Auto to manual

[marky]

Anyone shift without pressing clutch aka "perfect shift"?

[Sonolin]

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!

Yea, I guess 5th on AT has "enough" pull, but I'm not nearly patient enough for highway passes in 5th on the AT idk. Its probably more of a thing, though.

I do notice I don't go into 2nd on the M/T (when pushing the car) nearly as much, as I did with the A/T. It does feel like the 2nd is more usable around town though, and the 3rd & 4th is more usable all around.

Both great cars though! Let's please not turn this into an AT vs MT bashing thread. They really are both great cars in their own way, but the M/T does beat it in raw performance. I doubted this (yes I realized the A/T is slower in the 1/4 but I'm interested in the race track), until I drove a M/T frs. That being said, the A/T does very good I'd say just good enough if your not going to hit the track, but at the track I'll take the M/T. Just gotta wait until the funds allow

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by marky

Anyone shift without pressing clutch aka "perfect shift"?

I've met people who drove like this all the time "back in the day." Never had the motivation to try it on my cars, though.

[naikaidriver]

Originally Posted by 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?

I only have a problem with personal experience being presented as fact because it is always influenced by bias. As human beings, we are all subject to bias of perception and that is why peer-review is so important as is refining the experiment within a specific context.

As you mentioned, we both agree that the manual 86's can launch much harder than autos. We both agree that the manual is shorter geared than the auto which translates into better acceleration. The net result is quicker acceleration and subsequently, quicker E.T.'s for drag racing. We also agree that if a person were to buy an auto 86 with the hopes of drag racing it (or any 86 in stock form), they will likely be very disappointed.

Now on to my bigger point, which we both agree on incidentally, on a race track or autocross course. Yes, we both agree that the manual will accelerate a little harder out of corners because of 1) its shorter gearing 2) lighter weight 3) less drivetrain power loss. Now all things being equal (such as drivers) the manual will be faster around any track. Here is where I think the disconnect between us is.

Even though I have been racing both cars and bikes for 24 years (as a hobby) I am not Ken Block, Senna, Fitipaldi, Andretti or do I have any illusions about my talent/skill level behind the wheel. Now, I can handle a stick. The FRS is the first automatic I have ever owned or taken around a race track. I'm confident that I could likely drive a manual FRS faster around a race track or autocross track than I could my auto. However, given my skill level, the difference won't be by that much. I say that because the auto in the FRS is just that GOOD!

I don't like it when the auto in the FRS is lumped in with autos such as in my wife's tC or Camry. It really isn't even close. The auto in the FRS is even leaps and bounds better than the one in the RX8. Driving it reminds me of the auto E46 M3 which is a fantastic car.

So to the whole meat and potatoes of my point and my position is that if the auto isn't that much slower around a track than me driving a manual, then, since 90% of my seat time will not be on a track, the auto is a good, logical choice for me. That said, I promise you that I can, (and have) smoke most everyday drivers around a course in my auto 86 even when they are in a faster car such as an S2000. My earlier bringing up of the S2000 was to point out how "silly" it would be to make a blanket statement based on my own experience than my car is faster. Nothing more.

In all, we do agree. But I admit that I do get annoyed when people just simply make a statement such as an auto being "slow". Taking such a rudimentary position only invites arguments and renders constructive debate impossible.

No hard feelings?

Scott

[zaptorque]

A lot of people with a false sense of entitlement on this thread.

[ric342]

i though that the auto was awesome but when i drove the manual i knew that i would never buy an automatic car again. You just have more fun with the MT, ya traffic sucks... but it sucks no matter what.

[Memphis]

Originally Posted by naikaidriver

I only have a problem with personal experience being presented as fact because it is always influenced by bias. As human beings, we are all subject to bias of perception and that is why peer-review is so important as is refining the experiment within a specific context.

As you mentioned, we both agree that the manual 86's can launch much harder than autos. We both agree that the manual is shorter geared than the auto which translates into better acceleration. The net result is quicker acceleration and subsequently, quicker E.T.'s for drag racing. We also agree that if a person were to buy an auto 86 with the hopes of drag racing it (or any 86 in stock form), they will likely be very disappointed.

Now on to my bigger point, which we both agree on incidentally, on a race track or autocross course. Yes, we both agree that the manual will accelerate a little harder out of corners because of 1) its shorter gearing 2) lighter weight 3) less drivetrain power loss. Now all things being equal (such as drivers) the manual will be faster around any track. Here is where I think the disconnect between us is.

Even though I have been racing both cars and bikes for 24 years (as a hobby) I am not Ken Block, Senna, Fitipaldi, Andretti or do I have any illusions about my talent/skill level behind the wheel. Now, I can handle a stick. The FRS is the first automatic I have ever owned or taken around a race track. I'm confident that I could likely drive a manual FRS faster around a race track or autocross track than I could my auto. However, given my skill level, the difference won't be by that much. I say that because the auto in the FRS is just that GOOD!

