SS A6 or M6 faster??????

[Steve Dallas]

Originally Posted by PQ

Don't lump me into that category.

I'm not, which is why I didn't quote you

I agree that the A6 is likely faster in the 0-60, though I'd like to review how some of the fastest manual runs fared in those times.

It'd be interesting to see how all the time slips that have been submitted so far compare. I'd expect to see most of the A6's bunched together in the mid 13's with the M6's spread out a lot more low to high.

The top M6 runs are .3-.4 seconds faster than the first A6 runs though, which is a pretty substantial difference in the quarter mile.

[tony1]

Originally Posted by PQ

Don't lump me into that category. I'm telling you the auto is faster 'stock' 0-60mph. The op asked which is faster. For that matter they are both limited at 155mph so they are the same. Noone defined faster.

I suspect the auto will be the same or maybe .05 faster to 330 feet.

I'm saying that it is easier to mod the A6 to be faster in the quarter. the auto benefits more from a tune. Ya, that's a mod, but I considered it when I ordered mine. A simple tune gets me faster than a stock M6 and as fast as a tuned M6.

The M6 is faster 'stock' in the 1/4 mile by about a tenth on average. The A6 is faster 0-60mph by about a tenth on average. And that's why I wonder about the 330' times stock.

I Agree
WE are Very Very close "stock" or with a Tune .. Were still all Camaro's and Iam gald it's this close so one is not better than than the other. You will not be dissappointed with either choice!!

[Matrix]

Originally Posted by Steve Dallas

I'm beginning to think that the people driving automatics are blind to facts. The fastest 4 times are manuals. 8 out of the top 10 stock times are manuals.

Please, please tell me how these FACTS prove automatics are faster?

Please, dont think we all drink automatic coolaid. And M6 dont make you cooler or more of a driver than someone driving an Auto.

I've driven manuals all my life, the novelty soon wears off and there are many reasons (comfort and performance) to choose over a manual.

Given, if all I wanted to do was just dart around town and have fun with this car I prolly would have got a manual, but I got a Auto for flexibility without any "real world" performance degredation. If there was any "REAL" degredation I would have chose a M6.

So please, it sounds like you are posting as if A6 people are inferior drivers and dont know how to handle a car, I bet you if you ever come up against me on the tracks you would think differently.

Much respect.

[RJT-Maro]

How about this: They are both fast!

Problem Solved.

[Matrix]

Originally Posted by PQ

He's alive!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah!!

Didnt you see the list of mods i'm doing? Check out my last few posts over the last couple weeks.

[tony1]

Steve Dallas .. one question.. If one were to get a tune on the M6 and A6 .. for the most part do you really beleive the M6 will be faster?? How come you don't like to talk about groupings 12's 13's etc in this catagory?? You talk about in the Stock. Is it because the A6's will turn better times? Just stay on your Stock soapbox .. 0-60=A6 and 1/4 mile=M6 ..by a tenth and better make sure your shifting lightning fast and don't miss a shift.

[T D C]

I say if you want to race 1/4mile automatic is the way to go,
with small improvents the car will be fast and more consistant,
but if you want to feel the power of your car forget consistancy and if you do every thing wright the M6 will run a faster time.

[StlRomAniaN]

GRR, people.

It seems like M6 people are defending M6's and A6 people are defending A6's.

Comparing the two isn't exactly quite fair considering the different engines and 26 hp disadvantage. Not much but still...

Stock for stock...the A6 is quicker to 60, definitely, while the M6 is quicker in the quarter WITH a good driver. The driver is very important. Considering the extra power and lighter weight it should be faster in the 1/4.

But, with the same crank and/or rw numbers the a6 will nudge it out in both.

Who says TAPshift isn't fun? With a tune, you'll be chirping.

