Not really....

The technology in PERFORMANCE VEHICLES is towards 6-7 speed automatics or computer controlled manual transmissions.

Why?...as I stated previously the computer can react much faster then the hand, foot and the associated mechanical effort involved in changing gears.

Formula One went in that direction as the cars were becoming too fast for a human to control without the help of computer systems.
Much easier to enter and maintain a line with full concentration aided by a finger action. You can also be more consistent in braking, as your brain/foot/hand has one less action to perform.

AMG is now using an ultra fast seven speed automatic behind 500HP+ normally aspirated 6.2 liter engines.

The automatic or computer controlled manual limits driver error and prevents in the case of Formula One, some very expensive equipment from breaking.

I've road raced right hand drive Jag Mark II 3,8L sedans with 4 speed Moss gear boxes and no first gear synchro on 6.70 x 15 Avon Turbospeed bias ply tires. Came from the factory in the early sixties with non power assisted four wheel discs. You couldn't use the same combo with the power of today's cars as it would be impossible to drive.

Technology reacts to needs of a performance vehicle.
Don't negate the capabilities of an automatic transmission. There are some forty year old Torqueflite Dodge/Plymouths with 118" wheelbase and the same power to weight ratio as a Z06, that will, even today, easily run with or ahead of a Z06.

Even back then 500HP was 500HP and whether you had a stick or an auto it took skill to be consistent and not break anything !!!

Doubtful many of the stalwart manual transmission afficionados on the forum can push their C6 or Z06 to 7/10ths on a road course !!!!

 

I don't "hate" on A4's or A6's at all. I've owned my share of slush boxes, and there were (some) advantages to them. What I do "hate" is the utter misinformation posted in posts like yours. I didn't quote the whole thing because I didn't want people reading that junk about "torch converters" and "tires" again. If you lost races w/Mustang and F-bod's you: 1. Didn't have as decent a power to weight ratio OR set up as the person who beat you (all other things WEREN'T equal), or 2. You didn't drive nearly as well as you claimed in you post.

I said it before and here it comes again....ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, on a STOCK or NEAR STOCK vehicle, a standard w/a decent driver will win every time.

-Tom

 

Dude.

MOST of your post made no sense at all. I'll address the two parts I did get.
"The technology in PERFORMANCE VEHICLES is towards 6-7 speed"
That's because (ready for this???)...more speeds is like...CLOSER to being a CVT!! Ding, ding ding! If they could afford it, they'd have 10 speeds, and even better would be 100 speeds. And even BETTER would be....INFINITE speeds!! (That's a CVT, BTW)

WHY?? Because the more "speeds" (ratios they're called) you have the more easily you can keep that engine in it's sweet spot; the hp peak, thereby putting the most torque to the ground at any given time.

Why don't they use CVT's in high powered cars? Because they haven't yet devloped the drive belt and sheave technology that can handle that level of power and torque efficiently. It's on the way however. 18 years ago, it was managable in a Subaru Justy. Now it's in several cars, including a Ford Freestyle and an Audi A4 3.0. It's on it's way. Furthermore, I agree; a computer CAN act faster than a human, and in my outline of the future transmission, I did say (if you read the post), that it was computer controlled. The thing is, this thread is about the C6 Corvette w/an A6, which unfortunately...can't shift faster than a human.

As for the Z06 comment, it was backed up with zero data, but in response, I'm quite confident that there are even fewer A6 drivers that can run their cars at over 7/10ths on a track. None of these subjective statments (Opinions or WAG's) has anything to do w/the original posters question of which stock Corvette is ultimately faster. Utimately it's the manual 6 speed, and it's proven repeatedly.

-Tom

 

Since none of us can agree amongst ourselves what does Chevrolet publish as "official" performance spec's for each car?

Maybe that will clear things up?

Tom

 

Since GM has yet to fully deal with the clutch pedal sticking issue on corvettes I'd go with an A6 next time I buy unless GM comes up with a computer controlled clutch for the manual..

This way a sticking clutch pedal won't be an issue.

A6's are awesome performance alternatives...

Z51's still get the tranny cooler too which is a great way to go if you mod into supercharger territory.

 

Control is what a manual is all about. Having the right gear at the right time is not always possible with today's autos.

Also, in the Auto clutch/converter modulation is tied to traction control and TM. This is a potentially unbeatble drag combination once the programming is worked out.

Straight line, a well set up auto is hard to beat.

IMO

 

Again "NOT REALLY"......CVT does not give the ability to select a distinct ratio based on performance. And we are speaking of "performance" or "high performance" vehicles.

First the use of "speeds" is correct as it is interchangeable with "ratio". A "six speed" manual is understood as having six distinct ratios, and isn't required to be called a "six ratio" manual. I'm sure you'll agree on this point.

