Auto vs Manual: The Ultimate Showdown

[HOXXOH]

So if Nic stopped by (just to watch of course) and happened to help a little, then I'd guess 510. As of today, Mike S., Victor, Mike G., and myself are all within just one tenth of a second at Speedworld. Kind of amazing since the difference in engines/power. LS7 cammed (10.77), LS7 bolt-ons (10.84), LS2 cammed (10.86), and LS3 bolt-ons (10.85), respectively.

[azz061]

So if Nic stopped by (just to watch of course) and happened to help a little, then I'd guess 510.

As of today, Mike S., Victor, Mike G., and myself are all within just one tenth of a second at Speedworld. Kind of amazing since the difference in engines/power. LS7 cammed (10.77), LS7 bolt-ons (10.84), LS2 cammed (10.86), and LS3 bolt-ons (10.85), respectively.

You really cannot compare the four cars for the mere fact that two of the cars are automatics with stalls correct? The other two are six speed cars and yes with the horsepower difference it is obvious to see Victor is a very talented driver. I will be curious now that i have a clutch that will not slip during my runs to see if i gain 3-4 tenths as i think i should see.

Automatics are not rocket science to drive and are the better choice for drag racing. Now if you lined up all four cars and did a 0 to 150 run i would say the two z06's would destroy the 2 automatics and the same on a road course.

Victor should see some better times possibly with his new clutch. I know how bad my clutch looked last week when we removed it and i was shocked i was even capable of cutting 1.50 60ft's with it. Nic D was correct my car would lack in potential with the stock clutch.

[HOXXOH]

So if Nic stopped by (just to watch of course) and happened to help a little, then I'd guess 510.

As of today, Mike S., Victor, Mike G., and myself are all within just one tenth of a second at Speedworld. Kind of amazing since the difference in engines/power. LS7 cammed (10.77), LS7 bolt-ons (10.84), LS2 cammed (10.86), and LS3 bolt-ons (10.85), respectively.

You really cannot compare the four cars for the mere fact that two of the cars are automatics with stalls correct? The other two are six speed cars and yes with the horsepower difference it is obvious to see Victor is a very talented driver. I will be curious now that i have a clutch that will not slip during my runs to see if i gain 3-4 tenths as i think i should see.

Automatics are not rocket science to drive and are the better choice for drag racing. Now if you lined up all four cars and did a 0 to 150 run i would say the two z06's would destroy the 2 automatics and the same on a road course.

Victor should see some better times possibly with his new clutch. I know how bad my clutch looked last week when we removed it and i was shocked i was even capable of cutting 1.50 60ft's with it. Nic D was correct my car would lack in potential with the stock clutch.

No need to get defensive, as I was only stating the facts that exist today.

I'm guessing Victor will better his time with the new mods and Mike G. will do the same when he gets back to the track again. I doubt my times will improve real soon and you're going to need more than a clutch to run 10.30's and 10.40's.

Since you mentioned running 1.50 60' times and Victor ran 1.53, your perceived stalled automatic advantage fails to hold water, when Mike G.ran 1.54 and I ran 1.58 on our 60's.

It's not rocket science to drive a manual either. It's a 100 year old technology and sucks up less power than an automatic.

[Drewstein]

Since you mentioned running 1.50 60' times and Victor ran 1.53, your perceived stalled automatic advantage fails to hold water, when Mike G.ran 1.54 and I ran 1.58 on our 60's.

It's not rocket science to drive a manual either. It's a 100 year old technology and sucks up less power than an automatic.

It's easy to pretend they don't have to work as hard but that's incorrect. You gravely assume their shifts are as quick which isn't possible. Also the converter gives better torque multiplication.

Boom.

[Two Fangs]

It's easy to pretend they don't have to work as hard but that's incorrect. You gravely assume their shifts are as quick which isn't possible. Also the converter gives better torque multiplication.

Boom.

If this is true, in the manner in which you state, why do automatics typically dyno lower than their stick counterparts?

