brz/frs "slush" box

[jmaryt]

Originally Posted by MmmHamSandwich

Yep, that's my official title now, thanks for that!

You still seem to have trouble making the distinction between being wrong/changing your mind and being a deceptive liar. I can't help you any further there, you're on your own.

Curious, your comment about Obama. In addition to being as random as any of your other attempts at insults, it too seems to contradict your long held notions. You are suggesting that it would be a bad thing for me to force you to stand outside the capitol protesting in favor of impeaching Obama?

I find that a bit odd. First you flip on the auto transmission, now you flop on Obama? Here's a sample of your previous comments regarding Obama...















I'll "say" one "thing" about you, you are a "treasure trove" of "tragic comedy". eh! he! he! he! ehheehehhehehehheheheheheeeeheeheheheheeeee33333!! (L@WL!!)

what's the point of taking the time to bother with a forum,unless you can be entertained,or to entertain? obviously,i have succeeded,as you appear to be in a "lighter" frame of mind,as a result of our "spirited" back and forth so,with that said,let's get back on topic. to be totally truthful,i don't feel it necessary to ''debate" or to discuss the merit of everything i say,or (you say) on a car forum,because frankly,i have much more important things i need to do,as i suspect you do too.

[BRZranger]

Originally Posted by Captain Insano

There is no power gap. They make exactly the same power at the crank. On dynos they put down nearly identical numbers, the power varies from car to car like any model vehicle.

The difference in the 1/4 mile is the launch. Maybe 1/2 a tenth due to gearing (very, very slight difference), but the big difference is the launch. Second through sixth, assume they are nearly identical.

From what dynos I've seen, autos are putting 10whp less than manual counterparts.

[Captain Insano]

Hmmm, well I have not heard definitively from any of the shops that have autos if they are seeing that (shops like P&L Mortorsports, FA20club.com, etc that actually have autos for shop cars) 10whp loss you claim. Let's just say I'm very skeptical, but open minded...

Also, Sport-Tech is right, the gearing is more noticeable in higher gears, but in the lower gears, not as much. The lower gears are the gears you will use on a track 99% of the time and the gears that matter for performance. I think the 5-60 (no launch) motortrend test between the two is telling, only one tenth of a second difference in acceleration with no launch required. But yes, I did say 2-6 would be nearly identical and I should have said "2-4 will be very similar".

[jmaryt]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

Actually reports are that the gearing in the auto (which is much higher - 5th in the auto is actually a longer gear than 6th in the manual) is not ideal for acceleration even under way because the wider ratios result in the engine rpm dropping into the 4-4.8K "torque trough" on upshift even when you shift at redline, something that does not happen on the manual. Wish they would just use the same ratios as found on the manual box, but apparently that would have cost more as the current auto is a (slightly modified) off-the-shelf part.

believe the gearing in place is a result of them effecting a "compromise"
so that gear box would find appeal to a broader group of people! after my experience,i am happy it gets better gas mileage,WITHOUT losing the fun aspect of the vehicle!

[jmaryt]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

Actually reports are that the gearing in the auto (which is much higher - 5th in the auto is actually a longer gear than 6th in the manual) is not ideal for acceleration even under way because the wider ratios result in the engine rpm dropping into the 4-4.8K "torque trough" on upshift even when you shift at redline, something that does not happen on the manual. Wish they would just use the same ratios as found on the manual box, but apparently that would have cost more as the current auto is a (slightly modified) off-the-shelf part.

Originally Posted by Captain Insano

Hmmm, well I have not heard definitively from any of the shops that have autos if they are seeing that (shops like P&L Mortorsports, FA20club.com, etc that actually have autos for shop cars) 10whp loss you claim. Let's just say I'm very skeptical, but open minded...

Also, Sport-Tech is right, the gearing is more noticeable in higher gears, but in the lower gears, not as much. The lower gears are the gears you will use on a track 99% of the time and the gears that matter for performance. I think the 5-60 (no launch) motortrend test between the two is telling, only one tenth of a second difference in acceleration with no launch required. But yes, I did say 2-6 would be nearly identical and I should have said "2-4 will be very similar".

this is good to know,because the seat of my pants (where it counts) tells me the car's got plenty of "juice" from a dead launch,and i experienced no "dead" spots as the revs climbed.for some reason,i really liked the rev matching
as you down shift. THIS car does not suffer with this auto tranny.

