Auto vs Manual: The Ultimate Showdown

[Desertdawg]

Did Marco just send Little Yoder a JibJab????

[RRbob]

Interesting discussion

Having raced high compression, tunnel-rammed, cams out to *here* and enough gear in the back to make hiway drivin worrying ..

..both in 4-gear cars and an automatic ..

Both types require traction if yer gonna be puttin out some good horsepower numbers.

Good traction is accomplished by keepin the car from bending so bad you cant open the passenger door after a few days at the track

..and having the suspension/drivetrain up for the task of weight transfer and planting the tires.

For driving them ..

It takes a lot of the same skills for either.

When she starts skating in first you have to be on top of her to keep her straight and puttin the power down..

..goin sideways until you hit steering lock is for drifters ..not goin fast.

Gotta hit the redline shift points and be ready when you jam the next gear in either manual or auto.

However ..a manual shift-clutch car just takes more skill to be good in .. it's the nature of the beast.

At launch an auto is easier to focus on traction control, car reaction, launch rpm ..all of it.

Havin a clutch adds more workload to what you have to be able to do effectively.. more skill is required.

A manual shift done with a high level of skill ..I mean blink of an eye and you barely hear the engine note change ..

..is tougher to do by orders of magnitude than clickin that B&M ratchet into the next gear.

..and the risk is greater for breakage.. every time.

The automatic advantage there is being able to focus entirely on what the car is doing as it shifts..

..much easier to control rpm, traction, car reaction with an auto .. IMHO.

Big power, light car, no weight on the back to stick it:

Tractiion baby ..gotta have it!

-Frank

As Tom say’s, and I agree.

And I myself have drag raced both in the past.

It is easier to modulate a clutch and gas pedal on launch.

Than just a gas pedal to get traction.

W/C RRbob

[1qcktoy]

Temperature coefficient of reactivity In nuclear engineering, the temperature coefficient of reactivity is a measure of the change in reactivity (resulting in a change in power), brought about by a change in temperature of the reactor components or the reactor coolant. This may be defined as Where is reactivity and T is temperature. The relationship shows that is the value of the partial differential of reactivity with respect to temperature and is referred to as the "temperature coefficient of reactivity". As a result, the temperature feedback provided by has an intuitive application to passive nuclear safety. A negative is broadly cited as important for reactor safety, but wide temperature variations across real reactors (as opposed to a theoretical homogeneous reactor) limit the usability of a single metric as a marker of reactor safety.[4] In water moderated nuclear reactors, the bulk of reactivity changes with respect to temperature are brought about by changes in the temperature of the water. However each element of the core has a specific temperature coefficient of reactivity (e.g. the fuel or cladding). The mechanisms which drive fuel temperature coefficients of reactivity are different than water temperature coefficients. While water expands as temperature increases, causing longer neutron travel times during moderation, fuel material will not expand appreciably. Changes in reactivity in fuel due to temperature stem from a phenomenon known as doppler broadening, where resonance absorption of fast neutrons in fuel filler material prevents those neutrons from thermalizing (slowing down)

[Jon]

Lol. I just had a nuke school flashback after reading that.

[Ted Y]

I think it says

"Mom your boob is harry..."

Those are my boobs your looking at there, perv. And, it's "hairy".

[Two Fangs]

Personal attacks, arguments and discussions, gifs, a sick little boy, a jib jab and a copy and paste from Wikipedia. A little bit of everything in here, I guess. Oh, and I forgot pervs.

[Desertdawg]

Temperature coefficient of reactivity

In nuclear engineering, the temperature coefficient of reactivity is a measure of the change in reactivity (resulting in a change in power), brought about by a change in temperature of the reactor components or the reactor coolant. This may be defined as

Where is reactivity and T is temperature. The relationship shows that is the value of the partial differential of reactivity with respect to temperature and is referred to as the "temperature coefficient of reactivity". As a result, the temperature feedback provided by has an intuitive application to passive nuclear safety. A negative is broadly cited as important for reactor safety, but wide temperature variations across real reactors (as opposed to a theoretical homogeneous reactor) limit the usability of a single metric as a marker of reactor safety.[4]

In water moderated nuclear reactors, the bulk of reactivity changes with respect to temperature are brought about by changes in the temperature of the water. However each element of the core has a specific temperature coefficient of reactivity (e.g. the fuel or cladding). The mechanisms which drive fuel temperature coefficients of reactivity are different than water temperature coefficients. While water expands as temperature increases, causing longer neutron travel times during moderation, fuel material will not expand appreciably. Changes in reactivity in fuel due to temperature stem from a phenomenon known as doppler broadening, where resonance absorption of fast neutrons in fuel filler material prevents those neutrons from thermalizing (slowing down)

If Mike was here reading that his head would have exploded......

