O.K. I know this has probably been raised hundreds of times but I'm curious about the official perfomance comparisons between the two cars.

 

I know the manual does 60 in a bout 6 seconds and 100 in about 15 - 16 seconds.

 

What are the figures for the Auto?

 

I've also heard that the auto's run slightly different boost pressure for more low down torque. Anyone care to comment?

 

All the best.

 

Martin.

Originally posted by Martin Young

Anyone care to comment?

 

NO!! :D

please dont start we all know auto is better...

Auto/Manual doesn't really matter. It's all down to colour, and the fastest is SILVER!!!!!!:D :D :D

 

 

Cue the RED brigade!!.......:D

Originally posted by Martin Young

I know the manual does 60 in a bout 6 seconds and 100 in about 15 - 16 seconds.

 

What are the figures for the Auto?

 

Being that general on figures, you might as well say the auto does it in about 6 seconds too..

 

Nissan material have figures of 5.4s for the manual, I think, and anything from 5.7s to 6.9s for the auto (where they plucked those from, I have no idea!).

 

I've also heard that the auto's run slightly different boost pressure for more low down torque. Anyone care to comment?

 

Nope..

 

The exhaust cams of the auto have a different profile (248deg vs. 263deg I think), and the turbo's have a different A/R ratio (I forget now, what that is).

 

The effect of all that was that although peak power is lower (some 15-20bhp), the torque curve was moved forward, leading to more area-under-curve.

 

Although I've never seen a dyno chart to confirm that. And really the only dyno chart I'd trust to prove all that would really be an engine dyno, rather than a chassis dyno, on two brand new engines..

 

And don't forget that toward the end of production, they started mixing parts around - manual cars have been found with auto tubs and vice versa, so there's nothing to say that the cams weren't swopped around too..

 

Aaron

Originally posted by aaronjb

leading to more area-under-curve.

Anyone know if there's a real term for this? I've been wondering about it for a while. I mean, a car with an enormous peak bhp in one place, but no power anywhere else could be a total PITA to drive... means getting the revs up around the peak and trying to keep them there. But something with less peak bhp and lots of "area-under" will ultimately be faster, surely... it'll pull away quicker and keep pulling regardless of the rpm. More forgiving too - useable power (almost) everywhere.

This debate has taken place numerous times and has concluded without an agreement....I would say RED AUTO:D

 

"Ammar"

I mean, a car with an enormous peak bhp in one place, but no power anywhere else could be a total PITA to drive

 

Isnt that the problem with the Honda S2000. no torque and all trousers!

 

Many tuned cars are like this. Nothing and all at once - fine on the track but useless on the road.

My old Renault 19 was a little like that - if you got everything right, you could give much bigger cars a real shock..

 

If you got it wrong, a Fiesta could get off the line quicker...

 

Fun on the twisties though, especially when airborn.

At the end of the day a manual is going to have more whack. But Zero to sixty isn't everything.

Geoff.

Originally posted by Ammar

This debate has taken place numerous times and has concluded without an agreement....I would say RED AUTO:D

 

"Ammar"

 

My independent research drew the same conclusions as Ammar, definately red auto :D:D

Originally posted by pete shrimp

My independent research drew the same conclusions as Ammar, definately red auto :D:D

 

Likewise so did mine so, the ansewer to this thread is conclusive, RED AUTO IS FASTEST!!!!:D :D :D

Originally posted by b19rks

Likewise so did mine so, the answer to this thread is conclusive, RED AUTO IS FASTEST!!!!:D :D :D

 

As expected ;)

 

Can we make this sticky? :D:D:D

Originally posted by pete shrimp

As expected ;)

 

Can we make this sticky? :D:D:D

 

Sounds good to me:D;)

Red Auto gets my vote too!!!:D :D

 

Nick

:cool:

Red Auto...all the time.....its a colour thing.....if there is more area under the curve it must be red

 

regardz

 

Its been along day!!

Originally posted by pete shrimp

My independent research drew the same conclusions as Ammar, definately red auto :D:D

 

Red autos arent faster...just more common and therefore less desirable in every respect!

The 'experts' concede that silver manual cars are considerably quicker and more beautiful than their inferior brethren!!:D :cool: :D

Originally posted by pork928

Red autos arent faster...just more common and therefore less desirable in every respect!

The 'experts' concede that silver manual cars are considerably quicker and more beautiful than their inferior brethren!!:D :cool: :D

 

......then paint the bare metal white and you have the ULTIMATE combination :p:D

Originally posted by MAC 1

Sounds good to me:D;)

 

Says the man converting to a sequential box... :D ;)

Originally posted by aaronjb

Says the man converting to a sequential box... :D ;)

 

 

LMAO But not by choice:(

Hehe ;)

 

On a different note - have you found one yet? (box, I mean)

 

(GEARbox...)

aaron this one is looking promising;)

 

 

 

http://www.holinger.com.au/rwdgearboxes.html

Why dont you just fit a regular manual tranny - the white Z in import tuner last year was running 570+ rwhp without problems with a standard gearbox

Originally posted by AdamR

Why dont you just fit a regular manual tranny - the white Z in import tuner last year was running 570+ rwhp without problems with a standard gearbox

 

That's because!

 

I want a 6 speed box,no way can you compare a shity stock box with a six speed Sequential;)

oooooh hark at you:D ;)

Originally posted by AdamR

oooooh hark at you:D ;)

 

LOL:D I will give go a drive when it is complete,then make up your own mind;)