Re: RWD stick shift "family" car... and fairly recent?


John S. wrote:
N8N wrote:
John S. wrote:
ray wrote:
John S. wrote:
ray wrote:
John S. wrote:
He meant "get them" as in "understand why some people want them."
Manual transmissions are fine IF you like attempting to equal the
performance of a good automatic transmission. Unfortunately most
drivers really have no idea of how to use a manual transmission
effectively and fail miserably in the attempt. The most common and
silliest mistake is to keep the car in too low a gear. It does little
more than waste gas most of the time, although if the exhaust is loud
enough the driver does get the rush that comes from a self-induced
image of being a momentary race car driver.

the irony of all that is the only car I own that's an automatic is my
race car. And that's only because we have to run one in my class, and
the car was originally a stick.

You just don't get it.

Which "it" don't I get.

Driving as a passion, not as a chore.



I'm trying to be polite, but if the nicest car
you've ever driven is a Volvo wagon, you just don't get it.

Again, which "it" are rambling on about. And why is it important that
I drive a Volvo branded car vs another.

Because there's not a whole lot sporty about a Volvo wagon. there's no
"zoom zoom" (Mazda), no "ultimate driving machine" (BMW), not even "We
build excitement" (Pontiac.) What's Volvo's theme? Safety. I'm not
saying ALL Mazdas are sports cars, but there's a certain "dna" that runs
through car lines, and Volvo is... well... about as unsporty as you can
get, which is fine if you're looking for that.


I see that you have taken the advertisers bait,
hook-line-and-sinker...swallowed it all. Do you really believe that
nonsense about some brand being an Ultimate Driving Machine? You are
the advertisers dream buyer. I believe in results, not ad copy. And
when I can get 300k miles from a Volvo with little effort all the while
enjoying the drive and reliability then I will keep doing that.

You've never actually *driven* a BMW, have you? I used to own an '86
535i and I still fondly remember that car, craptacular as it was (not
due to design, more to having been flogged for 200K miles by a previous
owner.) Even as old and beat as it was, you could still tell that it
was a cut above your average Lumina. I'm assuming that this is the
kind of effect that the OP is looking for; which is why I recommended
that he see if a more recent 5-series might not fit within his budget
(although from a purist's standpoint, even the E28 was getting to be
over-gadgeted, and the later models have only gotten worse.)


Driven BMW's several times...as rental cars in Germany as well as my
future son-in-law's car. They are an enjoyable solid handling car to
drive. We have also taken the time to tour the BMW plant in South
Carolina. They have a fascinating museum with several of the classics
on display. The highly automated robotic assembly line is fascinating
to watch, although it does remove any thoughts of BMW's being the
result of any old-world germanic craftsmanship.


I never deluded myself that my BMW was put together by Black Forest
artisans. You have to pay a lot more than BMW prices to get a truly
hand built car, and there's not always an advantage to same (look at
the miserable reliability record of such cars as Morgan, Aston Martin,
etc.)

HOWEVER - what you *are* paying for is crisp, precise handling and a
design optimized for performance and driver comfort, not ease of
manufacture. This has been traditionally the reason people have been
willing to put up with the higher purchase price and maintenance costs
of a BMW even though it doesn't always make sense from an economic
basis. It simply gives them pleasure to drive a truly good car as
opposed to a toaster on wheels.

But as the original poster noted, cars are appliances first and
foremost. They are appliances that move us from point a to point b.
It matters little whether the driver is piloting a Saab, BMW, Taurus,
Volvo, Porsche or Passat.

To some people it does. e.g. some people are completely OK with buying
a dishwasher, say, from the Salvation Army, while other people get a
small amount of pleasure from having some high-end stainless steel
thing with roller-bearing this and extra-insulated that. Or the
difference between a Kitchenaid mixer and some plastic POS from K-mart.
There are appliances, and then there are appliances. Or in other
words - you have to have a car, so why not buy a GOOD one?

If nothing else, you couldn't pay me enough to drive a Taurus or
Passat; they're not fun enough to drive to overcome the maintenance
nightmares that they inevitably become.

