Commuters driving stick

[Hanni_0176]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Or, they knew a properly geared automatic would be quicker than the manual.

BMW now fits the ZF 8 spd automatic (very similar in operation to Aisin's newer transmissions) in preference to a manual for its main markets other than the US. The cars are quicker with this automatic.

Except Toyota is a business, and as such, is in the market for making money, not sabotage and conspiracy against automatics for the sake of saving the manuals.

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by hmong337

I always find myself searching for the clutch in my wife's automatic Toyota Echo. Or any auto car for that matter LOL.

I don't think I could ever own a slush box. I just don't feel safe driving an auto especially during winter. Yea, traffic jams do suck but I'm not stuck in them everyday. Even still, I could never see myself owning an autotragic even if I did do a lot of stop and go.

An automatic FRS/BRZ is like dating a hot chick but not being able to fuck her. Teased and blue-balled everytime! You're missing the true essence of this car if you're not getting the manual. SERIOUSLY!

It always surprises me a bit when I try to start up my wife's car, push my left foot all the way into the footwell and find.... nothing.

Then I remember where I am, and my heart dies a little.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Suberman

I did a little arithmetic:

Automatic speeds in gears are 1.02%, 1.06%, 1.1%, 1.21%, 1.40%, and 1.22% higher ( and 1.09% for reverse).
max speeds at 7,400 rpm are 58, 100, 147, 205, 288, 328 km/hr, Top speed is reached in 5th. The manual reaches its higher top speed in 6th.

Published figures put the automatic 1.08% slower 0-60 mph (7.9 - 7.6 seconds).

Most of the difference is gear ratio.

How are you calculating the automatic is 1.08% slower?

Car and Driver:
- Auto: 8.1 s
- Manual: 6.4 s

Difference: 27% slower, not 1%.

The big difference is in the launch. You can tell this because the 5-60 times are very close between the two. The 5-60 test negates the manual's launch advantage.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...fr-s-specs.pdf

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ed-test-review

[Vracer111]

Originally Posted by Suberman

I did a little arithmetic:

Automatic speeds in gears are 1.02%, 1.06%, 1.1%, 1.21%, 1.40%, and 1.22% higher ( and 1.09% for reverse).
max speeds at 7,400 rpm are 58, 100, 147, 205, 288, 328 km/hr, Top speed is reached in 5th. The manual reaches its higher top speed in 6th.

Published figures put the automatic 1.08% slower 0-60 mph (7.9 - 7.6 seconds).

Most of the difference is gear ratio.

You can (for some money) fit a shorter final drive diff (4.55:1) to the automatic and eliminate the only disadvantage the automatic has.

Question is, why didn't Toyota do this, the replacement diff is on their parts shelf just waiting for the Torsen innards.

There's a lot more disadvantage to the automatic transmission than a differential gear ratio....

Main disadvantage with an automatic is the disconnection of drivetrain from the chassis and driver...it is not mechanically coupled and instantaneously responsive to throttle like on a manual where everything is mechanically locked together and immediate to inputs. With a manual you can precisely balance the chassis 100% of the time; automatic you have less time where you are precisely balancing the chassis because you are not 100% in control of the driveline from tire to engine. You have to drive an automatic differently than a manual when cornering hard...just like you have to drive a turboed powerplant vehicle differently than one with a normal aspirated powerplant as well.

I drove the Scion Drive event with the automatics and was glad to get back in my manual FR-S afterwards. The event did more to show me how the automatic was not as fun and more frustrating to drive in a tight autocross style driving environment than how good the automatic transmission actually was. A more opened up and flowing course would have been better for the automatic experience... a tight, technical course just points out all the flaws with it in comparison to a manual.

Then you have weight difference, added maintenance requirements (if you want the transmission to last), and additional repair expenses for automatic transmissions....

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

It always surprises me a bit when I try to start up my wife's car, push my left foot all the way into the footwell and find.... nothing.

Then I remember where I am, and my heart dies a little.

....no wonder your car won't start for her .....

humfrz

[00vsmcoupe]

Originally Posted by Hanni_0176

The difference between MT and AT isn't a numbers game, and this isn't a numbers car. If you were concerned with numbers, you probably purchased the wrong car. This car is marketed for its driving experience, not it's impressive stat sheet, and no AT in the world is going to replace the driving experience that an MT provides. Even if the AT was faster than the MT, I still would have purchased an MT.

Agree!

Originally Posted by Suberman

I did a little arithmetic:

Automatic speeds in gears are 1.02%, 1.06%, 1.1%, 1.21%, 1.40%, and 1.22% higher ( and 1.09% for reverse).
max speeds at 7,400 rpm are 58, 100, 147, 205, 288, 328 km/hr, Top speed is reached in 5th. The manual reaches its higher top speed in 6th.

Published figures put the automatic 1.08% slower 0-60 mph (7.9 - 7.6 seconds).

Most of the difference is gear ratio.

You can (for some money) fit a shorter final drive diff (4.55:1) to the automatic and eliminate the only disadvantage the automatic has.

