefit of the manufacturer to do it that way.
>>>
>>> Yes, cost is typically the root cause of changes.  Whatever makes the
>>> manufacturer more cash to swim in.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The thing is the goverment is now requiring electronically controlled
>>>> braking and electronic stability control among other things.
>>>
>>> One of my many reasons for disliking new cars.  If you are uneducated
>>> and don't know how to properly "threshold brake" or handle a car in poor
>>> conditions (eg: someone who mashes the brake pedal and prays for dear
>>> life in a stressful situation), then yes, ESC and ABS are for you -- the
>>> masses I presume.  The other side to the situation, is that people who
>>> know how to drive, can be very much hampered with ABS and these systems.
>>>   I'm glad that none of my cars have this stuff.
>>>
>>> https://austonhensley.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/why-abs-is-dangerous-and-how-to-disable-it/
>>>
>>
>> I think your article kind of misses the point.  It says "practice in a
>> parking lot to learn threshold braking".  Personally I have never had
>> ABS activate on a dry road unless I was deliberately setting out to
>> activate it.  But many times I have had it kick in on an _apparently_
>> dry road where there was oil, residual moisture, or black ice present
>> that I could not have detected other than by locking up and starting
>> to skid.
>>
>>
>
>
> Honestly, I can't remember the last vehicle that I owned with *working*
> ABS or even ABS at all... it's been years; I'm not sure that I recall
> what it feels like working.

It sounds like a fast thumping sound coming from the corner of the
vehicle that is having issues and from the unit under the hood
activating the anti lock. And many times the brake pedal seems to be
going a little further down than what you are use to feeling when the
ABS is not activated. Oh, and the vehicle continues to go where you
would expect.

On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 10:49:04 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> On 7/18/2021 8:05 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> > On 7/18/2021 10:07 AM, Leon wrote:
> >> If those conditions give you anxiety you really should drive something
> >> more dependable.
> >> Anxiety will kill you.
> >
> >
> > I'm not in traffic too often, maybe call if a very lose form of "shell
> > shock"... it's happened enough times, that I just prefer when the car is
> > moving vs. stopped waiting... lol
> Understood but your experience is with unreliable vehicles. I live in
> the Houston area. Traffic is heavy just outside of my drive way. Well
> maybe not that bad, but I don't give being stranded a second thought.

I moved out of NYC 40 years ago. The #1 reason was the traffic. #2
was parking. #3 was the overcrowding.

I remember the early days when I would drive back "home". 5 hours to
complete 90% of the ride, another 1.5 hours to complete the last 10%.
Reverse that on the way out of town. 40 years ago. I can only imagine
what it's like now.

And don't say I just didn't time it right. The majority of the time, night
or day, it's bad. Many times it's worse.

On 7/19/2021 10:56 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 7/18/2021 10:35 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 7/18/2021 9:13 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
>>> On 7/18/2021 2:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> Last stick shift I had I sold in 1978.  At the time I was 33.  Driving
>>>> stick was a bit more fun at times but the fun factor gets less every
>>>> year.  Last one I drove was about 15 years ago, a rental in Italy.
>>>
>>>
>>> I've heard that most European countries still have more standard
>>> transmissions than automatics, but I'm sure that will change with time.
>>>
>>> I've heard a story similar to yours from many people, as they age
>>> they just don't care to shift anymore.  I'm sure that in my 70's I'll
>>> likely feel different than today.
>>
>> Many of the small cars had little power and the old automatics really
>> killed any performance.
>>
>> I'm not adverse to driving a stick once in a while, just don't want it
>> for my daily driver.
>
>
> LOL that comment, small cars had little power, reminded my of when "The
> Smart" car was introduced on the Today show.
>
> Mat Lauer asked the rep about relatively poor gas mileage for such a
> small car.  IIRC the car got a bit over 40 MPG.
>
> The rep responded that they wanted to focus more on the performance and
> sacrificed gas mileage for more HP.  IIRC the HP was around 46.
>
> To put that into perspective, My son drove a much larger Chevy Cavalier.
>  More than twice the HP, possibly triple, and got about 36 MPG.
>
I had a Smart ForFour as a rental in Italy for a couple of weeks. All I
can say good was, its transportation. Easy to park in the city.

On 7/19/2021 12:27 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 10:49:04 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>> On 7/18/2021 8:05 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
>>> On 7/18/2021 10:07 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>> If those conditions give you anxiety you really should drive something
>>>> more dependable.
>>>> Anxiety will kill you.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not in traffic too often, maybe call if a very lose form of "shell
>>> shock"... it's happened enough times, that I just prefer when the car is
>>> moving vs. stopped waiting... lol
>> Understood but your experience is with unreliable vehicles. I live in
>> the Houston area. Traffic is heavy just outside of my drive way. Well
>> maybe not that bad, but I don't give being stranded a second thought.
>
> I moved out of NYC 40 years ago. The #1 reason was the traffic. #2
> was parking. #3 was the overcrowding.
>
> I remember the early days when I would drive back "home". 5 hours to
> complete 90% of the ride, another 1.5 hours to complete the last 10%.
> Reverse that on the way out of town. 40 years ago. I can only imagine
> what it's like now.
>
> And don't say I just didn't time it right. The majority of the time, night
> or day, it's bad. Many times it's worse.
>

Well timing around here is when it is dark. Talking stop and go on the
freeways.