"Putting the most torque to the ground at any given time" is not one of the best aspects of a CVT !!!

Nothing better in a debate, then when your opponent negates his own position !!!

Do you realize the belt requirement necessary to transfer five hundred horsepower and 500 lbft of torque ?????? Have you ever seen a configuration on a 500HP electric motor?


And they gave it up as not practical for overall automotive performance

Keep on proving my point....low power, low torque, great for a "city car" application......but not capable of managing a large V8, V10,V12 power output.

And to reiterate, we are speaking on a high performance car forum.

The "average" human yes, one skilled in competitive motorsports, no.

The point that you tend to elude is that most owners of high performance vehicles are average drivers, in the sense that their skills are not at a competitive level.

1964/1965 Dodge/Plymouth lightweight max performance Hemi's
3200lbs/525hp = 6.1lb/hp, three speed torqueflite transmission.

Please read "Datawiz" posting on Spring Mountain. Other then the professionals, the A6 in the hands of the attendee's turned faster and more consistent lap times then in the manual.

If you have had any competitive motorsports experience, you'll agree and conclude that the less things the brain has to process, the better it can process the remaining things.
Easier to establish lines without worrying about shifting. That's a fact for the "average" driver.

You brought up the chapter and verse of the CVT, and negated it yourself !!!!

Ultimarely in the hands of the "average" C6 owner, the A6 will outperform. A more skilled owner will do better in the manual.

 

I didn't negate the CVT. It's getting better and the ultimate drive train, theoretically speaking IS a CVT. No need to debate that. 18 years ago, Subaru was able to develop a CVT that could handle what, 70 hp and maybe 70 lb ft?

Now the Audi has a CVT with 220 hp and ~200 lb ft. Nissan has one in an SUV BTW with over 245 hp/245tq. See the trend?

Yes it does. When it's controlled by a computer, it can be programmed to behave however you want. The Audi version can even be set (by the driver) to behave like a six speed auto "shifting" five distinctive times while accelerating, and "down shifting" when decelerating. This is not the most efficient mode of operation as Audi points out, but they put the programming in there to increase the fun factor.


Yes it is. No other transmission in the world can do that; keep the engine at it's hp peak throughout an entire acceleration run, thereby extracting the most total power from the engine throughout the run or the accelerating time frame.


I do realize the belt. I own two snowmobiles, one of which has over 200 hp/200 lb-ft @ over 8000 RPM. It uses a a belt that's 1-1/4" wide and about 1/2" thick (deep). It lasts me a season of riding in deep powder, easily. I ride with guys that have turbo'ed/nitroused sleds that are pushing 450+hp. Same sized belt. As long as you minimize slippage and heat, the belt lasts. The technology will continue to improve in cars w/wetbelt CVT's to eventually allow CVT in high hp, high performance cars...My posting of the Justy and the Audi was to show that TREND. At one time in history, there was no automatic that could handle 500 hp/500 lb ft. See the trend?

What the hell does electric motors have to do w/ANYTHING in this thread?? Yes, I have seen 500 hp (and larger) electric motors. Mostly in ski lifts and most are well over 1000hp. What's the point? What does that have to do w/the thread?


That's correct. I'm not just "eluding" that. I'll say it flat out: Most owners of high performance vehicles are average drivers...at best. Most. If you are going to now say; That being the case, the A6 will be faster for that group of people, I agree. For those people it probably would. Dealing with the steering wheel, gas and brake pedal put most people at their limit. But the originial poster asked which is ultimately faster.




I did bring up that CVT and I stand by why I brought it up. There is the camp on this thread who are touting the virtues of the A6, on the basis that it is "technologically superior". That alone is debateable, but I used the CVT to make the point that technology, in this case, removes the driver from the equation (to some extent) and ultimately if you extend technological potential FAR enough (like the CVT) you end up with a boring car. They could (and probably will some day) make a car that will operate itself completely. I'm certain that a car could be built that would lap a track as fast as a human, being completely automated. Perhapse not yet, but soon. THAT would be fun huh? :/ The point is to rebut those that were touting "technology" for technology's sake. I used the CVT as an extreme example to make a point. I sure as hell don't advocate a CVT an any sports car. I think that would be boring and extremely lame.

Again, the original poster asked which was faster. The on a C6, all other things being equal, the manual is ultimately the fastest. Doesn't matter about 1964-whatever Dodges, and 1923 Hupmobiles... The manufacturer claimes the manual is faster, and all the times posted on this board have created a trend that backs that up.

