I was considering getting another FC but the ones I like advertised appear to be automatics. Don't want an auto but I really have no basis other than that I always had manual transmissions. I searched but really came up with nothing except conversion threads. Just wondering what are the common complaints with the automatic? Thanks...

 

well its the same car except the gas pedal does less.

the transmissions are actually pretty reliable, but if there is anything wrong with it, it basically needs to be replaced/rebuilt and this used to be really expensive

 

its a slow car to begin with, the auto only makes it feel that much slower, at least the manual gives you a better driving experience

 

The slowest car I ever drove in my life was my race car when i bought it as a street car with an auto....the VDI and 5th and 6th ports didnt work, that coupled with the automatic made for a completly anemic car. I literally had a 1.3L suzuki samurai that was loads faster even with 33 inch tall tires.

 

and the automatic engines generally didn't last as long as the manuals, because the cars rarely ever are redlined and carbon up much quicker.

i've driven a small handful of automatics, they all shifted fine but the shifts were mushy as hell, the cars are a dog off the line because the auto first is basically the equivalent of 1+2 in the manual cars.

they're just slow feeling/driving and more prone to spitting an apex seal than the 5 speeds. even if i had never driven a turbo car and only had n/a experience i would pick a manual over an automatic, even for city traffic stop and go for the tradeoff once you do want to step on the pedal and actually move. with the weak bottom end on the rotary they're just unpleasant to drive and feel like a geo.

 

Ok, my assumptions of what I thought are essentially confirmed then. Thanks for the inputs.

 

if all you can find is autos remember getting the parts needed for a manual swap are pretty easy to come by.

but you would just be better off waiting for the right car or putting it in your head you may have to travel out of area to get one

 

I have always heard the auto rx7 transmissions are junk and i can believe it as every auto rx7 ive seen had a shitty shifting/slipping transmission. But whats strange is i heard those transmissions are used in a variety of cars.

auto's and rx7 should have never been combined IMHO.

 

some people may confuse the mushy shifts for slipping, which they aren't really, they just wanted super soft shifts for some reason. the autos weren't built strictly for the rotary, they were dropped in to fill the gap for those who really wanted a 7 and didn't want a manual transmission. hence why they are geared all wrong and don't compliment the upper rev ranges where these engines usually live.

i agree, they should have just left out the option for autos. it just doesn't do the car any justice.

 

the older 1st gens actually do ok with an auto, and the drag racers used to swear by them, although the FC stuff is all junk...

the basic transmission is used in i think the trucks, and the miata, and maybe some other cars as well, however every 80's and 90s automatic is junk.

at the dealership in the late 90's we actually used to stock every automatic transmission Mazda had as a reman (and the FD engine), you could walk across the parts department just stepping on nothing but transmissions.

the worst was the 626 4 cylinder, its a ford transmission, and we were doing 6-8 of those a week.... we even had one tech who did 4 in one day, because that is how many dead ones we had....

 

For giggles, has anyone any knowledge of a 6-port turbo done with an automatic?

 

I have dealt with FC's for more than the last decade, and almost every one with an auto I've seen in that time period has already been defective in some way or another.

It is also my observation that even when the transmissions are recent replacements or rebuilds, they are never really "right" and do not shift or respond like a "regular" automatic transmission. If I understand it correctly, the FC auto is a jatco which is basically the same as the 929 and MPV van.

They are designed to "slip" or 'slide" in and out of gears. There is actually a "shift improver kit" out there which is said to help with this, however I have never tried one.

They always shift at the wrong time, and the only way to make it tolerable is to drive in manual mode (89-91 models with HOLD) all of the time. Otherwise you'll be cruising along and go up a very slight incline, find yourself dropping in speed, apply slightly more throttle as you normally would to make an auto car kick up one gear, but the trans does not respond. So you apply slightly more throttle...then the trans suddenly jumps up TWO gears and you're sitting near redline. So of course you immediately let off, and it jumps back down two gears into OD and you're back where you started. IF you do happen to find the sweet throttle spot where you're in the correct gear going up a hill, when you get to the top of the hill you have to release the throttle almost completely to make it shift back into OD, otherwise the thing will be completely happy to cruise in 3rd gear at 4500rpm for a minute or two because it doesn't want to shift up.

