Really, which is faster AT vs MT?

[CincyJohn]

Originally Posted by Dzmitry

I think in some sense you are pushing your point to a bit of an extreme. I do understand where you're coming from, but I think you're really trying to DEFINE a "manual guy" and an "auto guy". I think there's more categories out there than just those two, and people here are making an example of it. He didn't exactly say he was a manual guy, just simply that he loves them. It seems more like he has a balance of interest for a vehicle mated with its best designed transmission so to speak. He likes the PDK in a Porsche because... well that's where all the money went into for best shifts/performance. He likes the MT in a twin because that's what this type of car was best designed for.

But you're right, he's not the "manual guy" you say you are. And nor do I think he's trying to claim that status.

First, I wasn't going to give the guy who talks about his last three Porsche's the benefit of the doubt.

Second, this is yet another manual v. auto pissing match gloves-off right?

And I realize what started this thread is the question - is the MT faster than the automatic (answer - yes, it really is) - what my real question/issue farther down this thread is what portion of manual buyers of the new generation twins would not have bought this car if it weren't available as a manual. And when it comes to this question, guys who say - yeah, I'm a manual guy and really love manuals - but drive an auto twin (or other auto car) don't really provide any useful information.

And let's be clear, as much as the guys who drive autos think I am calling them "less-than" because I am asking the question, I'm really not. But having said that, guys that say I'm a manual guy but bought an auto because say, commute or traffic - you aren't really a manual guy, are you?

Now this Porsche guy is interesting because he owns multiple auto (yes PDK - but still auto) sports cars that he at least COULD have bought in a manual. I could see doing this in only one circumstance which I will never have - I am going to track the car and the auto/DSG/PDK is actually a performance upgrade. Even then, pretty sure every time I drove it I would kick myself saying - I should have got the manual.

Look - if someone wants to start a thread/club for manual lovers that buy autos be my guest. My club/group is manual over everything else.

[CincyJohn]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

These threads are stupid more due to the "MT is magical and if you don't drive one you are a moron" attitude that so many like to exhibit than the actual nature of either tranny.

To be clear, I have said multiple times that I don't think there is anything wrong AT ALL with people buying an AT twin (or other car) or preferring an AT. I'm also not trying to argue you can't be a proper "car" guy if you don't buy a manual.

I am saying that if you are not like me (and others - maybe even you) that bought your twin BECAUSE it was a manual, your trying to convince me that the auto in the new twins is "not that bad" is a complete waste of time and misses the point. I never said it was good or bad - I don't give a shit if it's better than the best PDK ever made - it's not a car I want.

Of course, if you are like me (and others on this board) where you won't consider a non-manual car at this point (as long as there are other options available), you ARE interested in how big that group is. This is why it is relevant, to me at least, how many of the current twins buyers wouldn't have bought their car if it wasn't available in manual. My last two searches had the following criteria - manual transmission, back seats (even if marginally usable), two door, NOT an American muscle car, at a somewhat reasonable price (either new or used), rear/4 wheel drive. My next search may, or may not, eliminate the back seat requirement.

As you probably know, this leaves a pretty small group to pick from - several BMWs, a few Audis, the twins, and the Nissan when it comes out. And yes, I am worried that list is going to grow smaller over the years (as is the number of ICE choices). So I do look to other like-minded people to keep options alive as long as possible.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Thanks. The minivan argument is so tired. .

Yea, that's why I finally decided to actually try and look one up.

That's the only one I could find factory. Now, there are a good number of LS swapped Chevy Astros that would likely top this, but not too many soccer moms are trolling the street in those.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I don't see this.
What they are saying is that it is a purpose built tranny and not an old Powerglide or the same as mom's base Corolla. It is quite suitable for their $27,000 Subaru....
These threads are stupid more due to the "MT is magical and if you don't drive one you are a moron" attitude that so many like to exhibit than the actual nature of either tranny.

Yea, as someone who is "transmission agnostic" I have to agree with this.

Look, I'm perfectly fine that some folks have a preference, either way, but neither is right or wrong. It's just a choice. I've literally driven 100's of thousands of miles with both formats, and it just doesn't matter to me any longer.

If I were racing, yea maybe, depending on the race type.

If the AT in the 86 had been a Powerglide class, yea would have gotten the MT.

If I bought another one? Who knows, depends on the whim of the day.

[bcj]

"No one expects the " pro hockey game braking out here.

[WNDSRFR]

I bought mine BECAUSE it is a manual.
I would not have bought it if it only came as an auto.
And no, I will not even consider a Supra until it offers a manual. I don't care how great the auto is. I guess I'm just old and set in my ways.

[WNDSRFR]

I don't like bench seats either.

