: Transmission selection when buying a CTS-V



Gary Wells
06-19-10, 08:08 AM
Here's something that might help those of you that are looking at buying a '09 & up CTS-V and are not too sure of what transmission to select. HTH


Cad CTS-V2 automatic versus manual trans data (as of 05-16-2010):



Manual trans (M6): Tremec TR6060 6 speed manual, fully synchronized with single overdrive (MG9):
Gear ratios (:1) 1st: 2.66, 2nd: 1.78, 3rd: 1.30, 4th: 1.00, 5th: 0.80, 6th: 0.63, final: 3.73, reverse: 2.90

Gas Guzzler (GG) tax of $1300, or half that of the A6
Faster by 16 MPH (191 MPH versus 175 MPH (governed))
A tad slower in the 1/4 & on the street
A tad better *mileage* than the *auto* but probably not significant
About 38 more RWHP than the auto on the average
About 30 more RWTQ that the auto
About 50-100 lbs lighter that the auto
No remote start feature



Automatic trans (A6): Hydra-matic 6L90 6 speed electronically controlled automatic overdrive with torque converter clutch (MYD):
Gear ratios (:1) 1st: 4.03, 2nd: 2.36, 3rd: 1.53, 4th: 1.15, 5th: 0.85, 6th: 0.67, final: 3.23, reverse: 3.06

Gas Guzzler (GG) tax of $2600, or twice that of the M6
Slower by 16 MPH (175 MPH (governed) versus 191 MPH)
A tad quicker in the 1/4 & on the street
A tad worse mileage than the manual but probably not significant
About 38 less RWHP than the manual on the average
About 30 less RWTQ that the manual on the average
About 50-100 lbs more that the manual
Remote start feature

About 1 in every 10 ’09 CTS-V’s were / are manual trans (M6)

lavaman
06-19-10, 09:02 AM
Well done Gary! Nicely laid out and thought through.

You are an asset to the forum!

Doug

garfin
06-19-10, 09:42 AM
Great summary! Thanks!

I would add the "no-lift shift" feature to the list of facts on the 6MN. I've been playing around with it a bit lately and it certainly is something that increases the level of enjoyment I experience with this car!!

Best regards,

Elie

ItsJustMyCaddy
06-19-10, 09:45 AM
And the ultimate selling point for the 6-speed is that you actually get to DRIVE the car! I think there a lot of people who got sucked into the "auto is faster 0-60" reports and jumped on the A6, but now have to live with car driving them around town.

translux
06-19-10, 10:11 AM
And the ultimate selling point for the 6-speed is that you actually get to DRIVE the car! I think there a lot of people who got sucked into the "auto is faster 0-60" reports and jumped on the A6, but now have to live with car driving them around town.

Amen brother!

dqw1
06-19-10, 10:11 AM
There's nothing wrong with the auto. I have no regrets and besides, the auto and manuals are both V's, you buy the trans that fits your needs best. No one got sucked into anything.

neuronbob
06-19-10, 11:40 AM
Gary, you are the man. The only factor you haven't allowed for is those of us who had to buy 6ATs because of the possibility that our wives might drive the car. :)

lavaman
06-19-10, 11:44 AM
Gary, you are the man. The only factor you haven't allowed for is those of us who had to buy 6ATs because of the possibility that our wives might drive the car. :)

"A happy wife makes for a happy life" :thepan:

Ross L
06-19-10, 11:54 AM
My wife can bang a 6 sp without a problem. I was the one "tired of shifting" and wanted the auto. No regrets.Good choice either way.

backup
06-19-10, 05:19 PM
According to GM:

Manual trans (MG9) weighs: 145 lbs
Auto trans (MYD) weighs: 240 lbs
= 95 lb diff

Auto trans specs (http://archives.media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2010/gmna/Spec%20Sheet/Transmissions/2010%20Automatics/10_6L90_MYD_n.xls)

Manual trans specs (http://archives.media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2010/gmna/Spec%20Sheet/Transmissions/2010%20Manuals/10_TR6060_MG9_n.xls)

The auto trans is by all accounts a good unit, and reliable. It was developed for high torque truck applications, and can be tuned for performance shifting. I don't like the 'torque management on all shifts' feature, but there is no doubt it can perform well in the CTSV application.

