Which is the quickest?
Discussion
Hi,
I have a my ZR1 - manual - and also a 1999 Cadillac STS, which is an auto using GM's special (can't remember the name of it) shift algorithm... basically it doesn't kick-down straight-away, it tries to guage "how aggressively" you want to accelerate and either stays in the same gear, or (from my experience) if you keep pedal to the metal for about 2secs, it'll downshift...
Now, what I mean is that I had to wait that long in my 'vette to downshift, I'd deffo not want an Auto!
Steve
I have a my ZR1 - manual - and also a 1999 Cadillac STS, which is an auto using GM's special (can't remember the name of it) shift algorithm... basically it doesn't kick-down straight-away, it tries to guage "how aggressively" you want to accelerate and either stays in the same gear, or (from my experience) if you keep pedal to the metal for about 2secs, it'll downshift...
Now, what I mean is that I had to wait that long in my 'vette to downshift, I'd deffo not want an Auto!
Steve
Much as I love manuals I always suspect autos are quicker in the real world unless you get "right on it" with your stick shift.
What I prefer is the feeling of control with a manual, plus there never seems to be any slack in the transmission.
I think for the quarter auto is the way to go, especially for consistent times. There's even a ZR1 converted to auto that runs mad times (10's I think it's on ZR1 net).
Another auto bonus is that it's a bit easier on the drivetrain as there's potentially less shock to the drivetrain when changing gear plus a lot less chance of over-revving the engine. One guy on the Callaway forum converted his twin turbo quarter mil car to an auto as he reckoned he broke parts "every third run!"
That's what you get when you drop the clutch at 4600 RPM (actually past peak power on a Callaway) Do you reckon 570 ft/lbs of torque has the potential to break parts...?
What I prefer is the feeling of control with a manual, plus there never seems to be any slack in the transmission.
I think for the quarter auto is the way to go, especially for consistent times. There's even a ZR1 converted to auto that runs mad times (10's I think it's on ZR1 net).
Another auto bonus is that it's a bit easier on the drivetrain as there's potentially less shock to the drivetrain when changing gear plus a lot less chance of over-revving the engine. One guy on the Callaway forum converted his twin turbo quarter mil car to an auto as he reckoned he broke parts "every third run!"
That's what you get when you drop the clutch at 4600 RPM (actually past peak power on a Callaway) Do you reckon 570 ft/lbs of torque has the potential to break parts...?
c4koh said:
Now, what I mean is that I had to wait that long in my 'vette to downshift, I'd deffo not want an Auto!
Which brings me back to the subject of downshifting the auto manually in readiness for an overtake. I find it useful. Subjectively I also think that if you change it down to third manually and then kick down to second when the time comes that is smoother and quicker than a kick down from 4th gear lockup. For quick driving on a bendy road I tend to leave it in third anyway for better control, including stabilisation of the car with some engine braking when you get off the throttle.
The reality of driving a Vette is that a very few seconds of full throttle in any gear with either transmission will rapidly have you passing the Starship Enterprise!
There was a big discussion on a US site that I found talking about this. The people on it concluded that for dragging an auto is the way to go (consistent times & a much better life for the UJ's, driveshaft, etc). A good driver with a manual can match, or beat, an auto's times but consistency is easier with the auto.
Normal road driving can be improved by modifying the auto box. I've set mine up for firm shifts & could get much, much firmer shifting by altering the TV cable mounting position, but haven't as I don't want to feel like I'm driving a manual doing full power changes when just tootling down to the shops
Now I've got used to the auto (this is my 1st auto car) I'm happy to do manual shifts as Steve says. I can just stick it in D & let the transmission do the changes (including up/down shifts when I don't really want them) or I can manually change for more control (& fun
).
One BIG disadvantage of the auto is the complete lack of decent engine braking. That is something I'll never get used to.
Can't these modern, new fangled, transmissions
be set up so that there isn't a big delay before downshifting?
Normal road driving can be improved by modifying the auto box. I've set mine up for firm shifts & could get much, much firmer shifting by altering the TV cable mounting position, but haven't as I don't want to feel like I'm driving a manual doing full power changes when just tootling down to the shops
Now I've got used to the auto (this is my 1st auto car) I'm happy to do manual shifts as Steve says. I can just stick it in D & let the transmission do the changes (including up/down shifts when I don't really want them) or I can manually change for more control (& fun
). One BIG disadvantage of the auto is the complete lack of decent engine braking. That is something I'll never get used to.
Can't these modern, new fangled, transmissions
be set up so that there isn't a big delay before downshifting? 
)
On the subject of engine braking. You have all probably heard of electric retarders. For those who haven't, they are large magnets which are fitted on driveshafts of commercial vehicles (TELMARS) to assist in braking. New technology now has a similar device inside a gearbox which I believe restricts the flow of fluid and produces a strong impression of engine braking. To the best of my knowledge, this is again only available to commercial vehicles. It is now standard on London Fire engines and I can tell you from first hand experience, that it works extremely well. It will easily bring a 16ton vehicle to a near stop without using any brakes. Who knows, in a few years time they my make it an option on Vette'. Me, I'll stick to my 6-speed. 
On the subject of engine braking. You have all probably heard of electric retarders. For those who haven't, they are large magnets which are fitted on driveshafts of commercial vehicles (TELMARS) to assist in braking. New technology now has a similar device inside a gearbox which I believe restricts the flow of fluid and produces a strong impression of engine braking. To the best of my knowledge, this is again only available to commercial vehicles. It is now standard on London Fire engines and I can tell you from first hand experience, that it works extremely well. It will easily bring a 16ton vehicle to a near stop without using any brakes. Who knows, in a few years time they my make it an option on Vette'. Me, I'll stick to my 6-speed.
Gassing Station | Corvettes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff