Posts: 1740
Joined: 8/29/2004 From: New York Status: offline
Damn, wheres that video of that guy chirping every gear down the 1/4 mile in the vett when you need it......Stock auto vs Stock manual, stock manual will win hands down. A factory auto is homosexual.
To end this argument. My brother has a 2003 auto GT and I have a 2004 stick. He never comes close. Granted he is my little brother and I have to beat him in everything, but I have the advantage of shifting quicker and at higher RPM's. No matter who gets a better launch I'm gonna run right by him. I know he's a decent driver, but you don't have to do much in an auto. I would say you could bring an auto GT up here, but there's still 6 inches of snow.
_____________________________
That Guy Maganapakcs Bassani o/r x-pipe March underdrive pullies Roush CAI 04 Cobra front cover (formerly Roush front fascia) Predator Tune 3.75 Wet NX 100 shot
Team MF Member #2046 Posts: 12443
Joined: 1/22/2004 From: United States Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2k5pony
Dino runs I have seen. Correct even if you cut the engine you will keep moving. Obviously are you "manually taking the gear and moving it" When the computer does it. It is done quicker and more effiently. If you have driven both you would be able to tell this from mearly being in the car.
Dyno runs you have seen? You cannot shift the car on the dyno under load! You get it in 4th gear (or your 1:1 Gear or whatever is closest), leave it in gear and mash the throttle from about 2800 to redline. You don't run through the gears at full throttle on a dyno! (acutally im pretty sure this would tear the **** outta it).
How can you "lose RWHP thru the shift"??? That doesnt even make any since.
Your smoking crack dude. I don't car what year the car is, the stick is gonna be faster unless it is just setup horribly. Ask for 1/4 mile times around here from both stick and auto guys stock for stock, all of the stick times are faster.
Theres a reason that they call an auto a slushbox. And even a built up auto is going to be slower until you start really making the horsepower.
All of this doesnt even mention that the auto is heavyer as well. And in most cases (although not the new GT) it doesnt have as many gears. The only reason that the new GTs with autos are quick is because they have extremely short gears in 1st,2nd,and 3rd. And the 5spd is still faster stock vs stock.
Edit: Also, you are not even mentioning powershifting. I can shift my car without taking my foot off the gas, so the RPMs acutally rise for the spilt second I am shifting, and give me a little "boost" every time I shift. Haven't you ever seen someone racing a stick and acutally jumping forward everytime they shift??
< Message edited by 2000GT4.6 -- 3/3/2005 12:42:49 PM >
Its about how long your HP is at the RT not what is at the rear after you shift. according to your theory of I have say 300 HP between 3rd and 4th gear in a auto. you rather have 30 HP between and end up with 310 slamin in at 4th gear. You dont feel the POWER LOSS cause its not there you feel it in the manual jerk cause your trying to get your RW back to where the auto already is.
quote:
ORIGINAL: 96SilverLT1
I have driven both. The reason that it's quick and smooth in an auto and you don't feel it is alllll that power loss going in with teh gear change. Thats why when you pound second in an manual the car hits hard. your transfering all that power at once instead of sliping that power through a slush box.
One place I have seen this on the dyno was FX engineering. I did nto want to bring this up cause it is bikes compared to cars but this is just an example. They shifted the bikes on the dyno just fine before and after installing a shift KIT to show the power loss. Then again I bet your another super dooper shifter guy
Team MF Member #2046 Posts: 12443
Joined: 1/22/2004 From: United States Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2k5pony
Its about how long your HP is at the RT not what is at the rear after you shift. according to your theory of I have say 300 HP between 3rd and 4th gear in a auto. you rather have 30 HP between and end up with 310 slamin in at 4th gear. You dont feel the POWER LOSS cause its not there you feel it in the manual jerk cause your trying to get your RW back to where the auto already is.
quote:
ORIGINAL: 96SilverLT1
I have driven both. The reason that it's quick and smooth in an auto and you don't feel it is alllll that power loss going in with teh gear change. Thats why when you pound second in an manual the car hits hard. your transfering all that power at once instead of sliping that power through a slush box.
Wow, you are so smoking crack. And someone has blown the smoke up your ass. Read the above post.
Just accept the fact that whoever told you this is wrong.
Posts: 238
Joined: 1/13/2005 From: Cinci Status: offline
Some people don't want to here this........Of course a manual will be faster!! If you have to ask.....you didn't know. There is no questions or rebutle to this. Maybe some people cant drive manuals...I can lay 15ft of rubber grabbing 3rd gear...lets see your auto do that.....?
Insulting people? I didnt know you were so sensitive. My appologize sine that is the case. I started the thread to have a discussion. If you are feeling hurt maybe you should post on http://www.disney.com or http://www.nick.com. I have yet to se proof and would be glad to read it. So far I just have opinion. Send the proof Ill be glad to review it. I am opened minded to your so called "proof" that has yet to exist.
quote:
ORIGINAL: 96SilverLT1
And I find your ignorance funny. You started a thread with a question to which you already desided an answer for the sole perpous of insulting the people that don't agree with you. No matter what proof you are to be shown in this thread you will never change your mind. That kind of closed minded thinking is what keeps the internet filled with people just like you.
WHAT A DICK ! this dude needs a pass to ITS A SMALL WORLD AFTER ALL! haha!pro stock car got lenco's dont they.....