NOLA-ZR1
06-19-10, 06:15 PM
Thanks for all the info... I had a 2004 V. I got rid of it because of the "Clunk" and my favorite Caddy dealer closed (Katrina). But I got the V bug again and I'm waiting for the 2011 Auto... Thanks again..

Caroutisine
06-19-10, 06:17 PM
It's nice that there is a choice with the V2, the lack of an auto was the one thing that kept me from seriously considering a V1.

caddynoob
06-19-10, 06:44 PM
If I may also add my $0.02 here.

Originally I wanted an automatic V without the ultraview roof. Basically the same configuration as the one that went around the Ring under 8 minutes. Fair enough! Plus that I need to use the car to drive clients around town. I was worried that the manual would be difficult to drive smoothly. Another issue is the lack of "hand brake" to hold the car when starting on a hill. Call me old school but I think that's a fundamental safety issue.

But at the end of the day I could only find a manual to test drive and I immediately fall in love with the manual. The clutch pedal is perfect both in terms of travel and weight. Excellent communication from the pedal, you can easily feel the biting point which is fairly low. This is good because you can keep your heel on the floor and have very precise control over the clutch engagement without giving your left leg a work out.

The shifts are precise and I did not notice excess vibration from the shifter under acceleration. The shift throw is not extremely short but perfect for day to day spirited driving. I wouldn't feel the need for an aftermarket short throw kit for myself. Then there is the engine. The LSA has so much power down low you can leave the car in 4th most of the time and still easily keep up with the traffic in the city. The engine does not struggle at all. You can skip the 1-2 and 2-3 shift most of the time if you just want to just relax and make your way home.

In my humble opinion, some gearboxes work with you and some you have to work with them. The Audi/VW manuals that I have driven are the ones that you have to work with. Long clutch pedal travel, high engaging point, and not a lot of communication. Shift throws are long and not well defined. It literally takes the fun out of driving the car. I really enjoyed the stick shift from Honda and BMW, the ones that I have driven at least.

After driving the V, I can honestly say that the CTS-V manual transmission is the most satisfying and the best that I have driven so far. A rather pleasant surprise if I may be honest. The wide power band from the engine certainly helps. I can see why most people opt for the automatic, I was one of them. But if you have the chance to take the manual for a spin, why not give it a try?

Hopefully this helps. Enjoy in good health.

ItsJustMyCaddy
06-19-10, 07:27 PM
There's nothing wrong with the auto. I have no regrets and besides, the auto and manuals are both V's, you buy the trans that fits your needs best. No one got sucked into anything.

Actually, it may be appropriate for you to say that "I" didn't, but not that "No one" did because I recall several posts where people were questioning their decision. I was not taking a shot at the auto owners, just giving my opinion that getting the auto would have taken a lot of the fun out of this car for me. The allure of the sub 4 second 0-60 in the A6 that the magazines could not repeat in the manual appeared to move some people who were on the fence in that direction. Still an amazing car either way, but not even a consideration for me. Happy motoring!

Ryan

4gear70
06-19-10, 11:05 PM
Another issue is the lack of "hand brake" to hold the car when starting on a hill. Call me old school but I think that's a fundamental safety issue.


You may not be aware of this but the electronic brake on the manual car also has a 'hill-hold' feature. Page 2-47 of the 2009 Manual or page 8-37 of the 2010 Manual explains it. I don't use this feature but it's there if you like that sort of thing.

ajjones44
06-19-10, 11:25 PM
The allure of the sub 4 second 0-60 in the A6 that the magazines could not repeat in the manual appeared to move some people who were on the fence in that direction.

I thought the 3.9 run was done with a rolling start using the M6.

caddynoob
06-20-10, 02:41 AM
You may not be aware of this but the electronic brake on the manual car also has a 'hill-hold' feature. Page 2-47 of the 2009 Manual or page 8-37 of the 2010 Manual explains it. I don't use this feature but it's there if you like that sort of thing.

