They both are good in any distance travel, as for your legs hurting it is not as bad as you think it you are traveling mostly by hi-way, I drove a manual from California, to Texas, then to Arizona to Chicago then to New York. And I felt no addition pain from that. But I do recommend that you take food and potty breaks as often as you can, Or use a few rest stop If you are driving non-stop ok. Have a great trip and watch the traffic. Be well. One more thing if you get sleepy at any time, stop at a rest for a few hours and sleep if you can For driving at 70 mph and blinking and yawning don't mix well with speed..................
2006-10-27 23:09:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by kilroymaster 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
For a manual, once you get it up to 40 MPH or so, the shifting should be over and it'll run like an automatic would. So on that part of it, there isn't a lot of difference.
If you have knee, hip, ankle or back problems, I wouldn't get a manual.
If you're buying it and not renting, think long term. After the trip, are you going to be driving in a lot of city or heavy traffic? The more traffic, the more shifting for the manual.
If you have no problems mentioned above and you like a manual transmission, then go for it, but just remember, you'll be driving this car for a long time after the trip and in traffic.
I had manual transmissions in most of my cars and trucks, but had to get an automatic so the hubby could drive it too, he has a bad left ankle and couldn't handle the clutch in traffic.
2006-10-27 23:05:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by Lucianna 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
that depends on if there is going to be a lot of stops and gos , if so the automatic would be a little more convenient. But it sounds like that long of a trip u probably will be doing a bit more hi-way driving in which a manual wont hamper your leg to much and if that's the kind of transmission you prefer that's the one i would pick after all if are going to be in the car a lot you might as well enjoy yourself as much as possible. As far as fuel goes it has been proven that manual transmissions get the best mileage, but I would go with the one I preferred.
2006-10-27 23:47:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hi In precept, a good taken care of guide gearbox must final longer than an automobile one, simply due to the fact that it is less difficult technlogy with fewer bits to head fallacious...HOWEVER - studying among the traces, if you are asking "shopping used, which could be the more secure acquire" then an automated might be tips on how to cross. The motive is - anybody utilizing a guide gearbox badly (driving the take hold of, no longer replacing the oil sufficiently mainly, treating it too harshly) will lessen its lifespan, nonetheless there isn't as a lot that you can do to an automated gearbox to debris it up. So - in case your query is "that's the more secure purchase on an older Volvo" then the automobile might be - nonetheless the 240 is relatively an historical auto now and more commonly it's wiser to shop for older vehicles on "situation, no longer specification" - for this reason when you see a beautiful, good maintained guide I'd take it over a poorly seemed-after automobile. Good success together with your vehicle!
2016-09-01 03:51:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Manual, without a doubt. It is good idea. And if you really have a problem with you're knees, try purchasing a car that has cruse control. But manual for me is by far the better option.
2006-10-27 22:58:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by spHd 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm from Atlanta too. I drive a Chevy Astro and I know it's not 'cool' but it's the most comfortable and roomy vehicle I have ever had. Won't give it up.
Oh! And automatic for sure.
2006-10-27 22:54:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by starrynight1 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
get a manual. once you get on the road you won't be shifting that much the car will be in 4th gear. Unless you plan on having a lot of stop and go traffic...
2006-10-29 03:53:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by Wyntersmile 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
MANUAL IS CHEAPER IN FUEL COST
2006-10-27 23:33:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by anthony p 1
·
0⤊
0⤋