Standard VS. Auto

[hyper4mance]

Originally Posted by frosty86

Once you go from stick to auto, you instantly realize how many things you've taken for granted all this time. It's the same feeling when you go from a car to a motorcycle.

Haha so true! Including other cars running you off the road because they are oblivious to their surroundings, lack of turn signals used, and the worst... when ALL their brake lights dont work.... sigh

[UncleFester]

I got an auto cause I spend 95% of my time comutting, usually in heavy traffic. Its proven itself against MT cars at the track and held up to the abuse. Coming from a long line of manual trans cars I can't say I regret the decision.

It does exactly what I bought it for. Daily driver / weekend racer.

Its your choice to make. Both have pluses and minuses with no clear winner in my opinion.

[naikaidriver]

There have been some great posts outlining the pros and cons of MT vs AT on this thread and I don't disagree with any point so far.

For the last 25 years, I have only owned sports cars and I first started racing drag and track days at age 15 at what is now known as Pacific Raceways. Looking back I have owned a very impressive and diverse group of cars. Here's a brief list in order and their respective transmissions.

- 1981 Mustang Hatchback with 400hp 351C swap (C4 auto)
- 1980 Mercury Capri Hatchback with heavily modified 2.3 4cyl (manual)
- 1968 Camaro SS 327 (manual)
- 1996 Camaro SS Convertible (manual)
- 1991 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution (manual)
- 1990 Nissan Skyline GTR (manual)
- 1992 Toyota MR2 turbo (manual)
- 1993 Toyota MR2 NA (manual)
- 2001 BMW 325ci convertible (manual)
- 2013 FR-S (auto)

I test drove both the manual and auto FR-Ss and carefully considered what I wanted out of the car long-term and the auto was my final choice. I love the sport manual mode and the shifts are excellent for such an inexpensive car. The transmission feels identical to that of the automatic E46 M3. The manual is one of the best gearboxes in a small sports car that I have ever driven. Shifts are short and accurate with little effort, driver feedback is phenominal and it really does add to the experience.

One important consideration is that I do not plan on modifying the engine at all and I have no desire to make this a high-horsepower street weapon. For class racing, the FR-S is going to be most competitive in stock form and I'm looking forward to wiping the @#$%-eating grins off the faces of the MX-5 owners next season and my lap times will be the evidence that my choice of the auto in this car was the faster.

(NOTE: You ALL have my word that if I get beaten by anyone with a manual FR-S at an event, I will post it as well as times, location and driver)

If you have any interest in going high horsepower, or drag racing at all (street or track) get the manual or you will be very dissapointed. If standing burnouts and hard launches are your thing, get the manual. Fact is that the FR-S in stock form has so little torque on the low end that launches with the auto are just depressing and lazy and is the single biggest factor in the dismal 0-60 times for the auto.

While what the auto can hold as far as horsepower remains to be seen, I suspect that the manual will be able to handle much more with a clutch upgrade. My experience with automatic transmissions in track cars over the years echoes what others have said. Heat is the biggest enemy to an auto tranny and well, more hp translates (indirectly) to more heat in the transmission.

Whichever you decide, make your decision very carefully and only after asking yourself what you REALLY want out of the car. After your purchase you will be together for a long time and realizing you bought the wrong one is a very expensive mistake and will ultimately take away from your enjoyment of the car.

Best of luck to you.

Scott

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by wlfpck

Not that I am advocating an AT over a MT but...

The LFA is auto. The IS-F is auto. The GTR is auto (though DCT).

Only the IS-F has a torque convertor, the rest are all computer controlled clutches.

[Captain Insano]

Originally Posted by brichard0625

I've seen the same but i used the numbers from the same magazine because i went out to find the best numbers for both a man and auto the difference would really still be the same. Only thing i've noticed about certain car magazines is that they state the octane on the car is 91 so if they put 93 would their results be even better?

Using 93 vs 91 would definitely help with power. Not huge by any means, but a little bit. The 93 will allow for more optimal timing than 91 all other things being equal. Will it mean a half a second in a 1/4 mile. I wouldn't think so on the stock tune, but don't know enough bout the stock tune and how aggressive it is.

[ToxicSneakers]

Today the dyno of AT showed 7% less whp vs: MT, same machine/same tech;
Visconti Stage 1 added 25 whp.

With some discussion, all agreed stock tune is a bit rich at 6600 plus rpm and could gain 5% whp tuned. I wonder if that rich fuel map is needed for valves cooling at high rpm?

[einzlr]

Originally Posted by Calum

Any really. They all used the same engine and trannies. The 95-99 had an optional DOHC that wasn't available on the later years and there were minor running changes to things, but nothing that would matter to a beater.

Edit, the 95-99 were much more fun to drive. And if you do get any neon to learn to shift on I'd almost insist on one mod. They're cheap as hell and pretty easy to install, but will help a ton with shift feed back. http://www.modernperformance.com/pro...on_drivertrain

And if you can't find one, a Hyundai Accent is a good alternative with similar properties. MY '05 and earlier for sure; probably the newer ones as well although I haven't driven those.

