| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Balranald
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 08:48
|
 |
I would love to see a test in a magazine between a bog stock standard ... lets say Camry Auto vs a bog stock standard Camry Manual with a range of drivers...skilled and not skilled. I believe overall the people would get better times in drag/ overtaking/ lap times etc in the auto. I HATE people that say manuals are the only way to go and have no idea how to drive them. I got a lift home with a friend the other day (I locked my keys in my car  ) and he goes on about manuals are the only way to go. There is a big hill near my place and I felt like getting out and walking because we went up it so slow. 20km/h lugging along in 3rd gear! After leaving it in 4th till about 35km/h!! This is a hill I go up in my AUTO Commodore easily at 90-100km/h...........but he still thinks manuals are fastest.
Another example is my friend with an AUTO Silvia. He is right into racing people and almost never loses a race against more powerful cars just because it's hard to miss a gear in an auto and everyone has the excuse that "I missed a gear".....well if you can't drive a manual get an auto!!!!!!!
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 08:55
|
|
this topic again!!!!  
manuals are much faster then auto's and heaps quicker in racing but you just have to know when and how to change gears, if you don't know how to get the most out of a manual then you will be beaten by an auto everytime.
|
|
|
Location:
Balranald
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 09:06
|
|
Sorry if this has been on before guys.
Yeah I know a manual is faster in the right hands but how many right hands are out there??? I'd say 90%- 95% of the population and about 60-70% of the car freak people would be faster in an auto....but thats my 2 cents worth
Unless we just have really shitty drivers up here
he he he
I've never raced a person in a manual that hasn't fluffed at least one gear change resulting in my win
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 09:12
|
|
What about semi-autos ??
like tiptronics, sequential shift etc.....
|
|
|
Toymods Board Member
I supported Toymods
Location:
Turramurra, Sydney.
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 09:46
|
|
|
Semi-autos are an absolute joke, they are just autos operated with a switch. Sports my ass.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 10:32
|
|
Auto's are faster in cars that the 30hp or so extra loss is insignificant.
I know of JZA70's with identical rwhp as me and they are still 2 10ths faster 0-100. Launching my car and 0-100 has been a priority for me over the last 6 months, I have practised and tried everything, the old hands will agree there is very little left in my launch when i get it right, auto's are just plain faster. And they are much easier to get right as well !
Even in the twisties, a big hp auto is hard to beat, out near wisemans ferry the other day, following Andy's supra (also jza70) you could just see how easily he rolled into corners ready to punch out in 2nd gear, his second gear will turn the treads from 70 all the way to 130+ , perfect for that road! all the while i am using both 2nd and 3rd. I find changing down on a bumpy off camber road very unsettling of the attitude of the car and so i have to be a little more conservative to set the carup right entering the corner.
I was critical of the auto's, especially 1j's, before I bought mine ( a 5 speed). I dont bag auto's anymore.
Autos are fast, manuals are fun .
Make your own descision.
Matt
|
|
|
Club Member
Location:
Sydney, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 10:37
|
|
|
I hate the tip tronic crap... Like the ones in the new MR2... They take forever to change gear... The race would be lost when you threw it into second... I like manuals but with an auto, you can relax more and talk on your phone without having to worry about changing gear...
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 10:41
|
|
also have to remember that it also depends on the gearbox itself, some auto's are shit where some actually change when they are meant to, also there is a big difference between the gearing of an auto compared to a manual.
As for tip tronic and sequential.
You have the ones like in the magna sports which is just an auto where you simply tell it what gear you want it in, just like going from 1,2,3,d like in any other auto where sequantial is a manual gear box at heart. still requires a clutch and everything except once the car is moving it just flat changes into the next gear just like a manual changing gears without using the clutch, except minus the crunch.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 10:47
|
|
|
Hmmm...so would sequential be ideal ??...i mean quick gear shifts and u can still decide what gear your in .....any down points ??
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 11:01
|
|
down points would be they need to be rebuilt on a regular basis and cost a fortune, and put a lot of wear on other components like diff and so forth as it slams it into gear,
thats if we are talking about the sequantial boxes like in WRC cars, Formula one ect.
|
|
|
Location:
Balranald
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 11:42
|
|
| GIN51E wrote on Wed, 04 September 2002 20:41 |
also have to remember that it also depends on the gearbox itself, some auto's are shit where some actually change when they are meant to, also there is a big difference between the gearing of an auto compared to a manual.
As for tip tronic and sequential.
