Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals? - Racing Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:46 AM
Just been looking around for the past week or so after i went to the track and it seems that my auto time is faster than some manual times with alot more stuff done. Is my car and odd ball or is it just alot harder to get better times in the manuals?


2007 GM Tuner Bash...HELL YEA
PA,MD,NJ,DE,NY and all states north caravan

Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:58 AM
The manual has potential to be faster, but like any car a bad driver will make the manual slower. A decent driver in a 5 speed will be faster than an auto.


<img src="http://img53.exs.cx/img53/3803/sig21ps.jpg" width="388" height="197" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" />
Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:38 AM
Manual is faster for j's. My fiance ran a 15.2 in his manual, i ran a 15.9 in my auto. We both have the same intake & upper mount insert, he's got a lower mount & i have a fiberglass hood.

I think what you're seeing is that many people do not mod correctly, in that what they do is counterproductive. I've seen cars with many more mods than mine that aren't as fast & honestly all i do is stomp on it, there's not a lot you can do differently in an auto other than changing tire pressure. Even autos more modded than mine are usually slower unless the're not n/a.

One that really stands out to me is someone i knew. High flow cat, header, exhaust, intake - same year Cav as my Fire... and STILL slower than me. You'd think those mods would make up for something, but they didn't. I'm not saying my car is super special or anything, but i have seen numerous times where modded cars just slow themselves down.




Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:34 AM
i ran a 15.8 last year last year with just an intake and engine mounts.
now im at 14.7



Im a Xbox 360 fanboy...and damn proud of it!!
Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 12:12 PM
Stock for stock and mod for mod (assuming a good driver in the 5spd) the manual starts off about .4 - .5 quicker then the auto

Average time for a manual is 15.5-15.7, and 15.9-16.2 for an auto



Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 12:47 PM
Quote:

I think what you're seeing is that many people do not mod correctly, in that what they do is counterproductive.


Bingo.

I think most people look at mods as something that will add a set amount of power to their car. This may be true in some cases, but all mods certainly don't just ADD power somewhere. Mods can ROB power that was there and gain nothing in return. Tradeoffs occur, and I'm willing to bet that more than occasionally, the trade offs are negative or very slight. A lot of people are fooling themselves. Sad but true. The point? Go forced induction!



<img src="http://home.nycap.rr.com/xenox/jbody/jbody_shocker.jpg">
Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:29 PM
My stock auto ran 15.7s. But I know some that ran mid 16s. It seems that not all 4t40e's had limited slip (or what ever you want to call it... Both wheels spin and leave two patches). At my local track guys that have autos and burn out and only one wheel spins run mid to low 16s while the ones with both wheels spinning run mid to high 15s. I pull most manual j's off the line till about 1/8 mile... then when I shift into third I loose all power and it just becomes a slow turd. Hey stargrrrl when you burn out do both wheels spin?



"Fu'k displacement, I'd rather be blown."
Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:50 PM
Manuals own automatics.
A 16.5 on an auto 2.4 vs 15.8 with 5 speed. With the same mods.



^^Home made sig^^ ghetto, I know. http://members.cardomain.com/blackoutfire
Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 3:18 PM
Mawk wrote:

My stock auto ran 15.7s. But I know some that ran mid 16s. It seems that not all 4t40e's had limited slip (or what ever you want to call it... Both wheels spin and leave two patches). At my local track guys that have autos and burn out and only one wheel spins run mid to low 16s while the ones with both wheels spinning run mid to high 15s. I pull most manual j's off the line till about 1/8 mile... then when I shift into third I loose all power and it just becomes a slow turd. Hey stargrrrl when you burn out do both wheels spin?


No J's came stock with a limited slip differential. If you're seeing both tires spinning, that's only because both tires have equal traction. If they didn't, only one would spin and nothing would stop it.






Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Wednesday, April 27, 2005 2:24 AM
I've never done a burnout, the tires don't spin at all when i step on it. I race with my tracton control on, did it once with it off and it just didn't want to go.






Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:59 AM
If you're not spinning at all and have the ETS on, then you're not getting the best results your car is capable of.

That's a great way of bracket racing, but if you're trying to get the best ET you can get, you should have the ETS turned off and launch the car right on the verge of breaking loose.






Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:00 AM
dont forget to factor in weight



Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:26 AM
5 speeds are faster in a 1/4 race. As for the difference in other peoples cars, well not everyone can race at the track. Just because you are a good street racer does not make you a good track racer. Two different type of racing. Many things go into it as well.



FU Tuning



Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Friday, April 29, 2005 11:36 AM
Ok. Can you explain the two patches vs one patch to me? I've been trying to figure this one out. I know this isn't the same but if you had a v6 camaro and burned out you would only leave one patch because its an open diff rear right? But if you burned out in a v8 it would spin both assuming the rear clutches are good because of posi right? So on a front wheel drive manual I've only ever seen one patch because they have an open diff? But with an open diff how could you leave two patches? I thought that was impossible? I was under the impression that in an open diff the "drive" only goes to one wheel? Help! Btw tom my auto would beat that 15.8 of the manual you speak of and I'm stock except with a cheap $10 filter. I hope you don't count your 16.5 with a convertable. They are way slower to begin with because of the weight.



"Fu'k displacement, I'd rather be blown."
Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Friday, April 29, 2005 6:34 PM
Yeah the 16.5 is with the vert.

And i'm pretty sure you wouldn't beat me. You may have a faster time at a different track. But, each track is different: different climate, elevation, traction, winds, angles, ect.
And i've only had two quarter mile runs in the eco 5spd. Hopefully may 14th I will be able to update my 1/4 record.