 

LOL. Thats great that you consider my information misinformation. Just lets me know that not everyone on here runs there cars as much as I do.
You said it yourself "Autos have there advantages" Well everyone else here is using exaples. How about you list the advantage to disadvantages with a auto and manual trans mr know it all. I only use what I have seen out there in actual runs (thousands in my short career) I never said that my point is law. But from my stand point, you cant beat em because of the consistancy in the drive and the power. Like I said before,Ive seen great drivers hit and miss. But sometimes there are no rematches. Sometimes its one and done. Sometimes you cant afford to miss that gear. Sometimes you cant afford to burn out on that start harder than usual because you thought your tires would catch. And Ive seen and raced stock cars in my A4 against stock m6 and won a great number and seen others in A4 on street tires rev @ 2000 rpms and at green leap frog like subaru's,completely domolishing the manual compition. So im not hear to get into a battle over words. And its not about missinformation. Because I drive around and find my information in a actual run. Where are you getting your info from????

But in all fairness I will say this. I have personal friends of mine that have M6's and they run there cars like crazy. They would agree with me that A4 and A6's are a problem for them. But they drive there M6 and have masterd their cars. So it isnt a disadvantage for them, it is a advantage for them because of the full control. But they all have stories to tell about how that guy in that darn A4 spanked them real good. And they are still waiting on a Rematch LOL

 

Nah that won't help either, their (relatively slow) numbers are way off the real world numbers that some of us have generated. Though maybe that would make their numbers even more real world, not sure.

 

That was a painful read. I think I lost brain cells trying to slog through that massacre of the English language. Mine is frequently incorrect, but that was some rough reading.

I'll list advantages of each in a seperate thread entitled, "Advantages of MN6 vs A6?" This thread is about which is ultimately faster. That would be the MN6.

"at green leap frog like subaru's,completely domolishing the manual compition", huh? Wow.

"Like subaru's".... That's good stuff.

-Tom

 

Hay old guy. We are not here to talk about each other. We are here to talk about the cars. Whats wrong with you people. Taking everything so personal. Your english isnt exactly what I would call awesome. LOL. But on to the car old guy. What I was tring to say is that the A4 had a great jump off the line like AWD cars. But you are way to out off touch to read between the lines. A4 and A6's man. Keep your ignorant comments and your M6 to yourself old guy.

 

It's refreshing to see someone post an intelligent response! Thanks, Tom400CFI. CVT's are very interesting. You are one of the few people that realize the real advantage of a CVT is to keep the engine at max power. Most people mistakenly state it keeps it at the max torque point. I had a chance to work with a German built CVT made by PIV (Positively Infinintely Variable). It had a steel belt and worked great. They actually gave us a video tape of their tranny working in a Williams F1 car a few years ago (testing only). We used the CVT for an Aerospace application, so I never got to drive it.

As far as the M6 versus A6, I've always owned manuals up until now. I really like the A6. Two things sold me: 1) I could let my kids and wife drive the Vette without worrying (as much), and 2) at least it allowed me to select and stay in a gear for when I'm running Solo 2 events. All that being said, I do miss the manual (my last two were 6 speeds in Camaros), they are more fun! However, what I don't miss is the trying to find a good clutch for my 01 Z28.

Thanks,
Glenn

 

A great percentage of you guys own C6's. Im getting mines very soon. This arguement on A vs. M could go back and forth for days. So instead of being in front of a computor all day with this topic, I say you find a friend with a A if you have a M and have a couple of runs. Have fun with the vehicle. I like all corvettes rather it is stick or Auto. They are both full of advantages and disadvantages. Just love your vette and stop slamming others for chosing to drive a different style of tran : )

 

Excellent points. But be careful of calling people "old guys." I'm betting Tom is not an old guy and all you do is **** off those of us that really are old guys.

 

Sorry if I rubbed anyone the wrong way. Im just passionate about corvettes and I dont like when people slam others because of their choice of style. Also because we are all corvette fans and owners, we should enjoy each others input and slam the millions of chevy/corvette non believers out there. So again, I am truely sorry. And I say just enjoy your C6. You've earned the right to own one. So enjoy it

 

To reiterate, I'm not slamming anyone for liking an auto. There are many reasons to choose one. However, that's not what this thread is about.

Glennhl, thanks for the compliment. Your experience w/CVT's sounds very interesting for sure. From an engineering standpoint, the CVT is awesome to think about/scrutinize. I became well versed in CVT's during my years of snowmobiling, and tuning my own clutches on those machines. The problem w/the CVT on a snowmobile is that it's a "reactive" system. It uses weights, springs, helix's and sheave angle to react to the engines RPM and drivetrain load (torque). The combination of spring, weight, helix angle, component geometry, RPM and torque of the engine all add up to determine how well the CVT works. The goal in tuning, is to get the machine to hit max RPM instantly upon WOT, hold that RPM exactly on the spot (at the hp peak) while, or by shifting, and do so w/minimal slippage. The problem is that it's all a compromise, and there is bound to be some slippage/heat, and there is bound to be some RPM flair or sag.

