if you want to save gas, have a SO, or hellacious traffic i can understand getting the auto.

if you want the most performance buy a manual.. simple as that.

The auto
1) can't launch
2) has taller gearing for gas mileage and so acceleration is worse
3) does not shift as quickly
4) you can't clutch kick
5) weighs more
6) resale value will likely suffer.

I dunno, this thing is pretty quick shifting

When i test drove the auto it was very fast and not even lagging as other non-Dual Clutch units do. Though a DC would shift faster it may be overkill in this car. Would be nice though

Perhaps a more distinguished approach would be if you want the most performance go to a performance driving school and gain the skills needed to be a faster driver. I think the car may be getting more "blame" than needed in some cases. Some of the statements are correct above, but how can one quantify the data of a manual being faster for certain drivers with various driving abilities. This really makes me ask the question or think of the idea/situation where you have the exact same car in manual and automatic and ask which is faster. It may be the driving skills of the individual that prohibit the faster times and not the car in some situations (like mine).

Here's how I enjoy my AT on track. I paddle shift in manual mode on the track, and cruise on AT mode the way home. Best of both worlds!

[ame]http://youtu.be/8bhREgM4J_U[/ame]

You can launch the auto. It just takes a bit of practice.

I bought the manual and the numbers say most people did the same for one reason or another. That said, I drove cars with the automatic transmissions and I thought it was about the best automatic I've ever driven.

I'm not a big fan of DCTs, so it was reassuring to see that a "regular" automatic can be made to be quite good.

I'm the type of guy that loves the best of both worlds so I bought mines in AT. This is the best AT on the market in my opinion. When I have to deal with slow ass drivers and too much congestion I use AT mode but when the roads are clear I use MT mode and it feels so much like I am driving a manual without the need to take my hand off the wheel and kick a plate to shift. It's a more focus driving experience in my opinion.

I agree. But I also think anyone can become proficient with manual given time. Just takes practice.

what can an auto do that a dct can't ?

Nothing. I just don't like some of them because they can be weird at low speed, like they don't know what to do.

I may have an irrational opinion on that, most of my experience with DCT cars have been With BMWs.

:( I had a weird thing happen over the weekend when driving in manual mode. I was accelerating as I was entering the freeway. The rpm only went up to 2000 and it was in 5th gear. Is that the norm? Because it felt like there was no power so I put it back in auto. Then it was okay the rpm revved up between 4000-5000. I don't do much freeway driving at the moment. I just wanna know if that's odd or something.:iono::iono::iono:

So much fail.
The less 3 points are a joke so won't even bother with those.


Why would anyone want to "launch" a 2.0L N/A? For some slow-ass wheel spin?

This is on 205/55R16 tyres and zero tuning... about 3sec faster than all the MT's.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_CEqiyVFyM&list=PLWvs8esiZx21goKWEJE4xRVv vU-lG8xlG&index=8"]2014 Slidewize Skidpan Time Trial Toyota 86 BRZ FRS - YouTube[/ame]


Acceleration is about the same, depending how you tune it. You can easily keep it above 4500rpm in 2nd and 5000rpm in 3rd if you're lucky with corner exits. Sometimes with long ratios and the wrong corner you may have to shift down for 1000rpm.

Car in front is MT with SC and 4.55 FD, about 140kW. Mine is on E85, about 125kW.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpGB-tDmx18&list=PLWvs8esiZx21goKWEJE4xRVvvU-lG8xlG&index=1"]2015 Queensland Raceway Clubman Lap Toyota 86 BRZ FRS - YouTube[/ame]


AT shift time = 0.3s.
http://datazap.me/u/wayne/v48-5-dry-...mark=2563-2567

MT shift ... 0.7s
http://datazap.me/u/harro/willowbank...rk=15370-15378

And another ... 1.3s
http://datazap.me/u/lipton54321/v44-...1&mark=696-710

And another ... 0.9s
http://datazap.me/u/notrq/30-04-15-v...mark=4771-4780

Any tool is only as good as the hands you put it in. Most people can't shift in 0.3s every time without breaking something sooner or later and AT is much easier for consistency.


Another video for fun:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leeAzSWHE_c&index=2&list=PLWvs8esiZx21goKW EJE4xRVvvU-lG8xlG"]2015 Queensland Raceway Clubman Skylines - Toyota 86 BRZ FRS - YouTube[/ame]


My car has an ATF cooler, throttle map from the MT, 7550 soft rev limiter, on E85. The AT works flawlessly.

Downsides are:

1. You have to make sure you tune the engine so you have enough headroom to stay in the power band.
2. 6th is okay but 5th is way too long and much closer to 6th than it is to 4th to the point of useless on track if you had a shorter FD.

For 4000-7500rpm powerband...
AT:
1. 32-61 kph
2. 56-106 kph
3. 82-154 kph
4. 116-217 kph
MT has:
2. 53-100 kph
3. 76-142 kph
4. 95-180 kph
5. 116-217 kph

You can see why you need to tune it correctly to make the power band as wide as possible. There's not much headroom between 1-2 and 2-3. I'm not sure if I would ever put EL headers on the AT and not eliminate the torque dip.

That may sound like you have less usable gears, also being that AT 4th 1:1 is the same as MT 5th 1:1. BUT the AT also has a usable 1st gear for autox/skidpan. Good luck changing down to 1st in a MT at 50kph/30mph. Effectively making it have the same number of usable gears at MT, just with different ratios.

You can also downshift later when braking.

AT and MT are different tools and you use them differently. Even though the performance is actually about the same, you can hardly compare them.

The gearing between both transmission is not a huge deal. I have seen auto counterparts with worse ratios in comparison to the manual version. The biggest thing that separates their 0-60 time is launching. But if you were to go C&D and look up the 5-60 time for both transmission it will reveal that the difference in everyday acceleration is only 0.1 seconds and it also reveals that the S2000 is also not that great acceleration-wise.

5-60

Manual FR-S 8.1
Auto FR-S 8.2
S2000 7.5

I'm guessing if the Auto had a launching capability it would be around 6.5 seconds.

I wonder why toyota sent all the magazine's manual cars to review and set times instead of the auto?

Here's a youtube vid: bolt ons auto vs stock manual. no launch. Im not sure how you can say acceleration is the same when every mag test of these cars has the manual destroying the auto in 0-60 and 1/4 mile. If the manual car in this vid had the same mods... goodnight.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qde3TcynFAI"]6 speed auto vs 6 speed manual FRS - YouTube[/ame]

quick google search of the auto box reviews:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...tomatic-review

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ic_first_test/

http://jalopnik.com/so-how-do-we-lik...-brz-563872303


average manual shift time is 0.4 sec according to a road and track article, and with a no-lift-shift software it would be right there or better than the auto.

as for resale. take a look at the m3 market. the manual coupe cars go for more than the SMG (auto) convertibles (despite those options being more costly). By far a majority of people that want this car want a manual.