Auto to manual

[Memphis]

Originally Posted by naikaidriver

How do you "know"?

Scott

Glad you asked. Owned an auto, drove it on track, 1/4 mile, etc. Friend with manual same deal. Even with the trunk interior stripped from the auto FR-S it cant pull below a 16. Quickest run was a 16.3 with everything stripped. My friends manual WITH a HUGE sub box in the car not stripped managed a 15.3.

MotoP ran his car on the same track as a manual and was a full second behind.

Auto is slowwwwwwww. From a dead stop and around the corners. Manual just picks up speed faster.

[Memphis]

Originally Posted by naikaidriver

I'm just going to come out and say it...

The last 5 pages of this thread is just like every other thread that has come before it discussing auto vs. manual in the 86. Nothing but people in BOTH camps trying to justify why they bought what they did to complete strangers with little to no useful information for anyone.

Everyone has their own reasons for buying what they did that are highly personal and based on their own biases and beliefs. Big deal. That doesn't give anyone the license to get on the internet and criticize anyone else for their decision on auto or manual especially when its people just trying to make themselves feel smarter or better than anyone else.

To the OP... you bought what you did, deal with it or don't. You don't HAVE to do anything or listen to anyone. The only thing you HAVE to do is deal with the consequences of your choices.

Best of luck to you and I hope in the future, you are more responsible in your purchase decisions.

Scott

I agree. But to those pointing out that the auto is close to being on par with the manual as far as performance are wrong.

[Sigh-on-Rice]

Originally Posted by zaptorque

I haven't driven the MT so I can't really speak to that, but 5th really isn't an OD on the AT, at least to me. If I need to pass on the highway a quick tap on the downshift paddle into 5th and it pulls past the car easily enough.

I don't doubt you being right about the gear spacing though, I'm sure there are differences. I keep mine on the sport shift mode most of the time, such a blast to take the turns in 2nd!

I believe anything lower than 1:1 is an OD. See "How an overdrive unit works" section in [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdrive_%28mechanics%29"]Overdrive (mechanics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame].
For FR-S, 5th on MT is exactly 1:1 and 4th of AT is exactly 1:1.
So, 6th on MT is OD and both 5th and 6th on AT are OD.

It's kind of like how you feel on the 5th gear in AT is similar to how you would feel on the 6th gear in MT.

[naikaidriver]

Originally Posted by Memphis

Glad you asked. Owned an auto, drove it on track, 1/4 mile, etc. Friend with manual same deal. Even with the trunk interior stripped from the auto FR-S it cant pull below a 16. Quickest run was a 16.3 with everything stripped. My friends manual WITH a HUGE sub box in the car not stripped managed a 15.3.

MotoP ran his car on the same track as a manual and was a full second behind.

Auto is slowwwwwwww. From a dead stop and around the corners. Manual just picks up speed faster.

Congratulations!

You and your friend just "discovered" some things that anyone who has ever drag raced for any period of time already knows.

- Launching at peak torque instead of near idle results in dramatically harder launches which in turn results in dramatically lower 60' and 100' times, which dramatically lowers E.T.'s.
- 60' and 100' times have the most dramatic affect on E.T.'s.

Now as far as road track time differences go, given that the manual has slightly shorter gearing is the only advantage I would give it. Even then, it can only be monopolized by a very skilled driver that can shift as fast and accurately as the auto can. Sure, there are plenty of people out there that can do it, but most "everyday" drivers aren't pro's.

Happy you shared your experience and that you took the time to do a compare, but your results are hardly empirical. It would be no different than me stating that manual cars are slower in autocross just because I wiped the pavement of some manual S2000s in my stock, auto FRS. Making a statement like that, while true is counter-productive and concluding my car is faster than an S2000 based on that is just silly.

Scott

[shawnperolis]

Originally Posted by naikaidriver

Congratulations!

You and your friend just "discovered" some things that anyone who has ever drag raced for any period of time already knows.

- Launching at peak torque instead of near idle results in dramatically harder launches which in turn results in dramatically lower 60' and 100' times, which dramatically lowers E.T.'s.
- 60' and 100' times have the most dramatic affect on E.T.'s.

Now as far as road track time differences go, given that the manual has slightly shorter gearing is the only advantage I would give it. Even then, it can only be monopolized by a very skilled driver that can shift as fast and accurately as the auto can. Sure, there are plenty of people out there that can do it, but most "everyday" drivers aren't pro's.