With the torque multiplication you mention from the converter, and horsepower being torque times RPM divided by 5252, that multiplication should equate into much larger dyno numbers, no?

Additionally, if we lock the converter (thereby negating any viscous advantage created by the turbine, stator and impeller in the torque converter), it makes more power on the dyno, correct?

[azz061]

So if Nic stopped by (just to watch of course) and happened to help a little, then I'd guess 510.

As of today, Mike S., Victor, Mike G., and myself are all within just one tenth of a second at Speedworld. Kind of amazing since the difference in engines/power. LS7 cammed (10.77), LS7 bolt-ons (10.84), LS2 cammed (10.86), and LS3 bolt-ons (10.85), respectively.

You really cannot compare the four cars for the mere fact that two of the cars are automatics with stalls correct? The other two are six speed cars and yes with the horsepower difference it is obvious to see Victor is a very talented driver. I will be curious now that i have a clutch that will not slip during my runs to see if i gain 3-4 tenths as i think i should see.

Automatics are not rocket science to drive and are the better choice for drag racing. Now if you lined up all four cars and did a 0 to 150 run i would say the two z06's would destroy the 2 automatics and the same on a road course.

Victor should see some better times possibly with his new clutch. I know how bad my clutch looked last week when we removed it and i was shocked i was even capable of cutting 1.50 60ft's with it. Nic D was correct my car would lack in potential with the stock clutch.

No need to get defensive, as I was only stating the facts that exist today.

I'm guessing Victor will better his time with the new mods and Mike G. will do the same when he gets back to the track again. I doubt my times will improve real soon and you're going to need more than a clutch to run 10.30's and 10.40's.

Since you mentioned running 1.50 60' times and Victor ran 1.53, your perceived stalled automatic advantage fails to hold water, when Mike G.ran 1.54 and I ran 1.58 on our 60's.

It's not rocket science to drive a manual either. It's a 100 year old technology and sucks up less power than an automatic.

Not defensive and with almost 550 rwhp with a good clutch i will get my times. I am confident and there is enough supporting data to back my thoughts on the corvette forum. And no it's not as easy to take a 6 speed z06 down the track into the 10's as it is with a car you just put in drive.

Lot's of difference when comparing a point and shoot car cutting a 1.54 60ft to the 1.50 60ft of the z06 especially when you factor in my clutch slip with it. I guess it would be easy to assume if Victor ran a 10.84 with 480 rwhp i should be able to run 10.4 to 10.5 with almost 550 rwhp. I have solid data from my hp tuners to show were i am leaving my ET at. About .25 is in my shifts since the car did not want to easily shift with the clutch hot along with the slipping in 3rd and fourth gear based on the strange mph changes.

[azz061]

It's easy to pretend they don't have to work as hard but that's incorrect. You gravely assume their shifts are as quick which isn't possible. Also the converter gives better torque multiplication.

Boom.

If this is true, in the manner in which you state, why do automatics typically dyno lower than their stick counterparts?

With the torque multiplication you mention from the converter, and horsepower being torque times RPM divided by 5252, that multiplication should equate into much larger dyno numbers, no?

Additionally, if we lock the converter (thereby negating any viscous advantage created by the turbine, stator and impeller in the torque converter), it makes more power on the dyno, correct?

Parker if you for one second are saying that an automatic and stick are the same in difficulty in driving down the track then i am worried about you. Almost all track cars are automatic and to be honest yes the dyno is a great gauge for power it all is really proven on the track. If i could shift my 6speed as perfect as an automatic does i would wager i would cut 4 tenths off my time.

Anyone can drive an automatic it doesn't take a rocket scientist to do so.

[azz061]

Since you mentioned running 1.50 60' times and Victor ran 1.53, your perceived stalled automatic advantage fails to hold water, when Mike G.ran 1.54 and I ran 1.58 on our 60's.

It's not rocket science to drive a manual either. It's a 100 year old technology and sucks up less power than an automatic.

It's easy to pretend they don't have to work as hard but that's incorrect. You gravely assume their shifts are as quick which isn't possible. Also the converter gives better torque multiplication.

