The newer one with lower mileage.

Matt

oops, i mean *all other things*

Well, except all other things *aren't* equal in this comparison. The '92
is probably (but not certainly) a 4-cylinder, because they generally
didn't put the 3-speed behind the 3.0 V6 between '89 and '92. The '93
would have to be a V6 because the 4-cylinders didn't get the 4-speed auto.
The '92 "3 speed auto" car could be a 2.5 nonturbo, a 2.5 turbo, or a 3.0
V6.

Either or both could be great cars or junk; we really need more info. Just
picking the newer car is not the right way to do it.

DS

From Nomen Nescio:

Why an automatic?  A four speed "conventional" transmission is ideal,
although they have a finite life (clutch friction material wears out and
the synchro on 1st gear eventually goes too).  Some automatics never wear
out, at least during the lifetime of the car, which is a plus for
automatics.

However, all things not being equal, a stick shift will give you more
pickup and mileage than any automatic could ever dream of.  The logic is
impeckerable:  Automatics are heavy, heavy, heavy and that alone degrades
vehicle performance.  Their shift patterns are programmed badly, good only
for boulevard driving - sticks give much, much better control in the
mountains.  Don't have to believe me if you don't want to; just drive each
to see for yourself because the truth stares you in the kisser.  With a
stick, under open road conditions, you never need to use brakes above 30
mph because you can shift down thru the gears using engine braking
compression.   You get very little slowdown with automatics because they
don't reverse couple the driven wheels to the engine; its a basic flaw.
Also, automatics are dangerous because the car goes when in "drive" and the
gas pedal is not even pressed on.  This is a dangerous thing that kills
small children every year in developed countries.

If you can't drive a stick you shouldn't be on the road.  All drivers'
tests should be with sticks, not autos.  Most old ladies cant handle a
stick and if you don't believe me, just put your mother behind the wheel,
then stand well clear of the car.  Your grandma, however, can probably do
it because automatics didn't get popular until after you were born.

Another downside of stick shifts is the car companies haven't put a dime
into development since '56 so you're stuck with the clutch and synchro wear
out problem.  If they would have invested 10% of what they wasted on
automatics, the stick shift would be perfected by now.

If the 4 speed has not been replaced yet, it likely will need to be
soon. The 3 speed is more durable.

That said, the 4 speed is a lot nicer on the highway, as the top gear
is overdrive

Niether, since I assume it means getting a Mitsubishi 3.0 as part of the
deal... :-/

Hi!
I agree, the autom. transmission in american cars MUST be improved.
I drive a 2000 Neon with a 3 speed transmission. This is absurd, given the
fact that other companies use 6 or even 7 speed transmissions by now.
Nevertheless would I NEVER give up my old fassion automatic for a manual.
Never. And you are talking to a guy who used manuals over years.
Try to drive in the heavy traffic of new york or L.A. every day with a
manual. It drives you crazy and is really hard work. After 2 hours of stop
and go you are finished!!!!
God bless the automatic transmission. :-)