Russ Davis\owner -Gas Rhonda \driver - Holman Moody prepped 66 mustang World champion, first 10 second car - 427 and a 4 speed in 1966
Edit: Correction mid 8 seconds@ over 150 mph with a 4 speed
Manual or auto better for drag racing?
- Thread starter Cannoball888
- Start date
Russ Davis\owner -Gas Rhonda \driver - Holman Moody prepped 66 mustang World champion, first 10 second car - 427 and a 4 speed in 1966
Edit: Correction mid 8 seconds@ over 150 mph with a 4 speed
-
Sponsors (?)
I never said I could do it, thats a 2 + per second - shift assuming he got into 4th gear. He did it consistently. The fastest car do not alway's win- Drivers skill on any given day is the biggest factor.
I'm not building anything at the moment. I was just curious because of what a friend said to me. Manuals are definitely more fun to drive.
In summary, an automatic, left to shift like a true automatic will be slower than a manual, because of the power loss thru it. A manual valve body auto, is really an auto in name only. It's a manual trans that's fed torque via a torque converter, really not much different than a race only manual fed by a torque converter in operation. Driver skill has as much, if not more to do with the answer than the transmission type. I can shift a Fuller Roadranger 10 speed so fast that you'd swear it was an automatic. (I'm talking about 18 wheelers here)
I've beaten many cars and pickup trucks in redlight to redlight situations. Give me a bobtailed tractor, a 400-475 Cat diesel and a 9 or 10 speed and see what happens. 
I've beaten many cars and pickup trucks in redlight to redlight situations. Give me a bobtailed tractor, a 400-475 Cat diesel and a 9 or 10 speed and see what happens. 
having been in the sport years ago as a crew chief, i can tell you that both have advantages and disadvantages.
manual
pro's;
lighter, variable launch rpm
con's
inconsistant even with the best drivers, and missed shifts(even by the best drivers).
auto's
pro's
consistancy of launch rpm, shifting, and virtually NO missed shifts.
con's
weight, complexity.
in the hands of a top driver either does very well. for the average driver the auto is going to be the better choice overall.
by the way, 1320 top fuel cars have NO transmission. their "gear changes" are accomplished by locking up the clutch in stages. this actually occurred in the late 80's when kenny bernsteins crew chief came up with the idea of locking up the clutch at the 1000ft mark(yes back then they had a two speed trans) or so, giving what was essentially a third speed. teams then started experimenting with eliminating the transmission completely and locking the clutch up in stages, first with electronics, then with pnuematic timers when the nhra outlawed the electronic controls.
by the way top alcohol cars still run three speed transmissions.
prostock cars use a lenco trans where the clutch is used only when launching the car. nextel cup, and many other stock car classes use a clutch also to launch the car, and dog rings to allow clutchless shifting, up or down.
there was also, at the time i was racing, a popular modification whereby you put a clutch in front of an automatic trans to eliminate the torque converter, but still keep the consistant shifting qualities of a manual valve body automatic. the two most popular ones were the clutch turbo and the clutch flite transmission, often dubbed the poor man's lenco.
manual
pro's;
lighter, variable launch rpm
con's
inconsistant even with the best drivers, and missed shifts(even by the best drivers).
auto's
pro's
consistancy of launch rpm, shifting, and virtually NO missed shifts.
con's
weight, complexity.
in the hands of a top driver either does very well. for the average driver the auto is going to be the better choice overall.
by the way, 1320 top fuel cars have NO transmission. their "gear changes" are accomplished by locking up the clutch in stages. this actually occurred in the late 80's when kenny bernsteins crew chief came up with the idea of locking up the clutch at the 1000ft mark(yes back then they had a two speed trans) or so, giving what was essentially a third speed. teams then started experimenting with eliminating the transmission completely and locking the clutch up in stages, first with electronics, then with pnuematic timers when the nhra outlawed the electronic controls.
by the way top alcohol cars still run three speed transmissions.
prostock cars use a lenco trans where the clutch is used only when launching the car. nextel cup, and many other stock car classes use a clutch also to launch the car, and dog rings to allow clutchless shifting, up or down.
there was also, at the time i was racing, a popular modification whereby you put a clutch in front of an automatic trans to eliminate the torque converter, but still keep the consistant shifting qualities of a manual valve body automatic. the two most popular ones were the clutch turbo and the clutch flite transmission, often dubbed the poor man's lenco.