[Bigfoot]

Hey, quit picking on a guy who can't defend himself...aww, to hell with...pick on him all ya want.

[Drewstein]

I got in a couple more passes, including the 10.85, which was when my low fuel light came on too. With a couple more gallons, we both would have made more runs.

Would have, could have, and the list goes on. There's no guarantee you would have duplicated that run. You didn't back it up so it's out.

As far as DA, I brought it up because comparing times run at dissimilar DAs is a moot point. Your car isn't a 10 second car in AZ, but it may be in Cali. Comparing your Cali time to Mike's time isn't realistic. To quote you on the subject "What a difference a lower elevation track makes. No wonder you coastal guys run so good." Source

You stated the converter was good for .5 seconds, so I was merely discounting the converter time to level the playing field, since you thought it meant so much.

Now to address the blown motor. The root cause was a too high setting in the tune for the rev limiter. I found this when I bought HP Tuner software to do my own tuning on the new engine. The previous tuner had dumped in a Z06 tune with it's higher limiter and then modified it from there. The result allowed an overrev when the tires broke loose during the shift and dropped a valve. The stock internals on a LS3 with a 6500 redline don't live well in the 7100+ Z06 range.

You can't discount the converter time alone. Mods add to each other, or didn't you know that. The reduction I quoted is the standard reduction quoted when only adding a converter to an auto. Since you failed to read through our discussion on torque multiplication, you are probably miffed as how more force can improve that reduction. Every FTLB you add on the front end is being multiplied and spit out the back end. You even posted IN THIS THREAD acknowledging the .5 reduction claim.

You're also on full slicks and skinnies where Steg and Vic are just running a decent tire on the rear.

Your car is quick, but not in the same league as Vic and Steg.

[Down]

Personal attacks, arguments and discussions, gifs, a sick little boy, a jib jab and a copy and paste from Wikipedia. A little bit of everything in here, I guess.

Oh, and I forgot pervs.

Additionally, I earned a custom tag line below my avatar. I feel legit now.

[Jon]

Personal attacks, arguments and discussions, gifs, a sick little boy, a jib jab and a copy and paste from Wikipedia. A little bit of everything in here, I guess.

Oh, and I forgot pervs.

Additionally, I earned a custom tag line below my avatar. I feel legit now.

2 legit 2 quit???

[Down]

Personal attacks, arguments and discussions, gifs, a sick little boy, a jib jab and a copy and paste from Wikipedia. A little bit of everything in here, I guess.

Oh, and I forgot pervs.

Additionally, I earned a custom tag line below my avatar. I feel legit now.

2 legit 2 quit???

[Marco]

Personal attacks, arguments and discussions, gifs, a sick little boy, a jib jab and a copy and paste from Wikipedia. A little bit of everything in here, I guess.

Oh, and I forgot pervs.

Additionally, I earned a custom tag line below my avatar. I feel legit now.

2 legit 2 quit???

[LastC3]

Geeezzz Drew ..... please help me understand why the hell we can't have a discussion and/or debate on here without belittling someone ????? DAMN !!!!

[Down]

Personal attacks, arguments and discussions, gifs, a sick little boy, a jib jab and a copy and paste from Wikipedia. A little bit of everything in here, I guess.

Oh, and I forgot pervs.

Additionally, I earned a custom tag line below my avatar. I feel legit now.

2 legit 2 quit???

WARNING!!!!!: This is an advanced maneuver; do not try this on a first date!

[RRbob]

Geeezzz Drew ..... please help me understand why the hell we can't have a discussion and/or debate on here without belittling someone ????? DAMN !!!!

I agree!

It’s no easy feat to run a bone stock ls3 motor with just Bolton’s in the 10 ’s

Just try it sometime!

I know for a fact that he could of duplicated it!

Doing more with less especially in the Phoenix area.

He is proud of it, and I don’t blame him

[Marco]

Geeezzz Drew ..... please help me understand why the hell we can't have a discussion and/or debate on here without belittling someone ????? DAMN !!!!

I agree!

It's no easy feat to run a bone stock ls3 motor with just Bolton's in the 10 's

Just try it sometime!

I know for a fact that he could of duplicated it!

Doing more with less especially in the Phoenix area.

He is proud of it, and I don't blame him

[Jon]

WARNING!!!!!: This is an advanced maneuver; do not try this on a first date!

Hilarious!

[HOXXOH]

I got in a couple more passes, including the 10.85, which was when my low fuel light came on too. With a couple more gallons, we both would have made more runs.

Would have, could have, and the list goes on. There's no guarantee you would have duplicated that run. You didn't back it up so it's out.

As far as DA, I brought it up because comparing times run at dissimilar DAs is a moot point. Your car isn't a 10 second car in AZ, but it may be in Cali. Comparing your Cali time to Mike's time isn't realistic. To quote you on the subject "What a difference a lower elevation track makes. No wonder you coastal guys run so good." Source

You stated the converter was good for .5 seconds, so I was merely discounting the converter time to level the playing field, since you thought it meant so much.

Now to address the blown motor. The root cause was a too high setting in the tune for the rev limiter. I found this when I bought HP Tuner software to do my own tuning on the new engine. The previous tuner had dumped in a Z06 tune with it's higher limiter and then modified it from there. The result allowed an overrev when the tires broke loose during the shift and dropped a valve. The stock internals on a LS3 with a 6500 redline don't live well in the 7100+ Z06 range.

You can't discount the converter time alone. Mods add to each other, or didn't you know that. The reduction I quoted is the standard reduction quoted when only adding a converter to an auto. Since you failed to read through our discussion on torque multiplication, you are probably miffed as how more force can improve that reduction. Every FTLB you add on the front end is being multiplied and spit out the back end. You even posted IN THIS THREAD acknowledging the .5 reduction claim.

You're also on full slicks and skinnies where Steg and Vic are just running a decent tire on the rear.

Your car is quick, but not in the same league as Vic and Steg.

Yeah, I guess I'm real stupid for not knowing all that stuff. It just makes me wonder how my puny low HP car is so quick.

Somehow my Hoosier 275/17 DR's seem to be slightly narrower than Mike's Hoosier 315/17 DR's, which Victor was using along with Parker's skinnies. Maybe that's why they both had better 60' times, but then again, I'm too dumb to answer that.

[JLs Mistress]

I got in a couple more passes, including the 10.85, which was when my low fuel light came on too. With a couple more gallons, we both would have made more runs.

Would have, could have, and the list goes on. There's no guarantee you would have duplicated that run. You didn't back it up so it's out.

As far as DA, I brought it up because comparing times run at dissimilar DAs is a moot point. Your car isn't a 10 second car in AZ, but it may be in Cali. Comparing your Cali time to Mike's time isn't realistic. To quote you on the subject "What a difference a lower elevation track makes. No wonder you coastal guys run so good." Source

You stated the converter was good for .5 seconds, so I was merely discounting the converter time to level the playing field, since you thought it meant so much.

Now to address the blown motor. The root cause was a too high setting in the tune for the rev limiter. I found this when I bought HP Tuner software to do my own tuning on the new engine. The previous tuner had dumped in a Z06 tune with it's higher limiter and then modified it from there. The result allowed an overrev when the tires broke loose during the shift and dropped a valve. The stock internals on a LS3 with a 6500 redline don't live well in the 7100+ Z06 range.

You can't discount the converter time alone. Mods add to each other, or didn't you know that. The reduction I quoted is the standard reduction quoted when only adding a converter to an auto. Since you failed to read through our discussion on torque multiplication, you are probably miffed as how more force can improve that reduction. Every FTLB you add on the front end is being multiplied and spit out the back end. You even posted IN THIS THREAD acknowledging the .5 reduction claim.

You're also on full slicks and skinnies where Steg and Vic are just running a decent tire on the rear.

Your car is quick, but not in the same league as Vic and Steg.

Yeah, I guess I'm real stupid for not knowing all that stuff. It just makes me wonder how my puny low HP car is so quick.

Somehow my Hoosier 275/17 DR's seem to be slightly narrower than Mike's Hoosier 315/17 DR's, which Victor was using along with Parker's skinnies. Maybe that's why they both had better 60' times, but then again, I'm too dumb to answer that.

Stop taking the dumb pills would help ????

[Desertdawg]

Your car is quick, but not in the same league as Vic and Steg.

if he is within a tenth or two on the same day, I call that in the same league....

Unless your basis is the letter Z on the fender

[Marco]

Your car is quick, but not in the same league as Vic and Steg.

if he is within a tenth or two on the same day, I call that in the same league....

Unless your basis is the letter Z on the fender

[Drewstein]

Your car is quick, but not in the same league as Vic and Steg.

if he is within a tenth or two on the same day, I call that in the same league....

Unless your basis is the letter Z on the fender

Never has been. I'm usually in arguments on CF with Z guys who think the letter makes them cool.

It's the mind in the clouds people in general I will debate with. Him claiming a manual is just as easy was outright false. It's something Parker and I actually agreed on lol.

[Two Fangs]

Your car is quick, but not in the same league as Vic and Steg.

if he is within a tenth or two on the same day, I call that in the same league....

Unless your basis is the letter Z on the fender

Never has been. I'm usually in arguments on CF with Z guys who think the letter makes them cool.

It's the mind in the clouds people in general I will debate with. Him claiming a manual is just as easy was outright false. It's something Parker and I actually agreed on lol.

I hope somebody put that on the calendar, LOL

I understand there is another one of these over on CF I may go take a look.

[Drewstein]

If there is link it up. Would be fun to rumble on the big board.