ok . heres one good reason why im gonna buy a manual and not another auto.

 

the graph for the auto's look like kelly brook's assets rather than a performance power curve.

 

why do auto's have this oakey doakey power curve problem?

 

[This message has been edited by Veilside (edited 11-04-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by Veilside (edited 11-04-2002).]

Given the choice I'd sell the Z and live with kelly brooks assets. Sod the graph, I wouldn't need a Z when I stayed in bed all day.

 

If they were Kelly Brooks assets I'd send her off to Dr. Robert for corrective surgery!!! ROFL

 

 

 

------------------

Originally posted by Veilside:

 

 

ok . heres one good reason why im gonna buy a manual and not another auto.

 

the graph for the auto's look like kelly brook's assets rather than a performance power curve.

 

why do auto's have this oakey doakey power curve problem?

 

[This message has been edited by Veilside (edited 11-04-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by Veilside (edited 11-04-2002).]

 

 

The dip in the middle is probably the car changing gear LOL

 

Look how much higher the power is at lower revs though, nice flat wall of power, great for pulling off the lights and overtaking

 

 

 

------------------

good one!!!

 

i thought the test was done in one gear, whoever was in that car doin the testing must of had a serious twitch on his right foot!!

 

 

I reckon Jeffs car changed gear, we talked about it at the time. Not sure why because mine didn't and my powercurve looked far more normal.

Would using the HOLD or POWER buttons on the auto box stop this?

 

------------------

John Newcomb

www.geocities.com/jn300zxtt

It may have done, I'm not sure what setting mine was in at the time, also my gearbox had been upgraded so it would change faster and possibly smoother, although there was no sign in my power curves that it had changed at all.