forgot to post the pic with the last post sorry bout that ....lol

 

They get quicker but slower, so one offsets the other.
ET vs MPH all auto's lose speed compared to a stick.

Oh yeah, I heard a lot of that when I was in the winner circle "you can't shift a stick that fast" or "you can't be consistant with a stick" I showed them my time slips 9.69 three times in a row seeing is believing, right?

 

Found On Road Dead

Fix Or Replace Daily

Fourth On Race Day

F**ked On Raw Deal

 

I was joking about the woman thing, dont take it serious man. But it is my understand automatic transmission were made for women originally, that was the start of the joke, thats all .

 

You still cant shift as fast as a built automatic

 

Sorry. I didnt pay attention to the dates. Oooops!

 

anyone who is even bringing up shifting speed as a issue in drag racing doesnt understand everything thats happening in both transmissions.


and thats all im going to say on the subject.

 

actually it wasnt made for women originally it was just marketed that way to sell more cars , you know how it is money talks and walks....lol

 

Glad to see you guys are still at it.

I'm in the process of rebuilding a 700R4 for my K5 right now, and let me say this: sticks are a lot easier to tear down and work on. There's a lot more parts in an auto. I could swap the truck to a stick, but to me there's no point. One place an auto will dominate is off road. It's not real easy to stop on a steep hill, get out, check the terrain, and then restart without moving backwards and rolling over. Yes, I have done this manuever in my CJ many times (autos in jeeps just seem wrong to me), but it is a lot more dangerous and hair rasing. Plus, the K5 will see a lot of mud, and one place you can't shift a stick faster than an auto is in a truck. The shifter throw makes it flat impossible.

 

Glad to see that you guys are still at it.

I am rebuilding a 700R4 for my K5 right now. Sticks are a lot easier for the average joe to strip down and rebuild. That much is certain.

The K5 is staying auto for safety and better performance off-road. Plus, having driven a lot of stick trucks over the years there isn't a real performance feeling to them. I mean, you have to cross time zones the shift throws are so long.

I still prefer a stick in my daily driver, which at the moment is an '84 F150 (2WD though, so I get to enjoy the stick and not have to worry about off roading). I prefer a stick in my weekend track toys. I could argue about what's "better" or "faster", or whatever, but for me I'd rather just say I like my 3rd gen the way I built it (T56) and I'm going to go bang through 6 gears right now. TTYL.

 

would definatly have to agree with you about the truck sticks they dont make them for performance in mind ....lol...they are alot more usefull with an auto for sure when your playin in the mud ...

 

Why is everyone so caught up in mph? If you get there first who cares. BTW my auto traps 128 mph currently

 

yeah mph does ha\/e something to do with it but launching and shifting has alot more to do with racing , if you miss a gear your dead on the water ....doesnt matter how good of a dri\/er you are if you ha\/e a manual you cant run as consistant as an auto

 

Forget consistancy, that's not what's being argued. A properly built auto is going to be quicker down the 1/4 mile than a manual, simple. If I was to swap in a t56 into my stalled auto ls1 I can guarantee you the car would run slower. It may run a mph quicker, but WHO CARES! MPH doesn't win races, ET does, and the auto will have the quicker et.

 

read my posts i agree i think an auto is the way to go ....and there are others that swear a stick is the only way to go ..its all a matter of preference and run what you got for the majority of the people on this board most dont ha\/e the knowledge to swap from one to the other or the money....lol.....but id definatly rather be racing with an auto than a stick anyday

 

If you can't drive.

Why do you think magazines use a manual version of a given car when they do performance tests? because manuals are slower right? Given they are professional drivers.

Manuals have less parasitic loss, period. Esspecially a hp robbing tranny like your 4L60E. If the driver can drive, the car with more power is going to win.

 

Because stock autos have very low, tight stalls that aren't even close to being ideally matched to the engine. Please don't use the stock for stock comparison when talking about drag racing.

EDIT: Just noticed nobody has mentioned shift extentions yet. The auto has a huge advantage there as well. If you have a proper stall it will keep you right in your power band when you shift, instead of drop your rpm's much lower like a manual will.

 

Even with a higher stall converter the auto car is still going put less power to the wheels than the same car would with a manual tranny. the higher stall simply helps the engine get to its powerband faster. The same can be done with a manual if it is geared correctly, and the driver knows how to launch it.
and guess which one is going to transfer more power to the wheels? the one without the torque converter

 

Forgetting about torque multiplication and shift extention? It's pointless to argue any more. I prefer to prove my points at the track where I love to leave the manual boys in the dust.

