GM Shifts to Manual Transmissions for Global Warming

GM Shifts to Manual Transmissions for Global Warming

Responding to growing concerns over global warming, General Motors
(GM) announced today that it would make all of its vehicles with
standard transmissions, starting in 2009. Manual transmissions
generally get better fuel mileage than automatics.

GM CEO Rick Wagoner described the initiative at a press conference at
the company headquarters in Detroit: "We've been coddling our lazy
fellow Americans for too long. It's time everyone started using their
left foot. This is what Jesus would do."

Wagoner said that manual transmissions typically get 2-3 mpg better
mileage than the same vehicle equipped with an automatic, and that in
some cases the difference can be as much as 5 mpg. GM plans to focus
on high-efficiency manuals to minimize the company's output of
greenhouse gases. Manuals are also generally considered more fun to
drive and less expensive to manufacture and maintain.

The GM announcement received a mixed reaction. The late Jerry Falwell
rose from his grave to insist that Jesus would have driven a large van
with an automatic, because he would need to carry so many of his
followers. Other religious leaders hailed the effort to reduce global
warming.

On the environmental side, NRDC President Frances Beineke applauded
the move and encouraged other auto manufacturers to follow suit.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.c...dline=s8i21068


Well, it's all A SPOOF! You knew it, right? It makes sense, but the
HUNGRY CORPORATIONS would never go into a diet just to do the right
thing. And the LAZY CONSUMERS won't demand it either. So only THE
REVOLUTION can change things...

http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/...ution%21& l4=

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

BIKE FOR PEACE
http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace

In article . com>, donquijote1954 wrote:
> GM Shifts to Manual Transmissions for Global Warming
>
> Responding to growing concerns over global warming, General Motors
> (GM) announced today that it would make all of its vehicles with
> standard transmissions, starting in 2009. Manual transmissions
> generally get better fuel mileage than automatics.

Finally a trolling post that makes sense. Not because of the global
warming fraud, but the idea of getting rid of automatic transmissions.

>Well, it's all A SPOOF! You knew it, right? It makes sense, but the
>HUNGRY CORPORATIONS would never go into a diet just to do the right
>thing. And the LAZY CONSUMERS won't demand it either. So only THE
>REVOLUTION can change things...

There are far more efficient automatic transmissions coming on the
market, like CVTs and the remarkable DSG gearboxes from Porsche/Audi,
for example. They are relatively new and will take time to get
widespread application in the marketplace, but the days of the old,
inefficient, heavy, expensive to build, torque converter type of
automatic transmission are numbered. As it happens, consumer demand is
driving it for a number of reasons, not the least of which is
efficiency. These new units are, in some cases, actually more
efficient than their manual counterparts.

They are being manufactured by HUNGRY CORPORATIONS and bought by the
LAZY CONSUMERS you spoke of.

GM, which used to be one of the great automotive innovators, has done
none of this, and has lost market share steadily for the last 20 years
or so. The "manual transmission" announcement above is a hoax, but
it's exactly the sort of stupidity they have engaged in recent years.


Bill Smith

Faith, n, Belief without evidence, in what is said by one who speaks
without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Ambrose Bierce

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:35:22 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article . com>, donquijote1954 wrote:
>> GM Shifts to Manual Transmissions for Global Warming
>>
>> Responding to growing concerns over global warming, General Motors
>> (GM) announced today that it would make all of its vehicles with
>> standard transmissions, starting in 2009. Manual transmissions
>> generally get better fuel mileage than automatics.
>
>Finally a trolling post that makes sense. Not because of the global
>warming fraud, but the idea of getting rid of automatic transmissions.
>
What's wrong with automatic transmissions?

Bill Smith

In article >, Bill Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:35:22 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article . com>, donquijote1954 wrote:
>>> GM Shifts to Manual Transmissions for Global Warming
>>>
>>> Responding to growing concerns over global warming, General Motors
>>> (GM) announced today that it would make all of its vehicles with
>>> standard transmissions, starting in 2009. Manual transmissions
>>> generally get better fuel mileage than automatics.
>>
>>Finally a trolling post that makes sense. Not because of the global
>>warming fraud, but the idea of getting rid of automatic transmissions.
>>
> What's wrong with automatic transmissions?

Google up a previous flame war

Bill Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:35:22 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article . com>, donquijote1954 wrote:
>>> GM Shifts to Manual Transmissions for Global Warming
>>>
>>> Responding to growing concerns over global warming, General Motors
>>> (GM) announced today that it would make all of its vehicles with
>>> standard transmissions, starting in 2009. Manual transmissions
>>> generally get better fuel mileage than automatics.
>> Finally a trolling post that makes sense. Not because of the global
>> warming fraud, but the idea of getting rid of automatic transmissions.
>>
> What's wrong with automatic transmissions?
>
> Bill Smith

Truth is standard may cost more, but the premise here is that they are
more fuel efficient. If you add up the fuel wasted by ignorance of how
to drive a standard transmission, I imagine it would not only cost more
over its life for fuel but for repairs also. Slipping the clutch will
add wear and can burn the clutch pressure plate.

On the other hand, the GIANT TAREX dump trucks have gone to automatic
transmissions and they are up to sixteen speed transmissions.


--
An ignorant person is one who doesn't know what you have just found out

http://OutSourcedNews.com


The problem with the global warming theory, is that a theory is like a
bowl of ice-cream, it only takes a little dab of bull**** to ruin the
whole thing.

"Talk-n-Dog" > wrote

>> What's wrong with automatic transmissions?
>>
>> Bill Smith
>
> Truth is standard may cost more, but the premise here is that they are
> more fuel efficient.

The new Honda Civic automatic is rated at 40 MPG, whereas the manual (and
almost unavailable) model is rated at about 36 MPG.

This may be because the automatic shifts at low RPMs and most drivers would
tend to select higher shiftpoints given the choice, but it does demonstrate
that modern automatics are at least competitive with the standards, and are
continuing to get better.

proehling > wrote:

> "Talk-n-Dog" > wrote
>
> >> What's wrong with automatic transmissions?
> >>
> >> Bill Smith
> >
> > Truth is standard may cost more, but the premise here is that they are
> > more fuel efficient.
>
> The new Honda Civic automatic is rated at 40 MPG, whereas the manual (and
> almost unavailable) model is rated at about 36 MPG.
>
> This may be because the automatic shifts at low RPMs and most drivers would
> tend to select higher shiftpoints given the choice, but it does demonstrate
> that modern automatics are at least competitive with the standards, and are
> continuing to get better.

In some larger cars, I believe autos are at least as economical as
manuals, if no more so.

Generally, though, they tend to be a bit slower and a bit more juicy.


--
BMW K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....

proehling wrote:
> "Talk-n-Dog" > wrote
>
>>> What's wrong with automatic transmissions?
>>>
>>> Bill Smith
>> Truth is standard may cost more, but the premise here is that they are
>> more fuel efficient.
>
> The new Honda Civic automatic is rated at 40 MPG, whereas the manual (and
> almost unavailable) model is rated at about 36 MPG.
>
> This may be because the automatic shifts at low RPMs and most drivers would
> tend to select higher shiftpoints given the choice, but it does demonstrate
> that modern automatics are at least competitive with the standards, and are
> continuing to get better.

Ever driven an automatic in the snow?

There are some good reasons why manual transmissions might be preferred.

FYI, last I recall automatics took about 1/3 of the engine HP to operate,
was this wrong or what has changed?

Cheers,

Rich

Rich > wrote:

>
> FYI, last I recall automatics took about 1/3 of the engine HP to operate,
> was this wrong or what has changed?

Completely wrong.


--
BMW K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....