: Auto vs Manual 1/4 mile



Tasos
12-20-09, 01:41 PM
I have read on multiple occasions where the auto has a better 1/4 mile time and this is due to gearing. Where exactly is the auto faster, out of the hole or later down the 1/4 mile? Who would fair better on say a 30mph rolling start? My guess would be the stick, but is that right?

Caroutisine
12-20-09, 05:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE7M-5YENS4&NR=1

Ross L
12-20-09, 05:31 PM
I personally think it's just because there are fewer sticks and the auto is easier to drive. Once a few good seasoned racers get their hands on the stick you'll read about quicker and quicker times with the stick. Just my opinion.
Ross

edsuski
12-20-09, 05:40 PM
I personally think it's just because there are fewer sticks and the auto is easier to drive. Once a few good seasoned racers get their hands on the stick you'll read about quicker and quicker times with the stick. Just my opinion.
Ross

Seasoned drivers like - say - John Heinricy? He set the record at the Nurburgring with an - automatic. Pretty sure he could have gotten his hands on a manual if he thought it was faster.

And by the way, after driving manuals for about 30 years, I still occasionally missed a sift in the "heat of the moment". Haven't missed a single shift in the V (Automatic). Some of today’s automatics simply outperform manuals no matter who is driving.

Ed

thebigjimsho
12-20-09, 05:46 PM
Seasoned drivers like - say - John Heinricy? He set the record at the Nurburgring with an - automatic. Pretty sure he could have gotten his hands on a manual if he thought it was faster.

And by the way, after driving manuals for about 30 years, I still occasionally missed a sift in the "heat of the moment". Haven't missed a single shift in the V (Automatic). Some of today’s automatics simply outperform manuals no matter who is driving.

Ed
Well, it was readily admitted by those there at the 'Ring that Heinrecy made the run in that auto because he had much more seat time in the car than the manual. What the manual could've done is unknown but guys like Andy Pilgrim have said the manual should be just as fast. But he also said that the auto is good enough that most part-time racers would be faster in it because they don't need to worry about all that's involved in shifting a manual...

Ross L
12-20-09, 05:47 PM
oops thoought we were talking quarter mile performance. IMO take two stock cars one auto,one stick. Now add slicks( I know they're not stock) and the stick car will be quicker. At least in my limited experience.:bonkers:
Ross

Tony407
12-20-09, 06:25 PM
oops thoought we were talking quarter mile performance. IMO take two stock cars one auto,one stick. Now add slicks( I know they're not stock) and the stick car will be quicker. At least in my limited experience.:bonkers:
Ross

I have not read or seen one review where the manual was quicker to 60 or in the 1/4 mile.

As bigjimsho said, Heinricy got the automatic to do his test runs at the Ring, and even though a manual was available later on, he decided to stick with the auto because that's what he was used to. He later stated that given the choice he'd go with the manual, but he didn't comment about it being able to attain a better time, but it rather sounded like it was from an enthusiast point of view. I can only imagine that if he got to drive the manual later and got a better time than his world record, we would have heard about it.

Tony

Ross L
12-20-09, 06:43 PM
stick has the potential to be quicker/faster. More hp to the ground. Just need someone to really bang the gears. Also, if the guy that ran the ring would prefer a stick I don't think he made that decision because it would be slower. Just MO:stirpot:
Ross

Tony407
12-20-09, 06:54 PM
stick has the potential to be quicker/faster. More hp to the ground. Just need someone to really bang the gears. Also, if the guy that ran the ring would prefer a stick I don't think he made that decision because it would be slower. Just MO:stirpot:
Ross

Please provide one link which concludes that the manual is quicker. And re-read the posts about the "guy" and his decision to use the auto. You can even YouTube the interview he did after he made the infamous 7:59:32 run.

