I read most of these comments and skimmed the others, but is no one going to state the obvious? ...Doesn't look much like a Stingray.
Duh? It's a mid-engine performance car, not a front-engine straight-line car.
Of course it is going to look different that the classic Corvette lines.
Though I'm biased in thinking the GT 40 is one of the prettiest cars ever made, so I am a big fan of American performance cars opting for the mid-engine format.
But that’s missing the point. If you’re going to give a car a classic name, there should be at least modest, noticable nods to the predecessor. Otherwise, it’s just a marketing gimmick.
for a non-technical person who’s always liked “shiny fast cars”, this is a great one for the price! Even I can tell that from the look, franchise, price tag and minimal understanding of the stats that I see. But, unless I’m missing some extremely nuanced characteristics, this car is a Stingray in name only.
It's not missing the point.
Corvette Stingray is their flagship sports/performance car brand name.
That doesn't tie them down to anything other than a shit-load of horsepower and rear wheel drive.
And the car hasn't looked remotely like the original Stingray, anyway, since the original Stingray was discontinued... primarily because the handling qualities of a car that look like that make it a death trap WAY before you hit 500 horsepower.
However, for all the die-hard manual fans...what if you lined up your car in a drag race with the exact same car in auto form and got beat by a full car length or more...would you still feel satisfied?
I'm sure it would be more satisfying that the guys that take their $100k+ Porsche 911 to the track and get beaten in the turns by $55k Caymans
Anyway... this car is going to make for a great episode of whatever the current similar show to Top Gear is.
Ive driven larry ellison's McClaren F1, with the center seat. Ive driven a 360 modena, 308 gts, a callaway TT vette, and dodge vipers. All with manual transmissions.
Ill still take an auto thank you, unless manual is only option.
I daily drove a 380 whp wrx that was a five speed and fucking hated it.
No way, that is insanely awesome - any pics? A freaking F1 and a Callaway Vette?
I loved my stock WRX, but did always read warnings that heavily modifying them makes the "normal" driving less enjoyable.
No pics unfortunately. This was in the days before cellphone cameras were commonplace. But yeah. I worked at the referee station where “special” cars went to get smogged (silly California smog rules) and his assistant told me I could take his F1 for a spin. Shit it was amazing.
The callway vette was ridiculous, though. Once the turbos started spinning, the tires would just cut loose. Even if it was 75 miles an hour. Easily break the tires loose on the freeway.
My wrx was heavily tuned, and not comfy for daily driving.
But yeah ive driven a ton of supercars, as well as heavily modified street cars (buddy had a 9 sec 5.0 mustang) AC cobra replica with a blown 454 that only weighed like 2300 pounds! that was an auto.
At a certain point, manual transmissions arent strong enough to handle HP output.
I read most of these comments and skimmed the others, but is no one going to state the obvious? ...Doesn't look much like a Stingray.
Duh? It's a mid-engine performance car, not a front-engine straight-line car.
Of course it is going to look different that the classic Corvette lines.
Though I'm biased in thinking the GT 40 is one of the prettiest cars ever made, so I am a big fan of American performance cars opting for the mid-engine format.
But that’s missing the point. If you’re going to give a car a classic name, there should be at least modest, noticable nods to the predecessor. Otherwise, it’s just a marketing gimmick.
for a non-technical person who’s always liked “shiny fast cars”, this is a great one for the price! Even I can tell that from the look, franchise, price tag and minimal understanding of the stats that I see. But, unless I’m missing some extremely nuanced characteristics, this car is a Stingray in name only.
It's not missing the point.
Corvette Stingray is their flagship sports/performance car brand name.
That doesn't tie them down to anything other than a shit-load of horsepower and rear wheel drive.
And the car hasn't looked remotely like the original Stingray, anyway, since the original Stingray was discontinued... primarily because the handling qualities of a car that look like that make it a death trap WAY before you hit 500 horsepower.
To be fair, the late 60s stingrays had ind. rear suspension which was pretty revolutionary for its time (even though it had that single lateral leaf spring lol)
$60k huh? I personally would never own an American made car (a truck would be different) due to preference but this makes me wonder how they got the price tag so low? Remember that scene in Snatch where they get a really good deal on a caravan and they pull away and the back axel falls off? Plus what the hell is that long vertical strip of buttons??? OMG that is atrocious. The exterior continues to impress though.
My wrx was heavily tuned, and not comfy for daily driving.
WRXes are neat cars, but Subaru dumped all the money into the drivetrain and not much else.
I remember a dude I knew somewhat kept complaining that he had to replace the transmission three times. I asked him if it was the way he was driving and he was like, "No, I drag race the sucker on the street all the time. I know how to handle it."
My wrx was heavily tuned, and not comfy for daily driving.
WRXes are neat cars, but Subaru dumped all the money into the drivetrain and not much else.
I remember a dude I knew somewhat kept complaining that he had to replace the transmission three times. I asked him if it was the way he was driving and he was like, "No, I drag race the sucker on the street all the time. I know how to handle it."
