It’s time for me to put a new transmission in my car and I can’t decide between a T56 or a pro-built 700R4 with a vigilante. I have a ZZ4 equivalent with TPI and 3.23 gears.

Manuals are more fun to drive but the auto would be faster and more traffic friendly. So basically it comes down to how much slower will my car be with a T56. Can anyone who has gone from manual to auto or vise versa give some input how much it affected there ET’s?

 

well if you gonna run a lot of power and run the quarter a lot, id go with the auto. nothing can shift faster then an auto... you can program them for revs and what not. i have an auto and wouldnt give it up for a stick. stick is great street driving, but traffic is a nightmare. i say stick with the 700 ESPECIALLY if your going pro with a vigilantie... there shouldnt be a question here lol

 

Why do you think it's going to be slower with a T56?

 

I have always heard that a High quality TC and auto transmission would be faster then a manual on the same exact car, may be wrong.

 

its true that auto takes more power from the wheels then a manual. i forget the % but with a pro built tranny and that TQ converter, you wont even feel it

 

Though autos do take up more power I though with a good TC you will still run faster times then manuals. Though I have never taken to my car to the track I don’t want a manual if it’s going to be considerably hurt my times.

 

hmm id suggest a manual only if your gonna spend the money on a good one and good shiftkit and all that stuff..

cuz my friend had the exact same car engine etc as me.. except he had a auto and i have a T-5, i beat him by .5 seconds everytime

 

Depends if this is a full out race car where consistant times are important. Doesent sound like it to me. A manual transmission can be faster then an automatic but it will not be as consistant and thats what counts when you drag race for more then kicks. Persoanlly I can shift my T5 nearly as quick as an automatic probably quicker then a stock auto but Ive had alot of practice with shifter karts and such.

 

But he's looking at the Pro-built 700R4. I would like to see someone shift faster than that tranny can. I have one and I can tell you, it along with a good torque converter dropped my time by .5 sec easy.

 

Manual cars are faster than auto cars, period. The stick is lighter and consumes less power through parasitic drag.

Auto are more consistent, period. A good driver can make up for some of the consistency lost by a stick, but not all of it.

I've seen back to back tests in the same car with an auto and a stick that back this up.

A stick is sort of a pain in traffic, but for me the fun under every other situation more than makes up for it. Plus, how long do you really sit in traffic on a weekly basis? That should be something you consider whne making the decision.

BTW, I'll take the Pepsi Challenge with an auto any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I'll bang gears faster with my T56 than any auto can shift.

 

so your all telling me you can shift faster then an auto? i dont believe it for a second. especially a pro built auto. impossiable

 

A car with a manual will almost always be faster than one with an auto. But, the manual leaves alot more up to the driver. A poor diver can cost alot of time with a stick shift. But an auto is far more consistent, even with a poor driver, if the driver just leaves it alone and lets it do its job.

3.23 is really to low of a rear ratio for a T-56. It's a good choice for an auto and a stall, but 3.73 would work better with a T-56.

 

No its not impossible, most people cant do it because they think they cant, wont try it or just dont have the expericane to do so. Its real easy to shift uber quick even if you use the clutch but doing all that and not missing a shift is where skill/experiance comes into play. Thats why I'not very fond of short throw shifters I dont feel they are nessasary or do much of anything other then to drain our wallets.

Funny thing is I asked my dad a few years before he passed away why he always pushed sticks on my drag cars. All the drag cars my two older brothers had were automatics. He said "because you can shift, they cant."

I cant comment on the quickness of a Probuilt unit never experianced one of thier products, I can say my cousin really liked his PB TH350 and couldent say enough good things about it. Of course Dana could sent a PB 700R4 this way for test pourposes.

 

Stock I believe it, but a shift kit in an auto, I think its humanly impossible to shift faster.

 

thank you. i agree. next they gonna tell us they can calculate faster then a calculator

 

damn sure can't shift faster than my raptor.. POW!

but calculators are overrated... j/k

 

This arguement has been beaten so many times over it's not even funny. The fact is, you can say all you want about an auto eating more power than a manual, but a properly built auto will always be faster in drag racing PERIOD! They shift faster than humanly possible and depending on the tq converter can have over 2.5 times the tq multiplication of a manual trans. It's funny to me that it's debated on here so much, but it's pretty much a fact over on any of the fourth gen sights I go to. Maybe it's because more people who know what they are talking about can afford one? Just look at the world's fastest LS1 powered car. It's an auto! Look at all the 4th gen guys who drop over half a second will a good converter. Not only is an auto better for drag racing, but if you have a dexcent stall it CAN be better from a roll as well. It'll shoot you straight into your power band and you'll instantly have a jump on a manual car. Let's face it, most people just have too much pride I guess to admit an auto is faster.

 

The factory torque converter multiplies torque atleast 2x off the line. Combine that with the 700r4s 3.06:1 first gear and the rear end gears and you have a whole lot of torque multiplication.

By the way an auto with the correct stall, shift speed, and a shift kit will run faster and be MUCH more consistent than a stick shift. The automatic also allows power to go through it during shift a feat manuals do not allow. Think about it stick drivers you have to clutch, shift, de-clutch then repeat it at the next shift. With an auto its just wham.

 

Well, not necessarily. If you REALLY know how to drive stick, you can do it without the clutch at all . Also, you can't beat a stick when it comes to auto cross. However, I agree, if your going below the 11's, its time to put an auto in.

 

everyone that said somthing one way or another "peroid" is uninformed.






at lower power levels (think street car), a manual is faster. why? because of the lower power loss.. quick shifts arnt as important.



as the car gets faster and faster, there becomes a point where they become almost equal..... and then from there on, the auto will always be faster.





all that said, i swapped my auto for a T56 because its more entertaining, i dont intend to go faster in the 1/4 then mid 11s, ii think it will be more reliable for open road racing, and i like to autocross..

 

and for once i agree with you! there is no way in hell a person can shift faster then a machine. too much time between shifts for human error. even if you could consistantly shift, you cannot however, shift faster then a automatic. stick is obviously more fun, but more work at the same time. i dont know about you all, but i like to have 2 hands on the wheel at high speeds

 

Believe what you want. It's simple mechanics. When an automatic shifts clutch plates slip and then grip as it goes from one gear to the next. There is a slight delay in every step of the process. You can't make an automatic simulate a powershift. In a stick car when you kick the clutch in while your right foot is still planted and bang the next gear before the clutch comes back out the shift is lightening fast. Especially with a good clutch/flywheel because there is no slip. If you watch a video of a stick car that is properly driven running down the track you will see that the nose stays up through the majority of the run. There is no dip when shifts are made. Consequently there is no time lost during the shift, because if there was the chassis would unload the rear tires and the nose would dip.

What is required to run well in a stick car is a driver with skill. Racing any car takes a lot of skill, but a stick car takes it to the next level. The driver is responsible for consistency, not missing shifts, not breaking the tires loose, ect. I agree that a marginal driver can run an identical car faster with an automatic than they can with a a stick, but a seasoned driver will always be faster with a stick. The consistency issue, and BS weight breaks for autos are what keep sticks out of the majority of serious race cars. Personally I feel the experience of drag racing a stick car is a lot more satisfying that an automatic, and more fun to watch too.

Most people that have cars than run faster than 11 seconds are probably racing competetively. If you're trying to make money you're better off with an auto, becasue they are more consistent. Running a stick at this level of competition you better be really sure about your skills. Plenty of people do it though, and some with a great deal of success.

On the whole sticks are faster and auots are more consistent. There was an article in Super Chevy or some other mag about a year ago that did a back to back test using the same car. They tested a Jerico 4-speed, a TH350, and a TH400. The car was dialed in for each combination, and the autos were purpose built for racing. The stick was several tenths quicker than the autos, and the autos were more consistent. Consequently the previous statements aren't based on conjecture, but actual recorded events.

BTW, those Asian kids on an abacus can calculate faster than a calculator. Old school engineers can do it better on a slide rule too, for certain complex calculations.

 

"Believe what you want. It's simple mechanics. When an automatic shifts clutch plates slip and then grip as it goes from one gear to the next. There is a slight delay in every step of the process. You can't make an automatic simulate a powershift. In a stick car when you kick the clutch in while your right foot is still planted and bang the next gear before the clutch comes back out the shift is lightening fast. Especially with a good clutch/flywheel because there is no slip."


you say that but then you say auto is more consistant... hydrolics are faster and stonger then man power, period. you will never be able to shift faster then an auto. i really dont care what mag says what because they are always fighting amongst eachother. kinda like people on these boards. im not saying it to be rude, so please dont take it that way. but you controdict yourself there man, saying 2 different things

stick has far to much time between shifts for human error, one reason why people cannot shift faster then autos

 

there are alot of diffrent variables in this comparsion, setup, driver, ect ect, but however, the big boys use air shifters, they sit in there ride and hit a button and hold on for a hell of a ride. However nascar boys use manuals becuase they can stay in the powerband , more controll , and well its real racing if you ask me !

now if its a daily driver, i go with auto, if its a fun weekend car, t-56 all the way

way I see it .5 sec as somone said VS the fun of shiffting. I will take the time hit and make it up someplace else. Just my two sence.

