Sport Compact Comparo !! C/D

[Duke]

Except you can't really do that, can you? Unless you have some skilled measuring device, that is.

I'll know whether it feels faster than I think it should, or slower, or about right. I'll know whether I can beat my rivals at the Stoplight Nationals or not. Frankly I couldn't care less if I'm getting my last 3 tenths of a second at every light. It's a basis for comparison - and there's no way to compare if you're not running the car as hard as possible without physically abusing it.

There's nothing I hate more than inaccurate data, and Car & Driver is only accurate data for those who drive like the editors at Car & Driver.

So what? See above.

Say I take C&D's word for it on two different cars I like, and I buy the faster one. Personally I couldn't care less that my time is going to be a little slower than their test; all I care about is that they drove both cars as hard as possible and the car in question was faster. It doesn't bother me that I might not ever match that performance; but I'm satisfied in knowing I got the faster car.

Now, say I go to Edmunds or whoever that does your sainted "real world" testing with average drivers.

Now, I know that the cars are not tested to their utmost in the interest of "real world" numbers. Suddenly the data is completely suspect and open to interpretation. If Test Driver pushes the car to what seems "reasonable", how do I know he will get the same precise amount of "reasonable" on his run in a different car? Maybe he tests car A a Monday after a lucky weekend and he's a little more relaxed. Maybe he tests car B on Wednesday after getting chewed out by his boss and he pushes the envelope of "reasonable" a little farther.

If you wring all the cars' necks, all the time, you learn what they can do in consistent terms that can be compared more evenly, even if the public may not quite be able to match the performance. But if you try to be "reasonable", suddenly a vast pit of subjectivity colors the overall value of the data, even if the numbers might be closer to some supposed "real world" times you or I might get.

You tell me which you think is more "accurate". I know what I think.

These are the same people who are responsible for fostering the complete outright lie that manual transmissions are faster than automatics.

Most times manuals are faster, particularly in small-bore cars of the type you haven't driven in a few years. It took an engine swap - with an increase of about 15% in horsepower, and 20% in torque - to make my wife's 1995 ATX Neon keep up with my 1995 MTX Neon. Hell, that's why we bothered doing the swap! With the stock engine I could own her after the hole shot; with a 2.4 under the hood we were about equal.

Buick Grand Nationals, on the other hand, are documentedly quicker with an ATX than an MTX, because the ATX shifts more quickly and keeps the engine under load, so it stays on boost. They even tested the same car, swapping the transmission between sets, to remove as many variables as possible.

Saturn Ion Redline owners buy their vehicle under the false premise that it accelerates from 0 to 60 in 6.2 seconds.

Who cares? As long as they know how much faster it is than a Civic, does it matter if both times are only achievable by a pro?

 

[a6m5]

Either way, it's not a big deal to me. I do think it would be better if the magazines listed the normal accelearation time, but again, I don't see a problem with them listing their very best time.

On acceleration time with a stick shift, I think I would be quicker with an automatic. I'm not very good at lauching. I still do buy cars with stick shift, because it does give me more control of the car.

 

[Duke]

There's nothing I hate more than inaccurate data, and Car & Driver is only accurate data for those who drive like the editors at Car & Driver. These are the same people who are responsible for fostering the complete outright lie that manual transmissions are faster than automatics.

0-60 Times:
- 2.5i, manual: 7.8 seconds
- 2.5i, automatic: 9.0 seconds
- Aero, manual: 6.3 seconds
- Aero, automatic: 6.9 seconds

Any questions?

 

[xcsti]

If the gearing is the same the manual will be faster.

When they change the gearing the performance changes. I believe I remember seeing a show on the l88 vette. They mentioned that it took a little more than a second for manual transmission cars to reach sixty as opposed to the autos. The difference was that the auto's were designed for drag use whereas the manuals had real long gearing for higher speed circuits.

The auto always sucks out a bit of power from the drivetrain.

 

[Joey D]

Even with the C5 Corvette the accleration was faster with the auto then with the manual, and I believe its the same way with the C6. But I haven't even seen an auto C6 around the office yet.

 

[1X83Z]

AUTOMATICS ARE ALWAYS QUICKER THAN MANUALS

Duke quotes my Website, which has accurate data for the Saab 9-2X. Duke also quotes his own experience with his Dodge Neon.

DUKE FORGETS THAT THE COMPARISON THERE IS 5-SPEED MANUAL VS 4-SPEED AUTOMATIC IN BOTH CASES.

Make the comparison EQUITABLE and watch which is faster. Granted, a race car driver can make the manual faster, but 99.9% of the time, the automatic will be faster because it shifts at peak power and with more smoothness, consistency, and speed, than 99.9% of manual drivers. Find a manual Mustang GT and an automatic one and race them, no power-braking or clutch-dumping. I guarantee the automatic would win, 100% of the time, unless there's something wrong with it. Why? Because they both use five-speed transmissions.