The cool thing about a CVT in a car is that you can actuate the two sheaves using motors or hydraulics, controlled by a computer. This allows you the advantage over the "reactive" snowmobile drive by allowing you to increase belt side pressure while also managing RPM; something the springs and weights can't do simultaineously. The other advantage is that you can manage the RPM and drive train behavior in all modes/ranges of driving. PROACTIVELY; On the snowmobiles "reactive" system, once you get the CVT dialed for absolute best WOT performance, the way the CVT/engine behaves during all other modes of driving is by default; you can't change or tune it w/o ruining the WOT setup.

Anyway, now this is WAY off topic and tuning into a novel. I could go on and on, because of the amount of time/thought I've put into this subject, but it's not for here. I'll say two more things though. I don't ever want a sports car w/a CVT; BORING. One place I'd LOVE to see a computer controlled CVT drive system would be a diesel truck. From 3/4 ton pickups to over the road haulers. W/that drive you could do amazing things for fuel economy and hill climbing power.

The other thing is (to the other poster), I do know what a Subaru WRX STi is. I would never use that as a bench mark for a Corvette, however.

 

If you read any SAE publication on the state of the art in transmissions you will see that for practical purposes, the "trend" ends at 260lbft of torque.

You brought the CVT into the mix in a specious attempt to negate the technology for high performance high power/torque engines using six and seven speed automatics. I believe, to paraphrase, you stated, why not more gears as in "infinite.
Once again you point out the shortcomings of the CVT for performance applications.

Only if the horsepower and torque peaks are no more then around 260.
It's a "green initiative", CVT's have been around longer then the automatic transmission, but they have inherent limits.

A trend that began over 100 years ago and still hasn't evolved enough in automotive use to handle 300HP/300LBFT of torque.

Meanwhile, back in the engineering labs, GM (supplier of transmissions to many makes) ZF, and Mercedes have developed, five, six and seven speed automatics that can easily handle 600+HP/LBFT of torque.
Wasn't that long ago, maybe forty years that two and three speeds were the only available choice in automatics.

The five, six and seven speeds are products of the last ten years or so, which cleary proves the research/application/manufacturing trend is toward these products, not the CVT. They were produced almost instantly when the power output of the engine rose above certain levels.

The same thing as incessant chatter about CVT's and snowmobiles.


Horsepower is horsepower, basic physics, whether it is created by an induction or internal combustion motor. It means nothing if it can't be efficiently and safely transfered to usable power. CVT's if you know the history beyond the "oh so famous" Suburu Justy have common use in industrial applications. The electric motor is the prime mover of choice in industrial applications.

"Ultimately faster" ?.......real world, average driver, it is the A6 which you have agreed as above.

We don't live in a world of theory, as it is defined by application. Oft times application confirms theory, many times it negates it.

Back to your "ultimately"....acceleration? handling? top speed?....What are you saying???? A manual C6 may initially accelerate faster then an auto due to gearing if it was a Z51, but it's not going to run away....

Once again, real world, average driver, they are fairly even as they produce the same amount of power, so the "deal breaker" is solely in the hands of the driver.

Even if it has not a thing to do with the topic ????

Stand by it all you want, enjoy the CVT in your snowmobile, come back and give a full report when the first CVT is used in competitive motor sports, for which all the "Walter Mitty" owners of the C6 believe, and rightfully so, that their car was designed and built for !!!!

If the C6 owner wanted "green" he'd be on the Prius or Hybrid forum....

Let's roll back a bit....Tremec 6 speed manual, or GM 6 speed automatic.

Hmmmmmmm, now what has more technology built into it.....give me a break !!!!

"Oh what tangled webs we weave....."

Soooooooo I agree the "love of your life" CVT is ho-hum, but a 400HP C6/A6, or a 500HP AMG seven speed automatic is boring????
SMG's take some of the "fun" out of driving????

Someday you will become cognizant of the fact that the current power and torque outputs of today's high performance vehicle is beyond the brain/ motor capabilities of most human beings.

Hence automatic handling, traction control, top speed governors, and yes computer controlled transmissions.
if none of these systems existed on even the C6, you would see a plethora in wrecking yards....and an equal amount of human casualties

Not sure what you drive or how you drive it. I consider myself an above average driver with competitive motorsports experience both straight line and closed course going back forty years.

If you own a C6 ( do you???? ), then just switch off your AH/TC, and if it's a manual....then bring your revs to 5000 and pop the clutch....

Very scary.....................even for an experienced driver

Go in peace....enjoy the hum of the CVT as it infinitely takes you to the land of boredom

 

Couldn't agree with you more. And by the way, it's easy to be passionate about such a PERFECT car!!!!