Simple Question

[ryanrule]

why are we comparing a 25 thou car to what will be a 40 thou car?

 

[2005stangman05]

Jeez, where to start..... The lamest argument in the world is the old and tired "you could do this and that for that and then you'd have that" crap. By that argument, I ought to just buy an SRT Neon and install an adjustable wastegate on it, run high twelves, and trash-talk that Mustangs are slow and that I've only got $23K in my faster Neon...
Lordy lordy lordy....

A. Consistancy has nothing to do with a better time. If a manual car has nine botched 14-second runs, and then has a clean run of 13.40, and an automatic runs ten 13.60's in a row, the manual is faster. Period. It can run a 13.40, the auto can only manage a 13.60 (this is a purely hypothetical scenario of course). Just because the driver of any given manual-tranny car is a hamfisted uncoordinated imbicile/bozo, doesn't mean that the car ITSELF is slower. It just means that the driver blows chunks. Don't tell me that a new Dodge Viper is "slower" than an auto Mustang GT if some prep-school panty-waste dork grannyshifts and mis-shifts the Viper down the track to a low-16 second 1/4 mile run. The Viper still would mutilate the Mustang, it just needs a driver transplant.

B. Takes more time to shift than an auto?? LOL!!!!! Only if you SUCK at shifting!!! The difference in time-out-of-power between a properly speed-shifted manual and an automatic doesn't even BEGIN to narrow the gap of horsepower and time LOST due to the parasitic drag and increased weight of an automatic transmission.

C. See A and B.... I rarely miss shifts, 2005Mustang05. If you mess up all the time, blame yourself, not the car. Driver error doesn't mean a car is slower.

D. The automatic has 5 speeds, the manual has 5-speeds. While I don't have the specific ratios of each handy, I'm failing to see any glaring advantage here.

It's common knowledge, with the emphasis on COMMON, that automatics sap more horsepower from the driveline (meaning less power to the rear wheels) just by their operation and fluid-dynamics. Some autos are more efficient than others, but on the whole, manuals provide less driveline resistance, and are lighter. I am not aware of a SINGLE production car ever that has actually been measurably faster in the 1/4 mile in automatic trim as opposed to manual. Consistancy doesn't mean a thing, faster is faster. I used to race sportsman class in my '93 6-speed Corvette when it was new at our local dragstrip, practically every weekend. There was a really nice guy (Don) who had a brand new '93 Corvette automatic, and he actually competed and won the southeastern NHRA sportsman points race that year. Both our cars were bone stock, but Don was obviously far more serious about racing. He was deadly consistant, he kept all of his runs logged into his laptop, recorded temperatures and humidity and barometric pressures and adjusted and tweaked his dial-in and tire pressures accordingly. He was always running right on his dial. HOWEVER, his car was .4-.5 tenths SLOWER than my manual. My car was a consistant 13.30-13.40 @ 105-107 mph, his was a a consistant 13.70-13.80 @ 102-103 mph. He was CONSISTENT, and always nailed his dial-in, and had sharp reaction times, which meant he usually whipped me to the traps (because he got a head start due to his slower dial-in). But from a head's up, who's car is FASTER standpoint, my car would spank him silly in a heads-up race. Don would beat me and eliminate me, and then he would come see me by my car in the pits and say "man, you were reeling me in like a fish, I thought you were going to catch me for sure. That thing is FAST"....

So, that's the difference between consistent and fast. I could give a damn about consistent, give me the machinery that has the POTENTIAL to run the fastest, and I'll horsewhip it to a faster timeslip every time. I can't think of a single car ever produced, where the automatic version was faster than the manual. Ever. Whether it's "easier" to get a fast time out of an automatic is irrelevent. It's easier to pick up a fat ugly girl at a bar and take her home. Yeah, she may get lucky more consistently 'cause she's easy prey, but I'll keep trying for the hot chicks, it's worth it when you get it right and you hit all your gears!!