Tony

Ross L
12-20-09, 07:37 PM
I only have experience in the quarter mile(and limited at that):yawn:. Also, I've never seen or read a article that claimed the stick was faster. I would, however, like to see the 60ft times of any auto vs stick road tests(again quarter mile). I would bet the auto is at least .10 quicker or more in the 60 ft, that would explain the .20 sec quicker et. The only article about the V I read was a stick and it talked how difficult it was to launch(bogged or spun, neither good for a respectable 60 ft time). My only reasoning is two cars, one is lighter(by a little) and has more hp(stick) to the ground. It "should" be able to turn a quicker et than the auto.No article proof what-so-ever,,,, sorry.
Ross

CADYSHAK
12-20-09, 07:55 PM
Ross , you missed the point altogether !
Auto's today are alot quicker to respond to shifting between gears than anybody's foot (clutch) and hand (shifter) . I owned an 07 /Z06 corvette before trading it in on my auto V, I seriously considered getting the manual instead but in the long run I would save my engine in case I mishifted on the manual , crap happens you know .
Secondly I am more relaxed with the auto when I am cruising and downshifting doesn't require much brain power if I am challenged .

CADYSHAK

Short-Throw
12-20-09, 07:57 PM
I have read on multiple occasions where the auto has a better 1/4 mile time and this is due to gearing. Where exactly is the auto faster, out of the hole or later down the 1/4 mile? Who would fair better on say a 30mph rolling start? My guess would be the stick, but is that right?


It "should" be able to turn a quicker et than the auto.No article proof what-so-ever,,,, sorry.
Ross

Search my past posts. I explained in detail how the manual and automatic are identical in performance.

4gear70
12-20-09, 08:02 PM
Quicker and Faster are two different things.
Generally, autos are quicker because they can consistently shift in less time than a manual and can usually launch more consistently as well. Manuals usually have faster traps because the clutch is completely locked up whereas the auto's torque converter usually has a certain amount of constant slip (unless using a lock up converter) and thus some extra power is lost through the drivetrain. This is usually the scenario for equally geared and powered cars.
If you throw slicks on the cars, then the nice thing about the manual is that you can side step that clutch at whatever rpm you want and really drop those 60'....as well as increasing your chances of dropping various diff and drivetrain parts...

roarkb
12-20-09, 10:06 PM
I lifted the following comment from a popular mechanics article... "Cadillac included GM's "No Lift Shift" electronics, which allows drivers to upshift manual-transmission cars without lifting off the gas. Simply keep your right foot planted on the gas, stab the clutch with your left, and move the shift lever—the computer automatically cuts engine power. It's power shifting without killing the trans, and it really helps the CTS-V achieve startling velocity."

This takes one variable out of the equation. With this option and a good driver, it is hard for me to imagine the Auto being much quicker, especially with some good drag radials on the rear to hook up the manual.

However, even with the stock tires, the car accelerates so quickly that it takes practice to get the shifts done in a manner that does not impact the E.T. Takes some practice to not run right into the rev limiter. Once you have the practice down... the stock V will "bark" the tires firmly at about 80MPH. Incredible!!

Razorecko
12-20-09, 10:14 PM
Search my past posts. I explained in detail how the manual and automatic are identical in performance.

Yep. The auto's quicker shifting time and the manuals higher hp/less drivetrain loss negate each other out and are equal in performance. The rest depends on the driver :bouncy:

Gary Wells
12-20-09, 10:37 PM
Not to disagree, as I a newb here, but it seems to me that the quickest bone stock '09 CTS-V's on here that I remember reading about were a 11.97 or a 11.99, in which case that person running that posted a thread trying to get other bone stockers to post their times, and I don't think that anybody else posted up. I believe that I asked him and he posted that his car was an auto. That thread was about 2-3 months ago, I think.
Somebody else about a month or so before that posted up a 12.00 or a 12.01 on a '09 CTS-V bone stock, also with an auto. I could be wrong, but I don't remember anybody with a bone stock '09 CTS-V stick posting up quicker times. Naturally ambient air temps, humidity, altitude are / were / or could have been factors. And I could be wrong on all this that I have posted, too. Maybe just by chance the quicker guys are buying the autos. Naw, that couldn't be. Also, I am not questioning you guys honesty, integrity, or knowledge, but this is what I remember. Keep in mind though, that I am 65 years old and most of the time I have trouble remembering my own name.

dg144
12-20-09, 10:43 PM
I agree with Mike(short throw), all things are probably equal, it certainly comes down to preference once again, all these cars are great, I love my manual not because it is faster, I just love driving it.