You have the ones like in the magna sports which is just an auto where you simply tell it what gear you want it in, just like going from 1,2,3,d like in any other auto where sequantial is a manual gear box at heart. still requires a clutch and everything except once the car is moving it just flat changes into the next gear just like a manual changing gears without using the clutch, except minus the crunch.
|
Yeah it does depend on the auto gearbox. I know my auto has about 37 gears. it's weird. I don't know if all VL's are like it but I can't work out the gears in it yet. I swear it's a 6 speed Auto!
And no way would I get a 6 speed manual SS Comodore. They are bags of sh*t to drive!!
|
|
|
Location:
Balranald
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 11:45
|
|
|
I wonder what the tiptronic Ferraris BMW, Porsche etc are like? But then again no way could you buy an auto Farrari!!
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 11:55
|
|
you dont need a clutch to change gears in manuals... just rev change it.
no crunch, instant power... and it never fails to amaze people who dont understand how a gearbox works ... they think you're brilliant (well, I am... but even moreso  )
clutch is needed for starting, that is all
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 11:58
|
|
and I'd agree... for the average driver, an auto will do them better.
but for me, I know I do better out of a manual. I've never missed a change when dragging (I miss more often driving normally acutally), and when you go from braking to accelerating in an auto, when it has to change gears twice to work out where it's supposed to be... that's time lost where in a manual I'd be powering the whole way
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 12:48
|
|
dood! whudda ya mean u can change gears without clutch? r u mad?!
vrrrrrrr <shift> *crunch* clackyclackyclacky
i dont under stand how it would work
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 12:55
|
|
yeah it works i do it in my girlfriends Charade Sorry baby i love you 
just need to rev it hard and shift very quickly if done properly you won't cause to much damage at all but if you miss well.... yeah..... miss > crunch > embaressment > race lost
|
|
|
Toymods Board Member
I supported Toymods
Location:
Turramurra, Sydney.
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 14:07
|
|
Now the Ferrari tiptronic, that's different!
Ferrari put virtually the same gearbox in their cars as they put behind Michael Schuey. Gearchanges in something like 55 milliseconds, or something crazy like that. These are true "tiptronic" boxes (I wonder what Ferrari actually call them?).
I'm pretty sure they do have some sort of clutch setup though......
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney- Sutho Shire &...
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 14:31
|
|
The new BMW M3 has the SMG option. It has 11 modes depending on whether you want it in manual or auto mode, and how quick you want the changes. One mode is 'launch' mode. Hold the lever forward, rev it, release the lever, and it takes off quicker than the normal 3 pedal manual. Do it more than 30 times and your warranty is voided.
It is still the manual box with the clutch, but the clutch is completely operated by electronics. The clutch will last longer than a driver operated one too. It won't allow over revving by picking the wrong gear- which I saw happen to one at Wakefield. Big bang, lotsa oil, lotsa $$.
After all that I would still rather the 3 pedal variety..
|
|
|
Location:
The Rainy City
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane, Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 04 September 2002 20:02
|
|
this question is on just about every forum... but i'll answer
in my opinion a manual car will beat any auto car of the same make/model/output... its just that the manual can accomidate the power band more than the auto can...
just my 2c anywayz
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Thu, 05 September 2002 03:29
|
|
|
A friend Flat Shifted his 4AGE AE86.... ripped all the teeth off 2nd gear not a smart idea.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, Australia
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Thu, 05 September 2002 03:53
|
|
| draven wrote on Wed, 04 September 2002 21:55 |
you dont need a clutch to change gears in manuals... just rev change it.
no crunch, instant power... and it never fails to amaze people who dont understand how a gearbox works ...
|
with a bit of practice in matching the revs it's not that hard...
I like it even more when you downchange without using the clutch... amazes them even more....
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Thu, 05 September 2002 03:59
|
|
|
Match your engine speed to your road speed.. you'll be right with out the clutch... not all that fast though...