Where do i start? Sorry for dissapointing u guys I don't make the numbers I just read the magazines that do it themselves. I'm pretty sure automobile magazing does do their own testing. If you are unsure e-mail them and ask them, or you can keep on being wrong whichever works for you. The person shifting couldve been horrible. I don't know! so lets wait for more tests to come out and keep 2 things in mind currently the GTO costs 7 grand more than a GT and apparently they will cost even more next year WOW! sure sounds like a deal to me! And the second thing is Even if the GTO is slightly faster I wouldn't want to be seen in a car like that. it liiks like some family sedan sorta like the G6 or the grand prix. it doesn't stand out like the mustang does if you put the two side by side you can see that the mustang looks mean and the GTO looks like a .

Nikolai

I've seen 1 GTO on the road so far I see at least 10 mustangs every day
This just tells you people these days are smart

 

[RICKS]

Automobile drives the cars, subjectively analyzes the cars, but they do not do instrumented tests of cars. If you look at their performance figures, it's headed or footnoted by "manufacturer's data". Also, manufacturers do not measure horsepower at the rear wheels, they measure it from the crankshaft. That's why you don't see different h.p. figures for cars with different trannies. However, most speed shops use chassis dynos that measure at the rear wheels for obvious reasons. You don't have to pull the motor to measure the output. On a chassis dyno, driveline resistance means EVERYTHING when it comes to the final horsepower measurement. It's not an issue at the crank. However, realize that in the old days (up until 1972) factories measured horsepower in "gross" h.p.. They ran open headers, no air cleaner, no accessories (a/c compressor, pwr steering pump, etc.etc.). In 1972, everybody switched to SAE "net" h.p., where the engine is dyno'd with all of the accessories, air intake plumbing, and full exhaust in place. It significantly LOWERS the h.p. measurement. Why?? Because all of that stuff, belt-driven accessories, exhaust, intake ducting and filters and silencers, robs horsepower. On a chassis dyno, you see that transmissions ALSO rob a portion of horsepower, autos moreso than manuals. Soooo...........you said "Where do I start?" at the beginning of your last post. Well, it doesn't appear that you discredited, or even discussed, a single point that I made. I read all the magazines too, but you've got to have a level of knowledge to translate the data into proper context.

 

[TheEvII]

Calm down little Ricky. With all the knowledge that you say you possess, it seems you're having a little trouble in the reading and comprehension dept. If you would read what I said, perhaps the unneccesary attack on my knowledge of automobiles would have been avoided.

aside from what RICKS said about the auto having a little more driveline drag than the stick,

I was agreeing with you. The automatic will create more driveline drag than the stick, but these guys are saying that the stick is faster just because it's a stick and the point I was trying to make was it's faster because of the gearing for the most part. No doubt the the trans and driveshaft and rearend will lower HP at the rear wheels compared to the HP at the crank.

When the test numbers come out for the 05 manual, you will see that the manual and the automatic are much much closer than in years past and this is because with the 5-speed automatic, the gearing in the first three gears are similar.

So lets just calm down a little bit and not try to take everything so personal. It's only an internet forum.

 

[RICKS]

I read your post, but you also said

Power has nothing to do with your transmission.

which, if you're talking about power to the pavement (which is what motivates the car, regardless of how much juice is under the hood), you just contradict yourself. Hence my accusation. But, no matter, I'm calm (far from little, ahh the wonders of the internet), if you want to agree, we'll agree, as I do understand and agree with you that the gap between '05 auto and manual will be far less than the previous generation. Which isn't saying much, considering the gap in 1/4 mile performance between the '04 auto GT and the '04 manual GT was huge.

 

[TheEvII]

I wonder what the HP difference at the rear wheels is between the manual and the automatic? Anyway, does anyone know if Ford offers a larger rear gear with the stick or is the rear ratio the same for both. By the way, I'm not so small myself!!