Question is, why didn't Toyota do this, the replacement diff is on their parts shelf just waiting for the Torsen innards.

Write them a letter.

I personally wouldn't care if the auto trans made the car a second faster. I would not have bought this car if it didn't come in a manual transmission. It's just not the same experience to me. But, everyone has their own opinion!

[Suberman]

The differential ratio is the same. The difference in overall ratios results from the internal ratios selected for the automatic. A shorter final drive ratio for the automatic would solve "the problem".

This automatic isn't disconnected from the engine, ever. The torque converter does slip in first gear, but multiplies the torque in infinite ratio until stall speed then it "locks" in first gear when the torque converter stalls. However, in gears 2-6 the torque converter is locked out by a computer controlled lock up clutch. Thereafter the transmission drives exactly like a conventional manual transmission with the computer operating the lockup clutch and changing the planetary gear ratios.

In manual mode you have exactly the same level of control over the drivetrain as the manual driver but your shifts will be much quicker. In theory, paddle shifting an automatic ought to be quicker through any auto cross than shifting a manual. Assuming the course is appropriate for the automatic ratios 8-)

Weight difference is in the order of 50 lbs. the Aisin is a very efficient design. I doubt it requires any routine maintenance. I know the ZF fitted to my Jaguar is maintenance free for at least 160,000 km.

As I say, the only performance drawback to this automatic is apparently inappropriate gearing for best acceleration and top speed. The advantage is found in better fuel economy. Also, I suspect highway speeds are more pleasant in the automatic. The manual really needs a 7th gear.

Does anybody pay any attention to Car & Driver anymore? No European testers get numbers like that. Edmunds doesn't. The factory doesn't. Those tests are just useless.

The actual delta is around half a second in 7.5 seconds, approximately. This is arithmetically 1.07%. There is variation in the testing but elevation, surface grip and ambient temperature all affect times.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by Hanni_0176

Except Toyota is a business, and as such, is in the market for making money, not sabotage and conspiracy against automatics for the sake of saving the manuals.

You do realize that most customers don't like manual gearboxes and won't buy them? Check the actual sales ratios and thank Toyota for NOT catering to the market for this car.

Manual transmissions are dying out precisely for the reason you suggest otherwise.

The question is why Toyota bothered to design a manual transmission for this car at all.

Then how to market it if the automatic were to be quicker.

Ferrari and Porsche do not build a manual transmission anymore (well, really they never did but now their transmission suppliers don't)

[subwaynm]

I don't use my FR-S for the daily commute, but I did use my VW Beetle which is difficult to shift in comparison to the MT FR-S trans; so a Sports Car to me is MT so not even a thought. (MT) without question

[red bread]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Ferrari and Porsche do not build a manual transmission anymore (well, really they never did but now their transmission suppliers don't)

Porsche has manuals in the Boxster, Cayman and 911. They even paid ZF to develop a seven speed manual. Chevrolet developed a seven speed for the Corvette.

Sedans and SUV's are preferred to sports cars and convertibles, but people still buy the latter. Manuals are not going anywhere, there will always be a market for them, albeit a small one.

They've lost their efficiency advantage to automatics with more gears (or softer gearing) and they've lost their performance advantage to computer controlled dual clutch manuals, but there will always be a market for sporty cars and minimalist cars to have them at least be optional. The very top end of performance (the kind that rely on magazine numbers) have moved away, but for things like the twins, a Miata and Mustangs and non Z Corvettes, they still make perfect sense to many of us.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Does anybody pay any attention to Car & Driver anymore? No European testers get numbers like that. Edmunds doesn't. The factory doesn't. Those tests are just useless.

The actual delta is around half a second in 7.5 seconds, approximately. This is arithmetically 1.07%. There is variation in the testing but elevation, surface grip and ambient temperature all affect times.

If you don't like Car & Driver's results, what about Motor Trend?

BRZ Limited
- Auto: 7.7 s
- Manual: 6.4 s

Difference: 20% slower, not 1%.

These are actual tested figures. As far as I can tell, Edmunds never tested an automatic FR-S or BRZ.

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

[bdbx18]

For the ones wanting to extract every pony out of the car, then the MT is the way to go. I would rather focus on the forest and not the individual tree. I do lose a little oomph but overall I get greater enjoyment using an AT in daily freeway grind.

The last stick shift car I had, I cursed and regretted daily. I would not have bought my BRZ if not for the availability of an AT with paddle shifters.

[spralwers]

Luckily I usually don't get into bad traffic, but when it happens, the lightness of the clutch saves the day. The clutch is even lighter than my 2002 corolla. And the shifter takes no strength to move either. So unless you sit in 30-45+ min of traffic every single day, I think you'll be ok.

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by humfrz

....no wonder your car won't start for her .....

humfrz

I have to accept that not everyone understands why we enjoy to row our own... I taught her to drive on the Celica once - she did ok, but still didn't understand why people would do this to themselves.

Incidentally, the twins' clutch is so light that even stop-go traffic is pretty endurable