nosechunks;1407705 said:
So an automatically shifted Manual is still considered a manual transmission even though it shifts Automatically? Then if i install a supra stick and only drive it in manual mode i have a manual transmission.
No, and no. An automatically shifted manual is what BMW calls a sequential-manual gearbox (SMG), Toyota calls sequential manual transmission (SMT), Lamborghini/VW calls E-gear, and Ferrari calls F1-somethingorother. It has a clutch, and is completely different from a manumatic (which is a manually shifted, torque-converter equipped automatic like a suprastick or a Porsche tiptronic).
Porsche only uses the tiptronic because so many middle aged non-enthusiasts buy their cars as status symbols. But good luck buying a tiptronic GT2, GT3, or Carrera GT (hint: Porsche doesn't sell them)...
The systems used in F1 are SMG/SMT/E-gear-esq. They are not manual transmissions, nor are they automatics, nor are they manumatics. They are something else entirely.
So an automatically controlled manual transmission wouldn't exhibit identical behavior if left to decide what gear to use without user input?
I described a whole host of behaviours, so I'm not sure to which one you're referring. I will say that a manumatic may come close to offering the same control that a manual does, but it still falls short due to the 5 reasons I listed earlier.
A) A complete running r154 car with a stock clutch would not hold much more power then a factory automatic for very long, factor in a clutch and possible tranny rebuild, Be realistic. SSv4 is currently $350, And since when is cost a factor for a "Racecar" as your describing.
In my case, I used the running R154 car for parts for the 5spd swap since my car was already equipped with an automatic (I couldn't find a suitable hardtop 5spd at the time and had to settle). But even spending $1200 on a clutch and R154 rebuild is far less than rebuilding an automatic with upgraded valve bodies, quality trans coolers, etc.
I am also not describing a "racecar." Believe it or not, people do enjoy driving street cars around turns. I realize that many parts of the country (and world) are relatively flat and don't really have nice windy roads to play on. But on a typical Sunday drive, I can go from sea level to 8500' and back -- and these type of roads typically come with everything from hairpin curves marked 15mph and gaining 20' in elevation to long 80-100+mph sweepers.
B) True though 100lbs is NOT going to make or break your RACECAR, and if it is you picked the wrong car to begin with.
100lbs (which is probably on the high side actually) is roughly 3% of the weight of a stock mk3. If its effect was only on standing start acceleration, then you might have a point. But it detracts from handling and braking as well -- and also leads to more stress on components (tires/brakes/drivetrain). As such even if a manumatic was as good at everything else (which its not) it still wouldn't be as good as a manual for this purpose.
As for picking the wrong car, I've given quite a bit of thought to the subject and I've driven a ton of other options in the 4 years I've been without a MK3. For my purposes (a street driven car with all the amenities that can hold its own against anything on a typical HPDE track day), the MK3 is hard to beat -- even with its weight penalty. No other RWD car easily capable of Z06-performance for under $10,000 has suspension as good as the mk3. Not mr2s, fieros, corollas, 240's, rx7's, 300z's, mustangs, camaro's, C4/base C5 corvettes, etc. Many of those cars handle as good or better than the mk3 on slow autocross style courses due to their weight & weight distribution -- but their cheaper suspension designs are often unsettled by the bumps frequently encountered on real roads and aren't capable of the same grip at high speeds. So no, I don't think I've picked the wrong car. And the fact that it is heavy doesn't mean that its OK to just keep adding weight to it.
C) Sure an Automatic Eats up a little power But doesn't loose it between shifts and can build boost at the start line and provide a "cushion" on the rear tires for better launch.
Yes, because I stop and do drag-race launches all the time on backroads :sarcasm: I think I was quite clear that my points were directed toward twisties/track days and that other people with different needs will not feel the same way.
I guess I should just install an old 3spd manual, right? Not only does an automatic put less power to the ground, it also is more likely to be farther from peak power.