Ps - I'm starting to not like winter. Too much ice, snow, salt, etc. :(

[MontyCarlo]

Originally Posted by Steve Dallas

I'm beginning to think that the people driving automatics are blind to facts. The fastest 4 times are manuals. 8 out of the top 10 stock times are manuals.

Please, please tell me how these FACTS prove automatics are faster?

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Actual fact: the very fastest times in our small sample pool tend to be manuals.
Reasonable conclusion: manuals don't suck.
Unreasonable conclusion: manuals are faster.

To actually prove which is faster, we need a large set of races between automatic & manual drivers of identical skill at the same place at the exact same time. After a few hundred sets of data we'll be able to say with 99% certainty which is faster. Comparing different drivers on different courses at different times is not at all a reliable way to settle something that's this close, especially with the mother-of-all-sampling-biases in the fact that we only see the times people wanted us to see.

[tony1]

Well all the Companys out there did testing on both already.. 0-60 the A6 and 1/4 mile by a tenth to M6 .. argument over.. With a tune on both EVERYONE knows it's the A6.. Sorry if you don't want the facts and get do you own biased results. So except it and move on ...

I hope noone ever brings this thread up again ..

[Steve Dallas]

Originally Posted by tony1

Steve Dallas .. one question.. If one were to get a tune on the M6 and A6 .. for the most part do you really beleive the M6 will be faster?? How come you don't like to talk about groupings 12's 13's etc in this catagory?? is it because the A6's will turn better times? Just stay on your Stock soapbox .. 0-60=A6 and 1/4 mile=M6 ..by a tenth and better make sure your shifting lightning fast and don't miss a shift.

I ask the same question. Why take the focus away from the stock vehicles? Mods vary, and...there's always another better mod.

As far as the times shown, the fastest M6 was 12.61. The fastest A6 was 12.97. That's more than a tenth. that's .36 faster. As far as the 0-60, the fastest M6 was 1.958 where the fastest A6 was 1.845, and difference of .113 seconds.

I don't argue that mods will help either car. And, I also thing that both cars are awesome and am not trying to knock automatics. My point is that there's no way to really compare the car once you start modding and tuning. As they say in Star Wars, there's always a bigger fish. Right now, that big fish is pulling 10's.

[Steve Dallas]

Originally Posted by MontyCarlo

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Actual fact: the very fastest times in our small sample pool tend to be manuals.
Reasonable conclusion: manuals don't suck.
Unreasonable conclusion: manuals are faster.

To actually prove which is faster, we need a large set of races between automatic & manual drivers of identical skill at the same place at the exact same time. After a few hundred sets of data we'll be able to say with 99% certainty which is faster. Comparing different drivers on different courses at different times is not at all a reliable way to settle something that's this close, especially with the mother-of-all-sampling-biases in the fact that we only see the times people wanted us to see.

I definately agree with this. Over time, the data will fill out. I just have an issue with those saying "Automatics are faster"...because there's just more to it than that...

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Steve Dallas

I'm not, which is why I didn't quote you

I agree that the A6 is likely faster in the 0-60, though I'd like to review how some of the fastest manual runs fared in those times.

It'd be interesting to see how all the time slips that have been submitted so far compare. I'd expect to see most of the A6's bunched together in the mid 13's with the M6's spread out a lot more low to high.

The top M6 runs are .3-.4 seconds faster than the first A6 runs though, which is a pretty substantial difference in the quarter mile.

Agreed. There is also the 'Micheal Moorer' factor with our sample pool. There are other variables like temp, humidity, and such. May not have been a factor but .3 to .4 is a bit excessive imo. Ya, numbers don't lie, those guys are pretty good drivers apperently but how do we know one of them didn't have a cai or some small thing they aren't reporting?

Originally Posted by Matrix

Yeah!!

Didnt you see the list of mods i'm doing? Check out my last few posts over the last couple weeks.

I checked out your last posts in your profile and saw where you have been on lately. I'll check out your project.

[StlRomAniaN]

I think I stated a pretty valid conclusion to this question.