We all get to our arrival in about the same
time and generally arrive in one piece. The mental games one gets to
play while piloting certain cars can be entertaining, especially in
traffic. Imagining that one is an enthusiast or even better a race
driver and flicking through the gears to hold the rpms up and achieve a
loud mechanical whine from the motor and attain a nice exhaust tone
while navigating on ramps and changing lanes can provide momentary
pleasure. If done too frequently the only lasting impact is to shorten
trips between gas stations.

Sure, but you can still get the benefits of a good car by knowing that
you are WELL within its performance envelope at all times, and can also
take pleasure in the crispness of the feel of the car even well within
legal speeds. Not only is this rewarding to the driver emotionally,
but there's an actual safety benefit.

Just don't make personal potshots at me because you don't
like my choices in cars, because you're just reinforcing the opinion I
have of assholes in Volvos.

You asked for suggestions for a family car with rear wheel drive and a
stick transmission that was to be used in snow country. I responded
with what is common wisdom for most drivers these days:

1. There are no inexpensive rearwheel drive cars with manual
transmissions made recently and only a very few expensive ones.
2. Frontwheel drive cars are more common, thus offering you a greater
number of choices.
3. Front wheel drive cars also offer better traction than rear wheel
drive cars in snow and slippery situations.

well then... to rebut your comments:
1-I know this, which is why I was asking around in hopes I missed one in
a brand I'm not familiar with.
2-see #1
3-I don't care what you believe about snow traction in a fwd car, I
asked about rwd cars, not sermons on what kind of car you think I should
be driving because I happen to live where it snows. Just because YOU
can't keep a rwd car out of the ditch doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

I SAID THIS BEFORE SO GET YOUR READING GLASSES OUT THIS TIME:
CAR COMPANIES DON'T NOW AND HAVEN'T FOR QUITE A WHILE MADE AN
INEXPENSIVE REAR WHEEL DRIVE CAR. THERE ARE A VERY FEW HIGH-END
COMPANIES STILL PRODUCING THEM HOWEVER. BECAUSE YOU DID NOT WANT TO
SPEND MORE THAN $20K I SUGGESTED THE ONLY AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE...FWD.

Or perhaps manufacturers should listen to what people are asking for -
updated versions of the kinds of cars that were common 30 years ago.
Sounds to me like the OP is looking for something like a Chevelle or
Cutlass. Gee, those cars sold like hotcakes back in the day, didn't
they?

It would appear that most drivers today are asking for cars with:
front wheel drive; motors that balance power and economy; automatic
transmissions; numerous safety features; etc. If drivers didn't want
cars with those features they would not buy them. Regarding front
wheel drive vehicles, if drivers did not want them they would have
stayed with rear wheel drive cars in the early 1980's when the
transition was occuring. Consumers make their choices known to
manufacturers with their pocketbook.

And you know what? I think they *would* buy larger, RWD or AWD family
cars given the option. Otherwise, why would so many people buy
glorified pickup trucks instead of the passenger cars that are
available?


Regarding the Chevelle/Cutlass, yes they were nice cars...in their day.
I have fond memories of my 1968 Chevelle being a joy to drive when
new. Like many of it's slant-window bretheren it rusted out around the
bottom of the rear window and filled the trunk with water. When a
fully rebuilt 1960's car is driven in 2006 one finds out quickly just
how far automotive technology has progressed. Old cars are great for
memories, fun for collectors and serve as excellent benchmarks to show
how much new cars have improved.

I don't get it. I've got a new ('05) Impala as my company car, and
given the choice between driving that every day and having a perfectly
restored older A-body, that's a no-brainer choice IMHO. The Impala is
clearly optimized to be a perfect little disposable appliance, whereas
the older cars usually gave some concessions to the driver in terms of
actual power, some attempt at balanced handling, etc. I don't get any
benefit at all from the supposed "improvements" in the Impala - it's
still a slow, uncomfortable, ill-handling, loud POS.

nate

.

Loading