Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Until the automatic decides it doesn't want to work anymore. Funny thing about mechanical devices, the more complex they are, the more they are prone to failure. The standard transmission is still around these days because it has one advantage that the automatic will ever have over it. Reliability. It is reliable because it is simple. The design is tested and true.
This may surprise you, but automatics can be, and many are, reliable.
The automatic transmissions in my '69 and '76 Cadillacs are original; never been rebuilt.
The automatic transmission in my mom's '69 Cadillac was still going strong when it passed the 200,000 mile mark. The original, non-rebuilt transmission.
The Torqueflite automatics in the late-'50s to '70s Mopars were also very reliable. Part failure on a stock Torqueflite was rare.
When properly designed and built, automatic transmissions are very reliable.
When properly designed and built, automatic transmissions are very reliable.
I agree with you. I drive cars into the ground, and I've never had a transmissin failure, or even problem, in an automatic. However, I've had problems with manuals. If a person doesn't know how to drive a stick properly (i.e., most people), there will almost certainly be problems during the life of the car, certainly with the clutch, and grinding gears is not helpful at all. But it is almost impossible to abuse an automatic in a lethal manner.
I agree with you. I drive cars into the ground, and I've never had a transmissin failure, or even problem, in an automatic. However, I've had problems with manuals. If a person doesn't know how to drive a stick properly (i.e., most people), there will almost certainly be problems during the life of the car, certainly with the clutch, and grinding gears is not helpful at all. But it is almost impossible to abuse an automatic in a lethal manner.
Not quite. Us older guys don't do it, but Google "neutral drop" if you don't know what that means.
Oddly enough many Toy automatics can be "lethally abused" by just adding one of those "mechanic in a can" treatments - and overfilling the transola by about a pint. They do *not* like to be overfilled.
Just when you think something is "idiot proof", along comes a "better idiot"...
This article might be full of bias, but it seemed to apply a little to this situation
Seems to me profit is a very large aspect.
Quote:
Tesla's electric car drove J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, and Henry Ford CRAZY!!
With the discovery of electricity, everybody expected that all cars would be electric and run on rechargeable batteries. Tesla had gone one better and actually produced a working automobile that ran on electricity taken from the surrounding ether like an antenna picks up radio waves. This would revolutionize travel just like his AC induction motor had revolutionized the industrial world.
The 3 stooges Morgan, Rockefeller, and Ford had to sabotage his idea at all costs....No air polluting gasoline engine meant no oil monopoly for Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Company. No oil monopoly meant no excuse for Rockefeller to own the U.S. government, and no excuse to be involved in foreign countries . . . especially those surrounding Russia.
J.P. Morgan (1837-1913), was the chief enemy of Tesla's AC system; his wireless transmission system, and his electric car. He actually died in Rome during a visit to his boss.
J. D. Rockefeller (1838-1937) was the founder of the Standard Oil Company. His killing of the electric car allowed Standard Oil to amass a vast fortune which is still pouring into Rockefeller controlled companies to this very day.
Henry Ford (1863-1947) is "credited" with mass producing the noisy air polluting gasoline engine. By 1932, Ford controlled over 1/3 of gasoline engine production worldwide.
It is a textbook example of corporate profiteering collusion.
National City Lines, Inc. (NCL), was a front company[1] — organized by GM's Alfred P. Sloan, Jr. in 1922 . . .for the express purpose of acquiring local transit systems throughout the United States.[3] "Once [NCL] purchased a transit company, electric trolley service was immediately discontinued, the tracks quickly pulled up, the wires dismantled ...", and GM buses replaced the trolleys.
I agree with you. I drive cars into the ground, and I've never had a transmissin failure, or even problem, in an automatic. However, I've had problems with manuals. If a person doesn't know how to drive a stick properly (i.e., most people), there will almost certainly be problems during the life of the car, certainly with the clutch, and grinding gears is not helpful at all. But it is almost impossible to abuse an automatic in a lethal manner.
Really ?
Why are there transmission shops advertising in the yellow pages of the phone book ?
It is a textbook example of corporate profiteering collusion.
National City Lines, Inc. (NCL), was a front company[1] — organized by GM's Alfred P. Sloan, Jr. in 1922 . . .for the express purpose of acquiring local transit systems throughout the United States.[3] "Once [NCL] purchased a transit company, electric trolley service was immediately discontinued, the tracks quickly pulled up, the wires dismantled ...", and GM buses replaced the trolleys.
Back in high school I had a 1991 Dodge Colt, a little two door hatch back that got close to 40 MPG. It was peppy enough, though didn't have tons of power. It amazes me, too, that this day in age with greater technology that MPG on these types of cars has gone DOWN instead of UP. My only guess is that the greater technology has been used to squeeze more power out of little cars instead of more efficiency. I would gladly take the lesser power for the better fuel economy- even back then when gas was 99 cents a gallon I was glad to be driving what I had, I didn't want anything with more power that might cost more gas-wise!
I would say that the biggest causes of the drop in MPG ratings are:
1. the method of measuring fuel economy did in fact change a few years ago, because consumers were complaining that they weren't able to achieve the EPA ratings on their cars
2. the difference in observed fuel economy is mostly due to the fact that cars are a lot heavier than they were 20 years ago. you can blame the SUV craze for that; people wanted bigger cars because they felt safer, so not only did the carmakers build bigger cars, they threw in a bunch of heavy safety equipment (6-8 airbags, electronic stability control, body reinforcements) because they knew exactly why drivers wanted bigger cars.
3. consequentially, it takes more power to move a greater amount of mass at the save velocity. frankly, the improvement in engine technology has been marvelous over the past 20 years, unlocking the additional power required to move heavier cars without the penalty in fuel economy. A 1995 Cadillac Seville had 270 hp, weighed 3800 lbs, and got 17 mpg. A 2010 Cadillac CTS has 270 hp, weighs 3800 lbs, and gets 22 mpg. And the 2010 car costs less than the 1995 car did even without adjusting for inflation. I'd say that's decent progress.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
