"Classical Protestants" (CP) believe in varying theologies concerning the Eucharist. "Evangelical" (EF) churches believe it's all just symbolism.
By EF, I assume you mean Evangelical Fundamentalist. Fundamentalist implying that a Biblical context is fundamental to check out first in all decisions.
Patristic Fathers --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CP give weight to teachings of the "patristic fathers" while EF don't care about them.
EF's believe the early church revealed in the Book of Acts were the only revelations from God to base doctrine on. All other early church doctrines were not directed by the Holy Spirit to be canonized. The Book of Revelation reveals, to varying degrees, that five of the seven earliest churches were worthy of Christ's reproof.
Virgin Mary:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CP used to honor Mary to varying degrees (some dishonored her). EF view her simply as a woman who gave birth to Christ.
Most EF's honor Mary because her faithfulness to God made her the candidate to usher the Savior of the world into the universe. If she had forsaken her virginity, prior to the call, she would have been unusable in this role. We would be hard pressed to find a woman God blessed more than her for this reason alone.
Communion of Saints:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CP varies, EF rejects.
Most EF's believe that dead believers (saints) do not become omnipresent when they pass from our world. Mary, having not acquired the attribute of omnipresence, would not be affective directing prayer toward. ("One Mediator between God and man" would exclude dead saints). We can commune and confess with those believers (saints) that are alive beside us, but not with those who have died.
Reasonableness:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CP theologians open to reason and evidence, EF can't see past the theology of "bible alone" (an unbiblical idea).
I would consider this an unfair characterization. There is a simple distinction, if the context of a Biblical passage comments on a topic, it should hold the highest weight. I point out context because many scientific errors regarding Biblical passages have caused some secularists to dub the Scriptures unreliable. The Bible has taught a round earth despite the leaders in the church misrepresentations, as well as the majority of scientists at the time, being in error.
Many of the scientific controversies that are raging today are still up in the air. Six day creation versus the old age of the universe. Most EF's are confident that the scripture will have the correct perspective when all is said and done. Consider the fact that a God who has the power to create an entire universe, would be able to stretch His light across the expanse of space instantly. If the physical reference during creation is such that matter was shaped and molded instantly, what would that do to atomic clocks.
It is my view that science is just now scratching the surface of how the physical property of "time" can not be accurately accessed during the creation, by our conventional means.
>>I would consider this an unfair characterization
I've spoken with probably upwards of 500 evangelical fundamentalists. Most are stuck in the circular framework of their beliefs. They cannot, for the most part, accept any evidence outside of this framework.
You may be different, but my experience over the past 10 years has left me with this impression.