 

torque multiplication? you have taken physics right? and are aware of the law of conservation of energy?

the torque converter isn't creating energy, it is only transfering it, and it can't even transfer 100% of the energy from the engine to the transmission, so go ahead and explain how a torque converter magically magnifys torque.

 

Already did on page 1 of this discussion. If you can prove me wrong, please call up precision industries or yank and let them know that they are full of ****. What's this "magic" you speak of?

 

as you said your self in one of your posts on the first page, the magic torque multiplication is no different than the effect lower gears give.

therefore manuals can benefit from the exact same things, its called a really low first gear.

 

autos can have a really low gear and tq multiplication.

 

autos can have a really low gear and tq multiplication. Don't forget vastly superior shift extention, and the fact that you can tune them to shift exactly when you want them to every single time. Class, we have just learned why it is better run an auto when drag racing.

 

ungghh... I hate fords... and I HATE driving one even more... Damn stock POS auto. Now if they only made a cheap, manual that was both reliable and strong enough to stand up to abuse Id buy it. Looks like its TH350 time.

Theres nothing magical about how a torque converter magnifies torque. Its just complex fluid dynamics. So long as there is a relative speed between the engine and the trans input shaft, the toqrue converter will magnify the torque. Torque isnt a unit of work. Its, well, torque... Torque times angular velocity = power. Conservation of enery comes in to play in that in order to have an increase in torque, there has to be a decrease in angular velocity due to the fact that the toqrue converter is a passive component that cant create power itself, jsut transmit it. If you looked at teh power going into and out of a torque converter, youd find that, even though there is torque multiplication, the power coming in and out will be the same in an ideal case. In real life, power is lost due to fluid viscosity and friction.

 

then you have a useless first gear. a properly geared manual and properly geared rear end does the same thing as a torque converter, but it transfers more power to wheels from the engine in the process.

I'm sorry i forget that a properly geared, powershifted manual can't do the same thing.

a shift light, my eyes, and my right arm can do the exact same thing.

 

 

manuals always ha\/e the possiblility of dri\/er error o\/er the auto and the auto is better all the way around but its not going to be resol\/ed on here we need to set up a run on a track to pro\/e this to most on here ....lol.........i ha\/e seen more clutches come apart at the track than auto transmissions here......maybe they just build auto trannys better in illinois i dont know

 

not exactly, torque multiplication does the same thing raising the gear ratio. The engine is spinning faster than the output shaft, therefore the engine can turn the output shaft with more force.

you can equal the torque multiplication of an auto with a lower gear. pick any gear ratio for an auto, and you could pick a proper gear ratio for a manual car that would equal the torque output.

you do realize that a properly geared manual car will keep the engine in its powerband just the same as an auto.

and powershifting has the same effect as launching the car every time you shift.

i never said a manual car will be as consistant as an auto, but with a shift light set at an rpm its pretty accurate, and the driver can drive, its not really an issue.

 

The big advantage of the torque converter is that, while the car is still stationary, it temperarily multiplies the torque of the engine up to around 2x which really helps get the car moving from a standing start. Once moving, the torque multiplication falls off sharply. Of coarse most auto makers today go through great legths to stamp out that sudden surge of torque by playing games with the timing and such. On my 88 with a stock sized tc stepping on the gas from a standing start is nothing short of brutal if the posi locks and the tires managed to stay stuck to the road. No matter how many times I did it I never tired of it .

 

I can't believe I'm getting into this terrible thread, but....

25th, if your coveted torque multiplication is so "vastly superior", then why don't auto cars 60' any better than similarly prepped manuals?? I mean I'm reading about 2x the torque, etc, but you don't see ANY noticable difference in 60' times between similarly prepped cars, in general.

Also 25th, eariler in this thread you repeatedly tried to explain how the auto is equal to or better on fuel economy, which is not true. When the converter is un-locked there is slippage and wasted energy in the form of heat. When the converter is locked, you are still spinning a hydraulic pump that no manual has to contend with. That pump is always there, using fuel and taking power that manuals don't loose. There is also considerable friction between the very close clutch plates on an auto that aren't engaged, but spinning at different speeds w/an oil film between them. That's power lost and heat generated too.

I have my opinion about which is better, and which is faster at the strip, on the road course, or where ever (see my sig for my preference), but it's just that; and opinion. The things I commented on above however, arean't just an opinion.