WRXes are amazing cars, and amazingly capable if built/tuned/driven correctly. Unless he was overpowered for the tranny, he must have abused the shit out of it.
The common WRX issue with the 2.5 is the engine blowing piston rings - usually from being tuned or driven incorrectly. But Subaru also didn't put enough smarts in the computer, because if you boosted too strong in a higher gear than appropriate (like flooring it in 6th doing 55mph), it puts a ton of stress on the engine and can blow the rings far too easily. They dominated forever, but technology is passing them up as 300hp in a car is no longer anything to brag about (unfortunately). Pretty sad when a new Camry can hang or outrun you!
Unless he was overpowered for the tranny, he must have abused the shit out of it.
That was pretty much the case. Everytime he pulled up to a stoplight, he treated it like it was a drag tree. He also bitched about the tickets he got, claiming the cops were profiling him. He was a whitest of the white dude.
However, for all the die-hard manual fans...what if you lined up your car in a drag race with the exact same car in auto form and got beat by a full car length or more...would you still feel satisfied?
Already asked and answered, but I'll repeat: Yes, of course. Why wouldn't I be?
My wrx was heavily tuned, and not comfy for daily driving.
WRXes are neat cars, but Subaru dumped all the money into the drivetrain and not much else.
I remember a dude I knew somewhat kept complaining that he had to replace the transmission three times. I asked him if it was the way he was driving and he was like, "No, I drag race the sucker on the street all the time. I know how to handle it."
WRXes are amazing cars, and amazingly capable if built/tuned/driven correctly. Unless he was overpowered for the tranny, he must have abused the shit out of it.
The common WRX issue with the 2.5 is the engine blowing piston rings - usually from being tuned or driven incorrectly. But Subaru also didn't put enough smarts in the computer, because if you boosted too strong in a higher gear than appropriate (like flooring it in 6th doing 55mph), it puts a ton of stress on the engine and can blow the rings far too easily. They dominated forever, but technology is passing them up as 300hp in a car is no longer anything to brag about (unfortunately). Pretty sad when a new Camry can hang or outrun you!
Had a 2017 STi Limited that was a fun ass car to drive.
At a certain point, manual transmissions arent strong enough to handle HP output.
You had me until this line
But I will grant that mis-shifting with monstrous HP output can be disastrous for other reasons.
Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree, at a fundamental level that an automatic transmission would be inherently "stronger" than a comparable quality manual transmission.
There are certainly power output levels where it is a lot more practical to have an automatic because you, as the operator, could fuck it up and damage your car (or lose control of the car entirely).
But that is a different argument than the transmission being incapable of handling the horsepower.
(i.e. it is the OPERATOR who is incapable of handling the horsepower, in that case)
That is, as the power increases, the stakes of user-error get higher.
(and for reference the current Hellcat and ZR1 both have more than 700 HP and are available in a manual)
I have a 6th gen Camaro. I have had tons of manual cars during the years. From stock to 500hp. I absolutely love the automatic in my Camaro. For those of you saying manual or nothing, have you driven a newer sports car with an automatic? They are nothing like older ones. The shifts are fast. In sports mode with performance shifting it rips through them. The manual paddles are great, its not like the older cars where it still does what it wants anyway. It will leave it in any gear you have it until pinging off red line. Its nice to be able to commute to work everyday never having to do anything, and then go down a twisty road and change it to manual and have some fun. Depending on the car, manual still may be the way to go, im sure they are not the same class of transmission in a yaris as mustang/camaro/vette. But if done right, there is no competition.
The manual paddles are great, its not like the older cars where it still does what it wants anyway.
With an obscenely powerful car, as much as I enjoy a stick shift, I would much rather have paddle shifters just to keep both of my hands on the wheel, and to guarantee I can't miss a gear.
This ins't directly at anyone in particular, but it applies to many in the thread. If you enjoy or prefer automatics, that's ok. But why try to convert those of use who prefer shifting our own gears? You all keep asking the same questions: "Don't you know autos are faster?" "Don't you know autos are more durable than they used to be?" Don't you know autos get better mileage?" None of that shit matters. You have to understand that some people drive just to drive. To some, the experience is much more important than just driving an appliance form point A to point B. It's ok to have a different opinion, but when you see the same question asked (and answered) 4 or 5 times in the past few hours, it gets old.
However, for all the die-hard manual fans...what if you lined up your car in a drag race with the exact same car in auto form and got beat by a full car length or more...would you still feel satisfied?
Already asked and answered, but I'll repeat: Yes, of course. Why wouldn't I be?
Like each of us it's a personal preference, but I would want the car with higher performance . But I agree the stick shift would be more fun!
My wrx was heavily tuned, and not comfy for daily driving.
WRXes are neat cars, but Subaru dumped all the money into the drivetrain and not much else.
I remember a dude I knew somewhat kept complaining that he had to replace the transmission three times. I asked him if it was the way he was driving and he was like, "No, I drag race the sucker on the street all the time. I know how to handle it."
