THE ROCK

why is it that manual is supposed to kick automatic's a**? i've always heard and read that on this forum, but neveer realy understood it. i keep thinking that you would need that extra second or so to change gears in a manual while the automatic, it does it for you without having to step on another pedal....

greenpelikan

Statically a manual transmission has quicker acceleration time. This is due to some of the inefficiencies of a torque converter.

Exciting as it may be the acceleration times for the TL-S is one of the best on the market for its size class. I am so proud!

sneuxstorm

yes, the time it takes between shifts can be shorter in an auto

yes, there is a loss in power in the torque converter.

But basically, historically, there have been more gears available in a manual vs an auto. With more gears, each one can be shorter, while still offering a final gear which allows the car to cruise. The shorter gears allowing the car to accelerate quicker.

hope that helps.

------------------
Photoshop Chop Shop
------------------

Vegetarians Taste Better

AKRY

Both members had some good points there. But keep in mind that those mentioned above are facts in yester-years, but as Auto trannies are so advanced nowaday, it's become more of a "Theory" than fact.

Guess we just have to wait and see for ourselves....

Andy Kuo

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

Yester-year? Go look up the stats on ANY car (barring Ferrari's, '01 M3's..) and compare the 0/60 and 1/4 mile stats: auto vs. manual --> manual is always faster. Auto transmissions are becoming very advanced indeed, but they'll always have that torque-converter issue to deal w/ and the "launch" issue to contend w/ as well.

Gomez

I can't think of a car that's faster as an auto, including modern performance cars. In fact, Road and Track remarked how surprised they were that the '88 Corvette was just as fast with auto as with a stick.

Reasons auto is slower:
- auto weighs more
- torque converter slip and slop
- power is used to move gears around that your arm would otherwise be doing
- harder to modulate wheelspin during launch
- autos tend to be geared towards comfort, not speed (shift kits can regain some of the lost power, but only on older cars)

That's about all I can come up with now. Anyone else?

------------------
'01 White Diamond Pearl 3.2TL
-Wing, tint, wood and Whistler

Gomez

Oh yeah:
- greater frictional losses due to more stuff to move around

------------------
'01 White Diamond Pearl 3.2TL
-Wing, tint, wood and Whistler

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

adding to Gomez..

- Can't powershift in auto
- lock-up torque converter covers partial area of powerband, not all of it

bebber

Name one production car that has a faster automatic version than the manual version. Unless, you're shooting for the F1 paddle shifters, you're out of luck. Manual is just plain faster because it looses less power in the tranny. Automatics have so much mechanical complexity that they lose power and dissipate a lot of heat.

Gomez

Does the Ferrari run as fast with the F-1 shift? That would be cool!

I didn't think that the new M3 even had auto yet, and also I'm pretty sure I remember that the last generation of M3 ran a tad slower with the auto?

------------------
'01 White Diamond Pearl 3.2TL
-Wing, tint, wood and Whistler

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

No, you were right the first time -- I was referring to the Ferrari's and the M3's F1 paddle-shift.

The new M3 w/ paddle-shift is supposedly EXACTLY the same to 60 mph and 1/4 mile as the manual if not better --> the paddleshift uses an electronic solenoid to lift and pop the clutch, and a very simple mechanism to shift gears --> all you hear is a slight "cough" each time it shifts. The ferrari's performance is the same. Fascinating technology. You're right about the '99 and older M3's .. auto is slower --> similar performance to TL-S (straightline that is). W/ the F1 shift.. it's like having an EXPERT of experts shift a manual tranny for you each time you drive your car, under normal driving scenarios or racing ones... Manual driver's won't be able to flaunt their brilliance anymore once this becomes a common item!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[This message has been edited by PeterUbers on May 15, 2001 @ ]</font>

AKRY

Ok, Auto is faster than Manual... SLK230/SLK320.

Andy Kuo

hunter001

That is because of Mercedes needing to perfect their manuals into better products. Mercedes manuals have a rubbery feel to it (as opposed to the snick-snick-snick gear shifting nature of the manual Hondas).