[wlfpck]

Originally Posted by wparsons

Only the IS-F has a torque convertor, the rest are all computer controlled clutches.

LFA is not a DCT. It uses a torque converter.


DCT is dual clutch transmission. Hence my statement of Nissan GTR (though it is a DCT).

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by wlfpck

LFA is not a DCT. It uses a torque converter.


DCT is dual clutch transmission. Hence my statement of Nissan GTR (though it is a DCT).

Just because something isn't dual clutch, doesn't mean it has a torque converter. The LF-A is a single clutch computer controlled transmission, just like a regular manual except it has computer controlled hydraulics operating the clutch and rowing gears instead of your leg/arm.

There's a big difference between how a true auto (with torque converter and clutch packs) works and an automated manual. There were automated manuals for years before dual clutch gearboxes came out, the BMW SMG is one, and all the slightly older Ferrari transmissions as well (F1 paddle shift). I'm pretty sure most Lambo's are still single clutch automated manuals too.

Even the MR2 Spyder had an automated manual!

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...e/viewall.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexus_LFA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...l_transmission

[brichard0625]

Originally Posted by ToxicSneakers

Today the dyno of AT showed 7% less whp vs: MT, same machine/same tech;
Visconti Stage 1 added 25 whp.

With some discussion, all agreed stock tune is a bit rich at 6600 plus rpm and could gain 5% whp tuned. I wonder if that rich fuel map is needed for valves cooling at high rpm?

E85? or 93 and you should post some graphs

[ExWhyZer0]

I got my car in an Auto since I've probably tried to drive stick twice for short amount of times. No one ever had a manual around to teach me in when I was learning to drive around 8 years ago. And yeah I probably could have just bought a manual FR-S but its my daily for work and what not. Not trying to blow a clutch early on a new car lol. I read a thread on here about a guy going in for service and saw there was another FR-S in for a blown clutch. Some said it was probably the owners first manual lol. But I'm happy with my car and enjoy cruising and looking cool haha! I think people ought to give the auto in this car a chance before out right hating on it. At least its not a 4 speed auto like my old integra was. Comparing it to its 5 speed sister always made me feel sad lol.

With that being said, I do think everyone should learn stick. I actually plan to rent a manual soon and learn on it. And depending on the circumstances I may trade mine in one day down the road for a stick. By then I'm sure a TRD/STi version will be out for this car

[wlfpck]

Originally Posted by wparsons

Just because something isn't dual clutch, doesn't mean it has a torque converter. The LF-A is a single clutch computer controlled transmission, just like a regular manual except it has computer controlled hydraulics operating the clutch and rowing gears instead of your leg/arm.

There's a big difference between how a true auto (with torque converter and clutch packs) works and an automated manual. There were automated manuals for years before dual clutch gearboxes came out, the BMW SMG is one, and all the slightly older Ferrari transmissions as well (F1 paddle shift). I'm pretty sure most Lambo's are still single clutch automated manuals too.

Even the MR2 Spyder had an automated manual!

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...e/viewall.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexus_LFA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...l_transmission

I was under the assumption that the LFA used a traditional torque converter automatic. Guess I learned something new today.


As for understanding the differences between the other types of transmissions... yeah... I understand how they work. Again, I was under the assumption that the LFA used a traditional torque converter auto. Didn't know it was a AMT.

-------

On a somewhat related note... www.dctfacts.com is a good resource for the breakdown of emerging DCT technology in the various markets as well as how it compares to the AT, AMT, MT, CVT in the various markets. The site is managed by Lubrizol so the information on the site is very detailed and accurate.

[wlfpck]

Originally Posted by ExWhyZer0

I got my car in an Auto since I've probably tried to drive stick twice for short amount of times. No one ever had a manual around to teach me in when I was learning to drive around 8 years ago. And yeah I probably could have just bought a manual FR-S but its my daily for work and what not. Not trying to blow a clutch early on a new car lol. I read a thread on here about a guy going in for service and saw there was another FR-S in for a blown clutch. Some said it was probably the owners first manual lol. But I'm happy with my car and enjoy cruising and looking cool haha! I think people ought to give the auto in this car a chance before out right hating on it. At least its not a 4 speed auto like my old integra was. Comparing it to its 5 speed sister always made me feel sad lol.

With that being said, I do think everyone should learn stick. I actually plan to rent a manual soon and learn on it. And depending on the circumstances I may trade mine in one day down the road for a stick. By then I'm sure a TRD/STi version will be out for this car

If you find a chain business that rents manual cars, please let me know. A buddy of mine wants to learn but no one has a manual transmission that is willing to let him use their car.

A lot of the major businesses only rent automatic cars now. Or at least in the U.S. (in my area anyways.)

[ExWhyZer0]

Originally Posted by wlfpck

If you find a chain business that rents manual cars, please let me know. A buddy of mine wants to learn but no one has a manual transmission that is willing to let him use their car.

A lot of the major businesses only rent automatic cars now. Or at least in the U.S. (in my area anyways.)

Yeah I'm going to call around to some in my area. Though I have a feeling I'm going to get the same answer as you. But I just can't imagine rental companies having all autos and no manuals. Someone has got to have some somewhere.