Any official 0-60 times between auto and manual?

[Turbowned]

Originally Posted by 86'd

I don't think you're less of a man for wanting an auto, hell, it's probably faster on a track, but I'll never be on a track.

Don't worry; it isn't. And are we still going on about the 3rd gear shift to get to 60mph? Really? It's been proven enough times that the manual FR-S does 0-60 in 6.2-6.3sec. So drop it, please.

[86'd]

Originally Posted by Turbowned

Don't worry; it isn't. And are we still going on about the 3rd gear shift to get to 60mph? Really? It's been proven enough times that the manual FR-S does 0-60 in 6.2-6.3sec. So drop it, please.

I guess back on topic, I was never worried about the 0-60.

Just with power to weight and other factors I'd figure it'd be as fast as the new Civic SI, and for the most part, it is.

But even if it wasn't as fast, it still wouldn't have mattered to me. Well, as long as it wasn't like 0-60 in 8 seconds...

All of this talk is ridiculous anyway. Most streets I drive on are 0-35, 0-40. And unless I want to get an "exhibition of speed" ticket, I'm taking 10 seconds from 0 to whatever anyway.

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

Has it actually been proven that you have to shift before you hit 60 MPH? That was only a problem in the BRZ on that one test car.

you have to shift to 3rd before 100 km/h but at 99km/h your doing 61.5 mph and you're still in second gear, so no you dont have to hit 3rd to get to 60 im surprised this isnt common knowledge on this forum yet....

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Originally Posted by Calum

Your driving style will have a bigger effect on mileage then the transmission will, so ymmv.

Not when driven identically, though the taller gears on the auto already favor better fuel economy.

Originally Posted by dsgerbc

Most cars also don't shift into 3rd to get to 60.

Some do. I remember the first WRX STi needing to hit third to get to 60 mph, which was why a lot of the first tests had the Evo hitting 60 slightly more quickly (since it could hit 60 at the top of second)... I believe it was Road & Track who mentioned that.

Originally Posted by Turbowned

The IS-F is a Luxury Sport Sedan, which by all rights ought to have been offered with a manual transmission like all it's competitors did: BMW M3, Cadillac CTS-V, Audi RS 4/S4.

The C63 AMG was also a competitor. That one also had an auto and was quicker to accelerate to pretty much any speed than the M3. And the IS-F and S4/RS4. (Not sure about the CTS-V though.)

[matt30]

Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83

Some do. I remember the first WRX STi needing to hit third to get to 60 mph, which was why a lot of the first tests had the Evo hitting 60 slightly more quickly (since it could hit 60 at the top of second)... I believe it was Road & Track who mentioned that.

Yep. And to most people, it wasn't a big deal because a tranny should be designed around the engine's power-band. Not arbitrary magazine racing 0-60 times.

[Oriental Life]

Originally Posted by Subie

The automatic transmission probably uses similar shift logic to the IS-F but mechanically it appears to be the 6-speed auto from an IS250, the A960E.

That's what intrigues me the most. First Tetsuya Tada announces new 'modified' IS-F tranny (AA80E) for 86 project here mark 1:30, then come IS350 (A760E) and 250 (A960E) speculations and with gear ratios it looks like IS250.

I won't go into the whole story of AT in 86 project as its off-topic, but I'm sure we'll see something special in the first production run.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO8lOjqhLJQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO8lOjqhLJQ[/ame]

[Turbowned]

Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83

The C63 AMG was also a competitor. That one also had an auto and was quicker to accelerate to pretty much any speed than the M3. And the IS-F and S4/RS4. (Not sure about the CTS-V though.)

Mercedes' AMG is the German equivalent of an American muscle car. All horsepower and no handling; pointless except to show off.

[86fanatic]

I don't see why some people feel the need to enter threads they have no interest in and stir up crap. The original question was simply a question about the official 0-60 times published from Toyota. That question was answered in post #7 by Jeff.

I can understand further discussion about why the times are different, but I don't understand the need for some people to come in here and act like they have an omniscient understanding of automobiles and start putting down other people's preferences in cars. What is the point of that? I think this forum has seen enough hate from people not even interested in the car at all, that we don't need to start stirring crap against each other in BRZ vs. FRS debates or Automatic vs. Manual silliness.

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Originally Posted by Turbowned

Mercedes' AMG is the German equivalent of an American muscle car. All horsepower and no handling; pointless except to show off.

"No handling"? Damn near every review of the C63 seems to think it's a fun car through the bends, even though it doesn't do so as gracefully or as precisely as the M3. I thought it was a fun car... one of my clients has a C63 and was kind enough to bring it to my office one day when signing paperwork. Let's just say that I wouldn't mind owning one.

[russv]

Originally Posted by Oriental Life

If that AT is good for 60K+ IS-F, its good for me.

Actually I have a strong feeling that in FT-86 package we are underpaying for that automatic tranny at least 2-3K for what it is.

It will be interesting to watch dynamics of the resale value, just to find out that AT is sought after more, since its wasn't popular with die-hards

I agree. I was on the fence about MT vs AT but since I have a Lexus IS250 with the rather impressive auto and the FRS auto will be out of the beefed up and tighter IS-F I decided to go with the auto. Plus arthritic ankle and knew replacement....

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lange

The new car features book.

Jeff

Where's Jordo now to argue about how the AT will be faster....

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by 86fanatic

For me, shifting is a mechanical chore. It doesn't make me feel more connected to the car, it's simply a task I have to perform over and over to extract the right amount of power from the car. Driving a modern performance oriented automatic or DCT, and I was instantly converted. I understand shifting makes some people feel more connected to the car, but for me, it's a chore especially when we have the technology to do it better then humans.

It's definately preference. I've been in/driven better autos and many DCT gears, including P cars. All it told me was that I would never switch from MT cars. :shrug:

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Oriental Life

If that AT is good for 60K+ IS-F, its good for me.

Actually I have a strong feeling that in FT-86 package we are underpaying for that automatic tranny at least 2-3K for what it is.

It will be interesting to watch dynamics of the resale value, just to find out that AT is sought after more, since its wasn't popular with die-hards

You swapping in an IS-F trans? Cause the 86 doesn't come with one....

It's an IS trans with new tuning and *maybe* new solenoids..

Fact is with sports cars MT cars generally are worth more than AT cars, at least on cars I've looked at in the past.

For the last 10 years I've mostly only owned cars that were only sold with manuals, which is my preference for cars.. I'd rather not have development money wasted on ATs

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Turbowned

The IS-F is a Luxury Sport Sedan, which by all rights ought to have been offered with a manual transmission like all it's competitors did: BMW M3, Cadillac CTS-V, Audi RS 4/S4.

Agreed. And it's the reason I would never even consider an IS-F.