 

If your auto is built right there is virtually no delay between shifts. It is instantaneous. No manual is faster than that.

 

The origional topic asked how much faster is an auto than a manual.

In terms of shift time, I think the various points have been covered.

However, what about actual "speed" as in mph. And powerband?
What seems to be left out is that manuals have 1 more gear! The 700r has 3 "racing" gears. The t-56 has 4 (assuming you're racing up to the 1:1 ratio gear) Needless to say, because of the extra gear, you don't drop as far down into the rpm, thus allowing you to stay in the strongest part of the power band. The 700r on the other hand, drops pretty far, and even a high stall cannot get around that.

iroc 89, I would recommend a t-56, unless you are uncomfortable with a manual or the t-56 is not financially feasable. It will match your setup well. However, if you go the t-56 route, you may want to consider going a little steeper in your gearing.

 

fug it all



put a lenco in.








i win.

 

Covered it all right there.

Not concering how fast a shift is

 

I find this thread funny

For a street car, the manual trans is usually quicker.

For a drag car with a decent amount of power an auto is 99% of the time much quicker. Not a stock auto like most of you are confusing with. A built auto with a loose converter thats matched to the engine/car.

When a 700+rwhp Supra can't break out of the 11s with the 6 speed and can run well into the 9s with just an auto swap, that says a lot.

Gear spacing? Its a load of crap. That's what a loose converter takes care of. Not your stock 1800rpm stall piece If gear spacing was so important why do so many people run glides?

Consistency? I don't know about you but a lot of racers don't bracket race. Heads up guys run autos. Theres a reason for it.

I know several Mustang guys that have swapped out their T5 in favor of an auto and gained well over a second in the 1/4.

Professional drag racers run autos because they're faster. Road racers run manuals because they're faster. Bench racers claim autos are slower than manuals because they don't know any better.

 

Same car with manual vs auto with a nice stall, the auto will be faster, hands down.
.5 to 1 second faster.
It's a proven fact, so no need to argue about it.

Take the high stall out of the equation and it's a toss up favoring the manual.

 

He is looking for what will be fastest in his car. Am I right?

So now the question is what 89 iroc's plans are. Is your car a daily driver, a weekend cruiser, or strip only car?
From there we can break it down. If it is a strip only car, then by all means, he should go auto. If it is a weekend only car then it is a toss up because he can probably be a little more giving in a high stall, but at the same time can go with a real strong clutch like a spec stage 3. If it is a daily driver, then he will need to keep the stall lower, and a t-56 would be much faster.



Now on to the technical stuff. Basic knowledge would tell you two things.
1) Less drivetrain loss=more wheel hp. This is simple to understand, and the t-56 wins this category.
2) If you could run through the entire quarter at your peak hp, you WOULD have the quickest possible ets. But because that is impossible, the next goal would be to stay as close as possible to your peak hp throughout the entire quarter. The T-56 wins in this category as well.
Why? Because of the gearing! If you have ever played Gran Turismo 3, then you know what I am talking about. Adjusting the tranny gears properly will lead to the quickest times. But because we don't have that option, we need to pick a tranny that is set up the best.
The T-56 has a 2.66/1.78/1.30/1.00/.74/.50 gear spread
The 700r on the other hand has 3.06/1.63/1.00/.7.

Seein as how he has tpi, assuming it's modded, we'll assume the redline/pk hp is 5,500rpm (close to zz4 specs), and tire size is 12.5" radius. So this is how the shifts look:

700r4: 1st=41.4mph->shift into 2nd brings the rpms to 2,930. Pulling to 5,500rpm again=77.7mph-> shift into 3rd brings the rpms to 3,370. So basically, you are looking at dropping well over 2,000rpms with the auto

T-56: 1st=47.6mph-> shift into 2nd brings rpms to 3,680. Pulling to 5,500rpm=71.1mph-> shift into 3rd brings rpms to 4,020. Pulling to 5,500rpm=97.5 mph-> shift into 4th brings rpms to 4,230. So basically, you are much closer to your peak hp with the t-56, thus making your average hp throughout the quarter higher than that of the 700r4.

