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.
My guess is it has something to do with the limited-slip differential you find in a 350Z. An LSD is great for maximizing power to the ground when it is dry, but when it comes to wet, snowy, or otherwise slippery ground, this can create problems when negotiating a turn. Depending on the type of LSD (not the drug), the wheel velocities on either side of the drive axle will be challenged to follow their correct velocities when rolling through a turn (inside track of smaller radius vs. outside track of larger radius). So one side will be forced to slip or maybe both will slip. This can cause a reduction in lateral traction (which is already low due to the slippery conditions). Once you loose the lateral traction, that's when you find your tail rotating around you. This can take a driver by surprise because it happens just by the virtue of having an inner and outer tire track that doesn't match when negotiating a turn, not because they were pushing too much speed in the corner.
That plus the RWD and the relatively high turning capability of the front tires can create a very hard to manage situation with even just a "little" bit of snow on the ground.
FWD is superior to RWD in snow or ice conditions. It's a well known fact. That's why all junior rally cars are FWD.
You mean FWD is inherently superior, but I think I'm still correct when I say RWD is safer for *me* when I only have RWD experience. The few times I've driven a FWD on snow or ice it felt incommunicative, I couldn't accurately estimate when it had traction to turn and when it didn't. I wouldn't be surprised if other RWD-accustomed drivers would also find FWD's more difficult at the outset.
It would be questionable to assume all FWD's are like that. Some steering setups are better than others. It's not impossible to find a good one in a FWD.
...but more simply, if the turning behavior is not matching your steering input, that should be your indication that you are going too fast for the snow conditions you are traversing. It's essentially the same as in RWD, except you'll risk less probability that you'll spin out at a very inopportune moment. Now you may or may not be able to recover it in a RWD with some tail-out/throttle modulation action, but chances are if you are caught going too fast in the snow, you (or someone else) will pay the consequences of that indiscretion. Similarly, if you start to plow in a FWD, you may or may not be able to recover if you just hammer the brakes to bleed some speed/dip the nose, and then attempt to retrack your steering to a viable cornering line, but if you were going way too fast in the first place, you will pay the consequences. Whose fault is that? The car's, just for being FWD? No, you were going too fast.
...and if you just want to split hairs (wrt which end to drive when it comes to slippery conditions), it is notable to consider that there are benefits to being able to directly steer a power-on "thrust" rather than rely on swinging the entire car to align the "thrust" in the desired direction. This would be akin to steering a small, manueverable boat by pivoting the propellor vector directly vs. using an isolated fin to turn the entire boat with a fixed propellor vector. ...or for a more exaggerated example, if you had a battleship and you needed to aim the guns at a target, logically you would put the guns on a rotating turret than rely on turning the entire ship just to aim the guns. The former will be far more quick and versatile while the latter will just result in some severely sea-sick personnel as you attempt to wildly spin that ship to aim.
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.
Well in my car (Volvo 850 GLT) I have a nifty button labeled "Winter." I press that button and put the car in Drive and bam, the auto switches to the Overdrive gear. This is excellent for getting through some of the crazy winter weather we have had here in Maryland. I won't soon forget when I went to make a left hand turn and tried to accelerate in "Winter" mode, my car truly drove like a tank then.
Back to the Automatic vs Manual spat that is going on, I learned how to drive using a manual in a Nissan 300ZX TT. Dang that thing could haul major a$$. Personally, autos are easier for everyday driving, manuals are better for a "sporty" feel. This coming from a driver who hasn't had much experience...
Glad you brought that point up, as I was meaning to comment on it, as well.
As Splinemodel has been so persistent to point out, the gearing in an automatic is typically taller than in a manual. So starting out in 1st gear in an automatic is essentially the same as starting out in 2nd gear in a manual (or maybe closer to a "1.5"). So there you go- yes, you can do it. Aside from that, it shouldn't be any great revelation that the driver should NOT womp on the gas pedal when launching in the snow. Follow that, and you will be just fine in the snow with an automatic. The driver is at greater risk for breaking traction in the manual, anyway, just by his skill (or lack of it) in feathering in the clutch juuuuuust right. The automatic- leggo of the brake and ease in the throttle as appropriate- couldn't be any smoother or easier or effective.
You could also look at it from the viewpoint that the only reason you have to worry about starting in 2nd in a manual is because 1st is so short in the first place. You are doing it because of a shortcoming in the way manuals are geared, not because you have an "extra" ability over automatics.
It would be questionable to assume all FWD's are like that. Some steering setups are better than others. It's not impossible to find a good one in a FWD.
...but more simply, if the turning behavior is not matching your steering input, that should be your indication that you are going too fast for the snow conditions you are traversing. It's essentially the same as in RWD, except you'll risk less probability that you'll spin out at a very inopportune moment.
...
Similarly, if you start to plow in a FWD, you may or may not be able to recover if you just hammer the brakes to bleed some speed/dip the nose, and then attempt to retrack your steering to a viable cornering line, but if you were going way too fast in the first place, you will pay the consequences. Whose fault is that? The car's, just for being FWD? No, you were going too fast.
See, coming too fast into a corner is technically my fault, but there is a difference between how you perceive the amount of grip available on RWD and FWD. The RWD tells your butt the road is slippery. The FWD tells your hands the road is slippery. My butt is better trained.
The inherent better safety of FWD's is not enough to turn the tables. Similarly, I think I am in slightly more danger with 4WD than with RWD, even if it has the best natural characteristics of all three. (in obvious parallel, it gets easier for me if the 4WD oversteers just a bit in snow, the harder the more it understeers)
I've driven more 4WD than FWD actually.
As for the quality of the steering, one of the FWD's I've tried was a Civic Type R. I think it had rather good steering.
I'm an average driver (I think/hope) so I wasn't even really thinking of controlled slides or recovering from one. I haven't gotten to any truly bad situations with FWD's, because I recognize the limits of my skill and keep significantly higher security margins. If I tried to drive FWD's like RWD's, I don't think it would be safe at all.
Now that we've gotten a lot of general car talk going, I'd like to know if there is someone among you guys who has experience with my "dream car"..
Toyota MR2 Mk.II (SW20)
I'm thinking I could go get one naturally aspirated SW20 used from Germany. I'm on a budget and I understand used turbos are hit and miss, so I'd like to avoid them.
Though I think the 115kW is plenty for me, there is also the prospect of dropping a 3SGTE in later if desired. I have heard they are available for reasonable cost and there is no difference between the turbo and NA models apart from the engine. (this is important for the legality of the engine swap.. car laws are truly awful here)
In terms of which to get for daily driving duty. I say it depends.
First you sit in them and see which one fits better. If you don't fit in one, eliminate it immediately. I'm a little too tall for most sporty cars, you may be fine in either. Some cars will be OK if you lower the seat, other's wont.
Then think of how much you want to spend. The good TTs will cost a bit more than a 350.
Next think of how good/bad of a driver you really are, and where/when you want to drive, and how.
The TT VR6 DSG may be the best daily driver machine. AWD for the rain/snow, and what is supposed to be a great manumatic tranny with a dual clutch system. The VR6 is good for 240HP and makes very sweet sounds. It can be reliably boosted into the 350HP range using a blower and minimal modification. The engine is compact, but heavy and strong.
The VQ series Nissan engine is torquey, smooth and reliable.
If the Z's automatic is as good as some say, and you'll be driving it mostly in city traffic, then get what works for you. I must speak in favor of Nissan/Infiniti automatics, though, in terms of a 1994 Infiniti Q45 I drove last year. That had to be THE silkiest automatic transmission I've ever felt in a vehicle, and the monster V8 added to the joy. If Nissan's still got their touch in that respect, then maybe the automatic in the Z isn't as dull as it could be.
The RWD tells your butt the road is slippery. The FWD tells your hands the road is slippery. My butt is better trained.
You really should be using both. I do. The more information you have, the better you can read the car. There are FWD cars that oversteer (or be tweaked to), so given the right car, your butt should get plenty of feedback.
Contrast this to me who would gladly save weight by not having air conditioning in a car
To each his own indeed.
Hear! Hear!
<goes off to look at Lotus Elise pin-ups.. ahhh>
I'm partial to German cars, and specially to Audis. Our next car will probably be an S4 wagon (for the wife).
In this case, however, I would take the 350Z over the TT. The 180hp TT is like a 1.6GHz G5. It trumps the 350Z in style and execution, until you put the metal to the floor.
Speaking of the S4/the S line in general, is Audi planning to introduce a new S8 based on the brand-new A8L design?
hmm.. don't know. My buddy just got transferred from Audi USA marketing of the A8 to VW. He never mentioned the S8, but he only gives me hints if I alude to specific things, like:
Me: "Hey, Ken-- when is Audi bring the RS4 to the States?"
Ken: "Define the word 'is'."
Am I off topic yet?
Two quick comments:
- If the RX-8 had 300 hp, that'd be the car to get.
- Randy99 doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to automatics, but he does have a point that for everyday driving, it's probably better for most people. But they suck on the track, or at the Nürburgring.
I'd love to elaborate, but after re-reading all of the post, I probably can't elaborate, as I not entirely correct in calling you wrong (semantics). I do have some points, though.
First, I agree with your assertion that automatics are better for around town, accelerating smoothly, idling along in traffic-- essentially 99% of what people need it for. Much like a PC.
Second, I'm not an expert on automatic transmissions. After going on about the inertia of the flywheel in a manual (automatics don't have a flywheel?!) and how it leads to energy loss, but with a couple of exceptions (e.g., Corvette) manual version of cars have faster times than automatics. The flywheel's job is to keep the engine spinning, storing the engine's kinetic energy as potential energy. And actually, the heavier the flywheel, the "smoother" the shifts.
An automatic does have a big advantage at the drag strip, though, when you're doing bracket racing. It's easier to get consistent times there.
Third, I have no idea what all of you are talking about when you're discussing midrange. The idea is to stay in the engine's power range. Sometimes this is easier to do when there are more gears available. The driver just has to be willing to shift.
Fourth, I heel-and-toe all the time. You can try this in an automatic, but it's kind of pointless. The idea is to match the revs of the engine to the transmission as you downshift. Unless you manually downshift, like in a Tiptronic style transmission, an automatic may not even know you're trying to downshift so you can accelerate out of a corner.
Fifth, I have nothing against automatics. I just can't drive them on the race track. There's a little pause between the engine and tranny that I can't get used to. It's a little less direct than a manual. And that's with a 911 Tiptronic. I drive all my cars on the race track, so it's a manual for me.
In any case, I've driven people around town, and some don't realize that I'm driving a manual until I pull up the parking brake. They're not impossible to drive smoothly-- it just takes technique.
First, I agree with your assertion that automatics are better for around town, accelerating smoothly, idling along in traffic-- essentially 99% of what people need it for. Much like a PC.
Well, I'm not sure if that is just a veiled dig. Naturally, automatics are good for that. However, the point I introduced that seems to be the source of much discomfort for some is that an automatic can be a legitimate choice in a sports car, as well, when implemented in a complementary manner. The performance is worthy enough for consideration in some car models. That's it. The best show of automatics are no longer religated to that old, beat up Chevy you once knew or the anemic econo-car many people have had the priviledge of living with.
Quote:
Second, I'm not an expert on automatic transmissions. After going on about the inertia of the flywheel in a manual (automatics don't have a flywheel?!) and how it leads to energy loss, but with a couple of exceptions (e.g., Corvette) manual version of cars have faster times than automatics.
The point is NOT that a flywheel will necessarily make a manual slower than an automatic. The point is that both transmission styles have downsides which serve to make them more comparable rather than one being clearly superior. The manual transmission poses an additional inertia burden (we're talking about spinning inertia, not just the static weight of a flywheel- I noticed some people aren't "getting" this). The automatic transmission has a bit more losses due to fluid friction. This is not a case where automatics "suffer from losses", but the manual suffers from nothing, as many like to point out.
BTW, an automatic does have a vestigal flywheel of sorts- more like a thin plate with teeth on the perimeter to maintain the starter function. There is very little weight in the plate itself, as there is no vibrational damping purpose required of it.
Quote:
The flywheel's job is to keep the engine spinning, storing the engine's kinetic energy as potential energy. And actually, the heavier the flywheel, the "smoother" the shifts.
Yes, but there is also the additional consequence that the heavier the flywheel, the greater the rotational inertia effect will counter the brute acceleration available at the rear wheel. Just as it's purpose is to keep the engine spinning and to smooth out cyclic torque variations, it also creates a resistance to changes in rpms. A rapid change in rpms is exactly what happens when you are accelerating. If you could remove the flywheel from a manual car and drive it around, it would seem almost like you dropped a couple hundred lbs in car weight (with the addition of finicky shifting and engine vibration, of course).
Quote:
Third, I have no idea what all of you are talking about when you're discussing midrange. The idea is to stay in the engine's power range. Sometimes this is easier to do when there are more gears available. The driver just has to be willing to shift.
Driving around town (even spirited driving around town) is typified by performance in the midrange. That is where the engine "feels" the strongest, as that is where the torque peak usually occurs. If people were so occupied with exploiting "power range", they would be running near redline all of the time. That is where the highest hp numbers are found. If you are consistently driving around town or going stoplight to stoplight like that, the only thing you will be doing is looking very obnoxious (not to mention get pulled over for "exhibition of speed", sooner or later).
Even then, it's a fair bet you will have to traverse the midrange at least once before you can reach the upper range. Every time you start off from a stop, you will have to cross the midrange. Most of the time, you won't even leave the midrange. The midrange makes a great impact on if a car feels "gutless" or not, despite a lofty hp rating. So it ends up being fairly important in defining the nature of a car, though not necessarily a contributing factor when it comes to 0-60 or 1/4 mi tests. So that is all I really wanted to illustrate with my recommendation of an auto 350Z. The auto has a nice "zing" in the midrange (and no obvious shortcoming when going past it), whereas the manual does not seem to "zing" in any particular rpm range, at all, but still fast overall. The low end is a bit subdued as would be expected in a sports-tuning, so I'm not going harp on it much. I think it could be done better, but not many people will care or notice if the lowend was better, so it's kind of moot.
Quote:
Fourth, I heel-and-toe all the time. You can try this in an automatic, but it's kind of pointless. The idea is to match the revs of the engine to the transmission as you downshift.
Well, there you go. There is no point in it unless you are driving a manual. Bringing it up as a reason to have a manual is a backwards argument then. You do it because of the way a manual is. If an automatic is such that you no longer have to do it, then there is nothing lost by not having that option.
Quote:
Unless you manually downshift, like in a Tiptronic style transmission, an automatic may not even know you're trying to downshift so you can accelerate out of a corner.
If you are hard enough into the throttle and at an appropriate rpm, it will likely "know" to downshift.
Quote:
Fifth, I have nothing against automatics. I just can't drive them on the race track. There's a little pause between the engine and tranny that I can't get used to. It's a little less direct than a manual. And that's with a 911 Tiptronic. I drive all my cars on the race track, so it's a manual for me.
Please note, I never made the claim that an automatic would be better on a racetrack. How does that effect the sort of driving situations you find on a public street? Very little, unless you drive around like an utter maniac.
Quote:
In any case, I've driven people around town, and some don't realize that I'm driving a manual until I pull up the parking brake. They're not impossible to drive smoothly-- it just takes technique.
Yes, that is very impressive. No one ever said that you cannot reach a skill level where manual shifting is very smooth. That in of itself is not a reason to pick one over an automatic. It is simply a declaration of some degree of mastery. That's it. If you were referring to Splinemodel's example when he brought up "smoothness", please be aware that he was also speaking of a 3500 rpm launch. I doubt you were doing 3500 rpm launches when your passenger commented he thought it was an automatic.
I guess we got a little off track. Yes, the manuals available for road cars are better than their usual auto counterparts. But how much longer will that be true. We already know that putting a manual under computer control results in a far superior transmission system. Racing "manumatics" had gotten so good that drivers forgot about them altogether and just worked on modulating the throttle. They were taken out largely to restore the human factor to racing.
What will happen as CVT's take over? They can be in the perfect ratio all the time. Ultimately that's a faster lap time and a faster car.
Is a sports car supposed to be fast, or is it supposed to be demanding, or some combination of both?
I guess we got a little off track. Yes, the manuals available for road cars are better than their usual auto counterparts. But how much longer will that be true.
I agree with your basic assertion that automatics are okay for most people, especially on the road. Arguing about the merits of a "choice" gets to be pointless, though, as it's based on a person's priorities. One might argue as well that PCs are better than Macs, Mountain Dew is better than all other lesser drinks known to man, or Janet's left breast is definitely better than her right one.
