Automatic faster than the manual??? - Page 14 - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

jtallen123 · 07-30-2008, 07:39 AM

Well it depends on how it all works.. I've read that it's actually best to leave your car in gear as you hit the brakes. The engine braking slows you down but on some vehicles, not sure how GM will work it on the camaro, if you brake while in gear they can also shut off fuel flow to the engine because the tranny is forcibly turning the engine anyways. Manual transmission only of course.

Mblock66 · 07-30-2008, 07:50 AM

When you downshift to brake as long as you aren't on the accelerator then you aren't using any more gas then if you just used the brakes. However brakes are cheaper then a trans so why would you want to prematurely put wear on your trans??

Putting a stick in neutral and hitting the brakes is actually less efficient. The engine goes into idle and uses more gas whereas if you were in gear it will shut off the injectors.

The only cool thing about "engine" breaking is the nice vroooom you get out of the exhaust. And if my guesses are right Flowmaster will be busy making some awesome cat backs for this car. I had a 2 chamber american thunder system on my 1997 Z28 and it was amazing!!! Downshifting to break would set off other car's alarms lol

theholycow · 07-30-2008, 09:58 AM

Okay, I can provide factual information about the above four posts...

1. Automatics can be downshifted too.

2 and 3. Under certain conditions, engine braking can save gas due to DFCO (Deceleration Fuel Cut Off) mode where the computer cuts all fuel. This is observable with both manual and automatic transmissions. I've hooked a duty cycle meter directly to my fuel injectors on my 2002 GMC 5.3/4L60E and my 2008 VW 2.5/5MT. DFCO is far more aggressive in my VW; my GMC requires me to coast in gear above 1500rpm for 6 to 10 seconds before it does any DFCO, while my VW does DFCO immediately anywhere above 40mph and sometimes above 30mph depending on what gear I'm in (and holds it down to 1000rpm).

4. Actually, when you're NOT using DFCO, you're using more gas than idle at higher RPM even if you're not on the gas pedal. Air/fuel ratio has to be close to 14.7:1, and higher RPM brings in more air, so more fuel is spent. This is confirmed by my meter as described above.

Brakes are cheaper than a transmission, and even if you're triggering DFCO you still may spend more on a transmission if you downshift abusively. If you're smooth then it's fine but you have to invest a throttle blip for rev-matching the manual transmission. If you've got the auto, especially a modern one designed for use with paddle shifters (even if you lack the paddle shifters), go ahead and downshift, it's made to do that.

Shifty 6 · 07-30-2008, 10:47 AM

There is no debate on the transmission. You either want to push a clutch and move the lever in middle or you don't. Like I said before...quit worrying about the car next to you. Do you only race the stuff you are supposed to beat (spec sheet racing) big frigging whup! If I can't beat the guy with the faster car, or more horsepower, then where's the glory?

If the .2 seconds is going to make or break your life, get some help. If you can tell the difference between 4.7 and 4.9 seconds, call Don Garlits, he has a job for you.

For me (and only me) I won't have anything else. I don't care how much faster or slower it is. I really love shifting, the ballet of working the clutch and shifter, with out upsetting the car, downshifting with perfectly matched revs. That brings me joy. I used to have to drive in a little traffic, nothing like LA, but even after a long day, a perfectly orchestrated downshift made it all worth it.

Get what YOU want. If anyone else wants to drive it they can learn to drive a manual.

MajorTom · 07-30-2008, 04:04 PM

I'll admit I'm a fan of manuals. And yeah, a tenth in the 1/4 mile can be given or made up by the driver. And with the launch control feature on manuals, that takes the launch out of the equation. I bet the 0-60 time will come down when we start seeing tests in magazines and such. But what really matters is what the owner can do with them.

Also, the new Camaro isn't all about acceleration. It has a great chassis and is supposed to be a good handler as well as fast in a straight line. And you can take better advantage of that in a Manual trans. A torque converter automatic can be down shifted, sure, but holding gears is another story. Especially when you're in a turn.

I know my Camaro will be a manual transmission. And I'll win my share of the drag races and I'll have the more involving driving experience and the car that allows me to better enjoy the chassis.

Shifty 6 · 07-30-2008, 04:43 PM

Well said. Is that what you told "ground control"? Sorry couldn't help it. But I think we can all agree...if you get the auto because you want it, then cool for you. If you get the auto because you are trying to impress someone else with how quick the spec sheet is...then booo!

MajorTom · 07-30-2008, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shifty 6

Well said. Is that what you told "ground control"? Sorry couldn't help it. But I think we can all agree...if you get the auto because you want it, then cool for you. If you get the auto because you are trying to impress someone else with how quick the spec sheet is...then booo!

You'd be surprised how many people ask me if I'm in the military with this user name. I use it as all my forum accounts.

