Adding the spring/shock combo took 1/10th off my 60' times

 

Thx, Peter, nice to see you again after my 2 years "out of the community". Been Cibra'ing and S2000'ing, dropping in here now and then, though.

You read my mind right - I never contended that the 6MT in the hands of a good stick man does not have a performance gain - my post was directed at the contention that autos are inherently less reliable than sticks - which people will learn when those clutches give way in 50-60K - or less. I hope the 6MT has a bettre clutch feel than the Honda EX V6 I drove - and hated - of course, the S2000 spoils you with its delightful tranny and clutch combo.

Now back to the tranny question: if one were to look at the mega-powerful gas engines of recent performance car heritage, one would find that cars like the E55 AMG (which my brother bought and I picked for him) almost always have auto trannies - and when I have spoken to product developers or engineers at SAE conventions, it is not because they think that the market for it is too small, or that it would be prohibitive to certify two drivetrain combos (which in truth it would be), but because they cannot find a reliable, space efficient manual that can take the power. The TTC T-56 can, but it comes in various incarnations and torque load specs, with the Viper's up there, and the Cobra and Camaro T-56's down a notch or two - and they still get fried pretty quick. Many of the pulleyed SVT Cobras (which yield absolutely sick torque/HP results) are blasting the stock T-56 right and left. Many have pulled the IRS and installed an 8.8" solid rear axle/diff, and a variety of performance automatics are starting to be seen on the serious street racing scene.

The upcoming 6.0 liter SC'd SL600's will yield torque number near the 700 ft/lb region - and if a manual is installed in those brutes, I will eat my words.

BTW, as a youngster, I was right in the thick of the horsepower wars of 1970, when Detroit battled it out for street supremacy - the Stage 3 Buick 455's yielding over 500 ft/lbs of torque. But today, those numbers pale when compared to some of the hugely power, yet luxurious and reliable rides out there. A 2004 TL would have ruled the roost against 99% of the cars it came across (5AT or 6MT) - a stock GTO or Road Runner could never match it. My 1970 LS-6 Corvette was good for a high 13's run on stock tires, and my Cobra off the truck could smoke it.

Gentleman, these are the Halycon years of performance - not sure where the peak will be, but I never figured we would see the likes of the muscle-car days again. Who knows, when i hit 100, we mave have hydrogen (or matter/antimatter annihilation) mills that still deliver outrageous numbers - and the young bucks and buckettes of today will be reminsicing like me. Ain't this just grand?

 

regarding auto trannies and high horsepower i still belive that the manual delivers all the power to the ground with greater efficiency than an auto. mercedes does not offer many manual trannies i believe due to sales and the "luxury" quality that they are trying to demonstrate. don't get me wrong the mercedes autos are one of the best in any car and provide one kick ass tranny for those high output engines. but 95% of customers getting a mercedes buy it in auto trim and it does not make sense for them to make a manual tranny that does not sell. plus an auto makes it seem more luxurious because it requires less manual labor to drive. i know it sounds silly but i think most people consider automatics more luxurious. when it comes to pure sports cars from companies like ferrari and porsche they employ a manual tranny, given most of them are sequential manuals, they are still technically a manual transmission by design.

 

Uh, didn't I just address that?

You can believe what you want - I have talked to the people that develop these products. Name a manual that would fit in an SL600 that could handle 6-700 lbs of thrust? ZF doesn't have one. Nor does TTC - even the Viper spec T-56 could not endure such power. No Ferrari I know of and surely no Porsche has the kind of torque I am talking about, and they make their power higher up in the powerband anyway, which is dynamic loading, not static loading. You are talking apples vs oranges/

 

Not directly related to 0-60's times, but I do recall reading in one one of the car magazines (I believe it was C&D) that they preferred the automatic transmission because of the tremendous amount of power and torque going to the front wheels. From what I recall, the only real critisizm of the car was that it was front wheel drive and that 270 hp was at the limit of what should be driven through the front wheels. They said that the automatic was better able to handle the power because it didn't have a limited slip differential.

 

I could feel the difference between the 6MT and 5AT when I test drove the two at the dealer before putting down a deposit. The 6MT felt better when accelerating and was more fun to drive. My opinion though.

 

Yep, it's a dangerous out of control beast. I wonder why they even bothered putting that limited slip differential in there...

 

You are right sir, I have never been to the drag strip, although I wil try sometime this summer. I do understand the priciples of the longer the run, the larger the spread, and also that less weight equals more potential for speed. In my opinion brake torque-ing seems like it hurts performance rather than helps, but I guess the track tells all! I know that 0-60 is not the deciding factor of performance, but you can actually test this on the streets. How many times have you been able to run a good .25 in public? Well on second thought, there is a 2 lane highway with a few stoplights near my work where I have done 0-90 once, didn't time it though. I apologize for my "noviceness", but I am only 19 (and yes I did buy this car). As far as the K&N, the sound is more prevalent than anything, albeit sexy. Aegir quoted someone on here (?) who dyno'd a 5AT after K&N and I believe got 4.5 whp gain. I don't think any normal person could feel difference of anything under 40 or 50 HP. In my opinion, the 50 or so miles extra I get a tank now is worth the price, as the fuel savings will eventually pay for the filter.