 

I say you need to get out more because the auto cars are pulling better 60's. WAY better 60's in fact. Really man, if you haven't seen "any" difference in 60's you simply aren't looking at all. As far as the fuel mileage is concerned, with a good 9.5 inch converter the difference is pretty much nill between the 2 when locked and geared similarly. Anyways, I am seriously amazed that you don't see any difference in 60's. On this site alone, not even concerning your local track, I'de like you to find me one good example of a manual car that could out 60 a good auto. Find me one that can cut a 1.4 or even 1.5 60 foot and that is trying to be fair because I know of plenty pulling even better than that. You won't, and that is because the auto's simply rape manuals out of the hole. It's a fact.

 

How about my last Trans Am?
SBC 400
T-5
REAL street tires (254/50 R-16 Yokohama AVS)
Suspension mods included:
Eibach Proline springs
Poly trans bushing
Poor man's torque arm mod:
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...threadid=59201

3:45 gear.

1.8 60 foot time. Show me a car set up just like that, but with an auto trans, that does better. Real street tires, stock suspension (actually lowering should have HURT my 60), that does better.

-Tom

 

Now it's which can cut 1.8's on street tires and "stock" suspension? I find that hard to believe with any transmission frankly, but whatever. Find me a manual that can cut 1.5 60's and below. I'll just straight to it and find you a bunch of autos that are cutting 1.4 and better.

 

Well you asked for an apples-to-apples comparison, and I have yet to see an car similar to mine, 60' better auto or standard. So I offered it up to your challenge. Too bad you don't have one to match it.

I'll go find a 1.5ing manual for you though. Give me a little bit please.

-Tom

 

I think this is a pretty good comparison that actaully has some usefulness for us, not just some crap about top fuel 5,000 hp cars. It's a list of the fastest bolt on only LS1 cars, which means they are most likely not pure race cars and can be driven on the street with good manners. Notice that almost all have autos and the fastest manual car is in the #12 spot with a 1.6 60 foot, while the fastest auto has a 1.4 60 foot. Quite a difference there I would say.

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105062

 

give it up man, everyone is outclassed by these guys who can defy all racing knowledge due to their superior driving skills. I've seen this, I've seen that. Thats all a bunch of crap. Believe what you want, and get beat by the guy with the auto.

 

14th post down, 1.43 60' with a 5 speed.

4th post down, 1.58

http://www.corral.net/forums/showthr...hreadid=428427

5th post down:

http://www.corral.net/forums/showthr...hreadid=522482

 

Hey, 25th just asked to see a stick that could 60' well. I just offered up several of them and you just don't like it. Your reaction? Mud slinging. Good one, pard.

 

Thats not necessarily mudslinging. I'm not personally attacking anyone at all. I think everyone here are alright people, and have the right to be opinionated. I just dont agree with the opinions, and neither do a lot of other people, thats all.

 

whoops, double post!

 

10-4. It sounded pretty "thick" but thanks for the explaination.

 

And all those cars you posted would be quicker with an auto.

 

I DID my part. I found the cars. Now you show me a comperable car that is, adn I quote "cutting 1.4 and better".

Id just like to see you find a car similar to my old one that 60's better. 1.89 To be exact.

-Tom

 

In the first post you posted they are all calling bs on the guys running what he did, then they attest it to him having an auto as the reason he was able to run such good times with such low hp. Hmmm, wonder why, lol.

Haven't read the second one though

 

Alright, here you go, all with better 60's and all with autos.

mr22, mdformula350, and jichniow all had better 60's than you with an auto and a "similar setup"

https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...8+street+tires

Want more truth?

EDIT: About the 1.4 thing, local guy here, who I happen to personally know, has the world's fastest LT1 and cut's low, low 1.3 60's, and ofcourse he has an automatic transmission. Funny how that works out.

 

I never take you seriously when you say stuff like that...

 

What is the big brag about your 1.89? I will beat it and show you the slip as soon as my rearend is finished. There are guys here that hit 1.90 all the time with less than what you had for a setup.

I did read in the latest hot rod mag (cant remember which one) they ran a first ever pump gas race somewhere on the east coast? Forty one people entered and the winner was a 67 chevelle running low 9's with a stick. Sorry but racing with a stick is not a common thing and takes a very good driver to do it. Most all of them except maybe three or four were autos. And he didnt win by much. They ran three pases and averaged them out. There were several autos running right with him.

 

I just want to throw info out there, for people browsing this post and getting some misinformation.