[Guff]

Originally Posted by Exhaust

God, its how I first fell in love with the car. Its so responsive with quickly being able to downshift into a corner while braking ever so lightly only to burst out of a corner with the amount of oversteer the car has. It truly is the ultimate feeling of "race car". I have yet to master the gearing as I got pretty tail happy quite a few times... ask @Guff, but dont ask about my cone incident

There was definitely some sliding going on that day hahahaha!!


And there were definitely some cones that were laid to rest...

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by Captain Insano

Hmmm, well I have not heard definitively from any of the shops that have autos if they are seeing that (shops like P&L Mortorsports, FA20club.com, etc that actually have autos for shop cars) 10whp loss you claim. Let's just say I'm very skeptical, but open minded...

Also, Sport-Tech is right, the gearing is more noticeable in higher gears, but in the lower gears, not as much. The lower gears are the gears you will use on a track 99% of the time and the gears that matter for performance. I think the 5-60 (no launch) motortrend test between the two is telling, only one tenth of a second difference in acceleration with no launch required. But yes, I did say 2-6 would be nearly identical and I should have said "2-4 will be very similar".

Given that you are losing maybe 2/10ths per shift by shifting manually vs the auto, the 1/10th slower time for the auto on the 5-60 means the auto's "real" time for the run is slower by about 1/2 second (assuming 2 gear shifts to 60) - that seems in line with the 10whp loss figure claimed.

Torque trough lies between 3-4.4K (see below):

To correct my earlier comment, you actually never really get into the torque trough with either tranny on a redline upshift except for the 1-2 shift on the auto, but you do always lose more power on upshifts with the auto (see relative speed vs rpms for the auto vs the manual below). And you get closer to the torque trough on the 2-3 auto upshift (at 4900 rpm) than on the higher-speed 3-4 or 4-5 shifts (5200 rpm for both). The manual drops down to only 5800 on the 3-4 upshift - less loss of power. It's also 300 rpm better on the 2-3 upshift, and 900 rpm better on the 4-5 upshift.

[Captain Insano]

Good data, but we can agree to disagree. The "real" difference of a 1/2 second you mention is in fact not real. The real measured difference is a tenth of a second as measured. You and I do not know how fast the motortrend driver shifted the MT. Not a safe assumption you are making!!

You could also argue the longer gears in AT the car wont be shifting as much which might help on certain autox or road courses. Ironically, power isnt the point of this car. Balance is. In a straight line if you can get a 1.7 or 1.8 60' in a MT during a 1/4 mile run and a 2.2 - 2.5 60' in a AT... Thats over a second on the end of the run. Right about the diff between both in many of the tests. Thats why I think it is mainly the launch.

[russv]

It would be interesting to see a 0-60 comparison with a rolling start.

[Captain Insano]

The motortrend 5-60... that is from a rolling start.

[MmmHamSandwich]

Originally Posted by russv

It would be interesting to see a 0-60 comparison with a rolling start.

Automatic FR-S
Zero to 60 mph: 8.1 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 21.4 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 8.2 sec
Auto mode, 30–50 mph: 4.1 sec
Auto mode, 50–70 mph: 5.3 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.3 sec @ 90 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 125 mph
Source

Manual FR-S
Zero to 60 mph: 6.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.6 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 8.1 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 13.1 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 10.3 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.9 sec @ 95 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 136 mph
Source(PDF)

These numbers are from Car and Driver.

When a launch is factored out, the difference in acceleration times to 60 are minimal. The auto's taller gears do put it at a disadvantage at the car's upper speed limit.

The disparity between the 0-100 times is a bit surprising given what they recorded for the quarter miles. *shrug* Then again the auto runs out of energy 11 miles per hour earlier.

[russv]

The top speed for the auto was in "auto mode", I wonder if it was kept in 5th gear in manual mode if you could get a higher top speed. Maybe have to do a "personal" test.

[Captain Insano]

I also wonder how they drove the AT when those times/speeds were taken. Did they put it in sport mode and let car do shifting? Complete auto mode without sport? Did they shift manually? Any of those make a difference. On the flip side, when the MT was driven we don't know how good or bad of a shifter the driver was.

[jmaryt]

i would assume also,it would make a difference,perhaps really noticeable juggling the different modes.