Every difference between the MT and AT

[BlueDubbinTDI]

Down to the last detail.

Modibility. Performance. Advantages. What's offered for the MT that isnt for the AT and vise versa. Will I regret my AT decision on a "fun" level even more because of these things?

Sorry if this has been touched on 1000 times already

[Nightbringer]

I'll let experts chime in on the gritty details, but the most notable to me is the gear ratios. 5th gear is 1:1 in the MT vs 4th in AT. Obviously short ratio 1-4 has better performance and is more entertaining due to torque multiplication, but the AT having a .582 vs the MT's .767 sixth gear sold me due to the gigantic gas mileage improvement.

If you're going to dragrace, especially with a turbo, the AT has an edge of course. EcuTEK's racerom features for the MT assist in bridging that gap though: launch control, no lift shift, etc.

Modification wise, there's a multitude more products for the MT. Clutch, flywheel, gearsets, short throw shifter, etc. There'll eventually be an aftermarket torque converter for the AT, and so on, but there's not much available at present.

[37]

Originally Posted by Nightbringer

the most notable to me is the gear ratios.

Same here. Even with a shorter final drive, the 6AT's transmission gearing is taller across the board. You can shorten the FD to improve gears 1-2-3 but gears 4-5-6 will remain tall. I don't see aftermarket AT gears coming anytime soon if ever.

Whether this truly matters depends on the purpose of the car. If left NA or stock, I personally can't see this being very fun.

Originally Posted by Nightbringer

but the AT having a .582 vs the MT's .767 sixth gear sold me due to the gigantic gas mileage improvement.

Gigantic?

Let's say for math purposes that you drive 15,000 miles per year, the 6MT gets 30 MPG highway, the 6AT gets 35 MPG, and gas costs $4/gallon.

6MT: 15,000 / 30 = 500 gallons. 500 * $4 = $2000 per year in gas
6AT: 15,000 / 35 = 428 gallons. 428 * $4 = $1712 per year in gas

The annual difference is $288, less than one extra fill-up per month.

With the 6AT being roughly $1000 more than the 6MT, it would take 3.5 years (1000/288=3.47) for the 6AT to meet the upfront cost difference over the 6MT. Given those numbers you'd have to drive it longer than 3.5 years to start saving. Anything under 3.5 and you're spending more.

This doesn't factor in paying higher tax, added monthly finance cost (if applicable), or maintenance costs. If the 6AT proves to need expensive rebuilds then the difference could be a wash or fall highly in favor of the 6MT. It could take longer than 3.5 years to even out or potentially never even out.

Of course, your math might work out more favorably. It would depend on how long you keep the car, annual mileage, MPG, local fuel prices, whether or not you paid cash, and so on. For some it might be gigantic. For others it's minuscule.

Originally Posted by BlueDubbinTDI

Will I regret my AT decision on a "fun" level even more because of these things?

Tough to say. The fact that you're asking says that you might already regret it.

At least it has paddle shifters. That's arguably better than bumping a gear selector up and down.

.

[BlueDubbinTDI]

The car just feels so lame unless you really get on it and I have just been curious what the MT feels like while DD. I planned to track it eventually and knew the AT would be the easiest way to go to start learning, plus MPG was my motivation behind the choice. Price increase was irrelevant AT is what it is. I just wanna know the performance isn't too far behind (atleast forever behind) the MT. I just see so many tuners, and videos, and owners in general using the MT platform specifically and feel like the AT is just swept under the rug. I get it. This car was meant to be MT. It just sorta sucks we get such little "support" I guess.

By the way anyone know how much more the AT weighs over the MT?

[Nightbringer]

Originally Posted by 37

Gigantic?

At least it has paddle shifters. That's at least better than bumping a gear selector up and down.

Definitely appreciate you doing the math, so don't take offense here as I may be off base. Just from my firsthand experiences: pure highway driving in my friend's MT averages 31 mpg. My pure highway average in the AT is 41. 10+ mpg is notable, at least in my eyes.

Reference on the AT's mileage being horribly underrated factory (50 seconds in):
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKD4jtxSG1Q"]2013 Scion FR-S Review - MPG Test Drive - YouTube[/ame]

I'm not contesting the manual's more fun---I think that's obvious enough to not require discussion, but I think the auto definitely has a place depending on what you're using the car for. I put a lot of miles on mine highway driving between cities, but for my entertainment driving, I do a lot of tight, twisty roads. Being able to have both hands on the wheel at all times is excellent, and the paddle shifters actually respond briskly unlike previous paddle vehicles I've owned. It's not QUITE as fast as DCT's I've driven, but it's damn close.