Even with a 3,500rpm stall, the t-56 is a better choice. And for anybody that plans on saying autos shift faster, then so be it because you are right on that. But a good driver with quick shifts and good launches in a t-56 will win the race given all else equal, because the the higher average hp will beat out the lost time in shifts.

Even if he were to go with a 3,500rpm stall

 

The only car i've riden in with a high stall was a 98 Z28 with a 4600 stall.
When he gets on it, the RPMs jump to 6500-7K and stays there. When it shifts to 2nd, it drops to 6K for a split second and then it's back up to about 7K. When it shifts to 3rd, drops to 6K and back up to 7K. the stall kept the engine in the optimum RPM range for the entire 30-150mph run which was probably about 15 seconds total.

When you hear an auto on the dyno with a high stall, it sounds strange since the RPM's stay at the same place during the entire pull, keeping the engine in it's peak powerband pretty much all the time.

 

It isn't contradictory to say that a manual cna be shifted faster and that an auto is more consistent. An auto is more consistent because it delivers a softer hit to the tires on initial launch and also during shifts. Less chance that the tires will break loose, so it's more consistent.

That being said it's consistently slower than a stick. I don't care about stall or shift kits or whatever. The stick weighs less, which equals less staic weight. The rotational mass of a stick is significantly lighter than an auto, so the rotational drag is considerably less, which means even more than the static weight advantage.

The same car with an auto vs a manual, the manual will always be faster and the auto more consistent. It's been proven time and time again. Run what you want, but you can't try and make opinions stand up as fact.

BTW, when a magazine runs back to back tests under very controlled circumstances I don't think you can look at that and call it any kind of bias, even if it clearly demonstrates what you don't want to believe.

 

If you don't care about shift kit's or stalls or "whatever" then your entire arguement means nothing. Those things are what makes autos better. If you wanna keep quoting stock magazine times go ahead, but you'll be getting your *** whooped at the track.

 

instead of all the crap u just said, when they say its more consistant , they mean that it will take the same ammount of time between shifts every time since it is computer controlled, theirfor better for bracket racing

 

I am not basing this on opinion, but on real world observations.
Explain to me how a 96 T/A auto with 3400 stall putting down 288rwhp runs 12.4 in the 1/4 and my brothers car (same make model options) with the T56 280rwhp runs 13.2. MPh is the same on both cars, 107mph. Weight of the cars are almost the same, the Auto being about 50 pounds lighter.

the car dyno'd 288rwhp before the high stall was added.

 

No, consistency means that the car will run closer to the same number each time. In other words that the times (ET) for the car will be closer to the calculated mean.

For example. A car with an auto might run a 12.652, a 12.650, a 12.658, a 12.651, and a 12.655 during five runs.

The same car with a stick might run a 12.450, a 12.400, a 12.465, a 12.449, and a 12.472.

The automatic is better for bracket racing because it is more consistent. You're more likely to run your dial in every time, or at least closer to it that the stick car. In bracket racing the fastest car doesn't always win, rather the car closest to its dial in wins. Consequently the auto is a safer bet for bracket racing.

Hey 25THRSS, stall converters and shift kits are all things designed to make an auto act like a stick. When it comes to the track it's run what you brung. I've laid waste to plenty of autos, and been handed by doors by plenty too. Basically that don't
mean squat. We might as well take out the tape measure.

BTW, dyno numbers aren't the whole story. Great dyno numbers often translate into lackluster track times. I'm talking theoretically. If you took the same car and ran it with a stick vs and auto, optimized for both combinations the stick will be faster. If it isn't then let me drive...

 

I don't feel like arguing about this anymore. I am putting in a T56 since I want to "Drive" my car, but I know an auto in a car identical to mine will beat me.

 

Define optimized.

 

Suspension dialed in and tires to suite the desired launch
RPM. On street tires, the auto with the high stall converter may leave bettter, and without tire spin because of the lighter hit, but run sticky tires and the stick will outshine it in a hurry.