[CincyJohn]

Originally Posted by WNDSRFR

I bought mine BECAUSE it is a manual.
I would not have bought it if it only came as an auto.
And no, I will not even consider a Supra until it offers a manual. I don't care how great the auto is. I guess I'm just old and set in my ways.

I was amazed when I first started looking and found out Supra wasn't even available as a manual. Also amazed when the new Corvette wasn't offered in a manual. Our days of manual, ICE, rwd may be slowly coming to an end (although slower than most people are forecasting I would guess).

[RToyo86]

Automatics are more consistent which matters for repeatable results.

Manuals can be faster but the margin for error is larger. Plus the wear and tear if you are flat foot shifting banging gears etc. Not something I want to do with my daily but to each their own.

There's video footage of a 2017 doing 0-60 in 6.2 seconds. The same video shows multiple attempts with the worst closer to 8 seconds.

If you only line up one time an auto will run neck and neck of you mess up a launch.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Hell, SOME people actually have a spare MT in their garage "just in case".

I feel attacked.

Originally Posted by CincyJohn

I am saying that if you are not like me (and others - maybe even you) that bought your twin BECAUSE it was a manual, your trying to convince me that the auto in the new twins is "not that bad" is a complete waste of time and misses the point.

Then stop using "bad" and "good" as they are subjective in this context.

"I personally don't like the lack of driving engagement that comes without having a clutch pedal and an H pattern gear box." See? Just a statement of personal opinion.

[CincyJohn]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

Then stop using "bad" and "good" as they are subjective in this context.

Uhh - find one post where I (repeat I) referred to ATs/PDKs/DSGs as "good" or "bad." You won't find one because I haven't done it. The only time those terms have been used by me is in reference to what others have said/may feel. As I have said many times, autos aren't on any kind of scale for me of good or bad because they aren't on my scale at all.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by CincyJohn

your trying to convince me that the auto in the new twins is "not that bad" is a complete waste of time and misses the point.

Originally Posted by CincyJohn

Uhh - find one post where I (repeat I) referred to ATs/PDKs/DSGs as "good" or "bad." You won't find one because I haven't done it. The only time those terms have been used by me is in reference to what others have said/may feel.

Literally the post I quoted of yours that you are quoting of me.

Postception

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by CincyJohn

To be clear, I have said multiple times that I don't think there is anything wrong AT ALL with people buying an AT twin (or other car) or preferring an AT. I'm also not trying to argue you can't be a proper "car" guy if you don't buy a manual.

I am saying that if you are not like me (and others - maybe even you) that bought your twin BECAUSE it was a manual, your trying to convince me that the auto in the new twins is "not that bad" is a complete waste of time and misses the point. I never said it was good or bad - I don't give a shit if it's better than the best PDK ever made - it's not a car I want.

Of course, if you are like me (and others on this board) where you won't consider a non-manual car at this point (as long as there are other options available), you ARE interested in how big that group is. This is why it is relevant, to me at least, how many of the current twins buyers wouldn't have bought their car if it wasn't available in manual. My last two searches had the following criteria - manual transmission, back seats (even if marginally usable), two door, NOT an American muscle car, at a somewhat reasonable price (either new or used), rear/4 wheel drive. My next search may, or may not, eliminate the back seat requirement.

As you probably know, this leaves a pretty small group to pick from - several BMWs, a few Audis, the twins, and the Nissan when it comes out. And yes, I am worried that list is going to grow smaller over the years (as is the number of ICE choices). So I do look to other like-minded people to keep options alive as long as possible.

I have owned around 30 cars over my life.
If I remember correctly 26 of them were standards and 4 were automatics.
Of the 4 automatics two were the fastest drag cars I ever had. It took some work and a shift kit to make each of those autos effective but they were better at doing the job than a manual every would have been.
Of the 26 standards maybe 10 of them were really great. The others ranged from just OK to "oh my good this sucks and should be an auto".
The point being there are some really nice ATs and some MTs that are horrid and saying simply "I am a MT guy" has zero meaning in the big picture.
This whole mystic and passion for MTs is a relatively new thing. I do not recall a single person back in the 70s looking down upon others for having an AT. In fact at the drag strips the AT crowd did (and probably still do) hand the MTs their asses on a regular basis.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

saying simply "I am a MT guy" has zero meaning in the big picture.
This whole mystic and passion for MTs is a relatively new thing. I do not recall a single person back in the 70s looking down upon others for having an AT. In fact at the drag strips the AT crowd did (and probably still do) hand the MTs their asses on a regular basis.

You may have hit on the actual solution here, its a generational thing, which I never thought of.

My recollection is exactly as yours. In high school and college I owned at least a half dozen cars, some manual some auto, some fast some slow. Never did the discussion of the transmission come up. What mattered were the results.