------------------
2000 Naples Gold 3.2TL/Navi - Factory Stock but with up-graded tires

hunter001

As others have explained above, in case of the Automatics, there is no direct linkage between the gears and the shifter, unlike the manuals where there is a direct physical linkage. In a manual transmissioned car, when one shifts a gear, there is a physical shift that happens instantaneously. In case of an Automatic transmission, there is an additional element - the torque converter - in the picture (actually a highly viscous fluid??), that has to lock before the gear change takes effect. This torque-converter is the one that robs the power in an Automatic transmissioned car.

The exception is the Ferrari automatic, which is the only automatic available currently, where there is a physical linkage between the (paddle) shifters and the gear.

In the sportshift of the Acura, when you change the gears, there is no actual changing of gears like a manual transmission.....you have only instructed the automatic transmission that you need to move to a higher/lower gear, and if it feels that it is safe to do so, then the torque converter locks and the gear shift happens.

Due to the torque converter, there is more power lost in an Automatic - 25-30%, as compared to a manual transmissioned car, where the losses are a lot less.

Another factor that could play a factor in different times for the same car with an automatic or manual transmission is the gearing. The gears (transmission) are responsible for the power generated by the car's engine, reaching the ground. You could have a car outfitted with an engine that generates 10000 hp and if the gearing is not done right, it would do nothing for the car's speed. If the gearing in an automatic transmissioned car is done very aggressively and if the manual version is done very conservatively, then theoretically the automatic version could be faster in-spite of the extra driveline losses in the automatic (due to the torque converter). But automakers rarely do it that way.





------------------
2000 Naples Gold 3.2TL/Navi - Factory Stock but with up-graded tires

ZodiakTL

but after all is said and done, when there is a good manual and a good auto, the difference comes down to "only" a couple tength of a second with an excellent driver behind the wheel of the stick car. and in most driving situations most stick drivers will not be able to take full advantage of what their cars can do. i have several friends who've been driving stick for many years, and they drive aggressively, but are honest enough to admit that they are not that good with it. i'm sure most people here would say they are great drivers cuz they drove stick for many years, but thats just not true. in europe almost everyone drives stick, and it doesnt make them better drivers, its just what they use. but the biggest thing the auto has going for it is that ones ur stuck in that bumper-to-bumper traffic, u can just sit back, pop it into auto and relax

------------------
'02 Nighthawk TL-S
------------------
Comptech Springs / Comptech Headers / Mille Miglia Action 17x8 Rims with Bridgestone Potenza RE730's 225/45/17 tires
------------------
Alpine CVA-1005 Head Unit / Alpine CDA-7863 CD Player / Alpine G320 EQ / Alpine DVA-5205 DVD / Alpine NVE-N851A Navi / JL Audio XR653-CS 3-Way comps for the front powered by a bridged Alpine MRV-F407 amp / Boston Acoustics 5.5 ProSeries 2-Way comps for the rear powered by Alpine MRV-1002 amp / Dual 10" JL Audio W-6 sub powered by Alpine MRV-1005 amp / Two Alpine CHA-1214 CD Changers / 20% Tint all-around

__________________
'00 Nighthawk TL
------------------
Aem Short Ram / Comptech Sway Bars / Comptech Springs / Cross-Drilled Rotors / Pirelli SP7000 Tires / 35% Tint all-around
-------------
Pics of my TL and Fun/Crazy Pics


<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[This message has been edited by ZodiakTL on May 15, 2001 @ ]</font>

NSXNEXT

iTrader: (2)

I think I may just go over to Level Ten and have them slap in one of their high performance torque converters and see what the difference is.

------------------
1999 Satin Silver Metallic 3.2 TL w/o Navigation

• 18x8 Racing Hart C2s with 225/40ZR18 Dunlop SP Sport 9000
• Comptech Springs, Sways, Exhaust, and Headers
• Red AEM CAI w/bypass valve
• A'PEXi Digital VTEC AFC
• Denso Iridium Plugs
• Custom Mugen Grill
• Inspire Tail Lights
• Factory Underbody Kit and Spoiler
• Clifford Intelliguard 9000 Alarm w/SmartWindows II
• Alpine 6 disk CD Changer
• BEL 945i Cordless Radar Detector
• Burlwood Shift Knob & Trunk Tray
• 20% tint

NEUSPEED Front Upper Strut Tie-Bar on the way

FlyingPig

SLK automatic is faster than the cheesy stick. That's about the only exception I can think of.