Boom.

I agree with you Drew and really don't put any merit into Tom's post or abilities at this point.

[Two Fangs]

Nope, not saying that at all, please re-read Drew's and my posts

[azz061]

i see part of it but i believe Drew was more replying about a six speed vs an automatic. Like i said automatic is better for the 1/4 mile and anyone can drive one.

[Two Fangs]

What I was trying to get Drew to understand is STR in the converter has a very real purpose, in that it can help an auto car 60 foot, or it can help it MPH, but it cannot do both, you gain in one aspect, you lose in the other when you change STR. So, in essence, torque multiplication in the converter is not a huge thing to lean on when trying to discuss differences between auto and sticks in drag racing, since for most of the race, the fluid in the converter is in a vortex flow pattern, where torque multiplication does not occur. And even when it does occur, at the launch; most of it being used up trying do drive much heavier components, a hydraulic pump, and the remainder of the driveline. That is why a higher stall is beneficial because maximum torque multiplication occurs higher in the engine's power band. Even so, 60 foots between stick and auto cars in street trim or street/strip trim are virtually identical What needs to be discussed are shift times in milliseconds, no breaking of torque between the engine and driveline, and gear ratios.

[azz061]

What I was trying to get Drew to understand is STR in the converter has a very real purpose, in that it can help an auto car 60 foot, or it can help it MPH, but it cannot do both, you gain in one aspect, you lose in the other when you change STR.

So, in essence, torque multiplication in the converter is not a huge thing to lean on when trying to discuss differences between auto and sticks in drag racing, since for most of the race, the fluid in the converter is in a vortex flow pattern, where torque multiplication does not occur. And even when it does occur, at the launch; most of it being used up trying do drive much heavier components, a hydraulic pump, and the remainder of the driveline. That is why a higher stall is beneficial because maximum torque multiplication occurs higher in the engine's power band. Even so, 60 foots between stick and auto cars in street trim or street/strip trim are virtually identical

What needs to be discussed are shift times in milliseconds, no breaking of torque between the engine and driveline, and gear ratios.

I see now what you were getting at. I will have to get my shift times between shifts to compare. Victor pointed out to me on a few runs he data logged i was leaving alot of time on the table because my shifts were not fast. But my clutch would not allow once it got hot especially going to third i had to hesitate a bit.

[Two Fangs]

Yep, there are reasons autos are a better choice at the drag strip, but hanging your hat on the torque multiplication bandwagon won't get you very far. Plus, unless you put a Lenco or a Liberty in the car, you are going to have to break torque to shift a manual trans car. But then, downshifting becomes such a pain in the ass, it is really only good for racing.

[azz061]

Especially when we have an auto engineer among us.

[Two Fangs]

I don't know if you have ever driven a Lenco equipped car, but you have to accelerate to downshift, it is a very unnatural feeling...

[azz061]

No i haven't but that would be different.

[Ted Y]

I thought automatics had an advantage in drag racing because they could supply torque during shifts whereas a true manual is physically disengaged between shifts. Now, a dual clutch trans could have the best of both worlds.

[Two Fangs]

While I did not get into dual clutches, I believe we do agree based on my last statement in post 51.

[HOXXOH]

So if Nic stopped by (just to watch of course) and happened to help a little, then I'd guess 510.

As of today, Mike S., Victor, Mike G., and myself are all within just one tenth of a second at Speedworld. Kind of amazing since the difference in engines/power. LS7 cammed (10.77), LS7 bolt-ons (10.84), LS2 cammed (10.86), and LS3 bolt-ons (10.85), respectively.

You really cannot compare the four cars for the mere fact that two of the cars are automatics with stalls correct? The other two are six speed cars and yes with the horsepower difference it is obvious to see Victor is a very talented driver. I will be curious now that i have a clutch that will not slip during my runs to see if i gain 3-4 tenths as i think i should see.