1320stang
Founding Member
Good to know rbohm, I haven't kept up the the NHRA since about then, so I didn't know. I knew they still had clutches, hence the reason I thought they still ran two speeds. Bruno is a popular 5-speed with a torque converter. But I believe Dan Millen, Tim Lynch and Brad Brand are all running 5-speeds with no converter. I've got a picture somewhere of a air shifted 5-speed with a converter on it I'll have to post.
A clutchless 5-speed is still a manual tranny and a manual valve bodied automatic is still and automatic tranny. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the times a race has been lost due to a cooked converter or other automatic catastropy in just the races I've been to. I can easily do it using two hands concerning manual transmissions.
I'm guessing most opinions are based on the fact that many haven't raced a manual tranny, or didn't put in the time to be proficient enough at it. If it were easy, everyone would be doing it. And Cannonball is right, a manual is more fun. In my opinion, a manual is a lot less maintenence. A change of a cam or compression is a change of adjusting the clamping force on the pressure plate and changing your launch RPM. In a automatic, it's changing the converter. Last I knew, a take apart Neal Chance converter was $900. My buddy paid $450 for his JPT then another $450 to have it cleaned out and changed for his new combo when he cooked his C4. The $1000 McLeod Soft Loc clutch and pressure plate that I ran in a 3000# SBF 11 second car with a Jerico is now running mid 8's in a 2400# car with a FE and an old Lenco.
My opinions are based on my racing experience and on observation at the track. My typical track experiences have been with my chassis builder who was my roommate for 6 years before I got married. I have had insight that most people haven't got to experience. I've learned a lot of what works and what doesn't at the track by doing a lot of listening.
67Dylan
New Member
This argument has been going on for SO LONG that IMO you have to define what is an auto and what is a 5spd. Again, IMO, a true 5spd is a tranny you HAVE to push the clutch in to shift gears; no pushing in the clutch, no manual! An auto is a tranny that shifts w/out the driver having to shift gears. Of course there are MANY tranny's that fit between these 2 definitions. We then get into 'hybrid' transmissions that shouldn't be considered since it was a question of auto vs. manual, correct? W/that given information, it comes down to driver ability. No?!
A clutchless or air-shifted 5 spd vs a manual valve body auto are, IMO, too close to each other to call either a 'true' manual or 'true' auto & is a very deceitful wording issue. I've run manuals until the last couple of years when my manual skills have deteriated enough to warrant the change in tranny; went auto w/full manual valve body and trans brake. Car leaves ass down wheels up and shifts quicker than I could've EVER shifted. Weighs more, but is WAY more consistent. 5 spds are much more fun to drive. I'd take either tranny as long as it's built correct and can handle the HP I have.
A clutchless or air-shifted 5 spd vs a manual valve body auto are, IMO, too close to each other to call either a 'true' manual or 'true' auto & is a very deceitful wording issue. I've run manuals until the last couple of years when my manual skills have deteriated enough to warrant the change in tranny; went auto w/full manual valve body and trans brake. Car leaves ass down wheels up and shifts quicker than I could've EVER shifted. Weighs more, but is WAY more consistent. 5 spds are much more fun to drive. I'd take either tranny as long as it's built correct and can handle the HP I have.
1320stang
Founding Member
I've never raced a 5-speed, only 4-speeds. I'm guessing this may be another reason lots of guys think manual is slower. A buddy used to have a '96 Cobra and he let me take it out to row the gears, I kept missing the #3 shift, couldn't hit the notch. With some time I'm sure I could get it, even after having it a couple years, he couldn't shift it as fast as I could row a 4-speed.
Sounds like we have the same problems with the newer 5 speeds. I can shift my old Toploader 4 speed fast as I can and never miss a shift. Then get into the 06 GT Stang and miss gears in it frequently.
I guess we "old-uns" prefer the long throw shifters over the increasingly shorter and shorter , short throw shifters in vogue today. Nothing like speed shifting a classic "Three-on-the-tree" in a classic pickup truck to bring back memories. 
1320stang
Founding Member
Yeah, I was hitting the spot between the 1 & 3 gates. The short throw is nice but it seems like you have to move over a ways to get in. And of course, you can't put a Vert-I-Gate on a Tremec tranny. I'll bet not many have ran one of those.