Manual is not just faster, it's also fun to drive. In fact, just the fact that it doesn't drive you crazy alone is good enough of a reason.
You can get into any gear that suits your current needs with a stick. In an auto, you are at the mercy of the stupid computer (no matter how smart they get). Even with a sequential shifter, you still have to go through 4th and 3rd to get to 2nd.

Forget about torque converter problem, forget about high rpm launch, and forget about power shift. You can try this at home....oops, I mean local highways. Drop from 5th to 2nd and accelerate to pass a truck. Tell me how many seconds it takes.
With a stick, I just double declutch down to 2nd and off I go.
With TL-s's torque, traffic is no problem either. I just put it in second all the way through the stop and go.

If I had a choice, I might have picked up the 6MT. But again, I didn't have a choice and I don't think I would trade it in for a 6MT. It is a family car. Automatic will do just fine.

AKRY

I, too, drive aggressively and did owned several manual. Most of my friends drive manual for years, yet we are FAR from perfect with manual tranny....

Andy Kuo

AcidHorse

I've read somewhere (sometime ago) that the only time an AUTOMATIC is quicker than a 5 SPEED is in turbocharged cars.

It was quoted that the wastegate (where the exhaust escapes) is always open in automatics as it shifts gears and in 5 speeds, it closes when gears are shifted. Since the turbine impeller is driven by exhaust gases, a constantly open wastegate spins the impeller constantly, thus producing a steady powerband.

Has anyone else heard of this?

Fiddler

and its not only the torque converter. the auto tranny uses planetary gears where the manual uses helical ones. this doesnt mean that much except that to shift planetary gears, there's a series of brakes and belts and such to stop one set and release another nad such .. i'm sure ther'es gotta be some loss in that. plus the wear of hte various friction parts. (for a better explanation, go to www.howstuffworks.com . .they have good articles on trannies )


------------------
-Fiddler
ControlGenie Automation Systems
1998 Accord EX V6 Coupe (HomePage)

Road Rage

I seem to recall that one of the Toyota turbo cars of the 80's had a faster automatic for two reasons:

1) The torque was greater off the line (you had to torque brake it hard).
2) The 2-3 shift kept the turbo rev drop low, and put it right smack in the center of the max torque.

But I think this was a fluke, and toreque braking is murder on your tranny.

On the other hand, very few people that own a car and do not have money to burn will routinely drop clutch it at 4000 rpm or whatever.

The car mags do because if the tranny or clutch fails, they just smile shyly and hand the keys back to the hacked-off engineer.

Gomez

I had a Starion stick, and the auto was slower. However, with auto you basically can keep the gas on all the time, which keeps boost up. Not so with a stick, unless you want to keep the throttle planted while you shift - not recommended.

------------------
'01 White Diamond Pearl 3.2TL
-Wing, tint, wood and Whistler

paul_huryk

Actually, the more low end torque a car has, the less of a difference a manual transmission makes - in some cases it is slower.

A good example is the 1985-1991 Corvettes. They had at least 325 ft torque every year, and were faster with the auto than the DN 4+3 manual. Some people thought that the trans sucked-it did. But when the 6 speed came out, it was still slower than the auto (not as much). This is the case for most big V8 or v10 motors with a lot of low end torque. If it has shitty gearing like the Ford AOD, then of course the T5 model will be faster (2.4 vs. 3.35 1st gear).

Also, the faster a car is, the harder it is to shift a manual trans. I'm not talking about a 13 second car here, more like 11 second or faster. You might have to shift 2 times in less than 4 seconds in a really fast car. Too hard to do consistently, easier in an auto car. You also don't have to worry about overreving a motor when it shifts for you.

