Automatics at traffic lights

BeenThroughItAll

reeac wrote: »

This has become somewhat muddled. The OP was talking about automatics and you then claimed that your manual g.b. 1.6 would be faster away from the lights, quoting its max. power [no mention of torque] as justification. Max. power comes [more or less] at max. revs. so I envisaged your traffic lights technique as being max. revs. and then engage clutch. When I introduced the concept of torque I was backing auto's [see also my earlier post re. the benefits of torque converters] so no clutch damage involved.

No, I wasn't interested in the 'away from the lights' conversation initially. If you look back, I simply took issue with the 'It's all about engine size' comment, and used the 1.6 K series (not mine, I add) as an example.

sjw11

Having driven manual cars for the last 43 years, I have recently had the same dilemma as the OP.

I am used to driving a Lotus and am often annoyed at traffic lights sitting behind someone with their high intensity brake lights burning into my eyeballs. Frequently having to shield my eyes with my hands, since it is worse when you are sitting lower down.

However in addition I have recently bought a Smart car for running about town. These are all semi-automatic in that you can change gear manually but there is no clutch.

It really has taken some getting used to, and I can now sympathise a little with those who hold on the foot brakes at lights.

But I still continue my hate campaign when itting behind someone with their foot on the brakes. Whenever possible I try to slip it into N and use the hand brake.