FRS/BRZ vs 2013 Base Mustang GT

[sdiver68]

Shift lag in the auto ? Nope, these shift much faster and more accurately than you shift your manual. Acceleration 0-30 is compromised due to higher gearing. However, 0-30 are not road track or back roads speeds perhaps small auto-x issue.

Auto vs Stick is purely a personal decision these days with well designed performance autos holding the performance advantage. I made the switch when manufacturers finally got the race car advantages of sequential to work well on the street.

BTW, for those wanting to try it make sure you have it set to sport-manual mode and a nice twisty backroad in front of you.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

Shift lag in the auto ? Nope, these shift much faster and more accurately than you shift your manual.

Yes, shift lag. As in, I command a shift, and it doesn't happen instantaneously, there's a perceptible delay. Sure, the actual shift is quicker (obvi), but it's like it has to think about it for a bit first. This is probably more the case for tooling-around driving, I would hope that max-throttle/high-rpm upshifts would be quicker-responding to a tap on the flappy paddle, but I didn't try that (sales person in car, and wouldn't do that to a brand new car I wasn't pretty sure I was going to buy anyway). The delay gives a feeling of disconnectedness in normal driving. Upshifts take longer with a manual, but everything is responding IMMEDIATELY as the driver is doing all the actuating (i.e., operating the actual mechanisms as opposed to sending an electronic "upshift is desired" signal to an electronic brain).

Acceleration 0-30 is compromised due to higher gearing. However, 0-30 are are not track or back roads speeds perhaps small auto-x issue.

For an engine as high-strung as this one (narrow powerband), closer ratios will be desired at the track and on backroads as well as for autoX.

Auto vs Stick is purely a personal decision these days with well designed performance autos holding the performance advantage.

I would bet money that this autobox is at a distinct performance disadvantage vs. the manual in everything but top-gear acceleration when in auto mode.

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I would bet money that this autobox is at a distinct performance disadvantage vs. the manual in everything but top-gear acceleration when in auto mode.

And I would bet money on the opposite. In fact, professional race teams which DO bet money every weekend have made the switch to sequential. No real way to settle this argument in relationship to our FT86 without a controlled test.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

And I would bet money on the opposite. In fact, professional race teams which DO bet money every weekend have made the switch to sequential. No real way to settle this argument in relationship to our FT86 without a controlled test.

What professional race teams do has zero to do with the FR-S/BRZ autobox. It isn't a racing transmission. It is a production street car transmission with all the driveability, fuel economy, and price compromises that implies.

[SVTSHC]

I have no idea why the concept of "fun" is lost to so many people.

The statement "I want to have fun, I want to be quick and I want the driven wheels in the rear" should be reason enough to consider anything from miata up to a Lambo LP550 Valentino if you've got the budget for it. Under no circumstance should you EVER have to explain your rationale for considering any number of cars within YOUR price range. Who the hell cares if someone else thinks you're "indecisive", let their opinion matter when they're the ones buying the car for you. People are allowed to "decide" to have "fun" which is a vague enough word to incorporate anything that could be considered as such.


As far as the MT vs AT argument is concerned. The facts are we've already reached the point where performance wise (for straight up racing) the Seq AT has surpassed the MT. I personally can't move my right hand and left foot faster than I can blink; call it a lack of super powers. What you get from a MT is the same thing you get from Hydraulic steering, "Feel" which is a subjective term that gives a vehicle character.

The facts are the more advanced cars (or anything piloted by a person) become, the more they'll compensate for human error or simply the natural physical ineptitude that comes with being organic.
But I can honestly say (and I know it's not just me) something that does everything for you is boring; all you're left with is a hollow enjoyment of the experience, you know that "I didn't really participate" feeling. Like watching a basketball game vs playing a basketball game; the pros do it better but you have much more fun "playing" with a bunch of average Joe's.

Anyway /endrant

[ZDan]

You guys seem to think that if a Porsche PDK is quicker than the equivalent 3-pedal model, that all automatic gearboxes have achieved performance parity with manuals. This is emphatically NOT the case.

Feel is very important too, of course, and in that department as well, NOT ALL AUTOMANUALS ARE EQUAL. If there is a paddle-shift gearbox that allows the driver to have the same feeling of control and at-oneness with a car, it is not this one.

I took a test drive with a completely open mind, this one is just not for me. Even if it did offer the same performance as the manual (which I doubt it does).

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by SVTSHC

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]
As far as the MT vs AT argument is concerned. The facts are we've already reached the point where performance wise (for straight up racing) the Seq AT has surpassed the MT.

This is not news. This was true nigh on 20 years ago.

I personally can't move my right hand and left foot faster than I can blink; call it a lack of super powers. What you get from a MT is the same thing you get from Hydraulic steering, "Feel" which is a subjective term that gives a vehicle character.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against automated gearboxes in general from a performance standpoint. But in this case, the manual is going to have the performance advantage. And of course it will have the "feel" advantage as well.

[SVTSHC]

Originally Posted by ZDan

You guys seem to think that if a Porsche PDK is quicker than the equivalent 3-pedal model, that all automatic gearboxes have achieved performance parity with manuals. This is emphatically NOT the case.

Feel is very important too, of course, and in that department as well, NOT ALL AUTOMANUALS ARE EQUAL. If there is a paddle-shift gearbox that allows the driver to have the same feeling of control and at-oneness with a car, it is not this one.

I took a test drive with a completely open mind, this one is just not for me. Even if it did offer the same performance as the manual (which I doubt it does).

Not at all, I'm actually on your side for a change.