Vrocks
12-20-09, 10:49 PM
Every time from auto rags that I've seen put the auto ahead of the manual.

From reading on the corvette forum; they're putting heavy duty 4spds in their Z06's for the 1/4. So if you want to go all out, it looks like an auto is also the way to go.

Gary Wells
12-21-09, 07:41 AM
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-series-forum-2009/184133-stock-cts-v-versus-modded-cts.html#post2054018

BacDoc
12-21-09, 10:06 AM
I'm guessing the auto (with it's slight powertrain loss in hp) is better tuned for traction out of the hole and much easier to accomplish. I'm curious as to what the auto is like with W4M auto tranny tune. Anyone have a 1/4 mile time?

gnxs
12-21-09, 12:08 PM
oops thoought we were talking quarter mile performance. IMO take two stock cars one auto,one stick. Now add slicks( I know they're not stock) and the stick car will be quicker. At least in my limited experience.:bonkers:
Ross
+1. :thumbsup:

On stock tires, it's much easier to be quick and consistent with the auto. Take traction out of the equation with some sticky rubber and put a good driver behind the wheel and the stick "should" edge out the auto. Slightly lighter and a good deal less drivetrain loss in the hands of a good driver (not some mainstream magazine hack), should more than make up for the miniscule edge in shifting speed of the auto. The stick car will be faster and with a good, experienced driver should also be quicker. I'd like to see Evan Smith wring one out at Englishtown on a nice day to truly see what the car is capable of.

One of the reasons alot of fast times are posted with the auto is because I suspect there are ALOT more auto's out there than stick cars. And unless you're going to spend ALOT of time drag racing your CTS-V to learn what it likes at the track AND you're an excellent driver, you'll never see the M6 car's true potential (and I suspect we still haven't seen what it's capable of).

BacDoc
12-21-09, 01:48 PM
So in review, if you're not running drag radials and a professional racer get the auto.

4gear70
12-21-09, 01:59 PM
So in review, if you're not running drag radials and a professional racer get the auto.

How 'bout if you just want to have fun driving and feeling that special driver/car connection while rowing through some gears using both feet and hands? :)

Nine Ball
12-21-09, 02:31 PM
Any vehicle with an independent rear axle will greatly benefit on the launch with an automatic trans. A manual trans shock loads the axle more, which usually results in wheel-hop or spin. The automatic, with its fluid coupling converter, acts to soften this load and help maintain traction. In a quarter-mile race, I'm going to say the auto has the edge. From a highway roll, or out on a roadcourse, the manual should have more potential to pull away.

gnxs
12-21-09, 03:26 PM
So in review, if you're not running drag radials and a professional racer get the auto.


Any vehicle with an independent rear axle will greatly benefit on the launch with an automatic trans. A manual trans shock loads the axle more, which usually results in wheel-hop or spin. The automatic, with its fluid coupling converter, acts to soften this load and help maintain traction. In a quarter-mile race, I'm going to say the auto has the edge. From a highway roll, or out on a road-course, the manual should have more potential to pull away.
IMO (and I'm just like you guys,an amateur), the Auto is an easier more repeatable way to get quick ET's for the average joe.

Nine Ball's post is spot on. I own an auto CTS-V and can't comment on what a 6-speed stick CTS-V would be like, but I've lived through similar exploits with my 2004, 6-speed (they don't make factory autos), IRS, Cobra and the difficulty in launching it and keeping the IRS alive). In fact I race it so frequently, I wound up putting a solid-axle in it for durability reasons.

I've made over 300+ 1/4 mile passes in it and have made a handful of passes in a 6-speed WS6 Formula and have raced with Autos in my GN, LT1 Firebird and now CTS-V and my personal experience is exactly as described in Nine Ball's post.