^^Home made sig^^ ghetto, I know. http://members.cardomain.com/blackoutfire
Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Saturday, April 30, 2005 8:02 PM
Mawk wrote:

Ok. Can you explain the two patches vs one patch to me? I've been trying to figure this one out. I know this isn't the same but if you had a v6 camaro and burned out you would only leave one patch because its an open diff rear right? But if you burned out in a v8 it would spin both assuming the rear clutches are good because of posi right? So on a front wheel drive manual I've only ever seen one patch because they have an open diff? But with an open diff how could you leave two patches? I thought that was impossible? I was under the impression that in an open diff the "drive" only goes to one wheel? Help! Btw tom my auto would beat that 15.8 of the manual you speak of and I'm stock except with a cheap $10 filter. I hope you don't count your 16.5 with a convertable. They are way slower to begin with because of the weight.


The way an open differential works, it basically takes the easy way out if it can so if one wheel has less traction, that's where it sends the power. Generally speaking, when you try to do a burnout the wheel with the least traction will break loose and then all the power goes to it, keeping it spinning. The other wheel stays still.

It's possible, though unlikely, that you can have equal traction to both wheels and have them break loose together. They would then both end up spinning so long as neither caught any traction. It's not likely... but is certainly within the realm of possibility.





Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Saturday, April 30, 2005 8:52 PM
I have yet to lose to a five speed Z. I have raced them turbo and non turbo . Same boost and same size turbos at the same psi. Even NA we had the exact same mods and I still was able to stay ahead the whole time. The guy is a great driver too . I also have a 2000 Z five speed so I know what both are capable of. And yes both of my wheels spin when I want them to. Not just one. I guess I am lucky for this in my auto. I can see how a 5 speed could be quicker but it is hard to get the perfect launch everytime so therefore I would have to say autos would be quicker 8 out of 10 times.


<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/dragmyz24/shoppedcav2.jpg">
Rush Racing http://www.gettherush.com/
Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Saturday, April 30, 2005 11:51 PM
wesel thats almost how it works.......but with open differential it is always the SAME wheel that spins it does not switch side to side

i have had both auto and 5 speed 2.4s not

auto 15.8@88
5 speed 15.3@89

Same mods on both cars



Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:36 AM
dragracemyz24 wrote:

I have yet to lose to a five speed Z. I have raced them turbo and non turbo . Same boost and same size turbos at the same psi. Even NA we had the exact same mods and I still was able to stay ahead the whole time. The guy is a great driver too . I also have a 2000 Z five speed so I know what both are capable of. And yes both of my wheels spin when I want them to. Not just one. I guess I am lucky for this in my auto. I can see how a 5 speed could be quicker but it is hard to get the perfect launch everytime so therefore I would have to say autos would be quicker 8 out of 10 times.


If you beat him even NA I do have to question his driving skills, sorry.


<img src=http://ourworld.cs.com/jwithspray/Nitrosig3137.JPG>
Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Sunday, May 01, 2005 3:13 PM
My car likes to haul ass on occasions, then sometimes it drags ass, i have a 5speed, and i think my time sucks, then again i do live in FL and i have yet to race when its not humid as crap out. Im hopeing to go to the track in the dry cool weather...



Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Sunday, May 01, 2005 3:44 PM
dragracemyz24 wrote:

I have yet to lose to a five speed Z. I have raced them turbo and non turbo . Same boost and same size turbos at the same psi. Even NA we had the exact same mods and I still was able to stay ahead the whole time. The guy is a great driver too . I also have a 2000 Z five speed so I know what both are capable of. And yes both of my wheels spin when I want them to. Not just one. I guess I am lucky for this in my auto. I can see how a 5 speed could be quicker but it is hard to get the perfect launch everytime so therefore I would have to say autos would be quicker 8 out of 10 times.



8 out of 10 times not. I will say auto's normally get out fo the hole better thena 5 speed. Yes it can be hard to launch the same everytime but that falls under driver. My times always run right together. You do not want to bracket against me.



FU Tuning




Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7:35 PM
manuals are faster than autos. end of story.

The reason autos are always slower than manuals is because nobody bothers to upgrade the transmission. Manuals can get away with it since, well, you do the shifting. A stock automatic is not set up for racing.

And I'm not talking just the auto trans interceptor or the shift plus, we're talking a higher stall torque converter, clutches and revalving, etc etc all the crap associated with making the trans better at shifting. But not alot of people do it which is why a lot of heavily modded n/a autos are still dirt.

when you do that, then autos are faster than manuals.. but the only time that really matters is when you're running 9s or quicker...






Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:18 PM
alot of ppl have alot faster cars than they have been able to prove at the track like for instance im slower now at the track being boosted than i was before because i have no traction, even NA the car was prob close to 14s with everything i had done I could just never get it to stick and I wont until I can afford drag radials



1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85





Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:31 PM
A perfect example of a mod that can slow you down. A flywheel if you don't shift fast enough then the flywheel will drop your revs to lower faster hurting your 1/4 mile times.


2004 Grand Prix GTP (Competition Group)
SOLD-->1999 Z24 5M-#30 to register on JBO
"You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all the people'
all the time


Re: Are auto 2.4's faster than manuals?
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:03 PM
Quote:

The reason autos are always slower than manuals is because nobody bothers to upgrade the transmission.


Thats what i'm doing. Are there no big automatic racers on here? I really don't pay attention.
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search