WRXes are amazing cars, and amazingly capable if built/tuned/driven correctly. Unless he was overpowered for the tranny, he must have abused the shit out of it.
The common WRX issue with the 2.5 is the engine blowing piston rings - usually from being tuned or driven incorrectly. But Subaru also didn't put enough smarts in the computer, because if you boosted too strong in a higher gear than appropriate (like flooring it in 6th doing 55mph), it puts a ton of stress on the engine and can blow the rings far too easily. They dominated forever, but technology is passing them up as 300hp in a car is no longer anything to brag about (unfortunately). Pretty sad when a new Camry can hang or outrun you!
Had a 2017 STi Limited that was a fun ass car to drive.
Very nice, I was SOOOOO close to pulling the trigger on a HyperBlue 2016 STI - now there is one every day in my work parking lot reminding me I shouldn't have had a kiddo (lol just kidding).
At a certain point, manual transmissions arent strong enough to handle HP output.
You had me until this line
But I will grant that mis-shifting with monstrous HP output can be disastrous for other reasons.
Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree, at a fundamental level that an automatic transmission would be inherently "stronger" than a comparable quality manual transmission.
There are certainly power output levels where it is a lot more practical to have an automatic because you, as the operator, could fuck it up and damage your car (or lose control of the car entirely).
But that is a different argument than the transmission being incapable of handling the horsepower.
(i.e. it is the OPERATOR who is incapable of handling the horsepower, in that case)
That is, as the power increases, the stakes of user-error get higher.
(and for reference the current Hellcat and ZR1 both have more than 700 HP and are available in a manual)
Back when I was in mechanic school, I read that the needle bearings that support the shafts in a manual as well as the splines/ lockrings that hold the helical gears on the shafts were not as strong as the clutch packs and planetary gearsets in an auto. Dont remember what I read, or if its even true. Maybe it makes sense from an engineering standpoint, but you tell me.
If I recall, top fuel dragsters use automatics because its the only thing that can handle 1500+ whp.
This ins't directly at anyone in particular, but it applies to many in the thread. If you enjoy or prefer automatics, that's ok. But why try to convert those of use who prefer shifting our own gears? You all keep asking the same questions: "Don't you know autos are faster?" "Don't you know autos are more durable than they used to be?" Don't you know autos get better mileage?" None of that shit matters. You have to understand that some people drive just to drive. To some, the experience is much more important than just driving an appliance form point A to point B. It's ok to have a different opinion, but when you see the same question asked (and answered) 4 or 5 times in the past few hours, it gets old.
If thats directed at me, I dont care if people want to drive stick. But “better” is subjective. More enjoyable? Maybe. But more efficient, faster, and stronger? Thats debateable.
This ins't directly at anyone in particular, but it applies to many in the thread. If you enjoy or prefer automatics, that's ok. But why try to convert those of use who prefer shifting our own gears? You all keep asking the same questions: "Don't you know autos are faster?" "Don't you know autos are more durable than they used to be?" Don't you know autos get better mileage?" None of that shit matters. You have to understand that some people drive just to drive. To some, the experience is much more important than just driving an appliance form point A to point B. It's ok to have a different opinion, but when you see the same question asked (and answered) 4 or 5 times in the past few hours, it gets old.
I think it's just a healthy debate, I don't see anyone trying to convert anyone . At most, some of us are just arguing that an Auto has it's advantages for this type of vehicle. It's completely personal preference.
And to say "none of that shit matters" is just your opinion lol. To some people driving experience is more important than vehicle performance, and vice versa. Same with gas mileage, durability etc.
This ins't directly at anyone in particular, but it applies to many in the thread. If you enjoy or prefer automatics, that's ok. But why try to convert those of use who prefer shifting our own gears? You all keep asking the same questions: "Don't you know autos are faster?" "Don't you know autos are more durable than they used to be?" Don't you know autos get better mileage?" None of that shit matters. You have to understand that some people drive just to drive. To some, the experience is much more important than just driving an appliance form point A to point B. It's ok to have a different opinion, but when you see the same question asked (and answered) 4 or 5 times in the past few hours, it gets old.
I think it's just a healthy debate, I don't see anyone trying to convert anyone . At most, some of us are just arguing that an Auto has it's advantages for this type of vehicle. It's completely personal preference.
And to say "none of that shit matters" is just your opinion lol. To some people driving experience is more important than vehicle performance, and vice versa. Same with gas mileage, durability etc.
A "heathly debate" doesn't include asking the same question over and over again, especially when it was already answered.
Dope ass car at a great price, but looking at it I'd swear it was a Ferrari. They actually lost me on the last body style. 'Vettes have round tail lights dammit!
Back when I was in mechanic school, I read that the needle bearings that support the shafts in a manual as well as the splines/ lockrings that hold the helical gears on the shafts were not as strong as the clutch packs and planetary gearsets in an auto. Dont remember what I read, or if its even true. Maybe it makes sense from an engineering standpoint, but you tell me.
