U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-16-2010, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
22,153 posts, read 26,635,723 times
Reputation: 6441

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepcynic View Post
blah, blah, blah
"Great" way to debate!

But I've seen that "style" before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-16-2010, 07:44 PM
 
10 posts, read 17,095 times
Reputation: 22
Woo hoo! Let's dumb down everyone instead of making the teaching of manual a requirement in high school driver's ed. Yeah, it would add to the cost of education -but- manual shift cars are much cheaper anyway... get better mileage, too.

Death to automatic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2010, 07:49 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
22,153 posts, read 26,635,723 times
Reputation: 6441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deez Nuttz View Post
Yes and that auto tranny STILL eats hp. Think about it...a manual takes power DIRECTLY off the crank and routes it into a gear box.....the torque converter is nothing but a fluid coupler....that does NOT send all of the power to the tranny....
In this Car Life (April, 1969) of two '69 Charger 500s... one with a manual and one with an automatic, the auto tranny eating hp didn't seem to hurt it much.

Check for yourself:

--------------------------- '69 Charger 500---- '69 Charger 500
Engine--------------------- 426-Hemi---------- 426-Hemi
Transmission---------------- 3-speed auto------ 4-speed manual
Curb weight---------------- 3,950 lbs---------- 4,025 lbs
Rear axle ratio-------------- 3.23:1------------ 3.55:1

0-40 mph------------------ 3.3 secs----------- 3.3 secs
0-50 mph------------------ 4.4---------------- 4.4
0-60 mph------------------ 5.7---------------- 5.7
0-70 mph------------------ 7.1---------------- 6.8
0-80 mph------------------ 8.8---------------- 8.4
0-90 mph------------------ 10.6--------------- 10.0
0-100 mph----------------- 12.8--------------- 12.3

1/4 mile-------------------- 13.92@104.5------ 13.68@104.8
Passing: 40-60 mph--------- 2.4 secs---------- 2.4
-------- 50-70 mph--------- 2.7--------------- 2.4
-------- 30-70 mph--------- 4.8--------------- 4.4
-------- 60-100 mph-------- 7.1--------------- 6.6

Note that although the one with the auto trans is 75 lbs lighter than the one with the manual, it has higher 3.23 gears. And even with those higher gears, it equals the manual transmission car up to 60 mph, ties it with the 40-60 mph passing and almost matches the 4-speed's trap speed in the 1/4 mile.

Quote:
And here's another one....with a manual you can run as big of a cam as you want and not worry about having to pick the right stall converter size for the cam....not usually a big issue but nice to know if one weekend I decided I want to swap out the stock cam for a bigger cam and I have a manual trans. On an auto you'd be pulling the trans for a converter swap.
But a high-stall converter helps off-the-line acceleration. A benefit you can't enjoy with a manual transmission.

Quote:
What kind of trans was this that gave you the option of starting off in 2nd?
That would be the Ford Cruise-O-Matic. I don't know if it's the C4 or C6.
This was said about it in an issue of Motor Trend (Oct., 1965):

"With the selector in the D position, the transmission shifts like a normal automatic. It starts in 1st and upshifts through 2nd to 3rd gear. For manual shifting, moving the selector to either 2 or 1 will (when at a standstill or when moving) shift into 2nd or 1st respectively and stay there. In this way, starts can be made from either gear."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2010, 07:53 PM
 
1,634 posts, read 3,334,064 times
Reputation: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
"Great" way to debate!

But I've seen that "style" before.
Well there pal, all you do is keep up with the same old stuff. That is what that meant.

Even when you post facts it bolsters the manual enthusiasts argument.

The manual in your test beat the auto.

There is no point in trying to engage in intelligent conversation with a Glen Beck type.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2010, 08:13 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
22,153 posts, read 26,635,723 times
Reputation: 6441
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepcynic View Post
Well there pal, all you do is keep up with the same old stuff. That is what that meant.

Even when you post facts it bolsters the manual enthusiasts argument.

The manual in your test beat the auto.
You did notice the difference in axle ratios? I wonder how the automatic would have done if it also had 3.55s?