(Automatics can be fun, like the Tiptronic I drove. It's like a video game.)
I don't know everything about cars, nor do I want to. I just drive them, and I like to pick my own gears.
Comments
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.
My guess is it has something to do with the limited-slip differential you find in a 350Z. An LSD is great for maximizing power to the ground when it is dry, but when it comes to wet, snowy, or otherwise slippery ground, this can create problems when negotiating a turn. Depending on the type of LSD (not the drug), the wheel velocities on either side of the drive axle will be challenged to follow their correct velocities when rolling through a turn (inside track of smaller radius vs. outside track of larger radius). So one side will be forced to slip or maybe both will slip. This can cause a reduction in lateral traction (which is already low due to the slippery conditions). Once you loose the lateral traction, that's when you find your tail rotating around you. This can take a driver by surprise because it happens just by the virtue of having an inner and outer tire track that doesn't match when negotiating a turn, not because they were pushing too much speed in the corner.
That plus the RWD and the relatively high turning capability of the front tires can create a very hard to manage situation with even just a "little" bit of snow on the ground.
Originally posted by mattyj
FWD is superior to RWD in snow or ice conditions. It's a well known fact. That's why all junior rally cars are FWD.
You mean FWD is inherently superior, but I think I'm still correct when I say RWD is safer for *me* when I only have RWD experience. The few times I've driven a FWD on snow or ice it felt incommunicative, I couldn't accurately estimate when it had traction to turn and when it didn't. I wouldn't be surprised if other RWD-accustomed drivers would also find FWD's more difficult at the outset.
...but more simply, if the turning behavior is not matching your steering input, that should be your indication that you are going too fast for the snow conditions you are traversing. It's essentially the same as in RWD, except you'll risk less probability that you'll spin out at a very inopportune moment. Now you may or may not be able to recover it in a RWD with some tail-out/throttle modulation action, but chances are if you are caught going too fast in the snow, you (or someone else) will pay the consequences of that indiscretion. Similarly, if you start to plow in a FWD, you may or may not be able to recover if you just hammer the brakes to bleed some speed/dip the nose, and then attempt to retrack your steering to a viable cornering line, but if you were going way too fast in the first place, you will pay the consequences. Whose fault is that? The car's, just for being FWD? No, you were going too fast.
...and if you just want to split hairs (wrt which end to drive when it comes to slippery conditions), it is notable to consider that there are benefits to being able to directly steer a power-on "thrust" rather than rely on swinging the entire car to align the "thrust" in the desired direction. This would be akin to steering a small, manueverable boat by pivoting the propellor vector directly vs. using an isolated fin to turn the entire boat with a fixed propellor vector. ...or for a more exaggerated example, if you had a battleship and you needed to aim the guns at a target, logically you would put the guns on a rotating turret than rely on turning the entire ship just to aim the guns. The former will be far more quick and versatile while the latter will just result in some severely sea-sick personnel as you attempt to wildly spin that ship to aim.
Originaly posted by mattyj:
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.
Well in my car (Volvo 850 GLT) I have a nifty button labeled "Winter." I press that button and put the car in Drive and bam, the auto switches to the Overdrive gear. This is excellent for getting through some of the crazy winter weather we have had here in Maryland. I won't soon forget when I went to make a left hand turn and tried to accelerate in "Winter" mode, my car truly drove like a tank then.
Back to the Automatic vs Manual spat that is going on, I learned how to drive using a manual in a Nissan 300ZX TT. Dang that thing could haul major a$$. Personally, autos are easier for everyday driving, manuals are better for a "sporty" feel. This coming from a driver who hasn't had much experience...
As Splinemodel has been so persistent to point out, the gearing in an automatic is typically taller than in a manual. So starting out in 1st gear in an automatic is essentially the same as starting out in 2nd gear in a manual (or maybe closer to a "1.5"). So there you go- yes, you can do it. Aside from that, it shouldn't be any great revelation that the driver should NOT womp on the gas pedal when launching in the snow. Follow that, and you will be just fine in the snow with an automatic. The driver is at greater risk for breaking traction in the manual, anyway, just by his skill (or lack of it) in feathering in the clutch juuuuuust right. The automatic- leggo of the brake and ease in the throttle as appropriate- couldn't be any smoother or easier or effective.
