From: Vision@cup.portal.com (Vision - Tester)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: FLAME! Only a Manual!
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 22:37:11 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Nov10.233727.11527@syacus.acus.oz.au> <69341@cup.portal.com>
  <BxL9H8.52v@news.cso.uiuc.edu>

>While I am not disputing the weight problems, don't you also have to factor in
>the power loss from the torque converter?  Or is there a way to make an auto-
>matic without a torque converter?  Would this transmission have a clutch to be
>used only for stops and starts?

It would be interesting to see an automatic with a clutch.  Torque converters
probably do cause some power loss -- but how much power loss?  How about
five horses?  Big deal -- get back those 5 horses by changing your spark plug
(or hell, just change the spark plug gap!!)
The faster shifts of a tricked transmission will outweigh all of its negatives.
I know nobody that can shift as fast as some of those automatics.  When it
comes to today's vehicles, the manuals are faster (usually by a fraction of
a second) because they shift faster.  Considering how slow today's automatic
transmission shift, do you really believe a manual is delivering more power
when the car can do 0-60 in .05-.1 seconds faster after two shifts? 

>With the possible exception of a smooth, perfectly timed double-clutch down-
>shift.  This feels sublime when done well on ANY car, even a big manly muscle
>car.  The only advantage an automatic gives you, IMHO, is the pride of knowing
>that your car doesn't need a stick to kick ass.  But I have this nasty feeling
>that the most worked-over, improved, revalved automatic is still going to 

True -- I won't be getting any smooth perfectly timed downshifts (if anything,
I'll get a big jerk when downshifting), but the advantage is not the pride
but the RIDE.  I would NEVER put a stick shift and a big engine together.  It
would be ludicrous.  I drive stick shifts and I think they have their place
(and I enjoy driving them -- I drive a 4cyl with a stick shift 70% of the 
time).  It is a great car, but there is no way I will put a stick behind
muscle.  

>yield less impressive acceleration than a stick shift on the same engine.  You
>can't escape the fact that the torque converter eats energy, no matter what
>type of engine it's hooked up to.  The only cars that actually BENEFIT from

Wrong.  It doesn't take much to turn a transmission into a monster.  Just
buy a shifter kit (they run anywhere from $20-200+ depending on what you
want to do, rebuild maybe?) and usually all you have to do is change the
plate in the valve assembly.  A 2 hour task and you WILL have a transmission
that will shift fast than your wildest dreams.  Be prepared to replace U-joints
often, though!

>A clutchless shift on a street transmission will be either quite slow or in-
>credibly damaging to the transmission, especially the synchros.  The only 
>place where a clutchless shift is beneficial speed-wise is on a crash box
>with a VERY light flywheel.

Quite slow??  I do clutchless shifts all the time, you just have to time it
right.  I can get my little banger to give a little kick (even screech
going into 3rd!)  That is with new tires, of course :-)  Damaging to the
transmission?  If you grind, yes.  The sudden torque may not be helpful, but
any transmission worth its weight in dirt should be able to handle it (esp.
with a 4cyl!!)
But even my clutchless shifts do not compare with my automatic transmission.
And I do not know how on earth I can shift a stick any faster than without
using the clutch -- maybe I'm missing something, but I've been doing both
methods for years and automatic wins hands down.

>Now, a suggestion:
>Find a mid-1970's Euro-spec BMW 3.0CSi.  Tip gently into the throttle and slow
-
>ly release the clutch.  Accelerate moderately to 3000 RPM in first gear.  Stan
d
>on it.  That smoke in your rear-view mirror ain't oil.  Let the tires catch,
>accelerate to redline, shift into second.  Stand on it.  Is that smoke again?
>I think so.

Thanks for the suggestion, but may I ask -- what does this have to do with the
transmission?  There is nothing there that could not be done if it was an
automatic.  Hell, if it wasnt for the big tires I put on my muscle cars, if I
was to use the tires on today's so-called muscle/sports cars (actually
I think they just call them sports cars) I would end up burning the tire to
pieces in my driveway!! 

>As far as I'm concerned, the power and torque of a HUGE American V-8 make it
>the best naturally aspirated engine for an automatic, but a huge American V-8
>(or a high-compression cammed German straight-6) will always be at its best
>when connected to a manual.

If you buy anything made today, it is all preference.  The automatics arent
that great (but can usually be modified for drag performance in one
afternoon) which is why the manuals will usually run better 0-60 times.

It all comes down to preference.  If you like sticks, drive them.  If you
like autos, drive them.  But an automatic transmission can easily be
modified to provide a FASTER and STRONGER shift than a manual transmission.
This is a fact.  There is no human that can shift as fast as some of these
transmissions.  But until you have driven the same car (with lotsa muscle)
with both a stick and an automatic, you wont understand what I'm saying.
It may be fun to play with 500hp and a stick, but in the end automatics
win hands down.