Quote:
There is no point in trying to engage in intelligent conversation with a Glen Beck type.
You really should stop talking politics in an automotive forum.

Besides, I don't watch Glen Beck; don't know where you got the idea I did.

BTW, since you mentioned it, tell me which is the real "faux" news channel...

2008 Pre-Election Coverage:

Fox News

40% of John McCain stories were negative
40% of Barrack Obama stories were negative

MSNBC

73% of John McCain stories were negative
14% of Barrack Obama stories were negative

(Source: Project For Excellence in Journalism, Oct. 29, 2008)

Now you know the true faux news station!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2010, 08:18 PM
 
1,634 posts, read 3,334,064 times
Reputation: 537
I was not talking politics, you are.

Stick to the car stuff, this is the Automotive forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2010, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Earth
4,227 posts, read 20,310,379 times
Reputation: 2210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
In this Car Life (April, 1969) of two '69 Charger 500s... one with a manual and one with an automatic, the auto tranny eating hp didn't seem to hurt it much.
Looks like the 4 speed car was heavier but did have a lower rear end ratio and still took the cake by 3/10 ths of a second. Since the 426 was a torque monster anyways, a 3.23:1 rear probably wasn't a real crucial part.

But even then still, there's nothing like rowing gears in a manual. Especially in a muscle car. And as mentioned a manual trans will always make a muscle car worth more. Not my saying, just the truth speaking for itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
But a high-stall converter helps off-the-line acceleration. A benefit you can't enjoy with a manual transmission.
Yes you can, it's called "you rev up the engine some before you drop the clutch". That's how you drive a manual trans; you have to give it a little gas while disengaging or otherwise you stall the engine. On a big cammed engine you just have to give it a bit more gas or do what I do and just bump up the idle some.

A high stall converter more the less does the same thing but differently, it just allows for some slippage to help acceleration. Just have to make sure you run a good auxiliary cooler to keep the trans cool.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2010, 11:54 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
22,153 posts, read 26,635,723 times
Reputation: 6441
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepcynic View Post
I was not talking politics, you are.
Yes, you were. See post #85. And it was you who mentioned Glen Beck, not I.

Quote:
Stick to the car stuff, this is the Automotive forum.
That is what I said to you a few hours ago! Stop copying me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2010, 11:59 PM
 
1,634 posts, read 3,334,064 times
Reputation: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Yes, you were. See post #85. And it was you who mentioned Glen Beck, not I.


Glen Beck has nothing to do with politics, he is just a buffoon that spouts crap for entertainment.

Post #85 has nothing to do with politics.

Back to cars, if you please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2010, 12:02 AM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
22,153 posts, read 26,635,723 times
Reputation: 6441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deez Nuttz View Post
Looks like the 4 speed car was heavier but did have a lower rear end ratio and still took the cake by 3/10 ths of a second. Since the 426 was a torque monster anyways, a 3.23:1 rear probably wasn't a real crucial part.
Notice the trap speed of the automatic Hemi? You would think the "superior," "more efficient" would have more than 0.3 mph faster.
The Hemis make their torque more at the high end, not the low end. Its rating of 490 lbs-ft of torque was at 4,000 rpm... many muscle car engines had a peak torque at about 3,200-3,500 rpm.

Quote:
But even then still, there's nothing like rowing gears in a manual. Especially in a muscle car.
Again, depends on the driver. Some muscle car owners prefer an automatic. Some shift an automatic with as much vigor and enjoyment as those who have a manual. In other words, tell them that their car isn't fun to drive because it has an automatic and you will probably get a blank stare or get laughed at.

Quote:
And as mentioned a manual trans will always make a muscle car worth more. Not my saying, just the truth speaking for itself.
Looking through a recent Hemmings, I see prices (asking prices) for muscle cars with automatics just as high as those with manuals.

Quote:
Yes you can, it's called "you rev up the engine some before you drop the clutch". That's how you drive a manual trans; you have to give it a little gas while disengaging or otherwise you stall the engine. On a big cammed engine you just have to give it a bit more gas or do what I do and just bump up the idle some.
The torque converter aids acceleration in each gear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top