Happy you shared your experience and that you took the time to do a compare, but your results are hardly empirical. It would be no different than me stating that manual cars are slower in autocross just because I wiped the pavement of some manual S2000s in my stock, auto FRS. Making a statement like that, while true is counter-productive and concluding my car is faster than an S2000 based on that is just silly.

Scott

Do you really not believe that the manual trans FRS is faster than the automatic one? Or are you just really into arguing with people?

[naikaidriver]

Originally Posted by shawnperolis

Do you really not believe that the manual trans FRS is faster than the automatic one? Or are you just really into arguing with people?

No. Oversimplification is the root of ignorance and people that make blanket conclusions based on personal experience and then parade their conclusions as fact annoy me. Regardless of the subject matter.

I'm not into arguing with anyone since my time and energy are better spent elsewhere and in more productive endeavors.

Have fun imagining you're "Ken Block" because you drive a manual. I wish you the best.

Scott

[Memphis]

Originally Posted by naikaidriver

Congratulations!

You and your friend just "discovered" some things that anyone who has ever drag raced for any period of time already knows.

- Launching at peak torque instead of near idle results in dramatically harder launches which in turn results in dramatically lower 60' and 100' times, which dramatically lowers E.T.'s.
- 60' and 100' times have the most dramatic affect on E.T.'s.

Now as far as road track time differences go, given that the manual has slightly shorter gearing is the only advantage I would give it. Even then, it can only be monopolized by a very skilled driver that can shift as fast and accurately as the auto can. Sure, there are plenty of people out there that can do it, but most "everyday" drivers aren't pro's.

Happy you shared your experience and that you took the time to do a compare, but your results are hardly empirical. It would be no different than me stating that manual cars are slower in autocross just because I wiped the pavement of some manual S2000s in my stock, auto FRS. Making a statement like that, while true is counter-productive and concluding my car is faster than an S2000 based on that is just silly.

Scott

Experience bud. And plenty of it. Dont get so offended. Just pointing out what nobody else has in this thread.

The FACT of the matter is that because the auto can not launch gives it a very horrid time in the 1/4 mile. And that shorter gearing on the track will and HAS resulted in the manual being faster than the auto. All reviews show that. Id put money on the manual with a competent driver over the auto FR-S anyday. Stock that is.

And BTW, I still like the Auto FR-S. It was able to keep up with some old school porches on the track I took it to. Grips hard and hugs the corners very well. It is very impressive.

I dont doubt you have WIPED the floor in an auto x with the FR-S. But that is not a valid comparison since it is not the same car. Your point is mute.

[zaptorque]

Originally Posted by shawnperolis

Do you really not believe that the manual trans FRS is faster than the automatic one? Or are you just really into arguing with people?

I would re read and try and comprehend what he is saying, not once does he say the auto is as fast or faster than the manual, he actually alludes to the manual being faster, due to gear ratios. The point that he is trying to make though is that the most important factor on a track is not the transmission, but the skill of the driver. Get some Joe-schmo in a MT vs an experienced track driver in an AT and 10 out of 10 times the better, experienced driver will win.

While the MT is a little "faster" than the auto, the difference is made negligible by the experience of the driver.

[shawnperolis]

Originally Posted by zaptorque

I would re read and try and comprehend what he is saying, not once does he say the auto is as fast or faster than the manual, he actually alludes to the manual being faster, due to gear ratios. The point that he is trying to make though is that the most important factor on a track is not the transmission, but the skill of the driver. Get some Joe-schmo in a MT vs an experienced track driver in an AT and 10 out of 10 times the better, experienced driver will win.

While the MT is a little "faster" than the auto, the difference is made negligible by the experience of the driver.

I comprehended it just fine, thank you. He compared the FRS to a totally different car with a different driver, doesn't much change anything. Nobody here is arguing that transmission is more important than driver.

I agree with everything else exactly though, I'm just saying that take the same driver on the same track in the same weather conditions, but once around in the auto FRS and once around in the manual FRS, the manual is going to come ahead.

I personally don't even care about track times, they don't matter much to me in a slow car like this. I wasn't the one who brought that crap up, I just thought it was really funny how some people have to defend their choice of transmission to the death in spite of pretty hard evidence and numbers. This car is about having loads of fun in, and because you can't drop the clutch in an automatic, it is useless to me. Doesn't mean it is useless for other people though.

[Memphis]

Originally Posted by naikaidriver

No. Oversimplification is the root of ignorance and people that make blanket conclusions based on personal experience and then parade their conclusions as fact annoy me. Regardless of the subject matter.

I'm not into arguing with anyone since my time and energy are better spent elsewhere and in more productive endeavors.