I just think my manual is more fun. And I don't think it has to be a case of "So what that the manual isn't faster, it's more fun and it's what I want." I think the manual will be plenty dangerous as a drag car. Of course that depends on the driver. But it will be more fun when you're on your favorite twisty two lane. As long as you can keep it out of the trees that is.

SSideways · 07-30-2008, 10:35 PM

<=== (Playing devil's advocate) Won't an auto in manual mode hold the gear just like a manual? Anyone drive the vette with paddle shifters? I'll probably still end up with the manual, but I'm going to need to test drive the auto w/paddles. Wish we had more twisty two lanes around here.

PA FAST · 07-31-2008, 11:01 AM

This is awesome, it was automatic or bust for me. However, I was afraid the auto would be slower than the manual. Glad I was wrong.

Mblock66 · 07-31-2008, 01:01 PM

Everyone is "assuming" all of this based upon one person leaking performance figures that they thought they remembered someone else saying about non production models of the car haha.

We will not know what these cars will do until the magazines start to get them and test them in the winter. I will eat my words later if I am wrong but there is no way the AT is going to be 3 tenths faster to 60 then the MT. There is just no way it is possible. We aren't talking about a dual clutch auto here. It is a typical slushbox in a heavier car with less power. When you are in the 0-60 in mid 4's range, do you understand how much more HP you would need to make up 3 tenths? Given the same tires and suspension setup you would need like 70 hp more to go from 4.9 to 4.6

The only way this could be possible is if the auto has some rediculous final drive gearing like a 3.73 or something.

Again I have been wrong before and will admit it but being it is the same setup as the vette (engine and trans) and the MT in the vette pulls the AT, I will guess it is the same here until shown otherwise

8cd03gro · 08-01-2008, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joes3rdcamaro82/91/2010

Wow not the performance number I was hoping for. I hope that the SS (Camaro) manual can manage something better than that! 13.4 1/4, not even close to cutting it for me!

:upset:

13.4@108. that's not bad. that's a trap capable of 13.0 definitely.

a12ozbottle · 08-01-2008, 09:15 AM

How often are articles like these actually right. I think we should look back at past articles and compare them to the information we now know for sure. They are probably wrong more times than they are right.

Mblock66 · 08-01-2008, 09:43 AM

My guess is the MT will run 4.6 with a great hook with launch control and 12.8 in the 1/4. The AT will be 4.8 and 13.0 in the 1/4

This is based off the vettes. The MT goes about 4.1 0-60 AT 4.3. And anything from 11.7 stock to 12.2 MT and 12.2-12.5 AT

That 11.7 was recorded by a real life vette driver on stock run flats with no mods whatsoever. Was it a freak LS3? Maybe but if that can happen showroom stock for a vette I think 12.5 is possible for the Camaro

Shifty 6 · 08-01-2008, 10:09 AM

Keep in mind you have to "launch" the manual, and power brake the auto. Personally I don't have the cash to abuse the differential like that. I think it is "Car & Driver" that shows the 5-60mph times. Those seem more realistic in everyday useage. So unless you side step the manual at like 4,000 rpm you aren't going to see the fastest possible 0-60 time. Fine by me.

07-30-2008, 07:39 AM	#183
jtallen123 Drives: Honda Join Date: May 2008 Location: Iowa Posts: 15	Well it depends on how it all works.. I've read that it's actually best to leave your car in gear as you hit the brakes. The engine braking slows you down but on some vehicles, not sure how GM will work it on the camaro, if you brake while in gear they can also shut off fuel flow to the engine because the tranny is forcibly turning the engine anyways. Manual transmission only of course. __________________ webmaster - http://www.racerplanet.com

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What are you getting, manual or automatic?	diddiyo	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	102	08-07-2008 03:31 PM
Manual or Automatic?	Connor	Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons	161	04-24-2008 05:50 PM
Manuals are faster?	AirGoya	Off-topic Discussions	42	03-05-2008 06:19 AM
Camaro Manual Transmission	LSxcellent	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	17	08-01-2007 05:11 AM

07-30-2008, 07:50 AM	#184
Mblock66 Drives: 2005 Subaru Legacy GT Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: NJ Posts: 312	When you downshift to brake as long as you aren't on the accelerator then you aren't using any more gas then if you just used the brakes. However brakes are cheaper then a trans so why would you want to prematurely put wear on your trans?? Putting a stick in neutral and hitting the brakes is actually less efficient. The engine goes into idle and uses more gas whereas if you were in gear it will shut off the injectors. The only cool thing about "engine" breaking is the nice vroooom you get out of the exhaust. And if my guesses are right Flowmaster will be busy making some awesome cat backs for this car. I had a 2 chamber american thunder system on my 1997 Z28 and it was amazing!!! Downshifting to break would set off other car's alarms lol

07-30-2008, 10:47 AM	#186
Shifty 6 Drives: 2010 GTI Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Morton, IL Posts: 679	There is no debate on the transmission. You either want to push a clutch and move the lever in middle or you don't. Like I said before...quit worrying about the car next to you. Do you only race the stuff you are supposed to beat (spec sheet racing) big frigging whup! If I can't beat the guy with the faster car, or more horsepower, then where's the glory? If the .2 seconds is going to make or break your life, get some help. If you can tell the difference between 4.7 and 4.9 seconds, call Don Garlits, he has a job for you. For me (and only me) I won't have anything else. I don't care how much faster or slower it is. I really love shifting, the ballet of working the clutch and shifter, with out upsetting the car, downshifting with perfectly matched revs. That brings me joy. I used to have to drive in a little traffic, nothing like LA, but even after a long day, a perfectly orchestrated downshift made it all worth it. Get what YOU want. If anyone else wants to drive it they can learn to drive a manual.