You could also look at it from the viewpoint that the only reason you have to worry about starting in 2nd in a manual is because 1st is so short in the first place. You are doing it because of a shortcoming in the way manuals are geared, not because you have an "extra" ability over automatics.
Originally posted by Randycat99
It would be questionable to assume all FWD's are like that. Some steering setups are better than others. It's not impossible to find a good one in a FWD.
...but more simply, if the turning behavior is not matching your steering input, that should be your indication that you are going too fast for the snow conditions you are traversing. It's essentially the same as in RWD, except you'll risk less probability that you'll spin out at a very inopportune moment.
...
Similarly, if you start to plow in a FWD, you may or may not be able to recover if you just hammer the brakes to bleed some speed/dip the nose, and then attempt to retrack your steering to a viable cornering line, but if you were going way too fast in the first place, you will pay the consequences. Whose fault is that? The car's, just for being FWD? No, you were going too fast.
See, coming too fast into a corner is technically my fault, but there is a difference between how you perceive the amount of grip available on RWD and FWD. The RWD tells your butt the road is slippery. The FWD tells your hands the road is slippery. My butt is better trained.
The inherent better safety of FWD's is not enough to turn the tables. Similarly, I think I am in slightly more danger with 4WD than with RWD, even if it has the best natural characteristics of all three. (in obvious parallel, it gets easier for me if the 4WD oversteers just a bit in snow, the harder the more it understeers)
I've driven more 4WD than FWD actually.
As for the quality of the steering, one of the FWD's I've tried was a Civic Type R. I think it had rather good steering.
I'm an average driver (I think/hope) so I wasn't even really thinking of controlled slides or recovering from one. I haven't gotten to any truly bad situations with FWD's, because I recognize the limits of my skill and keep significantly higher security margins. If I tried to drive FWD's like RWD's, I don't think it would be safe at all.
Toyota MR2 Mk.II (SW20)
I'm thinking I could go get one naturally aspirated SW20 used from Germany. I'm on a budget and I understand used turbos are hit and miss, so I'd like to avoid them.
Though I think the 115kW is plenty for me, there is also the prospect of dropping a 3SGTE in later if desired. I have heard they are available for reasonable cost and there is no difference between the turbo and NA models apart from the engine. (this is important for the legality of the engine swap.. car laws are truly awful here)
First you sit in them and see which one fits better. If you don't fit in one, eliminate it immediately. I'm a little too tall for most sporty cars, you may be fine in either. Some cars will be OK if you lower the seat, other's wont.
Then think of how much you want to spend. The good TTs will cost a bit more than a 350.
Next think of how good/bad of a driver you really are, and where/when you want to drive, and how.
The TT VR6 DSG may be the best daily driver machine. AWD for the rain/snow, and what is supposed to be a great manumatic tranny with a dual clutch system. The VR6 is good for 240HP and makes very sweet sounds. It can be reliably boosted into the 350HP range using a blower and minimal modification. The engine is compact, but heavy and strong.
The VQ series Nissan engine is torquey, smooth and reliable.
Originally posted by Gon
The RWD tells your butt the road is slippery. The FWD tells your hands the road is slippery. My butt is better trained.
You really should be using both. I do. The more information you have, the better you can read the car. There are FWD cars that oversteer (or be tweaked to), so given the right car, your butt should get plenty of feedback.
Originally posted by Gon
Contrast this to me who would gladly save weight by not having air conditioning in a car
To each his own indeed.
Hear! Hear!
<goes off to look at Lotus Elise pin-ups.. ahhh>
I'm partial to German cars, and specially to Audis. Our next car will probably be an S4 wagon (for the wife).
In this case, however, I would take the 350Z over the TT. The 180hp TT is like a 1.6GHz G5. It trumps the 350Z in style and execution, until you put the metal to the floor.
To butcher a quote:
"Speed, for a lack of a better word, is good."
Originally posted by Gon
See, coming too fast into a corner is technically my fault, ...
I usually blame that on my screaming, hysterical passenger for throwing off my concentration.
kW!! argh.. Sorry-- that's the one metric unit I can't embrace in a car.