If I recall, top fuel dragsters use automatics because its the only thing that can handle 1500+ whp.
From an engineering standpoint, for a production car, you would engineer the transmission to handle the amount of power it is designed to handle (plus whatever safety factor you want to add in).
So for transmissions designed to handle the same amount of horsepower, it shouldn't matter much.
THAT SAID, I have definitely read that only American gearbox makers ever bothered to really engineer manual transmission that handle genuine supercar level power.
So what you remember from class may well be true for multiple transmission suppliers, in terms of what power level they engineered their respective automatic and manual transmissions to handle.
(i.e. the difference between what is possible with proper engineering, versus what is typical due to consumer preference and design directions taken by various manufacturers)
In terms of top-fuel, though, I thought that was more like 10,000 hp, nowadays, and they completely rebuild everything after each run, because the clutch fuses together by the time they are done.
They use a centrifugal clutch, rather than the types of manual or automatic transmissions used by "normal" cars.
They are "automatic" only in the sense that the driver isn't explicitly commanding them to do anything -- but it is pretty much all mechanical with a timed "cannon" that switches between discs in the clutch pack.
It really comes down to the shift-speed needed with that much power can't be achieved with anything you'd put in any power level of production car.
1500+ hp, is more like Forumula 1.
For those guys it is way more about speed of shifting (plus the ergonomics), where "semi-automatic" gives them "manual control" of an otherwise automatic transmission.
(i.e. they command the shift, but the system sequences the shift more efficiently than they could do themselves, because it is a game of fractions of fractions of seconds)
EDIT: I'm just contending that the need to shift quickly and ACCURATELY to not damage the system is what leads to automatic transmission at 1000+ HP levels, rather than one transmission type or the other being "stronger".
But once you're in the 10,000 HP range, it is a whole different game, where even traditional automatics aren't "fast enough" for the system to not destroy itself.
Also, "dual clutch" automatic transmission essentially are the same as a "manual" (i.e. standard) transmission but are computer-shifted automatically, rather than being build like a "traditional" automatic -- so there are definitely performance transmissions that are basically an automation of an otherwise manual system.
This ins't directly at anyone in particular, but it applies to many in the thread. If you enjoy or prefer automatics, that's ok. But why try to convert those of use who prefer shifting our own gears? You all keep asking the same questions: "Don't you know autos are faster?" "Don't you know autos are more durable than they used to be?" Don't you know autos get better mileage?" None of that shit matters. You have to understand that some people drive just to drive. To some, the experience is much more important than just driving an appliance form point A to point B. It's ok to have a different opinion, but when you see the same question asked (and answered) 4 or 5 times in the past few hours, it gets old.
I think it's just a healthy debate, I don't see anyone trying to convert anyone . At most, some of us are just arguing that an Auto has it's advantages for this type of vehicle. It's completely personal preference.
And to say "none of that shit matters" is just your opinion lol. To some people driving experience is more important than vehicle performance, and vice versa. Same with gas mileage, durability etc.
A "heathly debate" doesn't include asking the same question over and over again, especially when it was already answered.
Curious what "questions" and "answers" you're referring to...folks are purely throwing out differing opinions with very little facts haha. And for my drag race question that you mentioned was already answered, you were the only one that responded on that
Back when I was in mechanic school, I read that the needle bearings that support the shafts in a manual as well as the splines/ lockrings that hold the helical gears on the shafts were not as strong as the clutch packs and planetary gearsets in an auto. Dont remember what I read, or if its even true. Maybe it makes sense from an engineering standpoint, but you tell me.
If I recall, top fuel dragsters use automatics because its the only thing that can handle 1500+ whp.
From an engineering standpoint, for a production car, you would engineer the transmission to handle the amount of power it is designed to handle (plus whatever safety factor you want to add in).
So for transmissions designed to handle the same amount of horsepower, it shouldn't matter much.
THAT SAID, I have definitely read that only American gearbox makers ever bothered to really engineer manual transmission that handle genuine supercar level power.
So what you remember from class may well be true for multiple transmission suppliers, in terms of what power level they engineered their respective automatic and manual transmissions to handle.
(i.e. the difference between what is possible with proper engineering, versus what is typical due to consumer preference and design directions taken by various manufacturers)
In terms of top-fuel, though, I thought that was more like 10,000 hp, nowadays, and they completely rebuild everything after each run, because the clutch fuses together by the time they are done.
They use a centrifugal clutch, rather than the types of manual or automatic transmissions used by "normal" cars.
They are "automatic" only in the sense that the driver isn't explicitly commanding them to do anything -- but it is pretty much all mechanical with a timed "cannon" that switches between discs in the clutch pack.
It really comes down to the shift-speed needed with that much power can't be achieved with anything you'd put in any power level of production car.
1500+ hp, is more like Forumula 1.
For those guys it is way more about speed of shifting (plus the ergonomics), where "semi-automatic" gives them "manual control" of an otherwise automatic transmission.
(i.e. they command the shift, but the system sequences the shift more efficiently than they could do themselves, because it is a game of fractions of fractions of seconds)
I figured it was based purely on the way both were constructed.