 

No offense, but you really need to go to the track more often. You really don't know what you are talking about. There's nothing more I can say except visit the track more often. Might wanna open your eyes and notice how just about EVERYONE here who knows what they are doing and wants to cut a good 60 foot runs an auto. Find me one guy here who can cut 1.5xx and better 60's with a manual. You won't. The autos are the fast ones. Anyone who runs a conventional manual setup for drag racing simply doesn't know what they are doing. And I am not talking bracket racing, this is heads up here. I'm not even gonna get into why because you obviously don't care as you said before. Run your manual car. They have their places in other forms of motorsports besides drag racing and the fun factor is cool too. Fact is, the auto is better for drag racing. And before you go into ranting about things you have no idea about like saying a high stall isn't streetable I run a 3200 stall which is more like a 4000 om my car and my combo is as streetable as it gets. I'de like to see even one manual car here out 60 me.

 

No offense, but you don't know me, so don't presume to make assumptions about anything related to my experience with racing. I go to the track at least once a month, more often if I can. Plenty of people at the track I attend run sticks. So no,, everyone who knows what they're doing doesn't run and auto as you want me and everyone else on this board to beleive. I know for a fact that such a statement isn't true. I see several low 11-mid 10 second cars routinely at my local track that all run sticks. These guys are running the conveted 1.5xx times that you think are impossible.

I can cut 1.85 60fts with street tires on a stock car with a stick.

I know it's easy to just try and say that things are one way or the other, but I've yet to encounter a situation with cars that is black and white. You need to come over the the gray, there's plenty of room.

BTW, I never said that high stalls weren't streetable. A properly built converter can easily make a high stall streetable with the right motor. Making assumptions always ends up with someone making as @$$ out of themselves and UMPTION.

 

Like I said, find one person here who can cut 1.5 or better 60's with a conventional manual. There's plenty with an auto who are cutting BETTER than that. I just talked to a guy today who run's the worlds fastest NA LT1 and guess what he runs. Yeap, an auto and he cut's 1.2xx 60's. Oh and I'de hope you can cut 1.85 60's with an AWD car. I'm talking properly built setups here, not some stock showroom car that you read about in a magazine. Maybe you should think more in the gray. Atleast I am open to facts on why things are the way they are. It's blatantly obvious you are seriously biased and not willing to open your eyes, especially with comments like "I don't care about stalls or shift kits or whatever."

 

when you say it will beat you do you mean in a bracket race, a street race (*** forbid), an autocross race?

and will your T56 have a good clutch and good gearing?
and will this auto have a stall?

you sound like an auto man. make the safe choice. you seem to have your heart set on bracket racing, not having a faster car.

i dont care about the consistency of my 1/4 times as much as my best times, because i dont spend much time there. i just like the speed, the adrenaline, the bragging rights. that is why i have the 6 speed. Its COOL, its FUN, and its FASTER.

sure...we all miss shifts at some point, and it could even cost a race, but overall the stick is still my choice.

 

You're not talking about Joe Overton are you? Joes new times were with a 1.33 60' foot braking it.

 

I'm pretty sure that's him. Maybe it was 1.3. He had his car on a trailer over in the parking lot. My bro was there too, I'll have to ask him what he said.

 

he's one of our local buddies, comes down from Richmond every now and then.
He can design a cam and tune an LT1 like no other. He is like the *** of the LT1.

 

These threads are funny to read btw, I don't just put my tranny in drive and let it do it's thing for racing. I manualy shift it between 6,800 and 7,000. Instant shifts too, no delay just BAM next gear BAM next gear.
:lala:

 

How about a 1.65 60 ft with a bone stock car and street tires with a stick? Seriously, what does it take?

Black Beauty said it well. That post defines the visceral fun of driving and racing with a manual.

Neat, so the fastest LT1 runs an auto. Plenty of record holders run sticks. Fastest Stock Appearing Musclecar, many classes in Super Stock, ect. What keeps more stick cars from the fields is the consistency issue (these guys are here to win, and big money is at stake), and the terrible weight breaks that stick cars are forced to run, often as much as 200 additional pounds. Most classes seem to have rules designed to make a stick car uncompetetive, and some classes actually require an automatic. I bet if these rules were lifted you'd see more stick cars the following week.

I would say that most people that race an auto shift manually. I always did.

BTW, I run a SPEC Stage III on a McLeod aluminum flywheel with my T56. Why? Because I saw no need to reuse the stock parts since I planned to race the car from the get go. I knew that eventually I'd be running slicks and aftermarket suspension parts so I bought the hardware to take advantage of it up front.

 

Wow, you get better 60' times than cars with DR's. that must be a record.