Now off the line or in the full 1/4 mile? I know for a fact the autos are alot slower in the 1/4. Did you look at the links I posted?

 

im talkin 0-60..as well as rolling starts. its not a second diff, but its a diff

 

What do you mean? Before you said the autos were faster than the manuals. The manuals are over a second faster in the 1/4 stock for stock, you can look it up anywhere just about.

 

the guys at twinturbo.net (worlds largest forum for z's) disagree

how do you explain my brothers time? i dont want to argue im going to bed

 

I don't want to argue either but I know the autos are much slower than the manuals

 

manuals are faster than auto, you cannot launch in an auto, theres no ******* clutch

 

that place you got the stats from is the biggest bs ive seen. the autos are proven, its a fact for the 300zxtt's that they are quicker.

maybe in some other cars its different, but in our case its not. go post on twinturbo.net and wait for a response.

 

Ok I'm not gunna just ask random people, that doesn't prove anything. Show me a source, I've shown you some. Also, can you explain it to me? I mean how does a car that has the same engine but is heavier and can't be launched well do better in the quarter mile? Doesn't make sense does it? No hard feelings I hope here, if so let me know and I'll just drop it.

 

Where the **** are you people getting you can't launch an auto from? They are easier to launch than manuals! Ever hear of a brakestand?

 

http://www.missouri.edu/~apcb20/times.html

Felix, do you honestly think you can launch an auto better than a manual of the same car? Man if so what are we all doing with these damn manuals.

 

Um, true- autos can typically be faster off the line, and all together..... HOWEVER- This is VERY rare in stock trim. But, put some DRs, a higher stahl converter, and aquire good launch skills- and one can make an automatic car VERY dangerous in bracket racing. The only time Ive seen autos up to par with stick cars (in stock trim), is with gen 4 fbodies (Ive owned a couple, I have an M6 now and I had an A4 5 years ago). The T56 equipped cars have an astoundingly low 11% parasitic loss rate. 320hp @ the flywheel, means a good 280 or so at the wheels. very impressive. The autos, are at an amazingly low 16%. Thats unheard of for an automatic transmission car... ANY car, for that matter. In stock trim, the times are almost dead even, with a good manual driver at the wheel. Some people suck, and some people are VERY good with the M6. From time to time, you'll see bone stock 6sp LS1 Fbodies running high 12's. That usually can be attributed to a good stick driver, and they prolly have a kick *** clutch.

So in close, in stock trim, most automatic equipped cars- EVEN performance cars (Rustangs are a good example) have nasty parasitic loss through auto transmissions... sometimes in the 30%+ arena. Yuck. Beef up an auto, and you can have a nasty runner!

Also, Im at 5800 feet elevation, and my old 1990 N/A 300Z auto (bone stock except mufflers) went a 17.30 ET, 12 times in a row... all 17.3X times. Pathetic. BTW- This altitude usually adds a good 11 tenths to a sea level ET. So, the car was maybe good for a 16.2 at sea level. A 1992 5 spd car was there the same day, running 16.6 ETs... also N/A, and stock. That would put it at 15.5 at sea level.

 

WTF is that supposed to mean?!

You tewllin me that if i get his car, its gunna die if i drive it rather qucikly?

sorry for being hostile

 

source? how about twinturbo.net i just said. im not talking about n/a's...which are different. were not talking about fbodies or whatever either. we are also talking about a turbocharged car.

its a known fact that the 300zx tt autos have a slight edge on the manual tt's ask anyone on the z forum.

im done with this conversation...im not going to debate on something im right about

 

Let me see you build full boost off the line.

And yes, auto Z32 TT's are faster.

 

Easy there bro.

I don't care if its a turbo, supercharger, V8, V6, I6,IF or a rotary.... Parasitic loss effects each setup. Its a mathematical certainty. And autos ALWAYS have more. I wasnt talking about turbos or N/A, but the drivetrain bro.

Apparently, from what you said, the autos in the TT 300Z's are pretty efficient. I didnt know much about them, as I owned an N/A 300Z. My apologies if I insulted your intelligence. I was purely talking parasitic loss, not turbo or whatever. I didnt get much into the my Z, as it was my commuter, and I only had it 8 months anyhow (it was a piece of junk, and too damn expensive to fix).

So- I think everyone has made thier point, and Im gonna sit over there by rx7-GT now

 

I believe this whole auto-faster-than-manual-trans-Z32 thing first popped up in one of the major magazine tests - Car&Driver?&nbsp Road&Track?&nbsp Their test claims the auto ran the 1/4-mile 0.1-seconds faster...

There have been several comments made by several people that have merit.&nbsp The auto trans is definitely more consistent than a manual.&nbsp The manual could possible made to go faster due to changing RPM launch point and clutch slip changes.&nbsp By all means, the magazine conclusion is not the end-all authority on the this matter.



-Ted

 

what a wonderful closing statement ted.

felix wankel is correct, the turbos are constantly spooling w/ the z's non-sequential setup for auto's. there may be a parasitic loss, but in this case its not enough...

i think the same example holds truth with the tt supras as well. but, that conversation is for a different place and time.

ive had my coffee for the day, and relaxed (sigh)

 

You mean stock autos make full boost off the line? How is that?

RX-7 GT:

From an arguements stand point all you have said was go ask these people. I can have some people tell you otherwise. A forum is not a source. How come I can find 3 sites that have the autos listed in the 15s? I don't want to argue anymore, if you can show me some proof of your claim then I will believe you. I think I might be able to get actual proof, as in an auto with more mods than a manual getting beat by the manual no matter who is driving the auto.

 

power braking...release brake at high rpms, press gas pedal= instant boost. the 300zxtt's torque peak is 280ft-lbs. @ 3500rpms.

come to oregon with a stock manual tt i'll bet you $100 that my bro's auto car will eat a manual alive every time.

a forum is not a source? and yet you get stuff from car-stats.com, looks like they copied thier stats out of r&t. twinturbo.net is home of the largest 300zx user base, like our site for rx-7's. just like we have reted, they have a equivelant 300z guru that is full of useful facts

im not trying to be an ***, if i come off as one. i just am persistent about correcting the wrong

 

oh ya, my bro said he had his timeslip...i will try to get it scanned if its still readable.

 

because he bought an n/a from a shady dealer and the engine blew (150k)...ordered a front tt clip and boom!

 

a manual u can get the same boost off the line. A auto might be a tad bit quicker off the line but it takes a long time to change gears it would therefore be slow in the 1/4 mile.

This is the first time in car history that a auto is faster then a manual in stock form

 

I can't believe you guys are still bitching in this thread...
This has nothing to do with FC's!



-Ted

 

the auto ls1 is just as fast if not faster in the 1/4 then its 6 speed twin. With a stall and some drag radials watch out that thing will come off the line hard!

 

Ok well I can power brake a manual so that gives the auto no advantage there. Your bro's car is not a stock auto TT 300. A forum is not a source for info. R&T is though definitely. Oh and your last sentence....ditto I am not trying to be an *** either, you haven't proved me wrong or even came close. Find a website with the stock times listed of vehicles and show me that they have the auto TT listed faster than the manual and I will be happy. Otherwise its one persons word against 3 websites No hard feelings but I don't just believe people on things that I have proof of otherwise. Especially when they have none.