Like if you took X motor with X amount of horsepower and put equivelent auto trans and manual trans and see what fails first, manual would fail first.
And Im not sure consumer cars would be applicable, because like you said they are going to do the minimum to save costs.
Comments
I read most of these comments and skimmed the others, but is no one going to state the obvious? ...Doesn't look much like a Stingray.
Duh? It's a mid-engine performance car, not a front-engine straight-line car.
Of course it is going to look different that the classic Corvette lines.
Though I'm biased in thinking the GT 40 is one of the prettiest cars ever made, so I am a big fan of American performance cars opting for the mid-engine format.
But that’s missing the point. If you’re going to give a car a classic name, there should be at least modest, noticable nods to the predecessor. Otherwise, it’s just a marketing gimmick.
for a non-technical person who’s always liked “shiny fast cars”, this is a great one for the price! Even I can tell that from the look, franchise, price tag and minimal understanding of the stats that I see. But, unless I’m missing some extremely nuanced characteristics, this car is a Stingray in name only.
It's not missing the point.
Corvette Stingray is their flagship sports/performance car brand name.
That doesn't tie them down to anything other than a shit-load of horsepower and rear wheel drive.
And the car hasn't looked remotely like the original Stingray, anyway, since the original Stingray was discontinued... primarily because the handling qualities of a car that look like that make it a death trap WAY before you hit 500 horsepower.
However, for all the die-hard manual fans...what if you lined up your car in a drag race with the exact same car in auto form and got beat by a full car length or more...would you still feel satisfied?
I'm sure it would be more satisfying that the guys that take their $100k+ Porsche 911 to the track and get beaten in the turns by $55k Caymans
Anyway... this car is going to make for a great episode of whatever the current similar show to Top Gear is.
Ive driven larry ellison's McClaren F1, with the center seat. Ive driven a 360 modena, 308 gts, a callaway TT vette, and dodge vipers. All with manual transmissions.
Ill still take an auto thank you, unless manual is only option.
I daily drove a 380 whp wrx that was a five speed and fucking hated it.
No way, that is insanely awesome - any pics? A freaking F1 and a Callaway Vette?
I loved my stock WRX, but did always read warnings that heavily modifying them makes the "normal" driving less enjoyable.
No pics unfortunately. This was in the days before cellphone cameras were commonplace. But yeah. I worked at the referee station where “special” cars went to get smogged (silly California smog rules) and his assistant told me I could take his F1 for a spin. Shit it was amazing.
The callway vette was ridiculous, though. Once the turbos started spinning, the tires would just cut loose. Even if it was 75 miles an hour. Easily break the tires loose on the freeway.
My wrx was heavily tuned, and not comfy for daily driving.
But yeah ive driven a ton of supercars, as well as heavily modified street cars (buddy had a 9 sec 5.0 mustang) AC cobra replica with a blown 454 that only weighed like 2300 pounds! that was an auto.
At a certain point, manual transmissions arent strong enough to handle HP output.
I read most of these comments and skimmed the others, but is no one going to state the obvious? ...Doesn't look much like a Stingray.
Duh? It's a mid-engine performance car, not a front-engine straight-line car.
Of course it is going to look different that the classic Corvette lines.
Though I'm biased in thinking the GT 40 is one of the prettiest cars ever made, so I am a big fan of American performance cars opting for the mid-engine format.
But that’s missing the point. If you’re going to give a car a classic name, there should be at least modest, noticable nods to the predecessor. Otherwise, it’s just a marketing gimmick.
for a non-technical person who’s always liked “shiny fast cars”, this is a great one for the price! Even I can tell that from the look, franchise, price tag and minimal understanding of the stats that I see. But, unless I’m missing some extremely nuanced characteristics, this car is a Stingray in name only.
It's not missing the point.
Corvette Stingray is their flagship sports/performance car brand name.
That doesn't tie them down to anything other than a shit-load of horsepower and rear wheel drive.
And the car hasn't looked remotely like the original Stingray, anyway, since the original Stingray was discontinued... primarily because the handling qualities of a car that look like that make it a death trap WAY before you hit 500 horsepower.
To be fair, the late 60s stingrays had ind. rear suspension which was pretty revolutionary for its time (even though it had that single lateral leaf spring lol)
At a certain point, manual transmissions arent strong enough to handle HP output.
You had me until this line
But I will grant that mis-shifting with monstrous HP output can be disastrous for other reasons.
My wrx was heavily tuned, and not comfy for daily driving.
WRXes are neat cars, but Subaru dumped all the money into the drivetrain and not much else.
I remember a dude I knew somewhat kept complaining that he had to replace the transmission three times. I asked him if it was the way he was driving and he was like, "No, I drag race the sucker on the street all the time. I know how to handle it."
My wrx was heavily tuned, and not comfy for daily driving.
WRXes are neat cars, but Subaru dumped all the money into the drivetrain and not much else.