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Thu, 05 September 2002 04:03
|
|
| dylusion wrote on Thu, 05 September 2002 13:59 |
Match your engine speed to your road speed.. you'll be right with out the clutch... not all that fast though...
|
huh? hows that work? that would mean every gear would be a different rev range mine is 2,800rpm any gear
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, Australia
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Thu, 05 September 2002 04:15
|
|
| Quote: |
huh? hows that work? that would mean every gear would be a different rev range mine is 2,800rpm any gear
|
There is a direct relationship between the engine speed and road speed in any gear - so you just pop it into neutral, wait for the revs to drop to the specific value and slot it in cleanly at the right point. Practice on an old clunker
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Thu, 05 September 2002 04:23
|
|
ok so say i'm driving along at 3,500rpm in 4th, slip it into neutral and when the revs drop to 2,800rpm slip it into 3rd?
that makes sense.....i think
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, Australia
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Thu, 05 September 2002 04:51
|
|
| GIN51E wrote on Thu, 05 September 2002 14:23 |
ok so say i'm driving along at 3,500rpm in 4th, slip it into neutral and when the revs drop to 2,800rpm slip it into 3rd?
|
sort of, but in reverse... If you were going from 4th to 3rd, then you'd have to rev the engine to bring the revs up..
The speed at which you drop it in is not constant... it depends on the road speed of the car. For example, check this graph out:
You can see for every gear ratio, for a certain road speed there is a matching RPM... (this is for some hybrid engined car, yours is probably different due to different ratios..).
So according to this graph, if you were doing 3000rpm in 3rd gear your road speed would be approx 100kmh. Then if you put it in neutral, to go to 4th gear (assuming the car remains at 100kmh) you would wait until the revs drop to 2500rpm. If you wanted to go back to second, you would have to rev the engine to 5000rpm (ie - follow the 100kmh line across). Of course in practice the car will start to slow down in neutral, so you have to adjust the revs accordingly.
It sounds complicated but it's more a seat of the pants thing
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Thu, 05 September 2002 05:52
|
|
Yeah what sam said..
cheers sam
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Thu, 05 September 2002 11:04
|
|
|
I used to get bored when I was delivering pizza. I can go from second to third, and occasionally third to fourth, but buggered if I can change up into any gears or change down at all.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Thu, 05 September 2002 11:14
|
|
I dont see what the hassle is
my gearbox is certainly not in pristine condition (216000kms)
but I can change up and down any gear, except 1st ==> 2nd is a tough one, and I dont try it anymore, as it resulted in crunches almost half the time.
and 2nd ==> 1st I'd imagine would be impossible, but I've never tried it
|
|
|
Location:
The Rainy City
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Thu, 05 September 2002 17:04
|
|
| viagra_cressida wrote on Wed, 04 September 2002 18:48 |
20km/h lugging along in 3rd gear! After leaving it in 4th till about 35km/h!! This is a hill I go up in my AUTO Commodore easily at 90-100km/h
|
As the legendary Tyler Durden said, "...sticking feathers up your arse does not make you a chicken..." and not all ppl who self shift know how to use the gears...
35ks in 4th... I dont even do that downhill!
Cheers
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Thu, 05 September 2002 22:05
|
|
|
i've got a hill i have to constantly go up and down near my place its about a 50-60' angle and i cruise up it in 4th at about 1,500rpm simply because the car can do it and i'm to lazy to change down a gear
|
|
|
Location:
Travelling overseas
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Fri, 06 September 2002 07:41
|
|
not weird noises or anything just cruises up no problems at all and my foot isn't event flat on the floor usually its about half way on the gas, just love that torque 
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney- Sutho Shire &...
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Fri, 06 September 2002 10:45
|
|
|
50° or 60° ? you would have trouble walking up that let alone driving...
|
|
|
Location:
Newcastle
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Fri, 06 September 2002 11:43
|
|
man thats a steep hil
I think the steepest hill in the world according to Guinness is around 47-48 degrees
I dont want to comment on the MAN Vs AUTO thing
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Fri, 06 September 2002 13:35
|
|
well i don't know i don't have a protractor big enough
but it is bloody steep and one of those hills where its hard to walk down, your legs want you to run and by the time you get to the bottom your knees and legs are sore, i'll try and find a photo for ya.
|
|
|
Location:
Balranald
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Mon, 09 September 2002 14:10
|
|
|
Yeah sounds like the hill near my place. If anyone has been to Lismore they will know how hilly the town is. It's a killer. I've only tackled walking up this hill (Cynthia Wilson Drive) twice...both times at 4am drunk with no money for a cab home. You would have rocks in your head otherwise. Almost daily (especially in peak uni time) you see many Kinswoods/ kombi vans and the like stuck 1/2 way.
|
|
|
Location:
Townsville
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Tue, 10 September 2002 08:57
|
|
|
i'd be thinking about 35-40' a steep hill!
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 11 September 2002 05:28
|
|
I was under the impression that the torque converter in an Auto required about 10% of the engine power, where as a manual doesn't.
