Considering an AT

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by Mule

No shit they like it. I've asked why AT FRS owners didn't consider other cars with superior ATs, still no answer there. But thanks for speaking on their behalf meat head.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have been calling people names, mentioning having orgasm with your stick shift, and asking AT owners to explain although you have no intention to be convinced. I have an AT and I like it better and I don't owe you any explanation. And ... My car is "much" faster than yours. Period. Now, get lost!

[Mule]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I already answered this, in this thread and others but I'll bite.



I selected the car first, transmission second (or third, I did pick color second). Transmission was selected because I like the novelty (to me) of the paddle shifters and when driving both did not see enough difference between the two for me to insist on a manual.



Either AT/MT would have made a fine DD as far as I'm concerned, and my entire family (wife, 3 sons) all can drive sticks so that wasn't an issue.



Other cars I was considering at the time would have all been manuals because in some cases that was the novelty (CTS-V Wagon anyone?) or because it was significantly better as a MT (Camaro, Z cars, etc)



Plus I wanted the classic sports car look the 86 has, not a "hot hatch" or whatever the GTI passes for these days. Also didn't want a "bathtub on wheels" Miata (albeit a well handling one).

Cool, thank you for the insight into your selection process - THAT is exactly what I was looking for. (Not 'lessons' from some miserable old man who doesn't even have the AT to begin with!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IceFyre13th]

Originally Posted by Mule

Driven the AT version extensively, one of my good buddies got his AT FRS before I got my MT.

And for the last time - I'm not shit-talking AT owners! I'm (still) waiting for someone with an AT to tell me why they chose it over ANOTHER AT car, not a MT FRS. And I'm genuinely curious about that because I've driven some amazing ATs that put the FRS' AT to shame.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why the FR-S Automatic, Price.....looks better than those others......tons of aftermarket support, and it was my first choice.......

Why I like it still.

Mine has lasted over 100000 miles....no broken fourth gear here.

Simple change to rear gearing and faster 0-60 times than manual....and I can "load up" the torque converter for one hell of a launch

And the number one reason I still like it.

Because none of the manual guys can keep up with me and my automatic, nannies off, manual mode paddle shifting, never missing a gear, and all they see are my Intec Tail lights.

[fierostetz]

Originally Posted by Mule

Driven the AT version extensively, one of my good buddies got his AT FRS before I got my MT.

And for the last time - I'm not shit-talking AT owners! I'm (still) waiting for someone with an AT to tell me why they chose it over ANOTHER AT car, not a MT FRS. And I'm genuinely curious about that because I've driven some amazing ATs that put the FRS' AT to shame.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There aren't that many great AT's that put the FRS' AT to shame - there are automated manuals like VW's DSG, but that's a different animal. It doesn't "creep" forward in traffic, so it's less comfortable to drive in traffic than a standard torque converter based AT - I bought my wife a GTI a few years ago - never test drove in traffic, just open road. After commuting in traffic an hour each way for a year she wanted a different car. I disliked how it felt in traffic too - if we didn't live somewhere traffic-y, it would've been fine. The best traditional AT's I can think of off the top of my head are the one in the toyoburu twins, the aisin unit in the 500 Abarth, and the aisin unit in the mini JCW. Automated manuals are hit and miss - fiat brought the 500L over with a DCT, and American traffic caused them to eat themselves trying to creep in US traffic. They went back to traditional automatics. Ford has had a laundry list of issues with the DCT they put in some of their lower end cars. DCT's in general do not fare all that well in traffic. Yes, it's possible, but it's simply not as friendly or comfortable as a TC based automatic.

At the end of the day, I don't think anyone really needs to rationalize their transmission type to you. If you enjoy the BRZ/FRS/86 your interest would be in the car getting into as many garages as possible - that would increase market penetration, better spread the cost of mods, and make everything ultimately better and cheaper for everyone involved - regardless of their choice of trans.

[Mule]

No one needs to rationalize anything to me - I gave you my opinion (that there are better ATs out there, I was considering any transmission without a clutch pedal an AT btw), and simply asked for insights from the AT crowd.