I remember a dude I knew somewhat kept complaining that he had to replace the transmission three times. I asked him if it was the way he was driving and he was like, "No, I drag race the sucker on the street all the time. I know how to handle it."
WRXes are amazing cars, and amazingly capable if built/tuned/driven correctly. Unless he was overpowered for the tranny, he must have abused the shit out of it.
The common WRX issue with the 2.5 is the engine blowing piston rings - usually from being tuned or driven incorrectly. But Subaru also didn't put enough smarts in the computer, because if you boosted too strong in a higher gear than appropriate (like flooring it in 6th doing 55mph), it puts a ton of stress on the engine and can blow the rings far too easily. They dominated forever, but technology is passing them up as 300hp in a car is no longer anything to brag about (unfortunately). Pretty sad when a new Camry can hang or outrun you!
Unless he was overpowered for the tranny, he must have abused the shit out of it.
That was pretty much the case. Everytime he pulled up to a stoplight, he treated it like it was a drag tree. He also bitched about the tickets he got, claiming the cops were profiling him. He was a whitest of the white dude.
Unless he was overpowered for the tranny, he must have abused the shit out of it.
... claiming the cops were profiling him.
I'm sure plenty of early-20's white guys in tuner-cars get "profiled"... it's as simple as wait a few minutes until they do something stupid.
Easiest ticket writing ever in my city would be just following the people with "slug life" stickers on their cars.
However, for all the die-hard manual fans...what if you lined up your car in a drag race with the exact same car in auto form and got beat by a full car length or more...would you still feel satisfied?
Already asked and answered, but I'll repeat: Yes, of course. Why wouldn't I be?
At a certain point, manual transmissions arent strong enough to handle HP output.
You had me until this line
But I will grant that mis-shifting with monstrous HP output can be disastrous for other reasons.
Do you disagree?
My wrx was heavily tuned, and not comfy for daily driving.
WRXes are neat cars, but Subaru dumped all the money into the drivetrain and not much else.
I remember a dude I knew somewhat kept complaining that he had to replace the transmission three times. I asked him if it was the way he was driving and he was like, "No, I drag race the sucker on the street all the time. I know how to handle it."
WRXes are amazing cars, and amazingly capable if built/tuned/driven correctly. Unless he was overpowered for the tranny, he must have abused the shit out of it.
The common WRX issue with the 2.5 is the engine blowing piston rings - usually from being tuned or driven incorrectly. But Subaru also didn't put enough smarts in the computer, because if you boosted too strong in a higher gear than appropriate (like flooring it in 6th doing 55mph), it puts a ton of stress on the engine and can blow the rings far too easily. They dominated forever, but technology is passing them up as 300hp in a car is no longer anything to brag about (unfortunately). Pretty sad when a new Camry can hang or outrun you!
Had a 2017 STi Limited that was a fun ass car to drive.
At a certain point, manual transmissions arent strong enough to handle HP output.
You had me until this line
But I will grant that mis-shifting with monstrous HP output can be disastrous for other reasons.
Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree, at a fundamental level that an automatic transmission would be inherently "stronger" than a comparable quality manual transmission.
There are certainly power output levels where it is a lot more practical to have an automatic because you, as the operator, could fuck it up and damage your car (or lose control of the car entirely).
But that is a different argument than the transmission being incapable of handling the horsepower.
(i.e. it is the OPERATOR who is incapable of handling the horsepower, in that case)
That is, as the power increases, the stakes of user-error get higher.
(and for reference the current Hellcat and ZR1 both have more than 700 HP and are available in a manual)
The manual paddles are great, its not like the older cars where it still does what it wants anyway.
With an obscenely powerful car, as much as I enjoy a stick shift, I would much rather have paddle shifters just to keep both of my hands on the wheel, and to guarantee I can't miss a gear.
However, for all the die-hard manual fans...what if you lined up your car in a drag race with the exact same car in auto form and got beat by a full car length or more...would you still feel satisfied?
Already asked and answered, but I'll repeat: Yes, of course. Why wouldn't I be?
Like each of us it's a personal preference, but I would want the car with higher performance . But I agree the stick shift would be more fun!
My wrx was heavily tuned, and not comfy for daily driving.
WRXes are neat cars, but Subaru dumped all the money into the drivetrain and not much else.
I remember a dude I knew somewhat kept complaining that he had to replace the transmission three times. I asked him if it was the way he was driving and he was like, "No, I drag race the sucker on the street all the time. I know how to handle it."
WRXes are amazing cars, and amazingly capable if built/tuned/driven correctly. Unless he was overpowered for the tranny, he must have abused the shit out of it.
The common WRX issue with the 2.5 is the engine blowing piston rings - usually from being tuned or driven incorrectly. But Subaru also didn't put enough smarts in the computer, because if you boosted too strong in a higher gear than appropriate (like flooring it in 6th doing 55mph), it puts a ton of stress on the engine and can blow the rings far too easily. They dominated forever, but technology is passing them up as 300hp in a car is no longer anything to brag about (unfortunately). Pretty sad when a new Camry can hang or outrun you!