That said, it's still more rewarding to get a good ET rowing the gears in my Cobra than the "sterile" feel of making a pass in the Caddy, although I love both of them.

Mikevette
12-21-09, 04:44 PM
Guys to add to the post and inputs so far both versions Auto/Manuals are bad ass rides, No doubt about it! I have an Auto that is stock except a K&N filter and I run on an 1/8th miles track thats close to my home. Yesterday was my best times so far; Temp 52* North Florida

Reaction - .2921 a little sleepy @ the tree
60 FT - 1.97 Had a some spin coming off the line and 2nd gear
330 FT - 5.2949
1/8th - 7.9921

It 's so awesome to hear the track announcer rave about my V over the speakers that's "it"s a bone stock cadillac and he would put his money on for the win" People line the fence to see what it looks like and watch me fly down the track with minium engine/supercharger noise and post my 7.99 ET

When the look over the V when it's parked I leave the rear windows down to show them that I have my grandson's Simpson car seat installed. Gets a chuckle out of them.

Mike P.:thumbsup:

Gotham CTS-V
12-22-09, 08:49 AM
I think it's pretty obvious that the different in performance is negligible and it comes down to preference. I prefer manual for actually driving the car, but since it is a daily driver and I'm often stuck in traffic or busy having fun with my gf while driving, I chose the auto. Also, I just couldn't get a big luxury sedan with stick; had to go with the auto in this car. If I got a Vette or Porsche though, hands down stick (even if it's slower)

DrumStix
12-22-09, 08:56 AM
Well, it was readily admitted by those there at the 'Ring that Heinrecy made the run in that auto because he had much more seat time in the car than the manual. What the manual could've done is unknown but guys like Andy Pilgrim have said the manual should be just as fast. But he also said that the auto is good enough that most part-time racers would be faster in it because they don't need to worry about all that's involved in shifting a manual...

Actually, there was a manual following him on that lap. In the video you'll see him signal to the driver behind him just before they leave the pits.
The manual was MUCH more work as indicated by John and others driving it around the 'ring. With the Autos sport mode downshift rev matching capabilities it is much more precise and if you look at the gear ratios for torque multiplication you will see they are very similar.

DrumStix
12-22-09, 08:58 AM
So in review, if you're not running drag radials and a professional racer get the auto.

Most professional drag racers use an auto.......

Note: I drag raced wit ha stick for 20 years. Loved it but todays autos and light years ahead in technology in regards to the old slush boxes.

JFJr
12-22-09, 09:53 AM
I suspect that most of us on this forum that have the manual transmission just enjoy being more connected with their cars and like the different drivetrain sounds that come from a high performance manual transmission car, and don't feel the need to run out and modify it to get better throttle response, etc. Also, in that group there might be a few of us that could care less about 1/4 miles times and speed as compared to the automatic version.

Gary Wells
12-22-09, 11:08 AM
OK, I can make no big claim to fame here, I bought the auto because I am too lazy to shift.

Tedboss1
12-22-09, 11:25 AM
The main reason that I didn't even look at the manual was that I was not happy with my 2005 V. The shifter was difficult to get in to gears, the clutch pedal was heavy to push and it did chatter occasionally.
Also when I was buying the car I couldn't find any manual 2009 V's to try in Montreal.
So far I'm very happy with my auto transmission and I understand it will be even better with the Wait4me tune
I'm also planning to go drag racing and it has been my experience that consistency is a key to winning.

pj911
12-22-09, 11:53 AM
Ask the guy who has spent more seat time in a cts-v than anyone else which he prefers, and without hesitation you get "I prefer the stick".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB8ibDrfmA8

At about 7.22 into the video Heinricy discusses his choice of transmission and the Nurburgring.

I also agree that there is very little data about 1/4 mile times on the 6M because there are so many fewer. I started a post a while back about 6M 1/4 mile time difference using a standard shift vs. a 'no-lift' shift. I received no replies, which leads me to believe no members have even tried to compare the two. If I make it to a track you can be sure that is the first thing I will compare.