Have fun imagining you're "Ken Block" because you drive a manual. I wish you the best.

Scott

Im sorry I simplified the facts to you. And, Im not being ignorant, especially when 99.9% of the people on this forum know it to be the truth :p

Im sure by now there are countless threads on here about 1/4 mile times in the auto. Am I wrong? Which is faster?

And in the coming months you will see that the manual will be faster than the auto on the track to with the weather warming up. Im not basing this off of just my EXPERIENCE but that of others on this forum.

I know you like your auto and that is fine. BUT PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DONT GET OFFENDED/ARGUE WHEN SOMEONE GIVES YOU FACTS. It makes you look butthurt.

[naikaidriver]

Originally Posted by Memphis

Im sorry I simplified the facts to you. And, Im not being ignorant, especially when 99.9% of the people on this forum know it to be the truth :p

Im sure by now there are countless threads on here about 1/4 mile times in the auto. Am I wrong? Which is faster?

And in the coming months you will see that the manual will be faster than the auto on the track to with the weather warming up. Im not basing this off of just my EXPERIENCE but that of others on this forum.

I know you like your auto and that is fine. BUT PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DONT GET OFFENDED/ARGUE WHEN SOMEONE GIVES YOU FACTS. It makes you look butthurt.

You're the one who's yelling as is your usual fashion around here as is the uselessness of the content of your posts.

I suggest you re-read everything I have said and what zaptorque said.


I'm done with this thread.

Scott

[Memphis]

Originally Posted by zaptorque

I would re read and try and comprehend what he is saying, not once does he say the auto is as fast or faster than the manual, he actually alludes to the manual being faster, due to gear ratios. The point that he is trying to make though is that the most important factor on a track is not the transmission, but the skill of the driver. Get some Joe-schmo in a MT vs an experienced track driver in an AT and 10 out of 10 times the better, experienced driver will win.

While the MT is a little "faster" than the auto, the difference is made negligible by the experience of the driver.

Little? Im assuming you dont know how much of a difference 1 second is.

And I agree with you about the competence of the manual driver vs the auto.

The problem with that is your not giving credit to decent manual drivers. Experience on the track is all well and good, but if you get an experienced manual driver against an experienced auto driver the result gets a little one sided in this car favoring the manual. To say that getting a Joe against an experienced auto driver is not a true comparison nor is it a fair one.

The majority of people who track this car are not Joe. Joe does not care about the track, he cares about using his car as just a DD. Granted there are a lot of newbs to the scene with this car.

[Memphis]

Originally Posted by naikaidriver

You're the one who's yelling as is your usual fashion around here as is the uselessness of the content of your posts.

I suggest you re-read everything I have said and what zaptorque said.


I'm done with this thread.

Scott

How is my content useless? Ive given you times of actual experience and what have you given? You wiping the floor with a S2000?

What if I told you Moto-P would say the same thing? He has an auto. He is more experienced than practically everyone on this forum and then some. His auto was still slower on the tracks hes been to vs the manual. I dont know how much more you want than that. Ive even got PMs from him explaining why.

There are threads here that show the same trend over and over.

And Im sorry, but if me saying that I drove an auto FR-S vs a manual on the 1/4 mile AFTER I stripped it bare in the back (lost 4 tenths of a second off previous time doing so, was a 16.7) and still lost to a manual who ran a 15.5 is not a valid means of further proving a point that has been talked about on this forum since these cars startd going to the quarter mile then I dont know what is.

Regardless, the manual is faster because it can launch at a higher RPM outside of the torque dip and is therefore faster in the 1/4 mile. Meanwhile the gearing of the manual helps it out even more. Moto-P finished I believe 1:16 slower than a fellow manual FR-S on the same track same conditions.

Pretty valid comparison. Same track, same car, different transmissions and Moto-P would wipe your face on the asphalt and then run you over after. Most likely any other "experienced" driver as well.

All you can give me is I wiped the floor with an S2000. What is more useless? I can give you I kept up with old school Porches easily in the corners. But it is not a direct comparison to the same car.

What is so hard to understand?

I have agreed with you about the gearing and the fact that the auto cant launch. I have agreed with the difference in experience being a factor for manual vs auto. It is relevant.

Where is your proof that I am wrong?

*edit* I hate when I cant pull up PM's for reference. I must have deleted them months ago :p Maybe Moto will chime in.

[Memphis]

And naika I get what your saying about using ones personal reference as a placeholder for fact. I should have worded my original statement differently to reflect a broader range of people.

My question to you is how many personal experiences does it take for something to be considered fact when the outcome is pretty much the same every time?