07-30-2008, 04:04 PM	#187
MajorTom Drives: 2005 Pontiac GTO Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Saint Louis, MO Posts: 306	I'll admit I'm a fan of manuals. And yeah, a tenth in the 1/4 mile can be given or made up by the driver. And with the launch control feature on manuals, that takes the launch out of the equation. I bet the 0-60 time will come down when we start seeing tests in magazines and such. But what really matters is what the owner can do with them. Also, the new Camaro isn't all about acceleration. It has a great chassis and is supposed to be a good handler as well as fast in a straight line. And you can take better advantage of that in a Manual trans. A torque converter automatic can be down shifted, sure, but holding gears is another story. Especially when you're in a turn. I know my Camaro will be a manual transmission. And I'll win my share of the drag races and I'll have the more involving driving experience and the car that allows me to better enjoy the chassis.

07-30-2008, 04:43 PM	#188
Shifty 6 Drives: 2010 GTI Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Morton, IL Posts: 679	Well said. Is that what you told "ground control"? Sorry couldn't help it. But I think we can all agree...if you get the auto because you want it, then cool for you. If you get the auto because you are trying to impress someone else with how quick the spec sheet is...then booo!

07-30-2008, 10:35 PM	#190
SSideways Drives: 99 Chevy Camaro Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: TX Posts: 27	<=== (Playing devil's advocate) Won't an auto in manual mode hold the gear just like a manual? Anyone drive the vette with paddle shifters? I'll probably still end up with the manual, but I'm going to need to test drive the auto w/paddles. Wish we had more twisty two lanes around here.

07-31-2008, 11:01 AM	#191
PA FAST Future Camaro Driver. Drives: 2009 Escape/2007 Ridgeline Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Northeastern, PA (Poconos) Posts: 479	This is awesome, it was automatic or bust for me. However, I was afraid the auto would be slower than the manual. Glad I was wrong.

07-31-2008, 01:01 PM	#192
Mblock66 Drives: 2005 Subaru Legacy GT Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: NJ Posts: 312	Everyone is "assuming" all of this based upon one person leaking performance figures that they thought they remembered someone else saying about non production models of the car haha. We will not know what these cars will do until the magazines start to get them and test them in the winter. I will eat my words later if I am wrong but there is no way the AT is going to be 3 tenths faster to 60 then the MT. There is just no way it is possible. We aren't talking about a dual clutch auto here. It is a typical slushbox in a heavier car with less power. When you are in the 0-60 in mid 4's range, do you understand how much more HP you would need to make up 3 tenths? Given the same tires and suspension setup you would need like 70 hp more to go from 4.9 to 4.6 The only way this could be possible is if the auto has some rediculous final drive gearing like a 3.73 or something. Again I have been wrong before and will admit it but being it is the same setup as the vette (engine and trans) and the MT in the vette pulls the AT, I will guess it is the same here until shown otherwise

08-01-2008, 09:15 AM	#194
a12ozbottle Drives: 2006 GMC Yukon Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Jacksonville, fl Posts: 60	How often are articles like these actually right. I think we should look back at past articles and compare them to the information we now know for sure. They are probably wrong more times than they are right.

08-01-2008, 09:43 AM	#195
Mblock66 Drives: 2005 Subaru Legacy GT Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: NJ Posts: 312	My guess is the MT will run 4.6 with a great hook with launch control and 12.8 in the 1/4. The AT will be 4.8 and 13.0 in the 1/4 This is based off the vettes. The MT goes about 4.1 0-60 AT 4.3. And anything from 11.7 stock to 12.2 MT and 12.2-12.5 AT That 11.7 was recorded by a real life vette driver on stock run flats with no mods whatsoever. Was it a freak LS3? Maybe but if that can happen showroom stock for a vette I think 12.5 is possible for the Camaro

08-01-2008, 10:09 AM	#196
Shifty 6 Drives: 2010 GTI Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Morton, IL Posts: 679	Keep in mind you have to "launch" the manual, and power brake the auto. Personally I don't have the cash to abuse the differential like that. I think it is "Car & Driver" that shows the 5-60mph times. Those seem more realistic in everyday useage. So unless you side step the manual at like 4,000 rpm you aren't going to see the fastest possible 0-60 time. Fine by me.