Tony407
12-22-09, 02:14 PM
If I make it to a track you can be sure that is the first thing I will compare.

Please do. Would love to hear the results.

Tony

Tasos
12-22-09, 02:29 PM
I'd say the no lift shift blunts the acceleration times ever so slight but that's just a guess.

Looney100
12-22-09, 04:11 PM
I suspect that most of us on this forum that have the manual transmission just enjoy being more connected with their cars and like the different drivetrain sounds that come from a high performance manual transmission car, and don't feel the need to run out and modify it to get better throttle response, etc. Also, in that group there might be a few of us that could care less about 1/4 miles times and speed as compared to the automatic version.

I agree with the desire to feel 'connected' to the car. If the auto was a little more responsive, I wouldn't hesitate to get one, as I'd feel like I was in total control.
The test-drive season is over in Canada, so it'll be next spring before I can test both trannies out and make a decision. The delay between hitting the shift paddle and the actual shift of the auto is a little disappointing.

Tony407
12-22-09, 05:32 PM
I'd say the no lift shift blunts the acceleration times ever so slight but that's just a guess.

I agree. I think launching is the primary reason the auto is quicker.

Tony

bouser
12-22-09, 05:34 PM
What number K&N do we use and does it make a difference?

caddynoob
01-14-10, 08:21 PM
Here is a quick calculation that I did with Excel. I hope that my math is correct and I am sorry for using km instead of miles. In the first table, the first two columns are the overall ration of manual and automatic transmission. The last two columns are the km/h speed in each gear at redline (6100rpm). The second table shows the engine rpm when you shift into the next gear at 6100rpm. I have a few observations.

1. The automatic transmission is more aggressive in the first 3 gears
2. Both car will finish the 1/4 mile run in 4th gear at around 5400rpm (around 115mph)
3. In the first three gears of the 1/4 mile run the two transmission uses different powerband (rev range) as shown in table 2.
4. Because of the less aggressive first gear, the manual transmission should be easier to hook up and gain traction at launch???
5. It seems that in higher speed say 124mph and up, the manual should pull harder.
6. Personally I really like the close ratio of the manual, a very racy setup.

I am no expert in drag race. Just throwing the numbers out here to stimulate some discussion. I actually don't see how the manual would be slower based on these numbers.

Tony407
01-14-10, 08:24 PM
Here is a quick calculation that I did with Excel. I hope that my math is correct and I am sorry for using km instead of miles. In the first table, the first two columns are the overall ration of manual and automatic transmission. The last two columns are the km/h speed in each gear at redline (6100rpm). The second table shows the engine rpm when you shift into the next gear at 6100rpm. I have a few observations.

1. The automatic transmission is more aggressive in the first 3 gears
2. Both car will finish the 1/4 mile run in 4th gear at around 5400rpm (around 115mph)
3. In the first three gears of the 1/4 mile run the two transmission uses different powerband (rev range) as shown in table 2.
4. Because of the less aggressive first gear, the manual transmission should be easier to hook up and gain traction at launch???
5. It seems that in higher speed say 124mph and up, the manual should pull harder.
6. Personally I really like the close ratio of the manual, a very racy setup.

I am no expert in drag race. Just throwing the numbers out here to stimulate some discussion. I actually don't see how the manual would be slower based on these numbers.

Just read up on what numerous reviewers have pegged the 1/4 mile and 0 - 60 times and you will have your answer. Very impressive work with your calculations and excel, but what you get on paper and what you get on pavement are often two different things.

Tony

caddynoob
01-14-10, 11:08 PM
Just read up on what numerous reviewers have pegged the 1/4 mile and 0 - 60 times and you will have your answer. Very impressive work with your calculations and excel, but what you get on paper and what you get on pavement are often two different things.

Tony

Yes, I suppose at the end of the day it's the measured performance in the real world that counts. I am just more interested in the why and how part.

If the manual V got the launch control from the ZR1, perhaps we can see better and more consistent times?

gnxs
01-15-10, 09:24 AM
........I actually don't see how the manual would be slower based on these numbers.
Driver skill or lack thereof.