Don't take offense. Just my personal preference. If the car was a weekend-only toy, it'd have a third pedal.

Originally Posted by BlueDubbinTDI

It just sorta sucks we get such little "support" I guess.

By the way anyone know how much more the AT weighs over the MT?

There's another thread somewhere and I think it was stated 80 pounds? As far as the support thing, I don't think it's that we're being ignored, there's just not much to do to it. Launch control, no lift shift, etc doesn't apply. Once EcuTEK etc are able to tweak the TCU for lockup, shift points, line pressure, etc, I expect to see large improvements. Also, we can get away with 4.56 gears and still be at less RPM on the highway then the MT's. Drive an auto with 4.56 or 5.29's and it won't be lame, I promise.

[m.wood0213]

Originally Posted by BlueDubbinTDI

By the way anyone know how much more the AT weighs over the MT?

I wanna say I saw in a video review its only like 50lbs? Correct me if Im wrong.

[37]

Originally Posted by Nightbringer

Definitely appreciate you doing the math, so don't take offense here as I may be off base. Just from my firsthand experiences: pure highway driving in my friend's MT averages 31 mpg. My pure highway average in the AT is 41. 10+ mpg is notable, at least in my eyes.

No offense taken at all. My example was based on rough averages and is why I said your numbers might work more favorably.

In your case the 6AT could potentially pay for itself in a bit over 2 years. However, if both of you financed the purchase prices in full then you're likely paying around $200 more per year than your friend, pushing your break-even point back to around 4 years.

Details aside, my point was more in saying that it could take a long time for the auto to win the cost game based on MPGs alone. "Gigantic" isn't a word I'd personally use unless the overall numbers were considerably more favorable.

Originally Posted by Nightbringer

I think the auto definitely has a place depending on what you're using the car for.

Absolutely, and no math can argue that.

[ZionsWrath]

If you can't rev match and heel toe you will be faster around bends in the AT. While some may argue learning that is part of the MT fun, that is your decision to make. Don't let anyone put you down for owning an AT.

[whataboutbob]

Originally Posted by BlueDubbinTDI

The car just feels so lame unless you really get on it and I have just been curious what the MT feels like while DD. I planned to track it eventually and knew the AT would be the easiest way to go to start learning, plus MPG was my motivation behind the choice. Price increase was irrelevant AT is what it is. I just wanna know the performance isn't too far behind (atleast forever behind) the MT. I just see so many tuners, and videos, and owners in general using the MT platform specifically and feel like the AT is just swept under the rug. I get it. This car was meant to be MT. It just sorta sucks we get such little "support" I guess.

By the way anyone know how much more the AT weighs over the MT?

I believe the MT is 2750 and the AT is 2850, so ~100lbs.

[Gixxersixxerman]

I have a auto, I love streets of willow.. I cruise from Vegas to there and enjoy my 38-42mog doing it.. While there, as the car was stock except exhaust, I managed to get my lap time within 9/10ths from Randy Pobst fastest lap in a FRS.. I am quite proud of that.. I mean in racing a sec is a lot.. But for only three times in a car, to be that close to a pro driver.. I was happy.. Now I don't know if I'd be just as fast in a manual.. But I sure don't feel the Auto held me back.. And for the record.. My three fastest laps were within 3/10ths of each other and in "Auto" in sport mode, traction off

[BlueDubbinTDI]

Thanks for all the positive responses guys. Really good knowing I didn't make a "bad" decision

[dun3]

All I'm gonna say, is I'm glad I got the manual.

[BlueDubbinTDI]

Holy crap I didn't realize that the 5-60mph were only .2 seconds apart where the 0-60 are like a full second+. I found that interesting how drastic leaving the line is to the 0-60 times. Once that can be corrected everyone will definitely stop giving it shit.

[Anorexic 86]

Originally Posted by whataboutbob

I believe the MT is 2750 and the AT is 2850, so ~100lbs.

FALSE!

Took me 30 seconds to go to scion.com and check the curb weight difference...

MT - 2758 lbs.

AT - 2806 lbs.

So the automatic transmission weighs 48 lbs. more than the manual.