For cars like the TL and M3, which don't have much low end torque because of the smaller displacement, a manual is faster - assuming you have traction.

And like someone said, a lot of turbo cars with autos are faster than manuals, the GN was the best example, get 4 pounds of boost holding the brake and bang! you're off. I like to see someone with a Supra or RX7 build boost with a manual without moving.

By the way, if you put a higher stall torque converter in a car it takes off faster - again assuming you have traction. I can drive my Camaro with a 2500rpm converter every day, its not too bad. You would probably need a 3500-4000 rpm converter in an auto M3 or Ferrari to make it kick off the line, but the increased slippage would eat too much hp.

------------------
Paul's Home Page

MafiosoTL

isn't it also true that when comparing a manual and a auto of the same vehicle, theres usually one less gear in the auto? wouldn't that attend to slower times too? Its usually a 6speed manual vs either a 4 or 5 speed auto



------------------


'99 Acura 3.2TL Satin Silver

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

I think the TL-S is pushing the low-end torque envelope w/ the FWD set-up. Low-end torque .. high low-end torque.. is almost exclusively seen in RWD or AWD systems --> minus the GTP/GS which showcase 280lb-ft. of torque @ .. about 3800 rpms --> which is still a performance drag because it loses power in traction loss. What the TL-S needs is an electronically moderated throttle body, much like the E430, and more mid-range torque (from say.. a supercharger). w/ the moderated throttle system, it'd only provide enough juice to get rolling w/ minimal traction losses .. and then you'll feel the punch from 3500 rpm --> 7000. Or, forget the E430 system, and just put on better rubber on the front wheels and add a supercharger.

feliz

But for the AVERAGE driver isn't a decent auto quicker?

------------------
Feliz

98 Acura CL, primrose
2002 TL-S, silver

Bitium

The only thing I could think of besides everything else said, is that the manual transmission is lighter than automatic, which may contribute to faster.......could be.

------------------

mgs333

i can shift much faster than automatics and this is only my first stick car.

sticks are faster mainly because:
1) they put down more power to the wheels
2) more gears=shorter gearing

my si makes 160 hp at the crank stock and puts down 143.4 hp at the wheels with intake, that's like 11-12% power loss, as compared to auto cars which usually lose more than 20%, tl-s puts down around 200 whp as compared to 260 crank hp, a loss of 23%, so if my car was auto, it would have like 12X hp at the wheels..

------------------
Matt
2000 Civic Si
So Cal

RX-72ATL-S

I'm not gonna read everyone post because there are way too many with basically the same answer. But I'll add mine.
First auto transmissions are heavier.
You launching capabilities are far less great with an auto. The gear thing has been mentioned. Oh well, I do remember something in the early 90s about the twin turbo 300z had an auto a smidge faster than the stick. But I could be wrong.


------------------
Jeremy
94RX7MB

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

Typically a manual will get better gas mileage than its automatic counterpart, typically.

THE ROCK

but to sum it all up, someone must be a really advanced "stick" driver to even make a difference right? If someone is not very good at the stick, the automatic is faster?

and why do you say manual gets better gas milage than auto? i would personally think that auto gets beter gas milage because ppl using manuals tend to really work their cars to high rpms before changing gears...(not having or know how to drive manual) do people actually change gears in manual at something like 2000-2500 rpm?

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

Rock,

Until I drove a manual for the first time, I had the same impression that in a manual, you HAD to shift at high rpms -- not so, in fact, you can drive it as smooth as an automatic, and daw-gone-it, if you shut your eyes and yer sittin' in the passenger seat, unaware of whether the car was manual or auto, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in non-aggressive applications. Manuals TEND to get better mileage as a result of some of the above:

1) more power to the wheels in manual vs. auto means less work the engine has to do to achieve desired speed
2) In a manual, you can shift into your overdrive gear once you're up to speed (most fuel efficient gear), whereas an auto has electronically pre-programmed shift points to shift to the most efficient gear. You can witness this in the TL-S .. cruise around at 40mph... then shift into SS .. you'll note that you'll be in 4th gear, but the car will let you upshift to 5th, and you'll now rev at a lower rpm, w/ seemingly greater fuel efficiency. In auto, the computer has to accomodate your potential need for power vs. your need for fuel efficiency, and since it can't read your mind, it has preprogrammed shift points. In a manual, this is up to you and your driving style.
3) no tork-converter = less energy wasted in acceleration = more gas back in your tank