Originally posted by fred_lj
Speaking of the S4/the S line in general, is Audi planning to introduce a new S8 based on the brand-new A8L design?
hmm.. don't know. My buddy just got transferred from Audi USA marketing of the A8 to VW. He never mentioned the S8, but he only gives me hints if I alude to specific things, like:
Me: "Hey, Ken-- when is Audi bring the RS4 to the States?"
Ken: "Define the word 'is'."
Am I off topic yet?
Two quick comments:
- If the RX-8 had 300 hp, that'd be the car to get.
- Randy99 doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to automatics, but he does have a point that for everyday driving, it's probably better for most people. But they suck on the track, or at the Nürburgring.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Care to elaborate? What do I have wrong?
I'd love to elaborate, but after re-reading all of the post, I probably can't elaborate, as I not entirely correct in calling you wrong (semantics). I do have some points, though.
First, I agree with your assertion that automatics are better for around town, accelerating smoothly, idling along in traffic-- essentially 99% of what people need it for. Much like a PC.
Second, I'm not an expert on automatic transmissions. After going on about the inertia of the flywheel in a manual (automatics don't have a flywheel?!) and how it leads to energy loss, but with a couple of exceptions (e.g., Corvette) manual version of cars have faster times than automatics. The flywheel's job is to keep the engine spinning, storing the engine's kinetic energy as potential energy. And actually, the heavier the flywheel, the "smoother" the shifts.
An automatic does have a big advantage at the drag strip, though, when you're doing bracket racing. It's easier to get consistent times there.
Third, I have no idea what all of you are talking about when you're discussing midrange. The idea is to stay in the engine's power range. Sometimes this is easier to do when there are more gears available. The driver just has to be willing to shift.
Fourth, I heel-and-toe all the time. You can try this in an automatic, but it's kind of pointless. The idea is to match the revs of the engine to the transmission as you downshift. Unless you manually downshift, like in a Tiptronic style transmission, an automatic may not even know you're trying to downshift so you can accelerate out of a corner.
Fifth, I have nothing against automatics. I just can't drive them on the race track. There's a little pause between the engine and tranny that I can't get used to. It's a little less direct than a manual. And that's with a 911 Tiptronic. I drive all my cars on the race track, so it's a manual for me.
In any case, I've driven people around town, and some don't realize that I'm driving a manual until I pull up the parking brake. They're not impossible to drive smoothly-- it just takes technique.
Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights
First, I agree with your assertion that automatics are better for around town, accelerating smoothly, idling along in traffic-- essentially 99% of what people need it for. Much like a PC.
Well, I'm not sure if that is just a veiled dig. Naturally, automatics are good for that. However, the point I introduced that seems to be the source of much discomfort for some is that an automatic can be a legitimate choice in a sports car, as well, when implemented in a complementary manner. The performance is worthy enough for consideration in some car models. That's it. The best show of automatics are no longer religated to that old, beat up Chevy you once knew or the anemic econo-car many people have had the priviledge of living with.
Quote:
Second, I'm not an expert on automatic transmissions. After going on about the inertia of the flywheel in a manual (automatics don't have a flywheel?!) and how it leads to energy loss, but with a couple of exceptions (e.g., Corvette) manual version of cars have faster times than automatics.
The point is NOT that a flywheel will necessarily make a manual slower than an automatic. The point is that both transmission styles have downsides which serve to make them more comparable rather than one being clearly superior. The manual transmission poses an additional inertia burden (we're talking about spinning inertia, not just the static weight of a flywheel- I noticed some people aren't "getting" this). The automatic transmission has a bit more losses due to fluid friction. This is not a case where automatics "suffer from losses", but the manual suffers from nothing, as many like to point out.
BTW, an automatic does have a vestigal flywheel of sorts- more like a thin plate with teeth on the perimeter to maintain the starter function. There is very little weight in the plate itself, as there is no vibrational damping purpose required of it.
Quote:
The flywheel's job is to keep the engine spinning, storing the engine's kinetic energy as potential energy. And actually, the heavier the flywheel, the "smoother" the shifts.
Yes, but there is also the additional consequence that the heavier the flywheel, the greater the rotational inertia effect will counter the brute acceleration available at the rear wheel. Just as it's purpose is to keep the engine spinning and to smooth out cyclic torque variations, it also creates a resistance to changes in rpms. A rapid change in rpms is exactly what happens when you are accelerating. If you could remove the flywheel from a manual car and drive it around, it would seem almost like you dropped a couple hundred lbs in car weight (with the addition of finicky shifting and engine vibration, of course).
Quote:
Third, I have no idea what all of you are talking about when you're discussing midrange. The idea is to stay in the engine's power range. Sometimes this is easier to do when there are more gears available. The driver just has to be willing to shift.
Driving around town (even spirited driving around town) is typified by performance in the midrange. That is where the engine "feels" the strongest, as that is where the torque peak usually occurs. If people were so occupied with exploiting "power range", they would be running near redline all of the time. That is where the highest hp numbers are found. If you are consistently driving around town or going stoplight to stoplight like that, the only thing you will be doing is looking very obnoxious (not to mention get pulled over for "exhibition of speed", sooner or later).
Even then, it's a fair bet you will have to traverse the midrange at least once before you can reach the upper range. Every time you start off from a stop, you will have to cross the midrange. Most of the time, you won't even leave the midrange. The midrange makes a great impact on if a car feels "gutless" or not, despite a lofty hp rating. So it ends up being fairly important in defining the nature of a car, though not necessarily a contributing factor when it comes to 0-60 or 1/4 mi tests. So that is all I really wanted to illustrate with my recommendation of an auto 350Z. The auto has a nice "zing" in the midrange (and no obvious shortcoming when going past it), whereas the manual does not seem to "zing" in any particular rpm range, at all, but still fast overall. The low end is a bit subdued as would be expected in a sports-tuning, so I'm not going harp on it much. I think it could be done better, but not many people will care or notice if the lowend was better, so it's kind of moot.
Quote:
Fourth, I heel-and-toe all the time. You can try this in an automatic, but it's kind of pointless. The idea is to match the revs of the engine to the transmission as you downshift.
Well, there you go. There is no point in it unless you are driving a manual. Bringing it up as a reason to have a manual is a backwards argument then. You do it because of the way a manual is. If an automatic is such that you no longer have to do it, then there is nothing lost by not having that option.
Quote:
Unless you manually downshift, like in a Tiptronic style transmission, an automatic may not even know you're trying to downshift so you can accelerate out of a corner.
If you are hard enough into the throttle and at an appropriate rpm, it will likely "know" to downshift.
Quote:
Fifth, I have nothing against automatics. I just can't drive them on the race track. There's a little pause between the engine and tranny that I can't get used to. It's a little less direct than a manual. And that's with a 911 Tiptronic. I drive all my cars on the race track, so it's a manual for me.
Please note, I never made the claim that an automatic would be better on a racetrack. How does that effect the sort of driving situations you find on a public street? Very little, unless you drive around like an utter maniac.
Quote:
In any case, I've driven people around town, and some don't realize that I'm driving a manual until I pull up the parking brake. They're not impossible to drive smoothly-- it just takes technique.
Yes, that is very impressive. No one ever said that you cannot reach a skill level where manual shifting is very smooth. That in of itself is not a reason to pick one over an automatic. It is simply a declaration of some degree of mastery. That's it. If you were referring to Splinemodel's example when he brought up "smoothness", please be aware that he was also speaking of a 3500 rpm launch. I doubt you were doing 3500 rpm launches when your passenger commented he thought it was an automatic.
What will happen as CVT's take over? They can be in the perfect ratio all the time. Ultimately that's a faster lap time and a faster car.
Is a sports car supposed to be fast, or is it supposed to be demanding, or some combination of both?
Originally posted by Matsu
I guess we got a little off track. Yes, the manuals available for road cars are better than their usual auto counterparts. But how much longer will that be true.
...and how much better are they, really?
I agree with your basic assertion that automatics are okay for most people, especially on the road. Arguing about the merits of a "choice" gets to be pointless, though, as it's based on a person's priorities. One might argue as well that PCs are better than Macs, Mountain Dew is better than all other lesser drinks known to man, or Janet's left breast is definitely better than her right one.
(Automatics can be fun, like the Tiptronic I drove. It's like a video game.)
I don't know everything about cars, nor do I want to. I just drive them, and I like to pick my own gears.