E) This is what a Line pressure cable is for, I have steel dowels replacing the springs in my accumulators and with the stock converter it was hardly uncomfortable, with a higher stall converter that i will be installing i think smooth will be the only way to describe it, and What does this have to do with a "racecar" again?
As I already stated, you can adjust the shift engagement of an automatic. You might even be able to use multiple shift modes (like Toyota's "NML/PWR" buttons). But you do not have the same range of engagement offered by a manual transmission (where the only thing controlling how firm or smooth your shift are your two feet).
Why is this important in a car driven aggressively in the twisties or on track? Take a well-balanced car and drive it at the limit around a increasing-radius sweeper. When you need to shift mid-turn, you need the shift to be smooth, fast, and predictable. You can easily do this with a manual with little thought. With 99.9% of manumatics and SMGs, you'll never get it just right and as such, you either slow down slightly (to avoid upsetting the car during the shift), or you upset the car during the shift (which slows you slightly anyway).
The same is true for downshifting while braking into a turn...
With a SMG transmission, this slight time loss is more than made up for by the millisecond shifts made throughout the rest of the track. A manumatic does not shift much faster (if at all) than a manual (in addition to lugging around all that extra weight & putting down less power to the wheels). And if you set it up to shift smoothly for that Turn 10 sweeper, then you'll probably be shifting slower than needed the rest of the time...
And sometimes, I do want a harsh shift. Sometimes I enter a corner too hot, or hit an unexpected puddle and start to understeer. A nice harsh shift here will bring the back end about and allow me to adjust the angle of attack with steering and throttle.
Entirely Opinion with no evidence other then because i said so to back it up. Equal cars, Auto vs manual, properly set up will not result in equal track times, straight or turns. Theres a reason the professionals leave it up to computers to do the shifting. This is a fact.
It is widely regarded as truth that a manual transmission is better for road course than an automatic (again, not talking about a SMG). Since you are asserting the opposite, I submit that the burden of proof lies with you. Please show me where people are using torque converter equipped cars in a competitive road racing environment.
Of course autos aren't for everyone, Some people enjoy the feel of a manual transmission. Both have pros and cons.
This I agree with entirely. I just take offense to the notion that a properly built automatic is superior in every way to a manual.
Both transmissions make compromises, which compromises matter most to you will determine which transmission you prefer.
But your argument that race cars use automatically controlled manual transmissions therefore are superior to conventional Automatic transmissions is ridiculous.
It isn't. SMGs shift much faster than automatics, manumatics, or manuals, weigh only a few pounds more than a manual, are just as efficient as manual transmission, etc.
The Real argument you are making is about control. Your opinion is that you cannot control a conventional automatic transmission in a fashion that will achieve desired results. 50 years ago i would agree, this is almost 2010, technology is there.
So far, the technology isn't there. Porsche's tiptronic is the pinacle of manumatic performance -- and it still comes up short. I won't say that we'll never get there, but we certainly aren't there yet -- and aren't likely going to ever be there retrofitting controllers to A340e. A suprastick is still better than a normal automatic, but it doesn't offer the same level of control that a manual does and carries the weight/efficiency penalties... I also suspect that it has just as much delay between shifting as the stock automatic's computer (someone with a suprastick correct me if I'm wrong). With a manual, when I want to shift, I shift. When I had the automatic, if I wanted to shift from L to 2, I'd have to move into 2 at 4000rpm in 1st otherwise I'd bounce the rev limiter before the automatic upshifted...
I'll also add a 6th reason: An automatic is going to need a transmission cooler to survive under the above uses. This is going to take away space & available cooling capacity from the other heat exchangers.
So again, I'm not saying manuals are for everyone. And for most people's desired use of the MK3, an automatic probably fits quite well. But they aren't better at everything and for me, as long as I'm driving roads like this:
I wouldn't want one even if I used Bill Gate's bank account to upgrade it...
