oh dear....
:ducks:

 

is there a clutch pedal?? NO

is there a shifter with six slots or 5 slots for that matter ?? NO


all i see is one big *** brake pedal a gas pedal no matter how u put it is an automatic

 

or you can sugar coat it and make yourself beleive its a manual like all the other scrubs who think their slapstick is a manual.

 

id rather not drive than to lie to myself like that

 

back to the op good luck with your purchase and haggle the **** out of them and drive as many cars as u can.

you will know wich one is for you.

 

automated = automatic

 

First of all: Are you capable of putting all your two word thoughts into one post?

Secondly, you didn't say "automatic", you said "Slush-o-matic". So, that made it sound like you were referring to a typical torque converter automatic, as that's what the word "slushbox" refers to.

Yes, it completely automates the clutch pedal, and it can also automate the gear selection if you like. As for the "scrubs" who have to convince themselves they're driving a manual, there's no need. As all of the top levels of auto racing use some form of automated manual which will shift infinitely faster than your fat greazy palms ever can. Anyone who is a true car nut wouldn't say something as ignorant as you did. So, congrats.

 

Hmm, taking advice from people who use Simpsons and Pokemon as their avatar. Sure doesn't necessarily mean your any less than anyone here, but it sure as heck doesn't help. Anyways, i implore you to shift faster that the TCSST, please do try. I'll wait until you do. No one claims to have more control over the car when compared to a regular manual, that most likely will never be rivaled.

 

No the data doesn't speak for itself, your taking what you see out of it. Speak with any real scientist and that is truly faulty logic. Cover it up with whatever you want, they are two different variables.

I'm sure you do Amby, I'm sure you do.

 

I am a real scientist . The data is right here, young drivers have a disproportionately high accident rate. We're not talking about a 1-5% deviation, we're talking about an accident rate that's double that of any other age group. Speed is a major factor in many of these accidents as well, they're not "oopsy" accidents. Again, if we take a known risk factor and apply it to a group, it logically follows that the risk will increase, hence why we call them risk factors.

 

You keep saying logically, and that keeps proving my point. It's faulty logic. All the data supports that most of those accidents were due to others in the car, alcohol, cell phones and yes high speed. Any of those can happen in any car, even a damn Smart ForTwo.

 

How is it faulty logic? We have a known risk factor, it's called a risk factor because there is an observed accident risk for that factor, and we are applying it to a group of people. Hmmmm....logically that should *gasp* increase their accident risk. If we're talking about a group already known to be at risk, it's not a good idea. If you're at risk for heart disease, being overweight is another risk factor that further increases the likelihood of getting heart disease.

 

Unfortunately for your logic there are no stats to prove it. There are however stats linking heart disease and being overweight. You can't just apply a risk factor where-ever you'd like to and say that it increases their risk.

You've said it yourself, it's the speed that's the problem. Not the time it takes them to get there. That speed can be achieved in nearly any vehicle.

 

Technically there are no stats proving that smoking causes lung cancer or that being overweight directly causes heart disease. However, we scientists like to use logic to figure such things out. The same applies here. We know that performance cars are a risk factor, this is very clear and apparently undisputed. Why is it so hard to apply this to young drivers?

 

No scientist deals in logic. They deal in evidence, hence WHY THEY PERFORM EXPERIMENTS. Dur.