Had a 2017 STi Limited that was a fun ass car to drive.
Very nice, I was SOOOOO close to pulling the trigger on a HyperBlue 2016 STI - now there is one every day in my work parking lot reminding me I shouldn't have had a kiddo (lol just kidding).
At a certain point, manual transmissions arent strong enough to handle HP output.
You had me until this line
But I will grant that mis-shifting with monstrous HP output can be disastrous for other reasons.
Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree, at a fundamental level that an automatic transmission would be inherently "stronger" than a comparable quality manual transmission.
There are certainly power output levels where it is a lot more practical to have an automatic because you, as the operator, could fuck it up and damage your car (or lose control of the car entirely).
But that is a different argument than the transmission being incapable of handling the horsepower.
(i.e. it is the OPERATOR who is incapable of handling the horsepower, in that case)
That is, as the power increases, the stakes of user-error get higher.
(and for reference the current Hellcat and ZR1 both have more than 700 HP and are available in a manual)
Back when I was in mechanic school, I read that the needle bearings that support the shafts in a manual as well as the splines/ lockrings that hold the helical gears on the shafts were not as strong as the clutch packs and planetary gearsets in an auto. Dont remember what I read, or if its even true. Maybe it makes sense from an engineering standpoint, but you tell me.
If I recall, top fuel dragsters use automatics because its the only thing that can handle 1500+ whp.
This ins't directly at anyone in particular, but it applies to many in the thread. If you enjoy or prefer automatics, that's ok. But why try to convert those of use who prefer shifting our own gears? You all keep asking the same questions: "Don't you know autos are faster?" "Don't you know autos are more durable than they used to be?" Don't you know autos get better mileage?" None of that shit matters. You have to understand that some people drive just to drive. To some, the experience is much more important than just driving an appliance form point A to point B. It's ok to have a different opinion, but when you see the same question asked (and answered) 4 or 5 times in the past few hours, it gets old.
If thats directed at me, I dont care if people want to drive stick. But “better” is subjective. More enjoyable? Maybe. But more efficient, faster, and stronger? Thats debateable.
This ins't directly at anyone in particular, but it applies to many in the thread. If you enjoy or prefer automatics, that's ok. But why try to convert those of use who prefer shifting our own gears? You all keep asking the same questions: "Don't you know autos are faster?" "Don't you know autos are more durable than they used to be?" Don't you know autos get better mileage?" None of that shit matters. You have to understand that some people drive just to drive. To some, the experience is much more important than just driving an appliance form point A to point B. It's ok to have a different opinion, but when you see the same question asked (and answered) 4 or 5 times in the past few hours, it gets old.
I think it's just a healthy debate, I don't see anyone trying to convert anyone . At most, some of us are just arguing that an Auto has it's advantages for this type of vehicle. It's completely personal preference.
And to say "none of that shit matters" is just your opinion lol. To some people driving experience is more important than vehicle performance, and vice versa. Same with gas mileage, durability etc.
This ins't directly at anyone in particular, but it applies to many in the thread. If you enjoy or prefer automatics, that's ok. But why try to convert those of use who prefer shifting our own gears? You all keep asking the same questions: "Don't you know autos are faster?" "Don't you know autos are more durable than they used to be?" Don't you know autos get better mileage?" None of that shit matters. You have to understand that some people drive just to drive. To some, the experience is much more important than just driving an appliance form point A to point B. It's ok to have a different opinion, but when you see the same question asked (and answered) 4 or 5 times in the past few hours, it gets old.
I think it's just a healthy debate, I don't see anyone trying to convert anyone . At most, some of us are just arguing that an Auto has it's advantages for this type of vehicle. It's completely personal preference.
And to say "none of that shit matters" is just your opinion lol. To some people driving experience is more important than vehicle performance, and vice versa. Same with gas mileage, durability etc.
A "heathly debate" doesn't include asking the same question over and over again, especially when it was already answered.
Also gotta be a manual.
This ins't directly at anyone in particular,
If thats directed at me,
Reading comprehension is important. (That one WAS directed towards you.)
I'm just giving you shit now. I don't really care.
Back when I was in mechanic school, I read that the needle bearings that support the shafts in a manual as well as the splines/ lockrings that hold the helical gears on the shafts were not as strong as the clutch packs and planetary gearsets in an auto. Dont remember what I read, or if its even true. Maybe it makes sense from an engineering standpoint, but you tell me.
If I recall, top fuel dragsters use automatics because its the only thing that can handle 1500+ whp.
From an engineering standpoint, for a production car, you would engineer the transmission to handle the amount of power it is designed to handle (plus whatever safety factor you want to add in).
So for transmissions designed to handle the same amount of horsepower, it shouldn't matter much.
THAT SAID, I have definitely read that only American gearbox makers ever bothered to really engineer manual transmission that handle genuine supercar level power.
So what you remember from class may well be true for multiple transmission suppliers, in terms of what power level they engineered their respective automatic and manual transmissions to handle.