Vrocks
01-15-10, 09:33 AM
Here is a quick calculation that I did with Excel. I hope that my math is correct and I am sorry for using km instead of miles. In the first table, the first two columns are the overall ration of manual and automatic transmission. The last two columns are the km/h speed in each gear at redline (6100rpm). The second table shows the engine rpm when you shift into the next gear at 6100rpm. I have a few observations.

1. The automatic transmission is more aggressive in the first 3 gears
2. Both car will finish the 1/4 mile run in 4th gear at around 5400rpm (around 115mph)
3. In the first three gears of the 1/4 mile run the two transmission uses different powerband (rev range) as shown in table 2.
4. Because of the less aggressive first gear, the manual transmission should be easier to hook up and gain traction at launch???
5. It seems that in higher speed say 124mph and up, the manual should pull harder.
6. Personally I really like the close ratio of the manual, a very racy setup.

I am no expert in drag race. Just throwing the numbers out here to stimulate some discussion. I actually don't see how the manual would be slower based on these numbers.
Caddynoob,
Thanks for the calculations. Where did you get your gear ratio info from? I went to Cadillac.com first but I couldn't get the detailed information I wanted (only had the 6spd manual listed with a 4.15 rear).

I went to the cadillacfaq (http://www.cadillacfaq.com/faq/answers/2009/index.html#Powertrain) to confirm the ratios (final and gears). According to them, the auto has a 1.15:1 4th gear and the manual a 1:1. So the overall ratio for fourth in the auto should have been: 4.28 (not 3.71).

How great is the efficiency difference between the auto and manual? I don't think the auto is more inefficient than the boost it gets from gearing. (4th) .15/1*100 = 15% and (5th) .05/.85*100 = 5.9%.

caddynoob
01-15-10, 10:55 AM
Caddynoob,
Thanks for the calculations. Where did you get your gear ratio info from? I went to Cadillac.com first but I couldn't get the detailed information I wanted (only had the 6spd manual listed with a 4.15 rear).

I went to the cadillacfaq (http://www.cadillacfaq.com/faq/answers/2009/index.html#Powertrain) to confirm the ratios (final and gears). According to them, the auto has a 1.15:1 4th gear and the manual a 1:1. So the overall ratio for fourth in the auto should have been: 4.28 (not 3.71).

How great is the efficiency difference between the auto and manual? I don't think the auto is more inefficient than the boost it gets from gearing. (4th) .15/1*100 = 15% and (5th) .05/.85*100 = 5.9%.

I got my gear ratio info from the Canadian borchure. The final drive ratio is different between the two.

I checked gm.ca just now. The first gear ratio for the auto is 4.03 rather than 4.02. But the final drive is 3.23 vs the 3.73 of the manual.

http://www.gm.ca/gm/english/vehicles/cadillac/cts/compare-options-and-specifications#ui-accordion-header

I am leaning towards trusting the GM site at the moment, though they certainly could be wrong.

Tony407
01-15-10, 05:04 PM
Driver skill or lack thereof.

I'm not sure why you say this. I have yet to read any official review of the V where the manual has been quicker than the automatic. Most magazines have even explained why this is the case. Yet, in cases where the manual has been quicker (as with other models of cars) this is quickly found out by such reviewers. Why is it so hard for some people on this forum to accept the fact that all other things being equal, the auto V2 is quicker to 60 and the 1/4 mile.

Tony

gnxs
01-15-10, 08:30 PM
I'm not sure why you say this. I have yet to read any official review of the V where the manual has been quicker than the automatic. Most magazines have even explained why this is the case. Yet, in cases where the manual has been quicker (as with other models of cars) this is quickly found out by such reviewers. Why is it so hard for some people on this forum to accept the fact that all other things being equal, the auto V2 is quicker to 60 and the 1/4 mile.

Tony
You seem to have misinterpreted my statement as I never inferred the M6 was capable of quicker times to either 60 mph or 1320 feet. I'm also not sure why people are so defensive about the trans choice in their CTS-V's (and for what it's worth, I have an auto in mine).