That's it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fierostetz]

Originally Posted by Mule

No one needs to rationalize anything to me - I gave you my opinion (that there are better ATs out there, I was considering any transmission without a clutch pedal an AT btw), and simply asked for insights from the AT crowd.

That's it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think, for the sake of argument, it would be important to do 2 things. First, I would utilize the standard definitions of the technology, so everyone's on the same page. Second, I would quantify "better".

An automatic transmission is it's own thing, torque converter and all.
A DSG transmission is an electronically controlled manual transmission.
There are also automated single clutch manual transmissions.

While I owned my automatic VW's for work (they fit rack-mount IT equipment *exactly*, only reason I bought them. Most comfortable car that was easy to park and could carry rack mount servers) my wife also owned a GTI that I bought for her. In traffic commuting, the Golf's automatic was better. On weekends blitzing around the mountains, the DSG was better. I couldn't unequivocally declare one of them "better" without also factoring in the intended use case scenario. It's dangerous to paint with a broad brush, you wind up getting paint everywhere.

Perhaps it's thinly veiled attacks at automatic owners or possibly a lack of social graces, but your posts come across as combative. At the very least, it's myopic to alienate - what, 70% of the owner base that bought automatics? If that 70% had bought different cars, yours would've been discontinued pretty quickly.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by fierostetz

I think, for the sake of argument, it would be important to do 2 things. First, I would utilize the standard definitions of the technology, so everyone's on the same page. Second, I would quantify "better".

An automatic transmission is it's own thing, torque converter and all.
A DSG transmission is an electronically controlled manual transmission.
There are also automated single clutch manual transmissions.

While I owned my automatic VW's for work (they fit rack-mount IT equipment *exactly*, only reason I bought them. Most comfortable car that was easy to park and could carry rack mount servers) my wife also owned a GTI that I bought for her. In traffic commuting, the Golf's automatic was better. On weekends blitzing around the mountains, the DSG was better. I couldn't unequivocally declare one of them "better" without also factoring in the intended use case scenario. It's dangerous to paint with a broad brush, you wind up getting paint everywhere.

Perhaps it's thinly veiled attacks at automatic owners or possibly a lack of social graces, but your posts come across as combative. At the very least, it's myopic to alienate - what, 70% of the owner base that bought automatics? If that 70% had bought different cars, yours would've been discontinued pretty quickly.

Tomato-Tomahto - I can interpret your 'defense' of ATs as equally combative. I mean, you're being a pedant re: the definition of an auto transmission when you knew damn well I was using the term for any car with only 2 pedals; I gave examples of DSG and PDK for crying out loud.

Tcoat got me a bit riled up with his attacks and it was never my intention to let that reverberate towards the community.

I came, I participated, I asked, and was finally answered (thank you to the one person who gave a measured, insightful response about their decision-making process). Nothing to see here folks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by SuperTom

if your tracking also remember an AT adds like 50 lbs to the car

Tracking a car is not racing. It doesn't matter what car you drive or how fast you are. The only thing that is important is having fun and bragging rights.

[Silver Supra]

Originally Posted by Mule

Driven the AT version extensively, one of my good buddies got his AT FRS before I got my MT.

And for the last time - I'm not shit-talking AT owners! I'm (still) waiting for someone with an AT to tell me why they chose it over ANOTHER AT car, not a MT FRS. And I'm genuinely curious about that because I've driven some amazing ATs that put the FRS' AT to shame.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good to know you have driven the AT a good bit.
However, to put your twist on it, there are a number of cars with a better manual transmission that the twins, so why did you buy a twin? No need to name any - you know they exist.

No answer needed, but if you think about what you would answer, that may help you understand why people bought a twin with AT.

[Xxyion]

Originally Posted by Mule

So if anyone other than Tcoat wants actually give me some insight into their AT purchase and why they didn't consider other cars with better ATs, I'm all ears.

Genuinely curious, not trying to be snarky.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So i have 3 friends who bought AT FRS' over the MT. 1 of them, cuz his momma wouldnt let him buy MT so he doesnt count (LOL).