Ele ****ing mentary.

(That, and I've had a really bad night)

 

[Driftster]

So...
from a theoretical stand point..
If you let the computer do the shifting the computer will always win..

Too bad 99.9% of the time..
We don't get a Automatic car with the exact same gearing as the 5-6 speed counterpart.

 

[niky]

So...
from a theoretical stand point..
If you let the computer do the shifting the computer will always win..

Too bad 99.9% of the time..
We don't get a Automatic car with the exact same gearing as the 5-6 speed counterpart.

Right. That's the whole point. Most traditional ATs have longer gearing and are heavier than their manual counterparts. Unless you have an engine strong enough to render drivetrain losses nearly negligible (which 90% of street cars don't), a street car with an AT will always be slower. And low-powered cars would still be slower, even given the same gearing as their MT counterparts. Not only that, most regular ATs will kerfuflle the downshifts on track, while a moderately good driver won't, so in racing... no.

Oh, okay... on powerful cars, ATs can be faster, but for us stuck in the trenches with four-bangers and family cars, it's still... no.

Drag is another thing... in drag racing, ATs are preferred because some of those suckers can take a lot of power, and in that power range, the rotating inertia of the AT isn't much of a hindrance.

Admittedly, there are some new ATs that are as fast or faster than their manual counterparts in stoplight drags. But these are CVTs. These are better than traditional ATs and MTs in the sense that they're always at optimum load and have generally lower drivetrain losses than traditional ATs... but so far, only Nissan has one matched to a powerful engine. Most of the high end "performance" ATs are merely robotic manual transmissions.


BTW: THERE IS NO ANTI-AUTOMATIC CONSPIRACY. It's all in your head.

 

[Duke]

Duke quotes my Website, which has accurate data for the Saab 9-2X. Duke also quotes his own experience with his Dodge Neon.

DUKE FORGETS THAT THE COMPARISON THERE IS 5-SPEED MANUAL VS 4-SPEED AUTOMATIC IN BOTH CASES.

Duke doesn't forget it, and Duke doesn't care. Duke goes the numbers generated using the transmission that comes in the car.

 

[TwinTurboJay]

automatic = blah

 

[1X83Z]

I'm glad we all see my point now and universally agree that sharing an equal amount of gears, a manual transmission will be slower than an automatic transmission. Niky's sole good argument, that manual cars are lighter therefore quicker, hinges on literally twenty to sixty pounds. Basically, he's telling the driver of the automatic car to go on a diet.

Longer gearing is bull**** because that's negated by quicker shifts, not to mention that an automatic is electronically controlled to shift exactly at an engine's peak power, something a manual driver isn't electrically controlled to do.

so in racing... no.

Agreed. A manual is better in racing (assuming the driver knows what he's doing). But at the strip, an automatic sharing the number of gears is better.

Furthermore, now that automatics a) are more fuel efficient and b) frequently offer manual shift capabilities, manual transmissions are quickly becoming a thing of the past.

Duke doesn't forget it, and Duke doesn't care. Duke goes the numbers generated using the transmission that comes in the car.

Hence my Ford Mustang example. Check the same site's info on the BMW 6-series, manual vs. automatic, which share six speeds. As I recall, they're identical. While you're there, have a look at the objective EPA fuel economy statistics for each transmission. Thus ends the second major point of the manual transmission. There's a reason Mercedes exclusively uses automatic transmissions, folks.

 

[niky]

I'm glad we all see my point now and universally agree that sharing an equal amount of gears, a manual transmission will be slower than an automatic transmission. Niky's sole good argument, that manual cars are lighter therefore quicker, hinges on literally twenty to sixty pounds. Basically, he's telling the driver of the automatic car to go on a diet.

Longer gearing is bull**** because that's negated by quicker shifts, not to mention that an automatic is electronically controlled to shift exactly at an engine's peak power, something a manual driver isn't electrically controlled to do.



Agreed. A manual is better in racing (assuming the driver knows what he's doing). But at the strip, an automatic sharing the number of gears is better.

Furthermore, now that automatics a) are more fuel efficient and b) frequently offer manual shift capabilities, manual transmissions are quickly becoming a thing of the past.



Hence my Ford Mustang example. Check the same site's info on the BMW 6-series, manual vs. automatic, which share six speeds. As I recall, they're identical. While you're there, have a look at the objective EPA fuel economy statistics for each transmission. Thus ends the second major point of the manual transmission. There's a reason Mercedes exclusively uses automatic transmissions, folks.