IMO, both versions are capable of near identical 0-60 and 1/4 mile times (within normal margin of error %'s). Just because some magazine hacks can't get it done with the manual doesn't prove anything. I've seen them fail to reach the potential of many different cars when it comes to launching a stick and effectively rowing gears, but that doesn't mean the potential isn't there. Add to the fact that there are so few manual trans versions of this car sold and even less that regularly (the key word being regularly) drag their cars and I'm not surprised with the numbers people get with manual transmission "V"'s. That said, I'm also not saying the manual will be quicker, just that there is no real conclusive proof to me that under the right conditions it can't run what the auto's do. Those conditions being a combination of good track, good weather, good running car and a seasoned drag racer with alot of seat time behind the wheel. I've made over 300 passes down the 1/4 mile in my t-56 equipped 2004 Cobra and I haven't changed the combo in years, yet I'm still occasionally able to squeak a few hundreths out of it because even after all these years I'm still getting better at driving it.

GNXS 2004 Cobra Timeslips (http://home.comcast.net/~gnxs/Images/timeslips.pdf)

I don't think anybody will argue that the auto trans is easier to be fast in, it's alot easier to launch a high tq. car on radials that has a tq. converter helping to soften the shock to the tires. I've been able to muster a 1.77 60 ft. out of my CTS-V at the track, but it's HIGHLY unlikely I'd even be in the 1.8's if I had a stickshift in it (at least not with the ~15 passes under my belt I've made with the auto). Add to that the shifting consistency of the auto and I'm not surprised it's quicker. I just wouldn't have the experience to launch it exactly right and get through the gears as well as my auto does. That doesn't mean somebody else couldn't though and I'm convinced that if a hard core drag guy buys and runs his stickshift "V" for many, many passes that he'd be able to match the fastest time of an auto "V" running in the same conditions.

caddynoob
01-16-10, 01:22 AM
It was never my intention to beat the dead horse or to stir the pot. I just want to learn more about the V and I obviously don't have two Vs and a drag strip to experiment with. I believe that the automatic is quick in the 1/4, and real world data seems to support this.

As to why, my theory is that the auto pulls harder in the first three gears due to the more aggressive gearing. The manual V will catch up a bit in 4th gear at the very end of the 1/4 run but not enough to catch up. The 1/4 run doesn't even use the full 4th gear!

Actually I think we should give GM engineers some credit for the gear ratio selection. The manual is a close ratio box well suited for road course. The auto gets consistent and give 1/4 mile runs while providing better highway mileage with taller 6th gear.

My 2 cents anyways.

CoOlSlY
01-16-10, 08:21 AM
So far, I read nobody (people or magasine) that have been able to obtain the GM claim of 3.9s for 0-60mph with both (auto and manual)

Easy2speed
01-16-10, 09:11 AM
As soon as the track opens up here, I will be getting some times from my 6speed V. I have made over 1000 passes down the strip in 20+ different cars. I'm definitely not saying that I'm the best driver out there, but I've got more experience and ability than the average Joe.

Gotham CTS-V
01-16-10, 09:38 AM
So far, I read nobody (people or magasine) that have been able to obtain the GM claim of 3.9s for 0-60mph with both (auto and manual)

Most of us don't have equipment that the mags have for 0-60 tests.

There is a way to calculate an estimated 0-60 by using some formula. I found the formula online and plugged in all the values by using my 1/4 mile timeslip and the 0-60 that it came up with was 3.66 seconds from my 1.810 60' time. This was on a completely horrible track with no prep.

gnxs says he made a 1.77 60' time, meaning he probably had an even faster 0-60 time than I did. Often times, if launched correctly the cars can exceed the manufacturer's times.

Just look at the Z06, ZR1, E55 AMG, etc. Those cars run a few seconds faster on the 1/4 mile with the right drivers and conditions.

gnxs
01-16-10, 10:10 AM
Most of us don't have equipment that the mags have for 0-60 tests.

