What do you drive - MT or AT?

[NOMNOM]

Ordered MT, waiting impatiently. I've switched back and forth in the past, and will be trading in a comfy AT sedan, so I know what I'll be missing.

But COME ON! Its the GT86!

[KRAZYK]

Originally Posted by smbrm

Yes there does seem to be a bit of unnecessary and unwarranted "us & them" here. I assumed we were all here to enjoy the FRS equally!

Yeah I had a feeling the conversation would get a little.. spirited when I posed the question. Really I was just curious to see the % of MT vs AT owners on here. But it is interesting to see different reasoning between the two.

[davidshu0327]

FRS AT, ive never tried MT and seems too old school. Convenience FTW!

[SLEEPER WRX]

MT is so old

This is 2012 not 1912

[whaap]

My FR-S will be manual. That doesn't mean there's any thing wrong with automatics. They both have their advantages and they both have their disadvantages.

[Touge_ninja]

AT and loving it.

[whateatsrabbits]

Seems to be alot of love for the ATs. But buying this car with an auto is a sin. Pretty much anytime I see a nice car in auto it makes me want to puke. Auto makes me fall asleep. Manuel connects you with the road that much more. Sure it might a have a good auto but you still FAIL.
The AT = cost more+ Weighs more= suck more.

look he is shifting ...

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

butt, hey, if you like and/or require the MT, great for you. I don't think anyone that has the AT is going to start calling you names or anything. Too bad it doesn't work the other way all the time.

SOrry dude thats just the way it is.

[russv]

Originally Posted by whateatsrabbits

Seems to be alot of love for the ATs. But buying this car with an auto is a sin. Pretty much anytime I see a nice car in auto it makes me want to puke. Auto makes me fall asleep. Manuel connects you with the road that much more. Sure it might a have a good auto but you still FAIL.
The AT = cost more+ Weighs more= suck more.

look he is shifting ...

SOrry dude thats just the way it is.

Better gas mileage, faster shifts. WIN!

[FRSGT86]

AT in mine and it's one of the best ATs I've ever driven. I have a surgically repaired left knee so the MT was not really even a consideration, especially since this is my DD. That being said, AT or MT I don't think you can go wrong with either one.

[CircuitJerk]

Originally Posted by whateatsrabbits

look he is shifting ...

SOrry dude thats just the way it is.

^^ Look, he's acting like a tool.
And nothing's ever gonna change. SOrry dude, it is what it is...

[whateatsrabbits]

See all the auto fanboys, there just jealous

Originally Posted by russv

Better gas mileage, faster shifts. WIN!

I hope your joking, sure you can read the specs but thats not how it is in RL. MT gets better fuel millage.mt shifts faster .

[jstans84]

FR-S MT, I wouldn't have it any other way.

[MmmHamSandwich]

Had the fortune to test drive both a Manual and Automatic FR-S yesterday. I tried to drive with consideration for the future owners so I didn't do anything crazy.

I originally ordered an MT BRZ and didn't give it much thought, but several folks on the forum, including Moto-P, convinced me to give the AT a chance. So here are my impressions. It's a lengthy read.


TL;DR: Both transmissions are good. I'd go for the manual, except I really like the auto's ability to nicely downshift under braking since I have trouble with heel toe.

AUTOMATIC

It's not bad! I drove exclusively in sport mode manual which, admittedly, is not ideal for sub 4k break in. If you're not getting on it, sport mode is a bit abrupt and in your face, but I wanted to get a feel for it since if I got an AT I'd spend probably 90+% of the time in manual mode. I never had it in normal mode which would probably have better suited the non aggressive accelerating I was doing. Regardless, sport-manual shifting was pretty good. Another bonus, the engine actually feels more connected to the drive-train than other autos I've driven, locking torque converter is likely the benefactor.

Asking for multiple shifts at once might cause some issues compared to a MT. If you double tap it, the car does take the time to shift, then shift again. The time it takes is subjective without the benefit of measuring instruments so I can't really put a figure on it, but I'd call it decent. The average experienced driver in an MT is probably going to be faster since they are likely to skip gears, and even if they double declutch with their rev match they're still likely to be quicker. If you queue several upshifts at once it isn't as fast as you might think, but then again if you are doing several upshifts at once you obviously aren't in a hurry to have them done. It was somewhat hard for me to get a real good feel for fast successive downshifts since unless you are doing maximum braking or want to rev the engine really high (didn't want to do either on someone else's car), two at once is about the most you can get away with.

Single gear changes are another story though. A single downshift is on par with an experienced driver since both are largely limited to the speed of the rev match. The benefit here is the auto is going to be more accurate and consistent with the rpm's. As much fun as rev matching a manual? Nah. Still enjoyable though.

This is a bit of an aside, but speaking of rev matching, I've never understood the point of having a "manumatic" in the past without this feature. Trying to manually rev match an auto in manual mode I've always found just doesn't work. Here the auto rev matching works well, and it is clear the car wastes no time in blipping the throttle, it happens fast with an authoritative snarl just as a driver would do with an MT.

Single up shifts are "I don't give a shit about my transmission" fast. As noted before, when casually cruising, sport shifts are too fast for comfort as they are a bit jarring. After break in when it is time to wind that engine out I am sure the shifts are a hoot though.

Another interesting thing about the auto, it has been said in the past that this thing isn't afraid of aggressive downshifts, but I was surprised to see if will actually downshift into first with little hesitation even at decent speeds. While I can do this in my manual I have to be pretty damn precise with rev matching and make sure I can time double declutching right so my synchros don't balk. It is also a bit nerve racking to do this under pressure. The auto certainly does it better than I can. Useful in an autocross? Eh, Maybe?

There is a lot of hate for the AT out there. My take on it? A.) It's pretty good for an auto. B.) It may not be a DSG but it isn't priced like one either which is important given the base price of the existing car. C.) It's a freaking option for crying out loud. No one forced you to have one or the other, just be glad the car is available to a wider audience, more market for parts. If you're an MT purist, great, but there's no need to be a whiner. There are legitimate reasons for owning both. Live and let live, drive and let drive people.

No comparisons in acceleration between the two since I didn't push the cars hard.

MANUAL

I'll get the bad out of the way first. The clutch. I know there are some people out there that seem to love it. I loathed it.
The travel is short, it's light enough you need to be careful not to sneeze into the footwell for fear of accidentally disengaging it, and provides about as much feedback as a wet noodle.

My Civic Si was always said to have had a light clutch, it ain't got nuthin' on this one. I found it difficult to start off in first and upshift smoothly because I had no idea where the clutch engaged. The sales guy let me drive for a decent while and after trial and error alone I determined the engagement was pretty low, but I had no feedback at all it seemed. I really didn't like this aspect. Even a Subaru sales guy I talked to (drives a modded STi) from another dealership admitted he couldn't feel any engagement point on the BRZ he drove. There is a popular thread full of people saying that the engagement point is a bit more predictable or at least progressive by changing the pedal height. That sounds ok but holy crap it would be good to have some feel. Swapping in an aftermarket clutch on a brand new car doesn't sound appealing to me but it sure is tempting in this case.

Now that that is out of the way, how is the rest of the MT? Is it good? Yes. For me however it was just such a slap in the face how different it was from my Si's 6 speed that as soon as I started off in the parking lot I thought oh boy this is gonna be interesting...

When people say the throws are short, they aren't kidding, even with the tall gear lever. Very short, very abrupt, very mechanical. I've thrown all metal bushings into my Si and it doesn't feel as mechanical as this, probably because the 86's transmission has a much more direct link to the shifter. When people attribute notchiness to a transmission as a good thing, this is the kind they are talking about. You can practically feel the gears spinning and can certainly feel the engine vibrating through the knob. I cannot imagine putting a short shift kit on this thing. It seems a mystery that the shifter is so lively and the clutch is totally lifeless but I digress...

For me this shifter would take a lot of getting used to. The biggest difference isn't so much the throw distance or feel as it is the shifter position. In the FR-S your forearm is almost angled upward toward the shifter as opposed to downward on my Si. Also the FR-S shifter is positioned further forward. As a result in my Si shifting is almost all wrist action. Here it is not wrist action but arm action. A consequence of low seating position. Not good or bad, but for me so different it requires notation. When I actuate pedals and shifters, I like to isolate the movement to one joint. I like to always leave my heel planted when using pedals, and on my Civic my forearm is largely "immobilized" on the armrest so that I can just use my wrist for precise movements. This is not really possible on the 86. Adding an arm rest won't help IMO as your arm would be awkwardly raised to your side too much. Raising my seating position won't help much because fully lowered my left leg barely clears the steering wheel as is. (Lowering the clutch pedal height might help here)

Personal Conclusion

So, which one would I spend my money on? Well obviously the manual right? Well, not so fast in my case.

The biggest transmission challenge I have is downshifting under braking. Heel toe is the proper technique here, but this has always been a challenge for me. My current car I personally believe has a better pedal setup than the twins. My pedals are placed closer together both by width and height. Even so I have a tough time performing a heel toe. One reason is, as a mentioned before, I like to have my heel on the floor at all times as it helps me provide more precision especially while braking. For me it is difficult to finely modulate pedal pressure with my foot "hovering in the air." To heel to you have to modulate not one but two pedals with your foot hovering.

What is probably the bigger challenge though is the fact my foot has a hard time tilting that way. I can easily turn my right foot beyond 90 degrees to the right, but going the other way is really tough. In addition, with the length of my legs, adjusting your knee position to accommodate the typical heel toe position usually causes me to bump into the ceiling of the well or come close to the steering wheel. I would actually much prefer a pedal position that allowed for the brake to be actuated with the heel, and the throttle with the toes, but arranging that would probably not be possible with the existing linkages in just about any car.

Ultimately this makes it very difficult for me to downshift hard while under full braking. In my experience at autocrosses this hasn't mattered much because usually once your shifter lands in second it's there for good, but on a track and even in day to day driving I hate having to release the brake, downshift, and then get back on the brake. This lengthens my braking zones considerably and in a corner with a long entry it can really disrupt your line.

As a result the AT is tempting since it takes that fancy footwork out of the equation. I'd like to be able to properly heel toe as it is likely much more satisfying than having the car do it for you, but I feel I am at an anatomical disadvantage, and unless there is a good solution for modifying pedal placement, the AT is tempting if for no other reason than to be able to nail downshifts under hard braking. That or I need to man up and do some flexibility exercises and practice practice practice.

On the other hand, and I won't get far into it since it has been beaten to death, I don't like the longer gear ratios 1-4 and the extra weight of the AT.

[Splat]

Originally Posted by Dragon86

Fuel economy is a bonus in a sports car. If you cared so much about that get a prius there sporty

Yes it is, and I have a bonus of AT in a FR-S sports car.
I see no drawback to paddleshifting at all yet. Ofcourse I am still breaking the motor in. Then add in the bonus of eating breakfast in car in "D" on way to wherever is another bonus. hmm then the gas mileage...I have just been beating this up and down and it is still at 25mpg all city. So, let me see....that is 3 bonus sports car items to your .... holeshot? I am as connected as anybody else in frs. Physically, maybe not mentally that is for sure.