Anyone Else Considering an Automatic FR-S?

[Syldrin]

automatics have some a really really long way i just cant stand that shifting seems to be a suggestion to a flappy paddle car and not an action.

[Racecomp Engineering]

If it were a true dual clutch I'd think about it, but the auto probably won't do it for me. Also, I feel like it should have 300 more horsepower and rev to 9k with a real sequential, but that's just me.

I'll test drive one for fun but I'll take a manual.

- drew

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

STI = no auto, but it's still made.
S2000 = no auto, and it was made for 10 years
DOHC VTEC I4 Hondas = no auto, made and sold a shitload..

So certainly there would be LESS of them, but they could have still been made and sold. In fact I'd be more excited if they didn't sell it with the auto but I'm not retarded enough to not buy the car with a 6MT just because they also happen to sell it with another computer controlled device in a car whose goal was less computers :P

The reason for the STi is simple, it already had a automatic on the base Impreza. The s2000 was overpriced so being manual only made up for it. And also my DOHC VTEC I4 Honda is mated to a automatic even though it's a POS tranny.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

The reason for the STi is simple, it already had a automatic on the base Impreza. The s2000 was overpriced so being manual only made up for it. And also my DOHC VTEC I4 Honda is mated to a automatic even though it's a POS tranny.

You mean iVTEC. I meant the good VTECs :P

And I'm not sure that's the reasoning for the STI, otherwise every higher end version should be/could be manual only and be OK for those auto lovers out there.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

STI = no auto, but it's still made.
S2000 = no auto, and it was made for 10 years
DOHC VTEC I4 Hondas = no auto, made and sold a shitload..

So certainly there would be LESS of them, but they could have still been made and sold. In fact I'd be more excited if they didn't sell it with the auto but I'm not retarded enough to not buy the car with a 6MT just because they also happen to sell it with another computer controlled device in a car whose goal was less computers :P

Excepting the S2000, the others had base models available with autos. No autos in Civic or Impreza = no Civic or Impreza = no Si or STI.

Plus Honda flagships are generally special cases (S2K/NSX).

[ryude]

Torqueless wonders needed a manual, especially considering how much slower the automatic was compared to the manual. Today though, automatics are faster than manual and most 4 cylinders make enough torque to actually climb a hill. The 2000 Celica GT-S came in automatic, after that year they stopped making it in auto because of how slow it was.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by ryude

Torqueless wonders needed a manual, especially considering how much slower the automatic was compared to the manual. Today though, automatics are faster than manual and most 4 cylinders make enough torque to actually climb a hill. The 2000 Celica GT-S came in automatic, after that year they stopped making it in auto because of how slow it was.

This is what scares me about the FR-S.

[madfast]

99% of the time MT-only cars exist only because of price. sure designers can say its MT only because it's meant to be that way, a true enthusiast's car, etc. but that's all BS imo. who doesnt want to sell more cars and make more money? imo they simply dont want to waste money developing an AT/DCT option on a car that is probably low volume anyways. on the other hand, the remaining 1% belongs to cars like the 911 GT3 that could very easily have a PDK, they simply choose not to go that route. but lets be honest, cars like the GT3 are beyond niche... what other cars could easily have an AT/DCT, but choose not to, as opposed to cost? pre-Bahar lotus perhaps? very, very few...

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

This is what scares me about the FR-S.

why? the torque converter actually MULTIPLES torque (at the expense of response of course) when slipping/not locked up ... that's why on the IS-F 1st gear is not locked. once moving along, then you lock the TC and reap the benefits... the biggest thing to fear is shitty gear ratios in the AT...

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by madfast

99% of the time MT-only cars exist only because of price. sure designers can say its MT only because it's meant to be that way, a true enthusiast's car, etc. but that's all BS imo. who doesnt want to sell more cars and make more money? imo they simply dont want to waste money developing an AT/DCT option on a car that is probably low volume anyways. on the other hand, the remaining 1% belongs to cars like the 911 GT3 that could very easily have a PDK, they simply choose not to go that route. but lets be honest, cars like the GT3 are beyond niche... what other cars could easily have an AT/DCT, but choose not to, as opposed to cost? pre-Bahar lotus perhaps? very, very few...




why? the torque converter actually MULTIPLES torque (at the expense of response of course) when slipping/not locked up ... that's why on the IS-F 1st gear is not locked. once moving along, then you lock the TC and reap the benefits... the biggest thing to fear is shitty gear ratios in the AT...

But when it is multiplying torque there is the disconnect of converter lag. I don't like that at all personally.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by madfast

99% of the time MT-only cars exist only because of price. sure designers can say its MT only because it's meant to be that way, a true enthusiast's car, etc. but that's all BS imo. who doesnt want to sell more cars and make more money? imo they simply dont want to waste money developing an AT/DCT option on a car that is probably low volume anyways. on the other hand, the remaining 1% belongs to cars like the 911 GT3 that could very easily have a PDK, they simply choose not to go that route. but lets be honest, cars like the GT3 are beyond niche... what other cars could easily have an AT/DCT, but choose not to, as opposed to cost? pre-Bahar lotus perhaps? very, very few...

In some cases.. maybe.. in Honda's case the AT existed for most (not the S2K) so I'm not sure that's a factor with the hondas.

[Yenadar]

Seriously? Buy what you want. Don't buy what you don't.

Concerned about disappearance of MT?
Only 3% of 2002 Corollas were MT, but I wanted MT and found one without difficulty.

[Sport-Tech]

Just to bring this thread back from the dead...

I'm going to attempt to learn heel and toe on my G25 wheel/pedal/shifter combo in GTR2 and rFactor over the next few months. If I can nail it so it's an almost automatic action then I will go manual. If not I will seriously look at going with paddles. I hate having to pre-shift before turning in, you are not optimizing your cornering speed that way as you slow down too early, and if you cannot rev-match on a mid-corner shift you can put yourself in real danger of spinning off. (I currently drive a manual but am not willing to blow the tranny learning h/t.)

[Enemies]

Man, that picture above had me laughing.

I would prefer a manual but I have to admit that if I was standing at the dealership and they had the colour I wanted in the trim I wanted I'd be tempted to maybe grab the automatic if they figured the wait for the exact car in manual would be a longish wait.

[OrbitalEllipses]

Driving old automatic transmissions is boring. The 6 speed unit in this car is a step above your average transmission, but at the end of the day you're not telling the car what to do. I don't want another automatic "sporty" car, it partially sucks the fun out owning one. Does a close-ratio 6 speed stink for traffic? Yeah. Do you have to pay to play? Yeah.

My only concern is my shoulder. I injured it several years ago playing rugby and never fully recovered. If constantly shifting agitates my arthritis, I might not be able to own a 3 pedal car for very long.