Automatics are not rocket science to drive and are the better choice for drag racing. Now if you lined up all four cars and did a 0 to 150 run i would say the two z06's would destroy the 2 automatics and the same on a road course.

Victor should see some better times possibly with his new clutch. I know how bad my clutch looked last week when we removed it and i was shocked i was even capable of cutting 1.50 60ft's with it. Nic D was correct my car would lack in potential with the stock clutch.

No need to get defensive, as I was only stating the facts that exist today.

I'm guessing Victor will better his time with the new mods and Mike G. will do the same when he gets back to the track again. I doubt my times will improve real soon and you're going to need more than a clutch to run 10.30's and 10.40's.

Since you mentioned running 1.50 60' times and Victor ran 1.53, your perceived stalled automatic advantage fails to hold water, when Mike G.ran 1.54 and I ran 1.58 on our 60's.

It's not rocket science to drive a manual either. It's a 100 year old technology and sucks up less power than an automatic.

Not defensive and with almost 550 rwhp with a good clutch i will get my times. I am confident and there is enough supporting data to back my thoughts on the corvette forum. And no it's not as easy to take a 6 speed z06 down the track into the 10's as it is with a car you just put in drive.

Lot's of difference when comparing a point and shoot car cutting a 1.54 60ft to the 1.50 60ft of the z06 especially when you factor in my clutch slip with it. I guess it would be easy to assume if Victor ran a 10.84 with 480 rwhp i should be able to run 10.4 to 10.5 with almost 550 rwhp. I have solid data from my hp tuners to show were i am leaving my ET at. About .25 is in my shifts since the car did not want to easily shift with the clutch hot along with the slipping in 3rd and fourth gear based on the strange mph changes.

So where's the rocket scientist that's required to drive a manual?

By using your theory that Victor ran 10.84 with 480HP makes your 550HP car capable of 10.4-10.5, then where does my 410HP fit in at 10.85? I don't get the better 60' times or the high MPH, but somehow am still right there with the ET. Hmmmm.

BTW, until you try to launch a stalled A6 on a slippery track, you'll continue to have no appreciation for the difficulty. With a manual you can modulate both the throttle and clutch, but with an automatic you only have the throttle for control. I've owned and raced several manuals, so don't think I don't understand the difference.

[azz061]

So if Nic stopped by (just to watch of course) and happened to help a little, then I'd guess 510.

As of today, Mike S., Victor, Mike G., and myself are all within just one tenth of a second at Speedworld. Kind of amazing since the difference in engines/power. LS7 cammed (10.77), LS7 bolt-ons (10.84), LS2 cammed (10.86), and LS3 bolt-ons (10.85), respectively.

You really cannot compare the four cars for the mere fact that two of the cars are automatics with stalls correct? The other two are six speed cars and yes with the horsepower difference it is obvious to see Victor is a very talented driver. I will be curious now that i have a clutch that will not slip during my runs to see if i gain 3-4 tenths as i think i should see.

Automatics are not rocket science to drive and are the better choice for drag racing. Now if you lined up all four cars and did a 0 to 150 run i would say the two z06's would destroy the 2 automatics and the same on a road course.

Victor should see some better times possibly with his new clutch. I know how bad my clutch looked last week when we removed it and i was shocked i was even capable of cutting 1.50 60ft's with it. Nic D was correct my car would lack in potential with the stock clutch.

No need to get defensive, as I was only stating the facts that exist today.

I'm guessing Victor will better his time with the new mods and Mike G. will do the same when he gets back to the track again. I doubt my times will improve real soon and you're going to need more than a clutch to run 10.30's and 10.40's.

Since you mentioned running 1.50 60' times and Victor ran 1.53, your perceived stalled automatic advantage fails to hold water, when Mike G.ran 1.54 and I ran 1.58 on our 60's.

It's not rocket science to drive a manual either. It's a 100 year old technology and sucks up less power than an automatic.

Not defensive and with almost 550 rwhp with a good clutch i will get my times. I am confident and there is enough supporting data to back my thoughts on the corvette forum. And no it's not as easy to take a 6 speed z06 down the track into the 10's as it is with a car you just put in drive.

