2k5pony - go to howstuffworks.com. in all seriousness.
aside from reading the sections on auto and manual trannys, just look at the pictures... the manual transmission is reeeally simple. not many moving parts (comparatively speaking) compared to the auto. the auto is very complicated and has lots of gears spinning when you dont even need them too. thats even more waste. dont get me wrong, i have an auto, and its a v6. but i must defend the manual guys here. also, all this stuff about losing hp between shifts?? like someone already said - the reason it feels so smooth with no "power losing jerK" (as you put it, sorta) is becasue the auto is NOT shifting "perfectly" - it makes sure everything is nice and smooth, so it can shift comnfottably (and not to mentioned again, that the shift points in a stock auto are lower). while with a manual, you dont have to wait (thanks to synchros).
of course there is more, but you aint gonna win here. if you have raised shift points, against a manual with a non-awesome driver, fine, you win. otherwise
anyway, i may have made some oversights here, this was typed in a rush - but the guys here hopefully can defend my rant :)
_____________________________
2003 True Blue convertible V6. grill delete, chinspoiler coming in - magnaflow catback, 4.10/t-lok, bilstein shocks/struts, MM subframes and an STB, dont have a sig.
Posts: 1740
Joined: 8/29/2004 From: New York Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2k5pony
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
Dude, MANUAL BEATS AUTO, THATS THE END...
Everyone on this thread has told you your wrong, which you are. Nevermind what 2000GT just posted. Dont be stubborn.
< Message edited by Aliate X -- 3/3/2005 4:08:20 PM >
Posts: 2961
Joined: 3/7/2004 From: VA/Ole Miss Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: 96SilverLT1
you need help man.
Its true dude. I have an auto and I know that my car is slower stock for stock than a manual. They can launch, they can shift at higher RPMs, more rear wheel HP, the gear ratio is higher. Its just basic knowledge that a manual is fater.
_____________________________
Magnaflows, Mac H-pipe, Densecharger, C&L Plenum, 75mm TB, Steeda Underdrive Pulleys HID Kit from www.americanmuscle.com
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??
Who has an auto? I think your special for other reasons. Mine is stick??? If you don't want to read the threat responding makes you look like an idiot
quote:
ORIGINAL: pipeliner
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.
I have driven many performance cars with auto and they Chirped through gears. Chirping makes you slower not faster anyway. It means the tires broke fromt he pavement. I guess the ones you drove were broke. Power shifting is still shifting
quote:
ORIGINAL: dc_mann8
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!
WOW thats deep. If someone has a 05 manual to donate at the track Ill donate my manual. This is the only way to truely determain which car is faster. Any takers???? I doubt we will find any who would want to take the chance of being wrong. I think everyone here is all take unless they want to Run it
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aliate X
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2k5pony
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
Dude, MANUAL BEATS AUTO, THATS THE END...
Everyone on this thread has told you your wrong, which you are. Nevermind what 2000GT just posted. Dont be stubborn.
WOW thats deep. If someone has a 05 manual to donate at the track Ill donate my manual. This is the only way to truely determain which car is faster. Any takers???? I doubt we will find any who would want to take the chance of being wrong. I think everyone here is all take unless they want to Run it
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aliate X
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2k5pony
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
Dude, MANUAL BEATS AUTO, THATS THE END...
Everyone on this thread has told you your wrong, which you are. Nevermind what 2000GT just posted. Dont be stubborn.
Hey man not sure why you sent this artical on these old engines. I agree with you on this point for the most part. THis artical appears to be accurate...Not sure why we are arguing old engines losing power being an auto.....I AGGREE!!!!!!!!!!!
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".
Sorry buddy 96SilverLT1 is right. The automatic 05's just feel slow, they don't even push you back in your seat. There was a HUGE difference for me when I drove the manual and automatic 05's. Plus the automatic 05's have different gears in them that makes them a bit slower.
NOt sure what you are sorry for. I have also driven both. Maybe the one you drove had problems?? who knows. Yes that is why I SAID. IDENTICAL cars. See initial post........
quote:
ORIGINAL: Shifty
Sorry buddy 96SilverLT1 is right. The automatic 05's just feel slow, they don't even push you back in your seat. There was a HUGE difference for me when I drove the manual and automatic 05's. Plus the automatic 05's have different gears in them that makes them a bit slower.
Ok i find this funny.... your saying we take TWO identical mustangs 05 with same gearing man versus auto and same shift points.... yea the auto will win probably.... now lets be realistic we take two mustangs that were made in 05 not a bs stock car but two true stock stangs and the manual will win out because the auto is conservativly shifting too lower wear and tear on your vehicle. They shift out at lower bands to help your economy and many others things.... Manual doesnt have this problem becauseyour in control of YOUR vehicle not a computer in control...... This is the end of story and argument lol.... now built and supped up once you hit high horses 500+ automatic takes the manual in 1/4 times... end of story there two but for your question no the STOCK auto is not FASTER then the STOCK manual......
Oh and the people who attacked you attacked you because your posts make it sound patronizing like your talking to 3 year olds.... cant imagine why they took it a bit personal....
If you go to http://www.dragtimes.com/ you can see auto time that are faster tan manual and Vise versa....They seem about equal even though the auto has less HP and GR is not as good. Looks like the auto would smoke the sticks if they were created =. That is why we race on the track and not on paper.
let me ask you a question. for the past 10 posts or so, all i have been reading is babyish retorts. a) you are not making sense anymore (at least earlier you were trying to) b) you havent said anything to back your case. only things like "i am right and you are all wrong".
did you read the info i linked to, on howstuffworks.com? and dont respond with "i didnt need to since i know everything about transmissions" since you definitely have things to learn.
the only thing you keep saying is "yes i agree about old engines"...etc etc etc. but listen to yourself. what does the engine have to do with the drivetrain power loss? they were just comparing *transmission of power from engine to wheels*. where the power comes from or what kind of engine makes it has no bearing on the ability of the the tranny to use the power.
you say you lose power when you chirp tires. ok, ill conceded that you do lose traction when that happens. but thats for a split second, before and after which your car is accelerating faster than the auto. and like someone else said, the car is not going to slow down appreciably during that time, so the fact that you lost traction there is inconsequential.
closing remarks: the only reason this board got hostile is because you are being incredibly closed minded. if you would have responded with something like "oh, i didnt know that, let me do some more research" you would not have received such a response from the people here, most of which do know their share of automotive info.
noone said that an auto is a bad tranny. but the fact is you were comparing identical cars. if the auto had enough power to make up for the power loss (i.e. more than the manual car) and modified shift points (and the driver launched instead of punching from idle) then fine, you could make the case that the auto would have a chance since it would be putting similar power down and shifting perfectly at high rpms. but with identical cars with stock trannys this is not the case.
K bye
_____________________________
2003 True Blue convertible V6. grill delete, chinspoiler coming in - magnaflow catback, 4.10/t-lok, bilstein shocks/struts, MM subframes and an STB, dont have a sig.
Printable Version
RE: Auto Faster? Stick faster? - 
! I'll buy the first round! 
