Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 09:34:26 GMT From: r600nopsamejanews.com Subject: Re: SAAB 9-5 or Charysler 300M ?
I've driven it; no doubt it's a nice car. However, autostick just doesn't match the responsiveness of a real manual. By the way, Saab was the first to market with a "tiptronic/autostick" type trans. The shifter worked like the regular 5- speed, but there was no clutch, so responsiveness was great (C&D road tested it 0-60 in 6.5 in '95; it was a regular 900SE Turbo 185hp). The trans option sold as a test in the UK; consumers ended up preferring the real thing. In article <36cef4b6$0$3659nopsamtain.mindlink.net>, "Aaron" <nospamnopsamam.com> wrote: > Have you actually test driven a 300M and used the AutoStick? You might > find it to your liking if you would rather have a manual. > > Aaron > > Wade R. Aiken wrote in message <36CEAA0A.B79C9540nopsam.penn.com>... > >I have been looking at purchasing a new car this year and the 9-5 is on > >my short list, the Chrysler 300m is not. The reason? The 300m is not > >available with a manual transmission while the 9-5 is. I am not > >interested in a boring automatic. By the way another car on my short > >list is the Audi A4. No Bimmers as they are rear wheel drive and we get > >snow and ice here. > > > > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