The autos also tend to vibrate quite a bit more than any manual, even though the transmission and motor mounts appear to be in normal condition. You can sit in neutral and rev the engine near 3000rpm and you'll notice significant vibrations being transferred into the interior. IT also happens while under load. Pretty much every auto model I can recall being in has done this. It's possible that new transmission mounts might help with it some, but I have a hard time believing that it could all be cured.

Of course, there are the complaints that the auto weighs more and is physically larger and more difficult to work on/around.

The biggest thing is of course power output and response. You take a car that is already "not very fast" by today's standards and you take away 20-30 extra hp via drivetrain losses in the transmission (compared to a manual with the same engine) then add an extra 100lb or so in chassis weight, then (in most cases except convertible) change the rearend gear to a taller one for even less response.

Autos also require more compression to start and idle correctly because of the load the torque converter puts on the engine. I've rebuilt autos because they would constantly stall and would not idle even though they had "fair" compression...compression levels that, in a manual model, would have allowed it to continue running normally for a few more years. But the auto model would not tolerate it.

 

i only would drive in auto on flat ground and even then i have noticed the double shift plenty of times.

when checking a car over i normally drive in manual mode to eliminate all the bullshit the transmissions tries to override.

the auto FDs are no better btw.

 

Jatco = Japanese Automatic Transmission Company. Mazda was a partner, and nissan as well, i thought there was a third (ford?) but who cares?

um so the 929/mpv/pathfinder/FD all use a similar transmission, which was highly unreliable, and very complex.

the 84-85 Rx7's and FC use a different model, which was actually better, it might shift badly and at the wrong time, but that is generally more than the MPV can muster...

 

This is good quality information so thanks! RotaryResurrection, you sold me a used condenser and gave me a hard to find tube assembly for my A/C system about a year ago when I was doing my rebuild. Still blows cold--thanks!

 

Huge power loss, slow as can be manual shifts...

Even in manual mode [S4] going from 1st to 2nd, I had to let off of the throttle to get it to shift in a reasonable amount of time..

Easily the best mod I've done to the car was the manual swap.

Years ago, I vaguely remember Rob @ Pineapple saying that the FB's auto [and earlier] was pretty decent, but the FC's was awful.

Strangely, every car guy who rode in my car in the automatic days [save Rob], thought the slow shifts felt like a lazy gear change on a manual. lol...

 

probably the only reason the fb auto was any better is that it was a 3speed less gears to skip over and suck

 

I was appalled. I've driven some crazy terrible slushboxes in my time.. but damn.

 

The only automatic transmission I ever liked was the old THM400 on 60's and 70's chevy's. You drop it into drive and the trans goes THUD! That thing was a gear slammer.

Don't get that confused with the newer versions of the same thing...the newer THM trans (1980ish+) suck.

 

the mid 60's thru mid 80's Mercedes will do that too. my old 1971 300SEL 3.5 would spin the right rear on a 1-2 shift... actually that car was a real tire burner. actually if you have the coin, its a great car, its all leather and wood inside

 

diesels are usually the exception, our old 300TD had about 400k on the original engine, turbo and transmission. although it dumped as much fluid on the ground as it used diesel fuel so... it had to go.

 

that's by design, it retars the road as you drive, and i bet there were no mosquitos anywhere near the thing

 

i tried to tell the HOA i was keeping the streets nice and pliable and preventing cracking but they weren't buying it.

i've seen black oil come from cars before but the oil that came out of that thing was always like melted chocolate.

 

Well I am working on my wife's FC Vert Non Turbo, A/T. I agree completely with everyting I have read, as I have a 5 speed which is a twin sister to her car. I don't know that she has the issues you have talked about , but the biggest problem is that a very nice idle in Park, completely stalls as soon as you shift to drive, and if not you have to dance on the throttle to keep it running.

Is this, as RR suggests, a transmission issue or an engine issue ?

 

AT FC, common complaints...? The fact that its AT...