I don't like it when the auto in the FRS is lumped in with autos such as in my wife's tC or Camry. It really isn't even close. The auto in the FRS is even leaps and bounds better than the one in the RX8. Driving it reminds me of the auto E46 M3 which is a fantastic car.

So to the whole meat and potatoes of my point and my position is that if the auto isn't that much slower around a track than me driving a manual, then, since 90% of my seat time will not be on a track, the auto is a good, logical choice for me. That said, I promise you that I can, (and have) smoke most everyday drivers around a course in my auto 86 even when they are in a faster car such as an S2000. My earlier bringing up of the S2000 was to point out how "silly" it would be to make a blanket statement based on my own experience than my car is faster. Nothing more.

In all, we do agree. But I admit that I do get annoyed when people just simply make a statement such as an auto being "slow". Taking such a rudimentary position only invites arguments and renders constructive debate impossible.

No hard feelings?

Scott

None whatsoever. However this brings up another point about the auto. While it is leaps and bounds ahead of other generalized autos it still has a flaw compared to them as well.

I still think the auto is slow. Compared to most other offerings out there the auto in the FR-S is not close in performance to its manual counterpart.

1.3-1.5 second difference in time between the two is horrible. Not bad, but horrible.

Majority of the time the auto counterpart is still slower, but only by a difference of about .3 to .5

It may shift faster, and allow you to downshift while rev matching but it lacks the ability to keep up by any means to its counterpart.

[naikaidriver]

Originally Posted by Memphis

None whatsoever. However this brings up another point about the auto. While it is leaps and bounds ahead of other generalized autos it still has a flaw compared to them as well.

I still think the auto is slow. Compared to most other offerings out there the auto in the FR-S is not close in performance to its manual counterpart.

1.3-1.5 second difference in time between the two is horrible. Not bad, but horrible.

Majority of the time the auto counterpart is still slower, but only by a difference of about .3 to .5

It may shift faster, and allow you to downshift while rev matching but it lacks the ability to keep up by any means to its counterpart.

Again, you're talking about drag racing and acceleration from a stand-still. But the reason that the 86 is so bad at this is because of the abysmal torque of the FA20. That's the not transmissions fault. If you were to launch the manual from idle, the difference between it and the auto wouldn't be so dramatic.

If the 86 had come with any one of Toyota's inline 4's offered today, the 0-60s would be much better. Only problem would be that would have ruined the intent of the car as much as it would ruin its CG.

Scott

[marky]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

I've met people who drove like this all the time "back in the day." Never had the motivation to try it on my cars, though.

Yeah not trying on mine..don't want to hear gears crunching

[Tucson FR-S]

A manual transmission requires a much more engaged relationship with the machine which is why some people get them. Automatics allow you to use the machine without understanding how it works. Remember a few years ago when Toyotas supposedly had a problem with uncontrolled acceleration? There was an obvious solution to this dire situation -- take it out of gear! -- but some people either never thought of this or, as I recalled, worried that they might hurt the engine or transmission if they did. Ignorance made them prisoners of their machines.

[jmaryt]

Originally Posted by Memphis

None whatsoever. However this brings up another point about the auto. While it is leaps and bounds ahead of other generalized autos it still has a flaw compared to them as well.

I still think the auto is slow. Compared to most other offerings out there the auto in the FR-S is not close in performance to its manual counterpart.

1.3-1.5 second difference in time between the two is horrible. Not bad, but horrible.

Majority of the time the auto counterpart is still slower, but only by a difference of about .3 to .5

It may shift faster, and allow you to downshift while rev matching but it lacks the ability to keep up by any means to its counterpart.

it's NOT the transmission,it's the GEARING which is different.this accounts for the performance difference.

[jlu]

Originally Posted by shawnperolis

Anyone who complains about it either isn't comfortable driving a manual or doesn't know how.

Must be pretty cool, having psychic powers to tell what everyone who complains about traffic is really thinking.

[Memphis]

Originally Posted by jmaryt

it's NOT the transmission,it's the GEARING which is different.this accounts for the performance difference.

Wrong. It is the converter in it and the fact you cant launch at as high of an rpm as the manual.

[Memphis]

Originally Posted by naikaidriver

Again, you're talking about drag racing and acceleration from a stand-still. But the reason that the 86 is so bad at this is because of the abysmal torque of the FA20. That's the not transmissions fault. If you were to launch the manual from idle, the difference between it and the auto wouldn't be so dramatic.

If the 86 had come with any one of Toyota's inline 4's offered today, the 0-60s would be much better. Only problem would be that would have ruined the intent of the car as much as it would ruin its CG.

Scott

It is still a fault of the car :p Like I said the same car with a different transmission should not have that big of a difference. Autos in other cars ie the miata the difference is barely any.

This is regardless of standstill or no.