The sole good argument is in regards to drivetrain losses, where the extra twenty or so pounds of the traditional torque converter costs A LOT in terms of fuel efficiency and power delivery for any car below 200hp.

We see eye to eye on the strip vs. circuit thing. ...actually, even with less gears, high-powered AT cars can kick ass on the strip.

I'll give you that the new ATs make a lot of sense in the new high-powered cars.. and that the new CVTs make a lot of sense in the new low-powered cars, but manual cars still have the edge in terms of ease of maintenance, use, cost of production and adaptability. ATs are getting better, but MTs are going to be around for a long time... thank Bob for that.

 

[///M-Spec]

What I'm saying is that they cheat on their times. Perhaps they remove the spare tire, or run with an exceptionally low amount of fuel, or remove the air filter to provide more air. Do I know this for certain? No. But I don't honestly believe that they attained those times with a complete, bare bones stock SRT-4.

It's your perogative to disbelieve. However, I should also point out the fact that Dodge quotes a 0-60 time of 5.8 seconds for the base SRT-4.

This is .2 seconds more than the ACR C/D had, but when you consider the upgrades the ACR gets (see below), this is not an unreasonable time.

I intend to find out how fast those SRT's really are on the street, in the real world, not under perfect conditions with professional drivers. I'll report back the results. And what is this about Michigan?

Michigan.. NC... whatever.

The problem with "real world" testing is the real world changes. A lot. Then you run into problems with scientific validity. What was the temperature and humidity? How close to seal level was the test conducted at? What condition were the tires in? What was the tire pressure? What was the surface condition? Was it quality asphalt or was it broken up and dusty?

The only way for testing to offer validity on a comparative basis is to eliminate as many real world variables as possible.

On paper, SRT-4 should be faster than an RSX-S. But if you take the SRT-4 to a test site when it's 107 degrees with 85% humidity at far above sea level and the pavement is covered with a fine layer of grit, if could very well get beaten by an RSX-S running at sea level on a cold 40 degree morning on top of freshly laid pavement.

Let's go with C/D's other acceleration test: the 1320. They said their SRT-4 ACR did the nasty in 14.4 @ 98 mph. This ET and trap speed is fairly consistant with a 5.6 0-60. Road and Track had almost identical results.

So can a bone stock SRT-4 run mid 14s @ 98?

Why don't you ask these guys?

Here's a fellow that broke in the 13s @ 100 mph on his first trip to the track. The car was bone stock.

Nobody has ever, ever been able to replicate a 7.4 second 0-60, by any means of launch with my car. Only C&D has ever come up with that result, and even we Cadillac owners know better.

How are all of you Caddy owners testing it?

The ACR doesn't gain any power over the non-ACR, and I believe it may be heavier, although I admit I don't know. Perhaps someone who knows more about the differences can fill me in.

The ACR has wider tires. 225/45R16 vs. 205/50R17. Curiously, the overall wheel/tire height is shorter than the non-ACR --this effectively gives it a shorter final drive. It also has firmer suspension settings.

The tires are also BFGoodrich g-Force KDs vs. Michelin Pilot Sports on the normal SRT-4s. I've had several sets of the Pilot Sport on my M3s and they are not the stickiest tires on the market.

So there you go..

1- Wider, stickier tires
2- Shorter final drive ratio due to wheel/tire package.

Sounds good enough to gain .2 seconds to me.


M

 

[Ghost C]

The problem with "real world" testing is the real world changes. A lot. Then you run into problems with scientific validity. What was the temperature and humidity? How close to seal level was the test conducted at? What condition were the tires in? What was the tire pressure? What was the surface condition? Was it quality asphalt or was it broken up and dusty?

The only way for testing to offer validity on a comparative basis is to eliminate as many real world variables as possible.

On paper, SRT-4 should be faster than an RSX-S. But if you take the SRT-4 to a test site when it's 107 degrees with 85% humidity at far above sea level and the pavement is covered with a fine layer of grit, if could very well get beaten by an RSX-S running at sea level on a cold 40 degree morning on top of freshly laid pavement.

True. But isn't the real world what counts?

Let's go with C/D's other acceleration test: the 1320. They said their SRT-4 ACR did the nasty in 14.4 @ 98 mph. This ET and trap speed is fairly consistant with a 5.6 0-60. Road and Track had almost identical results.

So can a bone stock SRT-4 run mid 14s @ 98?

Why don't you ask these guys?

Here's a fellow that broke in the 13s @ 100 mph on his first trip to the track. The car was bone stock.

SRT's running mid 14's is correct from what I've seen, but I still doubt the 5.6 0-60, personally.

How are all of you Caddy owners testing it?