All I have to say is the twins AT isn't bad by a long shot (at least not bad enough to not be a considerable option for someone who can't or doesn't want an MT) but it's NOT better than it's MT. That's going to be the case for just about every low end (and don't take that the wrong way) vehicle on the street. The costs of incorporating AMT's like the ones we see in cars like the Evo X, GTR, M3, etc... generally just too high.


Prime example: Remember when the Evo MR used to be priced lower than the STI? Look at them now. A fully loaded Evo X MR has about 3-4k on a fully loaded STI since they switched to TC-SST tranny.

[SVTSHC]

Originally Posted by ZDan

This is not news. This was true nigh on 20 years ago.

Well I'm 24, I usually only reference things I've personal experience dealing with. In this case I would have been driving a big wheel.

[camper]

The costs of incorporating AMT's like the ones we see in cars like the Evo X, GTR, M3, etc... generally just too high.

Agreed - people keep forgetting about cost!!!

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by SVTSHC

Not at all, I'm actually on your side for a change.

In the context of the discussion regarding the FR-S/BRZ's automatic, your response:

The facts are we've already reached the point where performance wise (for straight up racing) the Seq AT has surpassed the MT.

, without any qualifications, definitely gives the impression that the FR-S/BRZ autobox should have the performance advantage over the manual. Given the gearing ratios in the auto, this is not likely to be the case.

All I have to say is the twins AT isn't bad by a long shot (at least not bad enough to not be a considerable option for someone who can't or doesn't want an MT)

Agree.

but it's NOT better than it's MT.

Agree.

That's going to be the case for just about every low end (and don't take that the wrong way) vehicle on the street.

Agree.

Agreeing is not as fun as arguing :P

I look forward to the day when I don't have to have a clutch to feel fully connected and hardwired into a sports/sporty car that I can actually afford. That day has not yet arrived...

[sdiver68]

I'm interested ZDan, what's your racing experience? You keep talking about gearing ratios as if you can judge the effect on lap times. I'm an ex semi-professional road race once ranked 3rd in the Midwest region. Although that's not impressive in and of itself, I can tell you we definitely changed gearing by track and overall ratio had little to nothing to do with lap times. It is much more important to match gearing to the track, making sure you are in the powerband coming out of corners. Even there you compromise, so you start with the most important corners and straights and hope you can find something workable for the whole track.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

I'm interested ZDan, what's your racing experience?

Little to none. 2 practice races at an SCCA drivers school in a Formula 440 about a thousand years ago. I've been active in time trialing with COMSCC since 1999, though, winning SPB in my somewhat-modded street/track 240Z in '02, '03, and '09, and in my stock S2000 in SSA '07, '09, and '10 (though there wasn't much competition in SSA those years, but I still would've won the faster SSGT class against a well-driven 350Z in '07).

But I'm definitely not a "race car driver".

You keep talking about gearing ratios as if you can judge the effect on lap times. I'm an ex semi-professional road race once ranked 3rd in the Midwest region. Although that's not impressive in and of itself, I can tell you we definitely changed gearing by track and overall ratio had little to nothing to do with lap times.

I'm talking about the gaps between trans ratios, not "overall ratio".

It is much more important to match gearing to the track, making sure you are in the powerband coming out of corners.

Of course if you are able to optimize for a given track, you will end up with what might be considered "weird" ratio spreads. For a car with a peaky powerband that has to perform in general pretty well, you'll want close ratios without any yawning gaps between the. The gaps between the autobox's ratios are bigger than the manual's. *Generally*, this will be worse, though you could conceivably find the track for which the autobox's ratios are better suited than the manual's.

Even there you compromise, so you start with the most important corners and straights and hope you can find something workable for the whole track.

Of course, but again we're talking about a stock car for which most of us won't be changing the trans ratios for track usage. Again, the manual's closer ratios are more likely to have you where you want to be in the rev range more of the time. Not to say that's necessarily true for *every* track, but it certainly will be for most tracks.

The S2000's ratios are commendably tightly spaced, but coming out of the toe of the boot at Watkins Glen (don't remember if this was on street tires or R-comps) I would be out of the powerband going up the hill, and it SUCKED! I think it must've been the time I ran it in the S on R-comps, because my time on street tires (205/55-16 Dunlop Sport Maxx TT fronts, 225/50-16 StarSpec rears) was less than a second slower than on middle-of-the-road RComps (VictoRacer 225/50-16 fronts, 245/45-16 rears).
So even *with* tightly spaced ratios, yeah, you can be at the wrong rpm exiting a corner. With wider-spaced ratios, this is more likely.

Interestingly enough, my best time at the Glen in the Z (2:15.4) was with a blown 3rd gear, so I had to go up the same hill in 4th! That was no fun at all... Probably cost me a few tenths to a half second, but it was agonizing, felt like seconds.


With the FR-S/BRZ 2.0 liter making max power just 400rpm shy of max revs, you're *usually* (just about always) going to have a performance advantage with the manual's closer-spaced trans ratios.

[ZDan]

Also, for straight-line performance, I'd be *very* surprised if the auto isn't repeatably measurably slower in terms of ET and mph in the 1/4. It just isn't going to be able to stay in the powerband as well as the closer-ratio manual.

Of course even the manual isn't a FAST car, but it is going to be less slow than the automatic. Which, for my street usage, really wouldn't be a factor, honestly.

All the above said^^^, if there were no manual, only the existing automatic FR-S/BRZ, I would *still* buy one over any other car on the market today! But the manual is going to be the better-performing model.