Click on the "why does an automatic take more power than a manual transmission
BTW, here is part of the artical right above that that pretty much says what we are trying to tell you:
The Ford 357 produced 371 horsepower on the engine dyno at 5,000 RPM. On a 1990 Mustang that came stock with an AOD and a 3.27 8" rearend (more efficient than the 9") the rear wheel horsepower is typically 180 hp. That represents a loss of 45 horsepower given the rated 225 flywheel horsepower on that vehicle. Using this 45 horsepower and even giving it another 5 for the 9" rearend the 357 would have produced 321 peak horsepower on the chassis dyno. Well, it didn't! Even after removing all the factors that could have contributed to extra power loss in the vehicle (removing the belt powered cooling fan) the chassis dyno only showed 283 hp. In fact over the entire power curve the difference between the engine dyno and the chassis dyno was 24%. This provides more evidence that the power loss through common drivetrain remains a percentage even as power is increased rather than remaining a static loss value.
The Buick 455 produced 329hp and made 280 through the drivetrain at 4,500 RPM. The average drivetrain horsepower loss in this vehicle was 18.3%. This can be accounted for by the fact that the 4 speed Muncie is more efficient (require less power to accelerate) as well as the 12 bolt rearend being more efficient than the 9".
Dang Ill read that novel later tonight. From first glance it looks like they are talking about old cars but Ill take a closer look tonight. Pro stock???? not sure what that thread is all about. Anyway fun thread.....Talk to all you shifty peopl later.
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2000GT4.6
here ya go fella. Little webpage that explains horsepower loss thru the drivetrain.
Click on the "why does an automatic take more power than a manual transmission
BTW, here is part of the artical right above that that pretty much says what we are trying to tell you:
The Ford 357 produced 371 horsepower on the engine dyno at 5,000 RPM. On a 1990 Mustang that came stock with an AOD and a 3.27 8" rearend (more efficient than the 9") the rear wheel horsepower is typically 180 hp. That represents a loss of 45 horsepower given the rated 225 flywheel horsepower on that vehicle. Using this 45 horsepower and even giving it another 5 for the 9" rearend the 357 would have produced 321 peak horsepower on the chassis dyno. Well, it didn't! Even after removing all the factors that could have contributed to extra power loss in the vehicle (removing the belt powered cooling fan) the chassis dyno only showed 283 hp. In fact over the entire power curve the difference between the engine dyno and the chassis dyno was 24%. This provides more evidence that the power loss through common drivetrain remains a percentage even as power is increased rather than remaining a static loss value.
The Buick 455 produced 329hp and made 280 through the drivetrain at 4,500 RPM. The average drivetrain horsepower loss in this vehicle was 18.3%. This can be accounted for by the fact that the 4 speed Muncie is more efficient (require less power to accelerate) as well as the 12 bolt rearend being more efficient than the 9".
HP loss in auto vs stick is mostly related to the converter slip (there is always some slip in a normal converter). However, even with a mechanically locked up converter, in the planetary gear system used in autos, there are more gear meshes occurring, which increases HP losses since each gear mesh results in a HP loss (relates back to statement 1). And don't forgot, in an auto, you have direct pumping losses from the oil pump (you don't have this in a manual trans). And the higher the line pressure, or fluid flow rate, the greater the pumping losses.
You have 2 identical stock cars built in the last 10 years except one is Auto and I one is stick...Once again let me reittarate Identical. Both cars are functioning as they should. Which car is faster in the 1/4 mile? I think the answer is obvious lets see what everyone else thinks........
There's the caveat...in the last 10 years. If we look at a 94 vehicle, the autos typcially had 3 or 4 gears while manual transmissions had 5. Although the computers are 'smart' (only as smart as you program them to be), at that time automatics didn't take into account driving habits or styles if you will and didn't have the best gearing to make the most of the power band.
Newer computers can reprogram themselves for your driving habits and even for situations. In most cases when you read car review from 10 years ago...or even 7, magazines showed tested ETA times for autos that were slower than their manual transmission counterparts (all things stock and identical) This was due to converters that were one-size-fits-all vane sizing and sloppy gears. These days however they've come to admit and show that the automatics, with sometimes as many as 7 gears, (new AMG Mercedes) and smart trannies than can be programmed on the fly (2005 BMW M5) can launch better than and even beat a good driver using a manual tranny.
Even new low-tech cars use at least 4 sometimes 5 gears in auto trannies and are programmed to keep the car in its power band can keep up with their manual cousins. I haven't tested the new Mustangs or stick vs auto but I bet it's be pretty close in a straight line. Take into account the curves though and it's another story...Autos still suffer from 'hunting' for the right gear when driving situations change in the blink of an eye. They're getting better, but I would still drive a stick and decide for myself what is best.
This is by far the stupidest post i have ever read in here. Some one has a auto 05 and thinks hes special. Thats all this useless thread is based on. Yes autos are catching up to sticks. There is always gonna be a way to correct human error, but it still dosnt make that auto as much fun as a stick.
you dont deserve an 05, you LOSE power through an auto tranny, its just how it is. and what do you mean the computer wins when shifting. how come when you drive an auto it may chrip at takeoff but not in any of the other gears?! its called POWERSHIFTING, sticks can do it! autos cant!
Like I said. He alredys had his mind made up before he started this. He just wants to ridicule (sp) anyone who dissagrees. No matter how much we try to show him the right answer I doubt that he will ever conceed this point. Like the guy on Mythbusters says. "I reject your reality and substitute my own". Pretty much the same thing going on here.
Thanks for the back up. I was hoping that others would come to help my efforts to prove him wrong. Even if he doesn't listen
Printable Version
RE: Auto Faster? Stick faster? - 