Lot's of difference when comparing a point and shoot car cutting a 1.54 60ft to the 1.50 60ft of the z06 especially when you factor in my clutch slip with it. I guess it would be easy to assume if Victor ran a 10.84 with 480 rwhp i should be able to run 10.4 to 10.5 with almost 550 rwhp. I have solid data from my hp tuners to show were i am leaving my ET at. About .25 is in my shifts since the car did not want to easily shift with the clutch hot along with the slipping in 3rd and fourth gear based on the strange mph changes.

So where's the rocket scientist that's required to drive a manual?

By using your theory that Victor ran 10.84 with 480HP makes your 550HP car capable of 10.4-10.5, then where does my 410HP fit in at 10.85? I don't get the better 60' times or the high MPH, but somehow am still right there with the ET. Hmmmm.

BTW, until you try to launch a stalled A6 on a slippery track, you'll continue to have no appreciation for the difficulty. With a manual you can modulate both the throttle and clutch, but with an automatic you only have the throttle for control. I've owned and raced several manuals, so don't think I don't understand the difference.

Oh lordy an 800 year old man trying to tell me an auto is hard to drive. Also Tom i don't recall your car running consistent tens and until you can come to the track on a normal day and run 10's enjoy your 11's.

[HOXXOH]

So if Nic stopped by (just to watch of course) and happened to help a little, then I'd guess 510.

As of today, Mike S., Victor, Mike G., and myself are all within just one tenth of a second at Speedworld. Kind of amazing since the difference in engines/power. LS7 cammed (10.77), LS7 bolt-ons (10.84), LS2 cammed (10.86), and LS3 bolt-ons (10.85), respectively.

You really cannot compare the four cars for the mere fact that two of the cars are automatics with stalls correct? The other two are six speed cars and yes with the horsepower difference it is obvious to see Victor is a very talented driver. I will be curious now that i have a clutch that will not slip during my runs to see if i gain 3-4 tenths as i think i should see.

Automatics are not rocket science to drive and are the better choice for drag racing. Now if you lined up all four cars and did a 0 to 150 run i would say the two z06's would destroy the 2 automatics and the same on a road course.

Victor should see some better times possibly with his new clutch. I know how bad my clutch looked last week when we removed it and i was shocked i was even capable of cutting 1.50 60ft's with it. Nic D was correct my car would lack in potential with the stock clutch.

No need to get defensive, as I was only stating the facts that exist today.

I'm guessing Victor will better his time with the new mods and Mike G. will do the same when he gets back to the track again. I doubt my times will improve real soon and you're going to need more than a clutch to run 10.30's and 10.40's.

Since you mentioned running 1.50 60' times and Victor ran 1.53, your perceived stalled automatic advantage fails to hold water, when Mike G.ran 1.54 and I ran 1.58 on our 60's.

It's not rocket science to drive a manual either. It's a 100 year old technology and sucks up less power than an automatic.

Not defensive and with almost 550 rwhp with a good clutch i will get my times. I am confident and there is enough supporting data to back my thoughts on the corvette forum. And no it's not as easy to take a 6 speed z06 down the track into the 10's as it is with a car you just put in drive.

Lot's of difference when comparing a point and shoot car cutting a 1.54 60ft to the 1.50 60ft of the z06 especially when you factor in my clutch slip with it. I guess it would be easy to assume if Victor ran a 10.84 with 480 rwhp i should be able to run 10.4 to 10.5 with almost 550 rwhp. I have solid data from my hp tuners to show were i am leaving my ET at. About .25 is in my shifts since the car did not want to easily shift with the clutch hot along with the slipping in 3rd and fourth gear based on the strange mph changes.

So where's the rocket scientist that's required to drive a manual?

By using your theory that Victor ran 10.84 with 480HP makes your 550HP car capable of 10.4-10.5, then where does my 410HP fit in at 10.85? I don't get the better 60' times or the high MPH, but somehow am still right there with the ET. Hmmmm.

