2018 Mustang Manual vs. Auto--MotorTrend

[TexasRebel]

If a person slips their clutch any time other than starting from a standstill I can see why an automatic might be useful.:lol:

Sponsored

 

[Angry50]

Norm,

You are talking about performance driving. Nobody here is discussing that. Additionally, any car's potential to stop most efficiently and in the shortest distance is done using/modulating the brakes.

Engine braking doesn't help and actually interferes with pedal modulation and threshold. You have more control & able to maintain brake feel and modulate the brakes before ABS kicks in, while in neutral at 90MPH, than you do while in gear and slowing down.

You have better brake tarmac feel, when the engine is disengaged.

Secondly, to Angry 5.0...

I do not care how efficient it is to coast in neutral (say from 95mph-0 on an off ramp), compared to constantly downshifting and engine braking. I do it because idling is less wear on the engine & drivertrain than it is at negative 4,200rpms and having the engine load up and having frictionally eat away at the cars speed.

I use my brake pads for that, as they are much easier to replace as a wear item, than drivetrain, or engine. Period...!

this is the location where you say engine braking wears the engine.. and reference possibly having to replace it,

Read the thread... the situation I was speaking of (80mph on highway, entering an off-ramp to zero mph), is clearly defined many times by me, because other(s) have attempted to move the goal post.



edit:

I agree! (that; engine braking alone causes no additional wear to the drivetrain while saving pad & rotor wear.)

But once again, Nobody is talking about engine braking by itself, it was a discussion about downshifting several times and the use of engine braking each time... each shift. Which you fail to incorporate into your rebuttals & the other half of the equation. Rev-matching, engine bounce, clutch slippage, driveline loading/unloading, etc. Are all things that POTENTIALLY apply every time you downshift.

Notice how you won't admit that there is extra use on the clutch and transmission...



In that situation^, None of those additional stresses applies if you just pop it in neutral & coast off the ramp, while applying the brakes to a standstill at the light.

then here you agree it causes no additional engine wear, but the driver may cause additional wear on clutch and transmission with additional shifts.


not arguing any point other than at one time you (maybe mistakenly) lead some of us to believe that you were stating that engine braking itself would cause additional wear that would lead to replacing the engine

 

[TexasRebel]

this is the location where you say engine braking wears the engine.. and reference possibly having to replace it,

then here you agree it causes no additional engine wear, but the driver may cause additional wear on clutch and transmission with additional shifts.


not arguing any point other than at one time you (maybe mistakenly) lead some of us to believe that you were stating that engine braking itself would cause additional wear that would lead to replacing the engine

I thought it was the part where the engine started to spin backward (negative RPM).

 

[Norm Peterson]

why... one would decelerate their car from 80mph to zero (in a short distance/off ramp), without using their brakes. (ie: only engine) And instead, choosing to downshift three times, grabbing high RPMs to engine brake their car's velocity without touching their brakes.

How 'bout you find where somebody said that's the way they slow down from 80 (absent, brake failure) and post a link to it?

This difference^ in situation/scenario was already explained in this thread to Norm, when he tried to correct me on how/what/why & when... after I had already defined: on the streets/off ramp/full stop.

So why, exactly, must your approach to gear usage in your street driving have to differ from the way you approach gear usage in your track driving? Other than the fact that the speeds, rpms, and g's involved should at least generally be lower in the street driving? I suppose I could accept laziness as a valid answer, but I'm hoping for something better and less judgmental-sounding.

Notice how every post I stipulate; without using their brakes..?

How about adding some explanation of why you're so focused on "without using their brakes", when nobody else in the discussion seems to be slowing their cars down that way? If it's that important to you to keep insisting on it, there's got to be a reason.


Norm

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Were slippin. It took 3 weeks to get the bi-monthly auto/manual pissing match to 500 posts. I expect better for the next one in about two weeks.;)

 

[Blown86GT]

Did anyone actually read the Motor Trend article I posted the link to?

