yes! unfortunately there will always be a certain amount of "slippage" in the drive train with the 'slush" as mentioned,good thing is,the slippage is limited due to the lock-up torque converter. still,i was really pleasantly surprised
at how "smooth,and quick it is! big wow factor!

yes! this makes perfect sense as the gearing is slightly different,hence the
difference in gas mileage,but they STILL kept the gearing adequate for performance purposes.

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!!)

Thanks for sharing. I figured it was due to the low-speed driveability (where I agree with you, traditional auto > dual clutch). When I drove the auto FR-S, I didn't pay that much attention to the shifts and responsiveness. Good to hear Toyota has learned to make traditional automatics quicker and more responsive. :thumbsup:

I drove the automatic before I drove the manual. It's really good, but I would never trade slush for stick in this car.

:word:

Try it at AutoX, it'll change your life.

I have yet to try my AT FR-S at an AutoX, though I intend to. I attended several with my old Si, loved it.

How is the AT in an AutoX? I imagine being able to effortlessly downshift into 1st and quickly catch 3rd and bang down to 2nd would be a notable advantage over our MT counterparts.

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 :)

Hey that's ok. I taped the front of my Civic, though everyone told me not to worry though since "cones can't hurt your car."

I managed to oversteer my Si and absolutely side swiped a sideways cone at about 30. Put a nice dent in my running board. So much for cones being harmless.
If you're not eating cones regularly, you're not going fast enough I say!

I can't wait to AutoX mine. I will say at low speeds this thing will step out on you real quick! I am anxious to push the limits in a controlled environment. :D I have been taking it pretty easy on public roads.

I was a firm believer of "MT" only as well. After test driving it twice, I was sold on this AT box. My cars in the past were Suzuki Swift GTI (MT), Impreza L '96 (MT), Lancer OZ (MT), Impreza WRX '03 (MT), Volvo C30 T5 R Design (MT), and then my BRZ (AT).

I am pretty pleased with the (M) mode in this AT but it does have some weird lag issues around 2500rpm and 3500rpm(torque dip?), maybe its an engine issue rather than the gear.

Also it may be placebo, but gear shift speed seems to change when I rev the engine more. When just cruising in low rpm, the gear shift speed seems much slower.

I feel like a much better driver with this AT, than was on my MT since I have never taken professional driving lessons and such.

I'm not 62...I'm 24 and drive a Mazdaspeed3...it's nearly expected that an immature pun would be my tapatalk signature.

I Tapped that

actually that's how I tested the automatic, at that Scion first drive course.

I came from a 335i sport coupe with MT that was great fun. I was ready for a change. I bought the FR-S AT mainly due to reading positive reviews and extensive descriptions of the features. I knew I wanted it and am very happy with my choice. At 1,300 miles I'm only scratching the surface of what the transmission can do. With the different modes and the ability to use the paddles in any mode. The combinations for approaching shifting are almost endless.

Regular mode is so good I'm finding it too easy to not explore the features near as much as I should. I'm thinking of dedicating a week to driving purely in manual mode with the radio off. I need to develop paddle reflex, a natural feel for shift points in varying conditions, knowing what gear I'm in without looking and generally gain proficiency in traffic. There is a surprising amount to learn and unlearn compared to MT or basic AT. It's very capable and easily as interesting and challenging as any MT I've had. I'm looking forward to plenty of fun.

I thinkLaika meant that your "I Tapped that" signature was awkwardly weird just because of the scenario you were giving about your grandparents. :bellyroll: (Please correct me if I'm wrong Laika)

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.

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.

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

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".

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!

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.

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


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

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):
Attachment 25680
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.
Attachment 25681

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.

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

The motortrend 5-60... that is from 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.

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.

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.