As far as the avg. driver in manual vs. auto .. depends on the car -- some cars significantly quicker in manual that even an average driver (slow shifting, poor clutch action, shifting at lower rpms) can outrun an auto .. and it depends on how AVERAGE the person is. Anyone can drive a manual in a straightaway, but are they good in tight turns, up hills, coming off of stops up hills.. etc.

91M5

Other than drag racing, the manual is much better. In corners, you cannnot force an automatic to stay in gear. So, when you try to accelerate through the apex the dumb thing may have upshifted and downshift as you accelerate. Very irritating. With a manual you get to choose the gear and bounce of the rev limiter if you want. The new sequential transmission in the M3 (really a manual operated by hydraulics) will allow you to stay in whatever gear you want or go to fully automatic. I heard they will only be offering the sequential transmission in some markets.

EricL

If you are talking about a big 8 liter American car with auto vs a manual, then the driver will make all the difference in the world. I would believe that 98% of "normal" drivers would beat the manual with the auto.

Then there are cars with balky linkages and lousy synchros. Perhaps even good synchros when new, but ones that are like the early Bimmer boxes -- their 1st to 2nd synchros would be gone in 2 months, and most drivers could barely get the shift into 2nd gear. Then we get into the issue of how many people can really heel-and-toe well, match revs, and double clutch to save the gearbox.

Then there is the issue of gear ratios -- Acura could have made a 6-speed automatic with close ratios and an earlier lock-up, but didn't. They will get more power to the ground with the lower losses (in the manual box), but manuals are going away and being replaced with CVT and sequentials (what shows up in F1, ends up in our cars. If you don't believe me, just go back 10 years: we have more advanced stuff in our cars than F1 cars did 10 years ago)

BTW -- A CVT version would kick the snot out of any manual (sequential or not)

If they keep the stock tires on the TLS/CLS, don't be suprised to only see minimal improvements in the quarter mile times. There is already a ton of rearward weight transfer *and* I don't know how many people are going to fit street legal drag rubber with wheely bars to the cars.

The biggest attraction with the 6-speed will be sales pickup in the 19-30 year old range. The drivers will not have had enough years to have burned out enough on rush hour cattle shoot driving to care about the beating their knees will be taking.

If I could have only bought the CLS with a manual (as much as I love racing), I would have taken a pass on the car and never bought it.

Send me some mail when they come out with a sequential gearbox (best of both worlds), a good price, and no paint-it-yourself instructions (paint it as a family project).


Finally, the biggest calling for the 6-speed is the young market *and* the failing of the sequential portion of the auto. It could have had much quicker (or variable) engagment via a race/sport/auto mode switch *and* it could have come with full support of 1-2 and 2-1 shifts in SS (do we really need to be protected from ourselves?)

EricL

I agree with about 99% of what you said.

There are already people on the CLS board complaining about "torque steer." Can you image these same people hanging on to the wheel with one hand, with the other on the gear shift through a tight turn -- this is a scary thought.

Having tossed enough car mags out the door to power Los Angeles for a day, I did notice the early "times" on the early Corvettes, and other American "muscle-car"/"sport cars" and the magazine test drivers are "good" drivers. And they typically managed to get better times with the autos.

I want to see the reports back in 6 months to a year from the drivers of the manuals and see if what they expect is going to happen.

I keep seeing this, and it reminds me of being the "Grinch" to a bunch of excited children (who may not like their current toys and are waiting for Play station 10 to feel fulfilled.)

hunter001

The Autos and Manuals were probably geared differently, with aggressive gearing on the autos and conservative gearing on the manuals to get better times in the Autos........just a thought.



------------------
2000 Naples Gold 3.2TL/Navi - Factory Stock but with up-graded tires