JerzeyLegend
Well-Known Member
smart is a great city car. no parking problems. but automatic gearbox? nooonononooooo... i prefer manual
Why?
Show off your ride...
- Thread starter JerzeyLegend
- Start date
Why?
Patchouli
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't having it manual as a city car be...really annoying?smart is a great city car. no parking problems. but automatic gearbox? nooonononooooo... i prefer manual
kingjok3r
Well-Known Member
I find driving a manual in the city even better. In fact, Auto trans imo is only good for highway..
bumper-to-bumper traffic is annoying with either trans.
NewspaperCrane
Well-Known Member
I drive my manual trans in the City/Suburbs. Bumper to bumper traffic was rough the first couple of times, but now I know how to handle it and it's not bad. I've found that in general driving a manual transmission has made me a more attentive driver, and that helps in all situations. If you want to do something, you have to not only think about what you're going to do ahead of time (so you can make sure you're in the proper gear) but you need to anticipate other car's movements and react before they do things.
I'm not saying that I like to bumper to bumper traffic, but I don't dread it because of my car's manual transmission, I dread it because it makes it take forever getting places.
I'm not saying that I like to bumper to bumper traffic, but I don't dread it because of my car's manual transmission, I dread it because it makes it take forever getting places.
JerzeyLegend
Well-Known Member
I'm very glad no one used the "stick is faster" argument.
RemOfShadows
Well-Known Member
*cough*it is doe*cough*
kagato
Well-Known Member
It's only true when a stick is combined with painted flames.
Patchouli
Well-Known Member
Using that arguement when talking about a city car is weird though.
Unless you're doing illegal street racing or something.
RemOfShadows
Well-Known Member
acceleration is often quite important when driving in the city, although with a light little car like your's that shouldn't be a problem.
RioDeal
Well-Known Member
for some reason when i click on it, it never loads.She looks nice and aggressive from this angle.
And the angle everyone else will be seeing:
Is that a lincoln grand marquis? or if a stare closer its a Chevy Monte Carlos?
Creeper
Well-Known Member
I hear those smartcar street races are rad.
thee_pro
Well-Known Member
RemOfShadows
Well-Known Member
such a sexy beast. fatter wheels on the back though, I beg of you...She looks nice and aggressive from this angle.
And the angle everyone else will be seeing:
and what are the figures? Since I'm too lazy to look them up?
rsmv2you
Well-Known Member
Not that i want to dis-rail the conversation but in euro they got a car smaller when folded, that's right a car that folds when parked and its like 16,000 in usd or €13,000 it can travel up to 65 miles on a single recharge. its called the "Hiriko". But really i don't see why these smaller cars are so much a fuss. if Patchy likes her car then that's cool she is going green
RioDeal
Well-Known Member
Completely wrong on all levels. 1977 Pontiac Can Am. one of 1377 ever made.
I was pretty much guessing so I knew it would be wrong answer but its hard to see in a little old notebook if you catch my drift. Nice ride, its a piece of Pontiac history
thee_pro
Well-Known Member
________________mm____inchessuch a sexy beast. fatter wheels on the back though, I beg of you...
and what are the figures? Since I'm too lazy to look them up?
wheelbase_________2845____112
track/tread (front)___1565____61.6
track/tread (rear)____1552____61.1
length____________ 5283 ___208
width_____________1966 ___77.4
height____________1339____52.7
ground clearance____124_____4.9
length:wheelbase ratio____1.86
kerb weight:_______1614 kg___3558 lb
fuel tank capacity:___82.6 litres___18.2 UK Gal___21.8 US Gal
More in depth:
engine type:_____naturally aspirated petrol
engine manufacturer:_____GM_____
engine code:_____L 78/W 72
cylinders:______V 8 in 90° V
capacity:
6.6 litre
6558 cc
(400.194 cu in)
bore × stroke:
104.68 × 95.25 mm
4.12 × 3.75 in
bore/stroke ratio:_____1.1
overhead valve (OHV)
2 valves per cylinder
16 valves in total
maximum power output
(net)____203 PS (200 bhp) (149 kW)
at 4000 rpm
specific output
(net)____30.5 bhp/litre
0.5 bhp/cu in
maximum torque
(net)____440 Nm (325 ft·lb) (44.9 kgm)
at 2400 rpm
specific torque
(net)____67.09 Nm/litre
0.81 ft·lb/cu3
engine construction:______cast iron block & head
compression ratio:______8:1
fuel system:______1 Rochester 17057263 carburetor (QuadraJet 4bbl)
*Info grabbed from this website:
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=342815
RemOfShadows
Well-Known Member
thee_pro
Well-Known Member
To have it make my friends' project cars look like tinker toys. She's gotta contend with a 70's Malibu Classic and a 80's Monte Carlo SS clone.ooh 16 valve OHV V8, oldschool
what are your plans for it?
Monte is still being built, whereas the Malibu is already upgraded and complete.
First things first though, I have to get her on the road.
Edit~ Oh yeah, and my roommate (RabidRyan on these forums) is building up a 90's Shelby Daytona as well. but that's a little FWD 4-Banger, so mine's already better.
Ryan's Daytona:
RemOfShadows
Well-Known Member
From that I'm guessing it's been sitting and is not a runner yet. Also what sort of project is it? A street restoration or a sweet muscle tuner build? And I guess by muscle tuner sort of thing I've been looking at these really sweet pro-stock street legal cars, omg those are hotTo have it make my friends' project cars look like tinker toys. She's gotta contend with a 70's Malibu Classic and a 80's Monte Carlo SS clone.
Monte is still being built, whereas the Malibu is already upgraded and complete.
First things first though, I have to get her on the road.
Edit~ Oh yeah, and my roommate is building up a 90's Shelby Daytona as well. but that's a little FWD 4-Banger, so mine's already better.
Ryan's Daytona: