I didn't like writing this post (I'm not usually about leaving arguments stranded), but I'm not going to dive in to 10000 words of basic mechanical physics and a little bit of analogous electical analysis just for you. But understand that an automatic is no better at torque conversion than a manual. I seemed to get the impression that you thought otherwise. A torque-converter doesn't do anything wondrous and magical in itself.
To be quite honest with you, I didn't like the 350Z. It feels kind of boatlike, the way a Supra did. I really don't think I would have liked the automatic, though I do know where you're coming from exactly. There's just something that's not there when you go around a turn and can't just down shift it in a quick second. And I'm not about to wear out my brakes just to make casual driving less of a boating experience.
Well, your saber rattling is most intimidating. Really, if you have some math to show us, please don't spare us from the spectacle. If you are indeed as masterful over it as you say you are, you should easily be able to distill down a few basic formulas to support your assertion w/o writing a book. Brandishing statements such as, "Oooh, if only I dared to show you what I know...", it just makes you look worse off for it.
What exactly is your problem with the term "torque multiplication"? Torque convertors don't do this? It's just 1:1 input to output with varied amounts of slip, right?
I'm sorry you were here to read that. I was irritated and AI timed out for a while so I couldn't change it. Even so, you know where I'm coming from now, but maybe at least you realize I'm a bit more polite than that.
As for the math, you can pick up any physics book and look up force and energy. Then you can look at a power/torque chart from an engine. That's not going to change. The transmission can provide some mechanical advantage in converting force to energy and vice versa, but an automatic has no inherent advantage at doing this. As the revs of an engine increase and power and torque output change they change before the tranny and after the tranny alike. So an automatic has no inherent advantage at improving mid range acceleration. If you sense a difference, it can only be due to the gearing in one particular tranny versus another.
Give me two 350Z's and a stopwatch, though, and I'll get ya. Unless the 350 is one of a kind, it's automatic tranny option gives overall higher gearing and mid range performance is less spirited, since there's less torque to the wheels at all rpms given a gear. I can only assume that, when you drove the manual, you weren't pushing mid-range as hard.
We have yet to see any sort of "math" from you, and your explanations so far have been far from objective. Essentially, all you have said is that "automatics sux because, well, they're automatics".
...
They will bother to discover the finer essences of a "fun" car. They may actually discover that there is more to car life than doing drop clutch launches at 3500 rpm.
I'd like to hear what those "finer essences" are for you.
Personally, I am not interested in 0-anything launches or having monster power, but rather being in total control of the car. In my limited experience, automatics don't give you that. Roads are usually in snow or ice around here. When you're going around the corner, even with reasonable speeds, the car naturally slides around a bit. I fear the occasions when an automatic decides to up- or downshift midcorner, because simply lifting the throttle can cause you to lose grip in RWD/4WD.
Maybe the modern "sports" automatics are so smooth this is a non-issue. Pray tell.
But understand that an automatic is no better at torque conversion than a manual. I seemed to get the impression that you thought otherwise. A torque-converter doesn't do anything wondrous and magical in itself.
Of course not. However, it doesn't behave exactly the same as mechanical gearing, either. That creates some interesting qualities.
Quote:
I really don't think I would have liked the automatic, though I do know where you're coming from exactly.
You don't think?! Why don't you just go find out for yourself, instead of guessing where I'm "coming from"?
Quote:
There's just something that's not there when you go around a turn and can't just down shift it in a quick second.
You need to sporadically shift down in mid-turn? That would be driver error. A driver in control has already anticipated a gear change or not and will actuate the lever (whether it be a manual linkage or an automatic selector) in time for the change to respectively occur at the expected moment. If you're really good, you know what throttle position to execute to invoke a downshift in an auto tranny w/o even touching the lever.
Quote:
And I'm not about to wear out my brakes just to make casual driving less of a boating experience.
If your brakes mean that much to you, you do realize an automatic can engine brake, as well? It's a "boating experience" to you now since the lever resembles a boat throttle? (What does a stick shift resemble to you, then? Does this imply you revel in the symbolism of yanking on your junk?) Now you are just grasping for any/all straws to exonorate the wonders of manual shifting. For the more casual observer, these are just devices to allow optimum control of car subsystems. If a lever works fine, who gives a f*ck? If a stick works fine, more power to it, as well. ...or is there some sort of math you have that determines that a lever is an inappropriate implementation?
I'll admit you caught me at a bad time with that last post, but at this point I really don't care what you think. Yes, I really don't, so you can make a bunch more posts and get the last word in if you'd like, but it's just so clear to me that you really, truly, don't know how to drive.
I love to have total control fo my car also, that's why i prefer the stick, i hate to be obliged to anticipate how an automactic transmission will react.
Automatic transmission are better in town and heavy traffic, otherwise on small road, i'll stay with my stick.
Real sports cars do not use automatic but robotised transmission. IMO
As for the math, you can pick up any physics book and look up force and energy.
I'm not asking you for pointers on figuring out the math. I'm calling you out on your claim that you have any math to offer that supports your assertion.
Quote:
Then you can look at a power/torque chart from an engine. That's not going to change. The transmission can provide some mechanical advantage in converting force to energy and vice versa, but an automatic has no inherent advantage at doing this. As the revs of an engine increase and power and torque output change they change before the tranny and after the tranny alike. So an automatic has no inherent advantage at improving mid range acceleration. If you sense a difference, it can only be due to the gearing in one particular tranny versus another.
This is where you are going to get stuck. The midrange improvements I cite are perceptible within a single gear. That is, the behavior of the engine itself as it traverses an rpm range is inherently transformed. This is not the case where the lower gears stand-out among the other gears. This is a case, where the torque convertor applies its own signature to the engine output within a single gear and consistent in every gear. Essentially, the engine feels stronger in the midrange with perhaps some trade-offs in coupling in the top range- all observable within the confines of a single gear.
If you are to attribute this improvement to tranny gearing alone, then you are conceding that the auto tranny is carrying shorter gearing, which is consequentially in conflict with your earlier statement that auto tranny gearing is typically taller than its manual counterpart. So which is it, slick?
Quote:
Give me two 350Z's and a stopwatch, though, and I'll get ya.
...and here we have the subtle shifting of the goal posts. Go back and read my statements- I already granted that the manual Z will bring in the better times. Do you not remember that entire spiel I gave about the disparity in times will only be relevant if your driving activity exclusively involves 0-60 and 1/4 mi runs? If it doesn't, then what you feel and how effectively you can get around that car next to you is going to be the more useful determinant to a "fun" car. I keep saying over and over- the "feel" of the midrange (a range you are more likely going to traverse in a given day of driving) in the 350Z automatic is not something to be dismissed.
Quote:
Unless the 350 is one of a kind, it's automatic tranny option gives overall higher gearing and mid range performance is less spirited, since there's less torque to the wheels at all rpms given a gear.
You have the "math" to figure this out. Figure out that the operation of a torque convertor is not "linear" in the same manner as mechanical gearing. ...or spare the math, AND GO DRIVE THE FREAKIN' CAR, to realize you are mistaken.
Quote:
I can only assume that, when you drove the manual, you weren't pushing mid-range as hard.
You can go 1/2, 3/4, or full-on throttle- it doesn't make a damn difference in the midrange (most of that throttle travel is applicable only in the uppermost rpm range). What you get is what you get. There wasn't any way to "push" the midrange any harder, other than getting out of the car and pushing it.
The automatic, OTOH, achieves what it does in the midrange with as little as 1/3 to 1/2 throttle. You can keep assuming all of these scenarios, but none of them will stick. You are essentially facing realities (which I have repeatedly encouraged you to go experience yourself, firsthand), which cannot be explained by your preconceptions of how things work. Time for you to re-assess some of those preconceptions, yes-yes?
Yes, I really don't, so you can make a bunch more posts and get the last word in if you'd like, but it's just so clear to me that you really, truly, don't know how to drive.
You have consistently failed to guess what my driving experiences are- what makes you think you can now assess my ability to drive??? Can you be any more hypocritical and self-contradicting? You have summarily failed to give support to your points and defend them from me blowing holes through'em, so your final statement is that I am the one who can't drive? Lemme guess, you have your arms tightly folded, foot is tapping nervously, and your lips pursed angrily right now? I mean, c'mon now! GO DRIVE THE CAR! Find out for your own sake. You don't have to believe me. Believe from your own direct experience. Will you dare submit to pitting your own preconceptions against the realities of the actual machine?
I'd like to hear what those "finer essences" are for you.
I'll get back to you on that.
Quote:
Roads are usually in snow or ice around here. When you're going around the corner, even with reasonable speeds, the car naturally slides around a bit. I fear the occasions when an automatic decides to up- or downshift midcorner, because simply lifting the throttle can cause you to lose grip in RWD/4WD.
It's not going to upshift on you unless you happen to be accelerating through the corner. Why would you be accelerating through a corner covered in snow or ice? It's not going to downshift on you in a corner unless you drastically reduce your speed through the corner. That would imply you have your brakes on. Why would you be braking hard while traversing a snowy/icy corner? These are extremely illogical scenarios. Unlike mechanical gearing, a fluid coupling can tolerate a wide range of coasting speeds w/o drawing the engine to inappropriate rpm ranges. It's not just going to up and shift on you unless you are slowing to a stop or demanding a deliberate engine load via throttle application. Potentially, it could be even more snow/ice friendly than a manual being piloted by someone who has chosen a gear unwisely and finds they need to change while in midturn.
At this point in time, the auto has surpassed the manual in strict performance terms. You just don't see it in the everyday.
In racing, autos were so advanced that bodies have outlawed them. In F1 there were autoboxes that sped up driver times, they have since been outlawed, but there's no doubt that an advanced auto can kick the snot out of a manual, they had, both in full auto form, and in manu-matic, the only F1 CVT I know of (prototype test, good for 800lbs/ft) immediately dropped times by a few tenths, imagine what would happen with some development under it?
In the average road car, a very good driver can with a manual will beat out a very good driver in an auto, only because the average road going auto box is relatively sloppy and unintelligent. However, 99% of the drivers on the road are sloppy and unintelligent enough that they'll be slower with a manual.
In snow or ice, you use higher gearing so that the car doesn't launch off and you get no traction. Can't do that in an automatic. Automatics are inferior compared to a manual and a driver that knows what he or she is doing. End of story. Stop discussing about automatics, they do not deliver any advantages apart from that you can be lazy. No better torque delivery, nothing.
Yes, in F1 they're advanced, but you do not get that kind of technology in a 350z! Also, if you think gearchanges are better, wait for zeroshift, yes that's right, invented in Britain, a gearbox that shifts instantaneously.
One of the best automatic gearboxes is found in the Jaguar S type, the ZF automatic. As far as I know, the 350z automatic is nothing to shout about, not even in automatic terms.
At this point in time, the auto has surpassed the manual in strict performance terms. You just don't see it in the everyday.
...
In the average road car, a very good driver can with a manual will beat out a very good driver in an auto, only because the average road going auto box is relatively sloppy and unintelligent. However, 99% of the drivers on the road are sloppy and unintelligent enough that they'll be slower with a manual.
I understand the best "autos" are basically manual gearboxes where a computer and hydraulics replace the clutch. You get 0.x second gear switch times and automatic "perfect" rev matching. You still choose the gear, the car doesn't.
I do think you're overestimating the quality of the average automatic gearbox on the road.. or maybe I'm overestimating drivers. I would think at least every 4th driver would have faster times on a road course with manual than with auto.
OTOH I understand automatic is used a *lot* more in the US than in Europe.
I fully admitt that most road going autos aren't there yet, but the technology exists to utterly embarrass the traditional stick shift. Some manumatics can be turned over to full computer control. That's really "automatic" when you think about it, clutch plates instead of torque converters, but if the machine does it for you, for all driverly purposes, that's an "automatic" shift. Again, look at F1 and the case of launch control: why do they use it? Obviously because even the best drivers in the world can't shift as fast or as well as a properly programmed machine.
Why do they ban it? Because they say it takes skill out of the equation, and I don't disagree with that, but it goes to a sentiment about what a sports car should be rather than a technical question about what offers the best performance.
As for drivers from Europe and NA. I think a lot of drivers, especially those that choose a stick, think they're rather good. They aren't. Often there's a direct inverse relationship between how good such drivers think they are, and what they can actually do. It's been my experience that European drivers are used to a more spirited pace, but generally aren't that good on the stick either -- their shifts are still slow, and they tend to butcher tranny regardless of good they think they are.
As for drivers from Europe and NA. I think a lot of drivers, especially those that choose a stick, think they're rather good. They aren't. Often there's a direct inverse relationship between how good such drivers think they are, and what they can actually do. It's been my experience that European drivers are used to a more spirited pace, but generally aren't that good on the stick either -- their shifts are still slow, and they tend to butcher tranny regardless of good they think they are.
Don't make generalisations like that. European drivers are quite good, but you always have those that aren't. Automatics also can't read your mind. Autos can be used in F1 due to the sport not being very demanding. In Rally driving for example, shifts are not linear and change with the environment. No Auto can compensate for that.
Thanks to computer control autos can read your mind to a degree, but more importantly, they can read the road and the physical situation of the car and do the right thing. Do road autos do this? NO, not generally, but there's nothing to stop it. And anyway, reading your mind is a dangerous precedent because usually, "your mind" isn't computing the the situation properly. If you feed the parameters into the computer and let it control the tranny it can accomodate roll, yaw, pitch, slip, brake balance, rate of acceleration/deceleration, and it can do it 1000's of times per second. You really think that you could outrun an autobox that outruns any of the top F1 drivers? Gimme a break.
Again, I admitt that this level of auto box isn't widely available on a street machine, but if manufacturers would build on even a fifth as good, every single street racer wannabe across our roadways wouldn't be able to beat it.
And how do you qualify good?
I think Euro drivers better than most NA drivers too, but whether they're good enough to extract more from a manual is really the question.
And the answer to that, is again, that they aren't. A quick drive through Europe shows a litany of molested econoboxes, snatched gears, missed shifts, and herky gerky changes. I love driving through Rome watching hoods bob up and down as drivers change too early, too late, take too long, forget what the clutch pedal does, etc etc...
These drivers are assuredly not good enough to make a manual go around a track any faster than an good auto box, most aren't even good enough to make said manual beat the fuel economy ratings of equivalent autos -- as repeated studies have shown, the manual has a higher average fuel economy than an auto in the same vehicle, theoretically, or basically untill you put it into the hands of the average driver. Yes, fuel economy and track speeds are not the same thing, but can a set of drivers who can't really modulate a manual with the fluidity required to extract mileage really be expected to extract velocity at more demanding speeds?
The answer, again, is NO.
F1 is extremely demanding. Nowhere are the forces higher or the edges finer, nowhere. Boring it may get, but undemanding it is not.
Rallycar is also demanding, but again, the manual survives because of regulations, not technical proficiency. With active differentials that can make an F2 FWD car run rings around the average road going AWD, or in the top classes various 4 wheel computer controlled steering and torque distribution, active brake balance apportioning systems, there's a LOT of "auto" in a rally car, if gearboxes were permitted, they'd be there too, yesterday!
Don't get me wrong, a good manual under a good driver is still formidable. But there really are extremely few road drivers of that quality. The only reason pro drivers can post a challenge to what's possible with a high tech auto is because they practice test and practice like mad.
It's a nostalgia, and not entirely inappropriate to motorsports, but technically speaking, there are faster ways already.
I got the chance to test drive a 350z on friday. It was a silver touring model. It's a beautiful car. The negative things about the car was visibility from the back window & also the driver's side. You really have to rely on the side mirrors much more. Another thing that surprised me was that the salesman mentioned that this car isn't really a winter car. The car prior to my corsica had rear-wheel drive which I didn't have a problem with because I was comfortable with countersteering (living in Wisconsin my whole life helps). He gave off a vibe though that it's almost impossible to drive, even with a 1/2 inch of snow.
I've been reading the other comments that have been posted & it has kind of degenerated into a GranTourismo/Motorweek Flame war about "jumping off the line", "brake torque", or remarks like, "buying a sports car with an automatic is like jacking off with your left hand." None of this is helping me. It's not like I'm looking for some underground street race or having weekend drives through the countryside wearing aviator glasses and asking strangers if they have any grey f*@king pupon.
The intent of my post was to find people that have actually driven these cars and to get their opinions about them, positive or negative.
Another thing that surprised me was that the salesman mentioned that this car isn't really a winter car. The car prior to my corsica had rear-wheel drive which I didn't have a problem with because I was comfortable with countersteering (living in Wisconsin my whole life helps). He gave off a vibe though that it's almost impossible to drive, even with a 1/2 inch of snow.
I think it's mostly a matter of what you're used to. I have only driven RWD cars on a regular basis, driving FWD on ice feels pretty damn strange and I wouldn't trust it as much though I know most of the people like FWD better for slippery conditions..
Comments
To be quite honest with you, I didn't like the 350Z. It feels kind of boatlike, the way a Supra did. I really don't think I would have liked the automatic, though I do know where you're coming from exactly. There's just something that's not there when you go around a turn and can't just down shift it in a quick second. And I'm not about to wear out my brakes just to make casual driving less of a boating experience.
What exactly is your problem with the term "torque multiplication"? Torque convertors don't do this? It's just 1:1 input to output with varied amounts of slip, right?
As for the math, you can pick up any physics book and look up force and energy. Then you can look at a power/torque chart from an engine. That's not going to change. The transmission can provide some mechanical advantage in converting force to energy and vice versa, but an automatic has no inherent advantage at doing this. As the revs of an engine increase and power and torque output change they change before the tranny and after the tranny alike. So an automatic has no inherent advantage at improving mid range acceleration. If you sense a difference, it can only be due to the gearing in one particular tranny versus another.
Give me two 350Z's and a stopwatch, though, and I'll get ya. Unless the 350 is one of a kind, it's automatic tranny option gives overall higher gearing and mid range performance is less spirited, since there's less torque to the wheels at all rpms given a gear. I can only assume that, when you drove the manual, you weren't pushing mid-range as hard.
Originally posted by Randycat99
We have yet to see any sort of "math" from you, and your explanations so far have been far from objective. Essentially, all you have said is that "automatics sux because, well, they're automatics".
...
They will bother to discover the finer essences of a "fun" car. They may actually discover that there is more to car life than doing drop clutch launches at 3500 rpm.
I'd like to hear what those "finer essences" are for you.
Personally, I am not interested in 0-anything launches or having monster power, but rather being in total control of the car. In my limited experience, automatics don't give you that. Roads are usually in snow or ice around here. When you're going around the corner, even with reasonable speeds, the car naturally slides around a bit. I fear the occasions when an automatic decides to up- or downshift midcorner, because simply lifting the throttle can cause you to lose grip in RWD/4WD.
Maybe the modern "sports" automatics are so smooth this is a non-issue. Pray tell.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
But understand that an automatic is no better at torque conversion than a manual. I seemed to get the impression that you thought otherwise. A torque-converter doesn't do anything wondrous and magical in itself.
Of course not. However, it doesn't behave exactly the same as mechanical gearing, either. That creates some interesting qualities.
Quote:
I really don't think I would have liked the automatic, though I do know where you're coming from exactly.
You don't think?! Why don't you just go find out for yourself, instead of guessing where I'm "coming from"?
Quote:
There's just something that's not there when you go around a turn and can't just down shift it in a quick second.
You need to sporadically shift down in mid-turn? That would be driver error. A driver in control has already anticipated a gear change or not and will actuate the lever (whether it be a manual linkage or an automatic selector) in time for the change to respectively occur at the expected moment. If you're really good, you know what throttle position to execute to invoke a downshift in an auto tranny w/o even touching the lever.
Quote:
And I'm not about to wear out my brakes just to make casual driving less of a boating experience.
If your brakes mean that much to you, you do realize an automatic can engine brake, as well? It's a "boating experience" to you now since the lever resembles a boat throttle? (What does a stick shift resemble to you, then? Does this imply you revel in the symbolism of yanking on your junk?) Now you are just grasping for any/all straws to exonorate the wonders of manual shifting.
Automatic transmission are better in town and heavy traffic, otherwise on small road, i'll stay with my stick.
Real sports cars do not use automatic but robotised transmission. IMO
Originally posted by Splinemodel
As for the math, you can pick up any physics book and look up force and energy.
I'm not asking you for pointers on figuring out the math. I'm calling you out on your claim that you have any math to offer that supports your assertion.
Quote:
Then you can look at a power/torque chart from an engine. That's not going to change. The transmission can provide some mechanical advantage in converting force to energy and vice versa, but an automatic has no inherent advantage at doing this. As the revs of an engine increase and power and torque output change they change before the tranny and after the tranny alike. So an automatic has no inherent advantage at improving mid range acceleration. If you sense a difference, it can only be due to the gearing in one particular tranny versus another.
This is where you are going to get stuck. The midrange improvements I cite are perceptible within a single gear. That is, the behavior of the engine itself as it traverses an rpm range is inherently transformed. This is not the case where the lower gears stand-out among the other gears. This is a case, where the torque convertor applies its own signature to the engine output within a single gear and consistent in every gear. Essentially, the engine feels stronger in the midrange with perhaps some trade-offs in coupling in the top range- all observable within the confines of a single gear.
If you are to attribute this improvement to tranny gearing alone, then you are conceding that the auto tranny is carrying shorter gearing, which is consequentially in conflict with your earlier statement that auto tranny gearing is typically taller than its manual counterpart. So which is it, slick?
Quote:
Give me two 350Z's and a stopwatch, though, and I'll get ya.
...and here we have the subtle shifting of the goal posts. Go back and read my statements- I already granted that the manual Z will bring in the better times. Do you not remember that entire spiel I gave about the disparity in times will only be relevant if your driving activity exclusively involves 0-60 and 1/4 mi runs? If it doesn't, then what you feel and how effectively you can get around that car next to you is going to be the more useful determinant to a "fun" car. I keep saying over and over- the "feel" of the midrange (a range you are more likely going to traverse in a given day of driving) in the 350Z automatic is not something to be dismissed.
Quote:
Unless the 350 is one of a kind, it's automatic tranny option gives overall higher gearing and mid range performance is less spirited, since there's less torque to the wheels at all rpms given a gear.
You have the "math" to figure this out. Figure out that the operation of a torque convertor is not "linear" in the same manner as mechanical gearing. ...or spare the math, AND GO DRIVE THE FREAKIN' CAR, to realize you are mistaken.
Quote:
I can only assume that, when you drove the manual, you weren't pushing mid-range as hard.
You can go 1/2, 3/4, or full-on throttle- it doesn't make a damn difference in the midrange (most of that throttle travel is applicable only in the uppermost rpm range). What you get is what you get. There wasn't any way to "push" the midrange any harder, other than getting out of the car and pushing it.
The automatic, OTOH, achieves what it does in the midrange with as little as 1/3 to 1/2 throttle. You can keep assuming all of these scenarios, but none of them will stick. You are essentially facing realities (which I have repeatedly encouraged you to go experience yourself, firsthand), which cannot be explained by your preconceptions of how things work. Time for you to re-assess some of those preconceptions, yes-yes?
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Yes, I really don't, so you can make a bunch more posts and get the last word in if you'd like, but it's just so clear to me that you really, truly, don't know how to drive.
You have consistently failed to guess what my driving experiences are- what makes you think you can now assess my ability to drive??? Can you be any more hypocritical and self-contradicting? You have summarily failed to give support to your points and defend them from me blowing holes through'em, so your final statement is that I am the one who can't drive? Lemme guess, you have your arms tightly folded, foot is tapping nervously, and your lips pursed angrily right now? I mean, c'mon now! GO DRIVE THE CAR! Find out for your own sake. You don't have to believe me. Believe from your own direct experience. Will you dare submit to pitting your own preconceptions against the realities of the actual machine?
Originally posted by Gon
I'd like to hear what those "finer essences" are for you.
I'll get back to you on that.
Quote:
Roads are usually in snow or ice around here. When you're going around the corner, even with reasonable speeds, the car naturally slides around a bit. I fear the occasions when an automatic decides to up- or downshift midcorner, because simply lifting the throttle can cause you to lose grip in RWD/4WD.
It's not going to upshift on you unless you happen to be accelerating through the corner. Why would you be accelerating through a corner covered in snow or ice? It's not going to downshift on you in a corner unless you drastically reduce your speed through the corner. That would imply you have your brakes on. Why would you be braking hard while traversing a snowy/icy corner? These are extremely illogical scenarios. Unlike mechanical gearing, a fluid coupling can tolerate a wide range of coasting speeds w/o drawing the engine to inappropriate rpm ranges. It's not just going to up and shift on you unless you are slowing to a stop or demanding a deliberate engine load via throttle application. Potentially, it could be even more snow/ice friendly than a manual being piloted by someone who has chosen a gear unwisely and finds they need to change while in midturn.
In racing, autos were so advanced that bodies have outlawed them. In F1 there were autoboxes that sped up driver times, they have since been outlawed, but there's no doubt that an advanced auto can kick the snot out of a manual, they had, both in full auto form, and in manu-matic, the only F1 CVT I know of (prototype test, good for 800lbs/ft) immediately dropped times by a few tenths, imagine what would happen with some development under it?
In the average road car, a very good driver can with a manual will beat out a very good driver in an auto, only because the average road going auto box is relatively sloppy and unintelligent. However, 99% of the drivers on the road are sloppy and unintelligent enough that they'll be slower with a manual.
I'm not sure where that leaves this debate.
Yes, in F1 they're advanced, but you do not get that kind of technology in a 350z! Also, if you think gearchanges are better, wait for zeroshift, yes that's right, invented in Britain, a gearbox that shifts instantaneously.
One of the best automatic gearboxes is found in the Jaguar S type, the ZF automatic. As far as I know, the 350z automatic is nothing to shout about, not even in automatic terms.
Originally posted by Matsu
At this point in time, the auto has surpassed the manual in strict performance terms. You just don't see it in the everyday.
...
In the average road car, a very good driver can with a manual will beat out a very good driver in an auto, only because the average road going auto box is relatively sloppy and unintelligent. However, 99% of the drivers on the road are sloppy and unintelligent enough that they'll be slower with a manual.
I understand the best "autos" are basically manual gearboxes where a computer and hydraulics replace the clutch. You get 0.x second gear switch times and automatic "perfect" rev matching. You still choose the gear, the car doesn't.
I do think you're overestimating the quality of the average automatic gearbox on the road.. or maybe I'm overestimating drivers. I would think at least every 4th driver would have faster times on a road course with manual than with auto.
OTOH I understand automatic is used a *lot* more in the US than in Europe.
Why do they ban it? Because they say it takes skill out of the equation, and I don't disagree with that, but it goes to a sentiment about what a sports car should be rather than a technical question about what offers the best performance.
As for drivers from Europe and NA. I think a lot of drivers, especially those that choose a stick, think they're rather good. They aren't. Often there's a direct inverse relationship between how good such drivers think they are, and what they can actually do. It's been my experience that European drivers are used to a more spirited pace, but generally aren't that good on the stick either -- their shifts are still slow, and they tend to butcher tranny regardless of good they think they are.
Originally posted by Matsu
As for drivers from Europe and NA. I think a lot of drivers, especially those that choose a stick, think they're rather good. They aren't. Often there's a direct inverse relationship between how good such drivers think they are, and what they can actually do. It's been my experience that European drivers are used to a more spirited pace, but generally aren't that good on the stick either -- their shifts are still slow, and they tend to butcher tranny regardless of good they think they are.
Don't make generalisations like that. European drivers are quite good, but you always have those that aren't. Automatics also can't read your mind. Autos can be used in F1 due to the sport not being very demanding. In Rally driving for example, shifts are not linear and change with the environment. No Auto can compensate for that.
Again, I admitt that this level of auto box isn't widely available on a street machine, but if manufacturers would build on even a fifth as good, every single street racer wannabe across our roadways wouldn't be able to beat it.
And how do you qualify good?
I think Euro drivers better than most NA drivers too, but whether they're good enough to extract more from a manual is really the question.
And the answer to that, is again, that they aren't. A quick drive through Europe shows a litany of molested econoboxes, snatched gears, missed shifts, and herky gerky changes. I love driving through Rome watching hoods bob up and down as drivers change too early, too late, take too long, forget what the clutch pedal does, etc etc...
These drivers are assuredly not good enough to make a manual go around a track any faster than an good auto box, most aren't even good enough to make said manual beat the fuel economy ratings of equivalent autos -- as repeated studies have shown, the manual has a higher average fuel economy than an auto in the same vehicle, theoretically, or basically untill you put it into the hands of the average driver. Yes, fuel economy and track speeds are not the same thing, but can a set of drivers who can't really modulate a manual with the fluidity required to extract mileage really be expected to extract velocity at more demanding speeds?
The answer, again, is NO.
F1 is extremely demanding. Nowhere are the forces higher or the edges finer, nowhere. Boring it may get, but undemanding it is not.
Rallycar is also demanding, but again, the manual survives because of regulations, not technical proficiency. With active differentials that can make an F2 FWD car run rings around the average road going AWD, or in the top classes various 4 wheel computer controlled steering and torque distribution, active brake balance apportioning systems, there's a LOT of "auto" in a rally car, if gearboxes were permitted, they'd be there too, yesterday!
Don't get me wrong, a good manual under a good driver is still formidable. But there really are extremely few road drivers of that quality. The only reason pro drivers can post a challenge to what's possible with a high tech auto is because they practice test and practice like mad.
It's a nostalgia, and not entirely inappropriate to motorsports, but technically speaking, there are faster ways already.
I've been reading the other comments that have been posted & it has kind of degenerated into a GranTourismo/Motorweek Flame war about "jumping off the line", "brake torque", or remarks like, "buying a sports car with an automatic is like jacking off with your left hand." None of this is helping me. It's not like I'm looking for some underground street race or having weekend drives through the countryside wearing aviator glasses and asking strangers if they have any grey f*@king pupon.
The intent of my post was to find people that have actually driven these cars and to get their opinions about them, positive or negative.
Originally posted by mello
Another thing that surprised me was that the salesman mentioned that this car isn't really a winter car. The car prior to my corsica had rear-wheel drive which I didn't have a problem with because I was comfortable with countersteering (living in Wisconsin my whole life helps). He gave off a vibe though that it's almost impossible to drive, even with a 1/2 inch of snow.
I think it's mostly a matter of what you're used to. I have only driven RWD cars on a regular basis, driving FWD on ice feels pretty damn strange and I wouldn't trust it as much though I know most of the people like FWD better for slippery conditions..