BTW, until you try to launch a stalled A6 on a slippery track, you'll continue to have no appreciation for the difficulty. With a manual you can modulate both the throttle and clutch, but with an automatic you only have the throttle for control. I've owned and raced several manuals, so don't think I don't understand the difference.

Oh lordy an 800 year old man trying to tell me an auto is hard to drive. Also Tom i don't recall your car running consistent tens and until you can come to the track on a normal day and run 10's enjoy your 11's.

Thnaks for the compliments. I know our cars are miles apart in lots of areas, especially the 140 HP difference. It's still just amazing that my PB is well within a tenth of yours. Maybe it's all in the age difference.

[Drewstein]

If this is true, in the manner in which you state, why do automatics typically dyno lower than their stick counterparts?

With the torque multiplication you mention from the converter, and horsepower being torque times RPM divided by 5252, that multiplication should equate into much larger dyno numbers, no?

Additionally, if we lock the converter (thereby negating any viscous advantage created by the turbine, stator and impeller in the torque converter), it makes more power on the dyno, correct?

You should see where you answered your own question in your post. You just compared a locked converter in a 1:1 ratio gear to torque multiplication factors of a converter in an unlocked state where there is a difference between input and output speeds. The higher the stall, the more torque multiplication can be achieved. I thought you were smarter than that. Or you already know the answer and then I find your question insulting.

In the event of the later I can also explain how to tie your shoes or put on pants if needed.

[Two Fangs]

Then why make the argument in the first place, that wasn't me :lol :lol

[Drewstein]

What I was trying to get Drew to understand is STR in the converter has a very real purpose, in that it can help an auto car 60 foot, or it can help it MPH, but it cannot do both, you gain in one aspect, you lose in the other when you change STR.

So, in essence, torque multiplication in the converter is not a huge thing to lean on when trying to discuss differences between auto and sticks in drag racing, since for most of the race, the fluid in the converter is in a vortex flow pattern, where torque multiplication does not occur. And even when it does occur, at the launch; most of it being used up trying do drive much heavier components, a hydraulic pump, and the remainder of the driveline. That is why a higher stall is beneficial because maximum torque multiplication occurs higher in the engine's power band. Even so, 60 foots between stick and auto cars in street trim or street/strip trim are virtually identical

What needs to be discussed are shift times in milliseconds, no breaking of torque between the engine and driveline, and gear ratios.

First I was right and your arrogant response was pretty sad. See my above post where you asked rhetorical questions just to try and flex on the internet. Sorry but when I post I know WTF I'm talking about and I'm not going to be as long winded in the process.

Second re-read my earlier post. I didn't edit it, there's no internet voodoo, yes I mentioned shift speed FIRST. Not after, not at all, but first in my concise list of reason autos are better at ET. Here it is again in case you missed it since your math is strong but reading seems to be lacking.

Since you mentioned running 1.50 60' times and Victor ran 1.53, your perceived stalled automatic advantage fails to hold water, when Mike G.ran 1.54 and I ran 1.58 on our 60's.

It's not rocket science to drive a manual either. It's a 100 year old technology and sucks up less power than an automatic.

It's easy to pretend they don't have to work as hard but that's incorrect. You gravely assume their shifts are as quick which isn't possible. Also the converter gives better torque multiplication.

Boom.

Go ahead and drink that in for a minute or two. I'll just sit back and wait.

Great. Now that you gather that I was right in the first place we can now agree that old man Tom was stretching that his auto is without every advantage at the track over the manual brethren. Was that so difficult?

Now come roll race me.

[Two Fangs]

Once again, and sadly, you try to point to things in your internet fantasy world that do not relate to what real technical people are talking about. Namely the lack of the breaking of torque. It may have been what you meant, but it was not what you said. STR does not relate yesterday, and it does not relate today if we are talking about the advantage of an auto vs a stick in the drag race. Roll race? Nah, I'll pass. Learn how to drive your car and come and talk to me.