Automatics always require more HP to drive, and subsequently eat more fuel economy than Manual transmission, EVEN when the CONVERTER is locked up: TRUE
Why? Even if you have a 1:1 extension, and EVEN though it acts JUST like a pressure plate / clutch / flywheel, your STILL turning 2 sets of planetarie gearsets and a front pump in the automatic (700R4 to be exact) which, unfortunatelly, does require a bit more power to turn in the long run. how much more? probably less than 1MPG difference on the highway if you are cruising, but the difference is there, FACT.

An Automatic with a HIGH EFFICIENCY CONVERTER (I.E. 9.5" from ViG/Yank/Edge) will ALWAYS do better UNLOCKED during a 1/4 Mile run. Why why why? Well....

The advantage of "torque multiplication" is 2 Fold. Everyone here seems to think an automatic loses "energy" and "horsepower" through this mysterious device called a Torque converter, resulting in lower MPH's, or less horsepower to the wheels. Well, its TRUE that Fluid coupling has THAT distinct DIS-advantage, but guess what? While you wind up with less power transfer to the wheels at that RPM than, say, a Manual transmission would, EVERYONE overlooks the fact that Automatics do it at a HIGHER rpm than the Manual would, therefore the POWERPLANT (read: ENGINE) is making more HORSEPOWER at that RPM therfore, while the automatic is LOSING more HP to FLUID coupling, the wheels are SEEING more HP due to SLIPPAGE in the drivetrain, TOP that off with TORQUE multiplication which allows more leverage on the ground than said manual transmission would have, and you wind up with a faster car all together, even though its losing a good 5-8% more power than the manual would have.

POWERBAND plays a roll in all things. If your POWERBAND is narrow, say, 5000-7000RPMS, then using a deep gear and manual transmission will get you where you want to be right? Same instance, but automatic... Suddenly you have the option of LAUNCHING your car RIGHT into your powerband, and HOLDING it there, all the way down the track.

Now if you have a crappy torque converter, dont come crying to me about why is my car slow. the torque converter is the most important part of the automatic transmission, when concerning both drivability, MPH, ET, and fuel economy. by crappy converter I mean anything other than a 9.5" converter, and lockup if you own a 700R4.

a clutch dump on a manual transmission at, say, 5000RPM is much more drivetrain loading than an automatic "on the converter's stall" launch at the same RPM. this is where things like suspension setup come to my mind, if your LCA brackets are set to their hardest setting, your drivetrain will probably un-load before you can get 60' and you will start spinning on the manual tranny. that said, you cant directly compare cars just by going from manual to automatic, and saying oh my car got slower. If your suspension is setup for a manual transmission's launch, and you install an automatic with a high stall converter, OF COURSE your car will get slower. DUH! its not rocket science people.

Typically, I would see lots of powerglide (2-speed automatic) cars with 5000RPM 10" converters running 8-9 seconds in the 1/4 mile around here. Every old Camaro out here has a glide and a converter, its just cookie cutter stuff.

Manual's have their place. gear control is not a reason to own a manual, seriouselly just pull back on the lever and your automatic downshifts. trust me, it works, I've tried it. fuel economy is not a good reason either, generally your typical 700R4 with a 2400-2800 stall 9.5" converter (lockup) will get nearly IDENTICAL MPG numbers (I have proven this myself, thank you) both city (non-locked up) and highway (locked up) as said Manual transmission. the efficiency is here, ladies and gentlemen, you dont have to put that over-weight lead bowling ball of a converter on your transmission. I think a LOT of the misinformation is coming from people who have never OWNED a properly built 700R4 with a properly built 9.5" lockup converter properly matched to their drivetrain. suddenly your automatic is not a "slush box" anymore.

I can say some good things about manuals, for instance, they are more fun to drive. I PREFER manual transmissions, in fact. If i could find a cheap enough T-56 to handle my 600~ish horsepower BELEIVE me it would be installed right now. But I cant/couldnt. I built my 700R4 with converter for under $1400 myself, and forgot about it. and fords suck.

Disclaimer: the views expressed here-in are my OPINIONS and should be TREATED as such. Except the part about Fords suck.

 

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding....We have a winner!

Too many people are basing their theories on old school converter technology (B & M, etc) or crap they read in magazines, like 3500 stall isn't streetable, etc.

Again, there's a reason why the quickest bolt-on LS1s are running Yank or Vig TCs, with that high of a stall on the street. I'd say the mph difference at the traps compared to the M6 is minimal, if any at all....given the same amount of mods.

My Yank 3500 in my IROC is so streetable, I may get it restalled a bit higher.

And the Vig 2800 in my 95 Z28 drives just like stock, but when you mash the gas it's a whole different animal.

Efficiency is the key....you can't do that with an old school 12" converter.