From: aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: FLAME! Only a Manual!
Date: 19 Nov 1992 05:25:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, bpita@ctp.com (Bob Pitas) says:

>In article <BxMx75.5Iq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (REAL LIFE?!?!  HA!!) writes:
>>aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer) writes:
now why is my name the one at the top of this???..oh well..at least this
post seems to agree with most of what i say..though not for the same reasons, 
nor reasons i would buy into..but..that's ok..any support is welcomed!! ;-)
DREW
>>
>>
>>>In a previous article, hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) says:
>>
>>>>In article <1992Nov10.233727.11527@syacus.acus.oz.au>, steven@syacus.acus.oz.au (Steven Malikoff) writes:
>>>>|> A question for those who drive automatics: Have you *ever* seen a racing
>>>>|> car (F1, Indy, Stock, Rally, etc.) that has an auto transmission?
>>>>
>>>> Drag racers do as well as several SCCA Showroon Stock classes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In a somewhat similar train of thought...
>>>>
>>>> Why did GM only put automatics in the Buick Grand Nationals and 
>>>> the GMC Syclones and Typhoons?  I've always thought this strange.
>>>my thoughts..no proof..
>
>Before the latest ZF six-speed now in the LT1/ZR1 Vettes and '93 Z28s, they
>didn't have a standard that would handle the torque of the turbocharged
>motors...  The only ones available were extremely expensive, which is why
>they could only be found on the Vette.  That's also why the 5.7L Z28/IrocZ/
>Transam/Formula 350s were never sold with sticks, only autos. (not turbo, but
>340 ft/lbs of torque)
>
>>
>>[Drew suggests more people might want auto.'s, a manual couldn't handle the
>>power, a special manual would have to be made and a capable auto already ex-
>>isted]
>>
>>>DREW
>>
>>Without denying these (which are all probably true), let me just add that an
>>automatic actually allows better performance in turbocharged cars.  At launch,
>>there is no sensible way to bring up boost before take-off with a stick, but
>>all you have to do on an auto is lock the brakes, hit the gas, let the boost
>>come up take your foot off the brake, stomp the gas, and hold on.  
>
>High performance turbocharged street cars don't really want full boost on
>launch.  It's fine for cars using slicks at the track, but for racing on
>street tires, you just end up wasting rubber anyway.  A really high performance
>car, whether turbocharged or not, will lose traction when it gets into its
>powerband in first gear.  Then powershifting into 2nd will keep the boost
>up throughout second gear, when it can finally (hopefully) hook up.  By the
>time you're in third, you need as much HP as possible.  An automatic is
>sucking 20+ HP more than the stick at this point...
>My point is, the extra power provided by the automatic is lost in tiresmoke
>through 1st and 2nd.  Then when you get into 3rd, the standard equiped car
>has the power advantage.
>
>>                                                                   During 
>>shifts, there is *NO* way to keep up boost on a manual; an automatic has no
>>problem as the RPM's, load, and thus boost are kept up.  
>
>Ever heard of power-shifting?  Not good for the clutch, but it definitely
>keeps up the rpm, and the boost.  All you have to know is how to shift quickly.
>If you don't, you risk over-revving the motor.  Since most modern motors have
>rev-limiters anyway, it shouldn't be a problem...
>Also, I haven't heard anyone mention the fact that automatics soak up alot
>more horsepower than a standard.  Is the better launch worth losing 20HP to
>heat and drag in the automatic?  It wouldn't be to me...  I'd rather learn
>to shift faster.  And as for people saying that an automatic shifts faster
>and more consistently than a standard, that's probably true theoretically,
>but in practice it doesn't make any difference if the person can shift
>the standard quickly.  And as for consistency, I've gotten 3 quarter-mile
>runs within 4 hundreths of a second, which is more consistent than a good
>many automatic equiped cars....
>
>>                                                         Even though, I would
>>still rather have a stick with most turbos (Saab, Maserati, etc) because damit,
>>the autos don't perform *THAT* much better, and the sticks are SO much more
>>fun!                    ^^^^^^
>
>Unless you're at the drag-strip, they don't perform *any* better!
>
>>
>>BTW, Drew brings up a good point about the clutches on Laser/Talon/Eclipse.
>>Has anyone heard anything about the durability of the 5-speed drivetrain on
>>these?
>>
>>-- 
>>Michael T. Chaffee        |******BOYCOTT COLORADO******|  ______    
>>mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu | Professional Slapthologist |  \    /     HATE
>>Member, Universal Life Church, Sect of Loons           |   \  /  can never be
>>Annoyance Theatre Platinum Member |     Evil Genius    |    \/  a FAMILY VALUE
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>        ___          
>       / _ \                 '85 Mustang GT                        Bob Pitas
>      /    /USH              14.13 @ 99.8                      bpita@ctp.com
>     / /| \                  Up at NED, Epping, NH           (Cambridge, MA)
>
>           "Laughed at by time, tricked by circumstances" -Peart
>Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, obviously, since they end with my .sig!
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
-- 
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????-----whatever!