(i.e. the difference between what is possible with proper engineering, versus what is typical due to consumer preference and design directions taken by various manufacturers)
In terms of top-fuel, though, I thought that was more like 10,000 hp, nowadays, and they completely rebuild everything after each run, because the clutch fuses together by the time they are done.
They use a centrifugal clutch, rather than the types of manual or automatic transmissions used by "normal" cars.
They are "automatic" only in the sense that the driver isn't explicitly commanding them to do anything -- but it is pretty much all mechanical with a timed "cannon" that switches between discs in the clutch pack.
It really comes down to the shift-speed needed with that much power can't be achieved with anything you'd put in any power level of production car.
1500+ hp, is more like Forumula 1.
For those guys it is way more about speed of shifting (plus the ergonomics), where "semi-automatic" gives them "manual control" of an otherwise automatic transmission.
(i.e. they command the shift, but the system sequences the shift more efficiently than they could do themselves, because it is a game of fractions of fractions of seconds)
EDIT: I'm just contending that the need to shift quickly and ACCURATELY to not damage the system is what leads to automatic transmission at 1000+ HP levels, rather than one transmission type or the other being "stronger".
But once you're in the 10,000 HP range, it is a whole different game, where even traditional automatics aren't "fast enough" for the system to not destroy itself.
Also, "dual clutch" automatic transmission essentially are the same as a "manual" (i.e. standard) transmission but are computer-shifted automatically, rather than being build like a "traditional" automatic -- so there are definitely performance transmissions that are basically an automation of an otherwise manual system.
This ins't directly at anyone in particular,
If thats directed at me,
Reading comprehension is important. (That one WAS directed towards you.)
I'm just giving you shit now. I don't really care.
Thats like saying “no offense, but...... *something offensive*”
This ins't directly at anyone in particular, but it applies to many in the thread. If you enjoy or prefer automatics, that's ok. But why try to convert those of use who prefer shifting our own gears? You all keep asking the same questions: "Don't you know autos are faster?" "Don't you know autos are more durable than they used to be?" Don't you know autos get better mileage?" None of that shit matters. You have to understand that some people drive just to drive. To some, the experience is much more important than just driving an appliance form point A to point B. It's ok to have a different opinion, but when you see the same question asked (and answered) 4 or 5 times in the past few hours, it gets old.
I think it's just a healthy debate, I don't see anyone trying to convert anyone . At most, some of us are just arguing that an Auto has it's advantages for this type of vehicle. It's completely personal preference.
And to say "none of that shit matters" is just your opinion lol. To some people driving experience is more important than vehicle performance, and vice versa. Same with gas mileage, durability etc.
A "heathly debate" doesn't include asking the same question over and over again, especially when it was already answered.
Curious what "questions" and "answers" you're referring to...folks are purely throwing out differing opinions with very little facts haha. And for my drag race question that you mentioned was already answered, you were the only one that responded on that
Back when I was in mechanic school, I read that the needle bearings that support the shafts in a manual as well as the splines/ lockrings that hold the helical gears on the shafts were not as strong as the clutch packs and planetary gearsets in an auto. Dont remember what I read, or if its even true. Maybe it makes sense from an engineering standpoint, but you tell me.
If I recall, top fuel dragsters use automatics because its the only thing that can handle 1500+ whp.
From an engineering standpoint, for a production car, you would engineer the transmission to handle the amount of power it is designed to handle (plus whatever safety factor you want to add in).
So for transmissions designed to handle the same amount of horsepower, it shouldn't matter much.
THAT SAID, I have definitely read that only American gearbox makers ever bothered to really engineer manual transmission that handle genuine supercar level power.
So what you remember from class may well be true for multiple transmission suppliers, in terms of what power level they engineered their respective automatic and manual transmissions to handle.
(i.e. the difference between what is possible with proper engineering, versus what is typical due to consumer preference and design directions taken by various manufacturers)
In terms of top-fuel, though, I thought that was more like 10,000 hp, nowadays, and they completely rebuild everything after each run, because the clutch fuses together by the time they are done.
They use a centrifugal clutch, rather than the types of manual or automatic transmissions used by "normal" cars.
They are "automatic" only in the sense that the driver isn't explicitly commanding them to do anything -- but it is pretty much all mechanical with a timed "cannon" that switches between discs in the clutch pack.
It really comes down to the shift-speed needed with that much power can't be achieved with anything you'd put in any power level of production car.
1500+ hp, is more like Forumula 1.
For those guys it is way more about speed of shifting (plus the ergonomics), where "semi-automatic" gives them "manual control" of an otherwise automatic transmission.
(i.e. they command the shift, but the system sequences the shift more efficiently than they could do themselves, because it is a game of fractions of fractions of seconds)
I figured it was based purely on the way both were constructed.
Like if you took X motor with X amount of horsepower and put equivelent auto trans and manual trans and see what fails first, manual would fail first.
And Im not sure consumer cars would be applicable, because like you said they are going to do the minimum to save costs.