So, if you have a manual and can drive it properly then you should win everytime. I converted my auto to manual and I have definately improved my times....but then again I can actually drive.
PS. I'm using my girlfriends login again
|
|
|
Location:
Central Coast & Sydney
Registered:
September 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 11 September 2002 06:26
|
|
[quote title=GIN51E wrote on Wed, 04 September 2002 23:59
the sequantial gear boxes in WRC cars ect... are the same sort of set up as a V8 supercars gearbox. where all the gears are already connected and spinning together except when you change gears all it does is connect the gear to the shaft (stop gear from spinning on shaft) thats what stops the crunching as the gears are always connected so theres nothing to crunch
[/quote]
Manual gearboxes are all the same. Sure there are design differences, but in all todays manual gearboxes (not just sports and racing boxes), all the gears are already connected. The crunch that you hear are the pins attempting to slide into the cogs themselves. That's the grinding you hear, not the teeth on the gears. It's the same for any mass produced manual in production today.
I'm still a second year, and can't find my books, so I can't give you exact names of parts.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 11 September 2002 06:29
|
|
Yeah yeah, bag my driving, just cos I'm the only one with the balls to state the truth.
Hands up all those people who have driven a number of examples of the same car, same spec, 200+rwkw car in both auto and manual in a variety of conditions.
I restate my comment - In cars where the loss due to drivetrain losses is insignificant compared to the overall rw output of the car, the advantages of an auto's long gearing, snap changing and launchabillty mean that the auto will 9 times out of ten be quicker in most situations.
My manual pulls harder in some gears than the auto at the same speed, however when he uses only one gear for 70 -140k's and I have to change twice the auto wins.
1j autos can leave the line in a launch with 5 psi + on the dial. If you slip you clutch that much on a 200+ kw manual it'll be dead in a week ! and if the clutch willtake it then it wont slip!
Having said that I would never buy an auto, I like to enjoy my driving, regardless of outright speed, manuals are more fun.
/rant
Matt
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 11 September 2002 06:43
|
|
| TOYO3T wrote on Wed, 11 September 2002 16:29 |
1j autos can leave the line in a launch with 5 psi + on the dial.
|
Man anytime i try stalling up the cressida the stupid thing just wheelspins it was fun at first but it's almost getting anoying!!!!
|
|
|
Location:
Balranald
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 11 September 2002 07:41
|
|
| libby wrote on Wed, 11 September 2002 15:28 |
I was under the impression that the torque converter in an Auto required about 10% of the engine power, where as a manual doesn't.
So, if you have a manual and can drive it properly then you should win everytime. I converted my auto to manual and I have definately improved my times....but then again I can actually drive.
PS. I'm using my girlfriends login again
|
Yeah the 10% difference might be right but I agree with Toy03T...9 times out of 10 the auto will be quicker but that 10th time the manual driver actually pinns it and gets a perfect launch, and all gear changes perfect he will blitz the auto. A manual is great to have lots of goes on a drag strip and be in a competition for the lowest time but an auto kicks ass on the street where it is most fun. Not that I ever speed but it's fun to get up to 100 quickly (Just covering my ass there)
And I posed this question not taking into account those people out there that are ex race drivers or people that are usually found around these kinds of website but rather average Joe Blows that still believe manuals are faster when they can't drive for sh*t
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 11 September 2002 08:08
|
|
Few results out of the Wheels Magazine,
IS200 Auto 0-100km/h - 11.4s, 0-400m - 18.1s
IS200 Manual 0-100km/h - 10.0s, 0-400m - 17.1s
Alfa 156 Sequential Auto 0-100km/h - 10.4s, 0-400m - 17.7s
Alfa 156 Manual 0-100km/h - 9.1s, 0-400m - 16.6s
Astra City 4dr Auto 0-100km/h - 11.0s, 0-400m - 17.9s
Astra City 4dr Manual 0-100km/h - 9.5s, 0-400m - 17s
Laser LXi 4dr Auto 0-100km/h - 12.9s, 0-400m - 18.6s
Laser LXi 4dr Manual 0-100km/h - 10.4s, 0-400m - 17.5s
Rav 4 Edge 5dr Auto 0-100km/h - 13.7, 0-400m - 19.4s
Rav 4 Edge 5dr Manual 0-100km/h - 11.7s, 0-400m - 18s
Anyone notice something with those results?
[Updated on: Wed, 11 September 2002 08:18]
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Toymods Club Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 11 September 2002 08:11
|
|
Well, apart from the Rav4 (which would probably have a funky gearing ratio to make use of the "4wd" capabilities) the manuals are all faster over 0-100..
What you fail to address is that these are all stock, small engined cars without considerable amounts of power. These things are hardly going to have traction problems are they?
|
|
|
Location:
Balranald
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 11 September 2002 08:16
|
|
Yes thank you Lucid.
But what most people are still not getting is the word NORMAL drivers. I would take a guess that the people testing for Wheels and Motor etc are far from NORMAL everyday drivers. Wouldn't they be professionals?? I agree that a manual would be faster in the hands of Peter Brock but the average Joe ....... no
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 11 September 2002 08:16
|
|
shit sorry my fault got them around the wrong way yes the rav 4 manual is faster then the rav 4 auto i'll just change it around now,
also those results were from the only cars i could find that had readings for both manual and auto's
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 11 September 2002 08:27
|
|
I spose if you added the output of all thosse cars together they MAY add up to a decent figure...
mx83, you'll have to talk to luke about getting the cressida off the line, he is pretty good at it now.
When I launch my car right i dont think even victor bray could get another 2 tenths out of it, and that is how far I am behind a well launched auto with the same rwhp.
Matt
|
|
|
Location:
Ipswich
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 11 September 2002 08:44
|
|
It is like this with autos and manuals.
With the same gear ratio the auto will always be quicker (not by much tho) because the gear is changed mechanically and is therefore changed quicker than a human could.
But in real world aplications there is very little difference.
Take a manual with a short shift and an auto with a quick change shift kit and equal drivers and it will come down to luck. They both have their weaknesses and it all depends how u drive them.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 11 September 2002 09:36
|
|
Manuals are always going to be better in one way or another and Auto's will always be better in one way or another
personally i would never buy an auto i get bored driving them and enjoy driving a manual much more but hey thats just me.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 11 September 2002 10:08
|
|
ok here is a car with a bit more power to stop you guys winging about a more powerful car with an auto would be quicker,
Mitsubishi Ralliart Magna 180Kw 333Nm
Manual 0-100km/h 6.8s 0-400m 15s
Auto 0-100km/h 7.8s 0-400m 15.7s
and i don't wanna hear you go back to a supra comment i looked up a 6 cylinder 3L turbo supra 91 model and it had 173kw while a V6 N/A 3.5L Magna has 180kw
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth WA
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 11 September 2002 11:33
|
|
|
How do those magazine guys launch their autos. Do they stall them up, or just move the foot from brake pedal to gas? I know from what they describe in the articles they totally shag out manuals by doing rev limiter launches and slipping the clutches. I guess it depends on how long you want your car to last as to how far you want to take it to launch. Certainly the manual press cars are pretty tired once they've done the rounds.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 11 September 2002 21:44
|
|
I'm sure the way they launch the cars is to get the quickest possible time out of them so i'm sure they are trying to get the most out of them weather manual or auto. trying to find times on the manual and auto Clubsport but can't find anything 
|
|
|
Location:
OVER THERE!!!
Registered:
September 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Wed, 11 September 2002 22:03
|
|
this topic has been goin for ages now... can a mod please lock it or delete it
oh yeah, i forgot, manuals will always beat autos of the same/make/output (i think i've posted this before in this thread... i cant remember)
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Thu, 12 September 2002 12:57
|
|
I'll give u a few comparisions from personal experience.
I use to have a Honda Prelude 93 VTIR or something, first car. Manual. Much faster than a auto of the same model.
My dad has a 96 Accord VTI manual, much faster than mums of the same year/model. Although mums car could beat an auto Z31 by a few car lengths.
2nd car was an old Toyota Camry, manual, I would eat this guy who had an auto camry which was newer than mine (Same shape though).
One thing I hate about autos, it that it takes time to go up in the rev range when u put ur foot down. I feel its annoying. Although autos are good to drive when ur tired n lazy and when ur in traffic jams.
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Manual VS Auto?
|
Thu, 12 September 2002 13:44
|
|
I used to have an auto behind my old 18RC, then I changed it to manual. It used heaps less fuel and went heaps faster, i know most of that is cause it was a 3sp trimatic and the torque converter sucking all my 40 Fly-wheel KW but I could definently change gears faster in it than any auto I've seen, although I smashed up the box in about 3 months.
Tim.
|
|
|
) but i think the 2002 ferraris are tiptronic only? The new Enzo will be anyway.