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Did anyone actually read the Motor Trend article I posted the link to?

I read it. Thanks.:cheers:

 

[nastang87xx]

Did anyone actually read the Motor Trend article I posted the link to?

On the toilet. Where I violently farted. And thankfully over the toilet.

 

[thehunterooo]

Were slippin. It took 3 weeks to get the bi-monthly auto/manual pissing match to 500 posts. I expect better for the next one in about two weeks.;)

I want an old school GT vs EB thread.

 

[Trackaholic]

Did anyone actually read the Motor Trend article I posted the link to?

Read it, and found it somewhat confusing. It seemed to be mostly correct, but it was not explained clearly.

First paragraph they say that the difference can't be explained by "the automatic’s ability to stay “in the power band” more consistently", but then spend the almost entire article explaining exactly that.

They spend a paragraph at the end talking about having better ratios at launch, but then conflate that with a gearing advantage throughout subsequent shifts (which again is just the car staying "in the power band" more consistently.

Also, at some point they mention staying between peak torque and peak power, but really what you want to do is stay at maximum average power. That will means going PAST peak power, rather than shifting AT peak power.

Seems like they could have said that the A10 has a better launch due to lower initial gearing, and more gears that allow the car to run at a higher average power (or stay in the power band). They could have added a few additional charts to show the force at the wheels (which would have been cool to see overlayed with the speed curves), and maybe some showing the shift points overlayed on a dyno plot, so you could see how one transmission keeps the car closer to peak power better.

-T

 

[thehunterooo]

'18s vs '15s is quite good too.
The idiot that designed the fried egg shape around the '15s fog lights needs sacking, fair puts me off my tea when I see that.

Yo back in 2015 there were some amazing threads. Too bad a lot of the trolls and other personalities are gone now.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Read it, and found it somewhat confusing. It seemed to be mostly correct, but it was not explained clearly.

First paragraph they say that the difference can't be explained by "the automatic’s ability to stay “in the power band” more consistently", but then spend the almost entire article explaining exactly that.

They spend a paragraph at the end talking about having better ratios at launch, but then conflate that with a gearing advantage throughout subsequent shifts (which again is just the car staying "in the power band" more consistently.

Also, at some point they mention staying between peak torque and peak power, but really what you want to do is stay at maximum average power. That will means going PAST peak power, rather than shifting AT peak power.

Seems like they could have said that the A10 has a better launch due to lower initial gearing, and more gears that allow the car to run at a higher average power (or stay in the power band). They could have added a few additional charts to show the force at the wheels (which would have been cool to see overlayed with the speed curves), and maybe some showing the shift points overlayed on a dyno plot, so you could see how one transmission keeps the car closer to peak power better.

-T

They wrote it that way. Because they knew they'd get a million angry letters. From dipshits saying but automatics have no soul. Or it takes more skill to drive a manual. To which they could reply. Ford still makes both. Buy what you want and dont worry about it. But instead. They wrrote a rambling article that basically say fords 10 speed auto is more efficient at applying the power the engine is making to the ground. For the reasons you listed.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Did anyone actually read the Motor Trend article I posted the link to?

Yes, I did. Two or three times, actually.

Honestly, it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know generally or anything I couldn't figure out specifically for the cases at hand.

He omitted a lot of detail. Didn't mention help coming from the torque converter at all. Or the slight drop in speed when you upshift a MT that upshifts in an AT minimize, and where those shift points might occur during the "standard" acceleration measurements (60', 0-60 mph, ET). Other stuff as well.

Just so you know, I've been picking away at mathematically simulating car acceleration long enough that the basic formula I wrote for that sim could have its own AARP card.


Norm

 

[marks]

To which they could reply. Ford still makes both. Buy what you want and dont worry about it.

They won't for long if people keep buying autos.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

They won't for long if people keep buying autos.

As good as autos are today. I could probably live without a manual in any car. But I hope it never comes to that. For the people that enjoy them's sake.

Sponsored