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

i agree.believe the main difference between both of them is in the dead launch from standstill they are "both" close enough at other speeds to not make an appreciable difference.certainly plenty of power on hand to have tons of fun.i really don't care if the stick is a little faster,as the "slush" in THIS car is,in my view, just as much of a pleasure to drive.never thought i would say that,but the engineers did a great job with the "slush!"

truthfully,seeing this comparison from a ''rolling start" to 60,makes me feel that the ''slush" would be the better pick,IF fuel mileage is a consideration.
could be a deal maker,along with "perhaps" better re-sale values as the years roll by with the ''slush",however that may be askin' too much! we'll see i guess!

I'm not convinced there is much if any difference between sport and normal auto when you're in kickdown. As far as in manual, if you time your shifts spot on there is probably little difference, however in manual mode there is of course the possibility of short shifting it or banging into the rev limiter depending on what mode you are in.

My guess is they left it into auto mode for all tests. For example, where I put the 30-50 and 50-70 times for the auto, C&D actually still called it "Top gear" as if they manually stuck it in 6th and put the pedal down. Obviously based on the times that is NOT what happened so I took the liberty of modifing the title. I figure if they ran it in full auto there, I would tend to guess they'd do it in the other sprints as well.

I am curious to see what would happen between the MT and AT if they both went at it from say, 80mph. Makes me wonder if the auto truly does run out of steam at 125. That top end performance definitely seems lacking, but then again I rarely see triple digits, don't street race, and a good percentage of my driving is highway where a few extra mpg's and less noise never killed anyone.

Aside from my sneaking suspicion the toque converter allows for some slippage at lower rpm's, I am still very happy with my AT thus far. I am wondering if Visconti or any other ecu tuners can access status info for the transmission. Anyone know?

Your use of quotation marks is really confusing. You don't believe that comparison to be of an actual rolling start?

First of all, the AT only requires one shift to 60, the MT needs 2 - so even if the shifts took the same time on the AT, the manual car would lose twice as much shifting time on the 5-60 run. And it's no assumption to state that a manual shift takes a few tenths of a second - just a fact. Maybe it could be done in a tenth if you skipped the clutching but that can't really be done safely in a production car. Ever looked at those old R&T acceleration graphs for MT cars? There is ALWAYS a 2/10th sec period of no acceleration between shifts. When the driveline is engaged, though, the acceleration will be stronger with the MT than the auto thanks to those gear ratios (and its very slightly lighter vehicle weight) - thus the tiny difference in 5-60 times between the auto and manual.

Not trying to make you mad. All I am saying is you don't know for a fact if the MT driver was power shifting (no-lift shift) or regular shifting. Also, I thought this AT REALLY depends on what mode you are in and at what RPM dictate how fast it shifts. It's fast for an AT shift, but not as fast as say the LFA AT. Finally, you don't know how the AT was driven either, if it was in regular auto, auto sport, or paddle shifting. Yes, all those make a very big difference in a straight line. Auto is slowest. Auto sport is more aggressive, but I bet slower than paddle shifting to redline as I think Auto sport shifts well before redline in some of the lower gears (if memory serves me correctly - I will need to test that next time I drive it). Paddle shifting if driven properly is fastest if the right shift points are used (again, another wildcard we don't know even if they did paddleshift, at what RPM did the driver shift??).

Not saying those other things don't affect the straightline speed (gear ratios in 1-4, very, very slight weight difference ~50 lbs), just that I think launch is the very biggest factor. This is if you can somehow equalize the driver factor (always the biggest factor!!). Sorry if you disagree.

i believe that given the fact that the "rolling start" numbers are so close,the additional benefit of better fuel mileage "overall" gives an advantage to the slush box.

You did it again, which is fine, but that's nowhere near the vicinity of answering the question I asked. Don't worry about it.

Quotes used that way (around a single word) are generally to denote the writer doesn't believe that the word in quotes is valid/correct. You've clearly got something else entirely going on, but I'll be damned if I can work out what.

Anyway, as you were. :)

yes i do believe it is indicative of a rolling start! the answer is "yes"
it's "kewl" my wife believes i have "something going on upstairs' too!
that works out rather well for me,as she never really knows what i am up to!
just sayin'

Drag limited to 125 my ass
This was done on a closed road by the way

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/n...224730_193.jpg