The other two prefer it because we all live in an area that traffic all day err day and they would just rather not. Now why did they choose the FRS over another car with a better AT? Because they wanted the FRS. Honestly i dont think many people think about the type of AT they are choosing when picking out a car.

For example. If i'm going to buy a Ford Fiesta and i'm looking at the AT. I'm not going to go "Oh this has the dual clutch transmission...hmmm maybe this car isnt for me". I think people dont view the different AT transmissions the same as people view MT vs AT.

[TheRoops]

Originally Posted by Mule

Except Car and Driver test drove both and the auto was over a second slower from 0-60.

That's a meaningful difference in capabilities of the equipment. And it quite thoroughly debunks the whole 'you get 95% of the MT performance with an AT'.

By my rough calculations, that's 20% difference in 0-60 times, so really you only get 80% of the performance 🤗


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Leave me alone. I can still blow past grandma any time I want.

[TheRoops]

Originally Posted by Mule

This car does have a slush box though. Regardless of its sporty 'intentions' the AT is a traditional torque-converter. It's not even as good as Merc's old wet clutch set up in AMGs let alone anything close to the level of VW's DSG.

That's my issue with AT in this car, it's vastly inferior to many other auto boxes out there, the manual is not.

EDIT: to clarify, I'm not calling ppl who choose AT inferior, I'm questioning why ppl who want an AT wouldn't just get a different car altogether with a vastly superior AT - think Golf GTI. I mean hell, everyone in this thread is claiming the AT is the better DD, well a GTI is a better DD to begin with and their DSG is even better, so just get a GTI!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because I wanted this car in AT. That's why. I didn't want another car and Subaru made no rule that I had to buy MT or go elsewhere.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Mule

Cool, thank you for the insight into your selection process - THAT is exactly what I was looking for. (Not 'lessons' from some miserable old man who doesn't even have the AT to begin with!)

Well, technically I am an old man, although the miserable part is debatable depending on the day.

And, for what it's worth, had I bought the MT instead of the AT, I would be still be saying about what @Tcoat is saying, he's not really wrong.

[NOI]

Originally Posted by Mule

This car does have a slush box though. Regardless of its sporty 'intentions' the AT is a traditional torque-converter. It's not even as good as Merc's old wet clutch set up in AMGs let alone anything close to the level of VW's DSG.

That's my issue with AT in this car, it's vastly inferior to many other auto boxes out there, the manual is not.

EDIT: to clarify, I'm not calling ppl who choose AT inferior, I'm questioning why ppl who want an AT wouldn't just get a different car altogether with a vastly superior AT - think Golf GTI. I mean hell, everyone in this thread is claiming the AT is the better DD, well a GTI is a better DD to begin with and their DSG is even better, so just get a GTI!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll help you out.

First it's important to note there are a lot of superior automatic and manual transmissions out there than the ones you get in the 86 platform. At the sub $30K price point, however, I'd be comfortable putting both variations up against anyone else's offerings. Second, I didn't and don't claim that the AT is superior to the MT, or that it's better for daily driving.

Last, I own a 2013 FR-S AT and it is my daily driver.

AT 86 vs GTI DSG (my take)

Completely different cars
Exterior design (I mean they aren't even similar)
Steering response
Over all handling characteristics
Reliability of the vehicle
Reliability of the transmission
Parts costs
Ease of maintenance (I like doing it myself)
Variety in aftermarket options
I like Subaru and this was a joint effort
I've owned two VW's since 2004 and they both had a ton of maintenance issues

AT vs MT on an 86

Honestly, I bought it used and had a self imposed budget (I have three other cars). I found several AT's in my mileage requirement that were at least $1500 cheaper than MT's in the same mileage range. $1500 is a lot of mods, which is one of the reasons I chose the car to begin with. I test drove both versions several times before deciding that AT was worth the savings. In manual mode, it's just as fun to me as the MT.

The acceleration lacks vs the MT, but my final drive swap this winter will remedy that handily. That's my only complaint in the Vs argument. There is really only one pro: being able to choose to manually shift or not. Nothing special, but it's good to have choices I guess.

I'd have been just as happy with a manual for driving, but the the extra money I saved has been a hoot to spend on mods.

There you go sir.