There is a way to calculate an estimated 0-60 by using some formula. I found the formula online and plugged in all the values by using my 1/4 mile timeslip and the 0-60 that it came up with was 3.66 seconds from my 1.810 60' time. This was on a completely horrible track with no prep.

gnxs says he made a 1.77 60' time, meaning he probably had an even faster 0-60 time than I did. Often times, if launched correctly the cars can exceed the manufacturer's times.

Just look at the Z06, ZR1, E55 AMG, etc. Those cars run a few seconds faster on the 1/4 mile with the right drivers and conditions.
Correct Gotham.

I'm sure somebody I know can get access to a G-Tech or other equip. to measure 0-60, but until then all I can do is estimate with various calculators out there. I've never really cared what the actual number was, so I never bothered getting the equipment. The calculator I had used in the past (I was curious what my 2004 Cobra numbers were on ET Streets), uses 1/8th mile ET and MPH:

http://www.wallaceracing.com/0-60_equation.php

I plugged in 4 timeslips (posted here in the past) from my last track visit and came up with 3.03, 2.97, 3.02, and 2.98 for what it's worth. That's on a nicely prepped track and with a W4M tune with his "launch control" assisting. Do I think I hit 3 flat 0-60? I don't know that seems awfully optimistic, even on a track that was hooking like glue (no wheelspin and I was able to nearly crack it WOT right off the line).

I plugged these timeslips from November 14th, 2009 into the calculator:

http://home.comcast.net/%7Egnxs/Images/ctsvtimeslips.jpg

CoOlSlY
01-16-10, 12:50 PM
What I meant was even the magazines (Motor Trend, Top Gear, C&D), I haven't seen any do the 0-60 in less than 4s. The only place I found that shows 3.9 is GM... I know 1/10 is almost nothing but was just wondering what were the conditions when they made their 3.9 time...

caddynoob
01-16-10, 02:53 PM
Correct Gotham.

I'm sure somebody I know can get access to a G-Tech or other equip. to measure 0-60, but until then all I can do is estimate with various calculators out there. I've never really cared what the actual number was, so I never bothered getting the equipment. The calculator I had used in the past (I was curious what my 2004 Cobra numbers were on ET Streets), uses 1/8th mile ET and MPH:

http://www.wallaceracing.com/0-60_equation.php

I plugged in 4 timeslips (posted here in the past) from my last track visit and came up with 3.03, 2.97, 3.02, and 2.98 for what it's worth. That's on a nicely prepped track and with a W4M tune with his "launch control" assisting. Do I think I hit 3 flat 0-60? I don't know that seems awfully optimistic, even on a track that was hooking like glue (no wheelspin and I was able to nearly crack it WOT right off the line).

I plugged these timeslips from November 14th, 2009 into the calculator:

http://home.comcast.net/%7Egnxs/Images/ctsvtimeslips.jpg

So, all you have are tunes and software mods? Stock pulley, tire and all?

It's insane how easy your V can run consistent mid-high 11s. I am jealous. Good tractions certainly helps I lot.

Do you have concerns over the longevity of your transmission?

gnxs
01-17-10, 09:05 AM
So, all you have are tunes and software mods? Stock pulley, tire and all?

It's insane how easy your V can run consistent mid-high 11s. I am jealous. Good tractions certainly helps I lot.

Do you have concerns over the longevity of your transmission?
No, 9.5 pulley and cold-air. Obviously the added tq. from the pulley aided those numbers (when you can plant it). I'm lucky to have some good dragstrips near me.

I was just tossing out an example, but it leads me to believe 3.9 is certainly achievable under the right conditions.

caddynoob
01-17-10, 10:47 AM
No, 9.5 pulley and cold-air. Obviously the added tq. from the pulley aided those numbers (when you can plant it). I'm lucky to have some good dragstrips near me.

I was just tossing out an example, but it leads me to believe 3.9 is certainly achievable under the right conditions.

Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that most stock CTS-V run in the mid 12s and that seems to be holding true for now.