Name the method. Some people have performance meters, others go to the track. The fastest 1/4 mile time ever witnessed with a 91-93 DeVille was a Coupe DeVille, all stock, that ran a 15.9 and even that, to my knowledge, hasn't been reproduced. I believe C&D put the 1/4 for my car at 15.6, but don't quote me on that.

The ACR has wider tires. 225/45R16 vs. 205/50R17. Curiously, the overall wheel/tire height is shorter than the non-ACR --this effectively gives it a shorter final drive. It also has firmer suspension settings.

The tires are also BFGoodrich g-Force KDs vs. Michelin Pilot Sports on the normal SRT-4s. I've had several sets of the Pilot Sport on my M3s and they are not the stickiest tires on the market.

So there you go..

1- Wider, stickier tires
2- Shorter final drive ratio due to wheel/tire package.

Sounds good enough to gain .2 seconds to me.


M

I see, then. In that case, the ACR probably does have a gain over the non-ACR.

 

[///M-Spec]

I'm glad we all see my point now and universally agree that sharing an equal amount of gears, a manual transmission will be slower than an automatic transmission.

///M-Spec suggests you tell the people at your favorite car company. He is sure they'd appreciate the update.

http://www.mbusa.com/brand/containe...spec=3&menu=3_0&modelCode=SLK350&class=06_SLK

The 2006 SLK350 Roadster

Acceleration

0 - 60 in 5.4 seconds (manual)
0 - 60 in 5.5 seconds (automatic)

Oh, and in case there's any doubt...

Manual Transmission Standard fully synchronized 6-speed with direct-action short-throw shifter and clutch-starter interlock.

Automatic Transmission Optional 7-speed automatic. Electronically controlled shifting. Driver-adaptive programming adjusts shift points to the driver's current driving style. Touch Shift allows driver to manually downshift and allow upshifts by nudging the shift lever left or right from the Drive position. Shift into Optimum Gear programming allows one-touch selection of the best gear for maximum acceleration or engine braking by holding the shift lever to the left of Drive for one second. Driver-selectable Comfort mode starts vehicle moving in 2nd gear or a second Reverse gear, and upshifts at lower rpm, to help improve control on slippery surfaces.

Drive configuration Rear-wheel drive.

Rear axle ratio 3.27:1

The website doesn't offer individual gear ratios for the 6-speed man and the 7-speed auto. But ///M-Spec think's it's a safe assumption that the auto is gear competatively against the manual. They even share the same rear end ratio.

Oh, and since you're out correcting manufactuers, he also thinks you should tell BMW that their automatic 645Ci does 60 in 5.5, not 5.7 as they report on their US website.


M

 

[rollazn]

What an interesting read! This is a great discussion.

 

[Driftster]

Eh..C&D did a great comparison which is a real world comparison.

But I would have much rather preffered to just see a performance comparison without people *****ing about "rattles and shakes"

If they were going to compare cars based on practicality, why would they get the ACR for the test? That makes absolutely no sense.

Anyway, given performance #'s alone i'd say the ACR is clearly ahead of the pack, followed by the ion, the cobalt, then the rest.

As for the gas efficiency. I don't know about an auto being more efficient.

In a manual I can always go..
2nd 4th 5th/6th and make it so city driving isn't such a strain on the fuel tank.
Can't really do that in an auto.

 

[1X83Z]

///M-Spec suggests you tell the people at your favorite car company. He is sure they'd appreciate the update.

My favorite car company? I hate Mercedes. I hate the people who buy Mercedes. Weirdo.

Oh, and since you're out correcting manufactuers, he also thinks you should tell BMW that their automatic 645Ci does 60 in 5.5, not 5.7 as they report on their US website.

According to you it's probably 4.1 since if you removed all the body panels you could achieve that and it's not the car's fault for having body panels.

 

[xcsti]

True. But isn't the real world what counts?

The point is that there is no "real world testing" because it would be impossible to give accurate numbers to anything like that. The closest they can do is either do tests run on the same track in the same conditions or long term tests where they describe how the car "feels" but cannot provide any numbers.

 

[E55Power]

"I'm glad we all see my point now and universally agree that sharing an equal amount of gears, a manual transmission will be slower than an automatic transmission."
Tell that to Porsche.

 

[Emohawk]

Porsche or Mercedes-Benz. Which says 'driver involvement' to you?

 

[1X83Z]

"I'm glad we all see my point now and universally agree that sharing an equal amount of gears, a manual transmission will be slower than an automatic transmission."
Tell that to Porsche.

Do you mean the Porsche who invented both the Tiptronic automatic transmission used in all automatic Audi and Volkswagens and the Direct Shift Gearbox used in the current Audi TT? Trust me - Porsche knows innovation among automatic transmissions. The only reason they continue to make manuals as they do is because that's what the demand is for, and understandably so.