Also by claiming your experience at the track you set yourself for this one ---> If I remember correctly you have a 5AT? Let me know if I'm mistaken, but you were possibly goign to get the APSEC suspension right? Do you think just the supension or any other aspects of ASPEC will improve 1/4 times or 0-60?

 

Peter, you answered my ASPEC question in a previous post, sorry about that!

 

Rage, I'm not sure if this is coincidence or not, but has there ever been a manual in a production Benz? I agree with you as far as trannies are concerned, do AT's really handle high horepower better? I have noticed that all Lexus seem to have AT as well. Do they think that AT is more luxurious than manual or what is the deal?

 

Yes. The current C-Class coupe (not sure about the sedan) is offered with a stick as well as the SLK. Not sure about the other models. (Of course these are not the high-torque models that Rage was referring to).

Lexus offers the IS300 in a stick. With Lexus, I do believe that it is less about luxury and more about the customer niche that Lexus carved out for itself. Their customers (generally) do not care as much about driving enjoyment as much as about isolation, and a smooth ride. They do not have enough of a market to justify the cost of manual, or the appropriate "sporty" cars with the exception of the IS300 and perhaps the GS400. This is my opinion only folks.

In Mercedes' case, I think that PLENTY of people would buy the AMG models in stick. It is a performance model after all. If it was all about the limited market, Mercedes would not produce AMG at all since it is for a very limited audience. I think the reliability issue that Rage was referring to has more to do with it. Also, my perception of power delivery in an AMG compared to a BMW M is of a locomotive vs. a smooth and fluid powerful electric motor.

Road Rage: a 1970 LS-6, a 2000 Cobra...those are some real monsters you've driven (even the S2000 which is at the very pinaccle of affordable handling). I do envy your collection of cars.

 

I think auto trannies that are from RWD are very strong if designed right. Unfortunately, I haven't seen an auto from a FWD hold up very well (maybe due to the miniaturization). The FWD auto trannies are very complex but I think we just haven't seen a really really high hp car in FWD format (>400hp).

 

2003 Cobra! Yeah, I have had some nice rides. 1995 NSX-T also.

I am telling you guys, they put autos in the mega Mercs because they hold uo - manuals do not. Do you know how many tranny mfr's Ford went through until it found a manual that could sustain the GT40? And that was a fairly light car - now take an E55 at 4000 ponds, and 500 ft/lbs of torque, and the moment of inertia when you nail it from a standstill is huge.

 

I agree that manuals can't usually handle the large torque loads produced by some engines. My dad blew the clutch on his 4Runner dropping into gear at 4600RPM (the redline is 5750). Regarding your earlier post about the 0-60mph times, I just wanted to point out (or else you probably know this already) that 0-60mph is 96.556km/h, which means the manual TL would require an extra shift to 3rd gear, hurting that time. They geared the TL to satisfy all the non-metric people in North America (ie: you guys down South and people like my parents who are 'half-converted'. But I digress.

When I had my manual 4Runner, it felt faster off the line than my auto '96 2.5TL, but once I was out of first gear, the TL feels faster on all counts and pulls strongly to the redline, unlike the 4Runner, which would drop off after ~3700RPM. And I think it has a lot to do with the mass, but there's other things I can't quite put my finger on why the TL feels (and is) much faster.

 

The reason for this drop off after 3700 you talk about is because it is an SUV. SUV's are geared for offroad, which means they have most off the power at low RPM's. On the other hand, the TL old and new, and all hondas are high revvers with most of the power at high rpm. I'm not sure about manual and auto, my 5AT redlines in second at 70. I think the MT pulls through the gears faster and therefore redlines in second at just around 60. Still though, a good MT driver with the same car should always beat an auto

 

Gearing does not affect an engine's power bandwidth - I think you mean engine tuning - you are then correct about how they are set up to maximize torque delivery (mostly by cams). Gears only aide in the power delivery.

 

I agree. I have an 02 Camaro SS AT w/ 345hp package and it is a 12 second car in the 1/4. I wanted the auto due to my crappy commute. All of the torque in the LS1 motor makes up for much of the auto drive train loss. The autos are just as fast as the manuals in the f bodies unless the manual is driven by an above average manual driver. They will have higher trap speeds, but most 1/4 TIMES are about the same.

Anyway, I see that the TL auto is geared much differently (read less aggressively) than the 6MT. That is unfortunate since my wife will not drive an MT car and she needs to be able to drive this car. But I understand it since most AT buyers are looking for a more "luxurious" and less "sporty" ride.

Just my .02