Thanks. I actually knew that. But I like the psychological comfort of having the "oh s**t bar" next to me. Maybe I am the minority on this one, but that's just how I learned to drive a stick shift.

The V has so much torque right at idle the the chances of finding oneself needing hill hold control will be rather rare anyways. Traction control on the other hand ;)

caddynoob
06-20-10, 03:16 AM
The allure of the sub 4 second 0-60 in the A6 that the magazines could not repeat in the manual appeared to move some people who were on the fence in that direction.

Why the manual is a tenth slower still puzzles me. I know automatics can do very well at the drag strip generally. But it just doesn't add up on paper.

We know that there is actually more power to the wheel and less weight with the manual. In the spreadsheet that I attached, it shows that the overall ratio are about the same in 3rd and 4th gear between the manual and auto.

True, the auto has a more aggressive first gear but you are traction limited in 1st gear anyways correct?

Is it then because the auto is easier to launch or the fact that there is no lift on the up shift with the auto that makes up for all the differences? I am assuming that no lift power shift was not used on the manual during test by magazines.

Not trying to stir the pot, just deeply curious as to way.

Gary Wells
06-20-10, 11:58 AM
Well done Gary! Nicely laid out and thought through.

You are an asset to the forum!

Doug
As are you, Doug, and thanks for the props.

Gary Wells
06-20-10, 12:04 PM
Great summary! Thanks!

I would add the "no-lift shift" feature to the list of facts on the 6MN. I've been playing around with it a bit lately and it certainly is something that increases the level of enjoyment I experience with this car!!

Best regards,

Elie

Thanks for props, suggestions & comments, Elie. I added the "no lift-shift" feature to the M6 feature list and it will be on the next time that I post it.

Gary Wells
06-20-10, 12:30 PM
Gary, you are the man. The only factor you haven't allowed for is those of us who had to buy 6ATs because of the possibility that our wives might drive the car. :)

Thanks for the props, Robert, and consider yourselves exceptionally fortunate that you have a wife, and thus are a family man. Families are the backbone of today and are raising the future presidents, scientists, and scholarly of tomorrow's society. My hats off to you & those like you. IMHO having to own an A6 to keep the better half is a small price to pay for companionship. Beats the heck out of cat-houses too, huh?

Gary Wells
06-20-10, 12:36 PM
"A happy wife makes for a happy life" :thepan:
Yes, Doug, it does, and all of the extra benefits that go along with a happy life, like not spending all of one's toy money at the local divorce attorney.

Gary Wells
06-20-10, 01:01 PM
According to GM:

Manual trans (MG9) weighs: 145 lbs
Auto trans (MYD) weighs: 240 lbs
= 95 lb diff

Auto trans specs (http://archives.media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2010/gmna/Spec%20Sheet/Transmissions/2010%20Automatics/10_6L90_MYD_n.xls)

Manual trans specs (http://archives.media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2010/gmna/Spec%20Sheet/Transmissions/2010%20Manuals/10_TR6060_MG9_n.xls)

The auto trans is by all accounts a good unit, and reliable. It was developed for high torque truck applications, and can be tuned for performance shifting. I don't like the 'torque management on all shifts' feature, but there is no doubt it can perform well in the CTSV application.
Thanks, backup, for the input and comments. Appreciate the data & hot-links. I have updated the chart to reflect the appropriate weights.

GMX322V S/C
06-20-10, 01:56 PM
Why the manual is a tenth slower still puzzles me. I know automatics can do very well at the drag strip generally. But it just doesn't add up on paper.

We know that there is actually more power to the wheel and less weight with the manual. In the spreadsheet that I attached, it shows that the overall ratio are about the same in 3rd and 4th gear between the manual and auto.

True, the auto has a more aggressive first gear but you are traction limited in 1st gear anyways correct?

Is it then because the auto is easier to launch or the fact that there is no lift on the up shift with the auto that makes up for all the differences? I am assuming that no lift power shift was not used on the manual during test by magazines.

Not trying to stir the pot, just deeply curious as to way.

I only remember one car magazine (C&D, I think) that even acknowledged no-lift and that was to say their testing policy did not allow them to use it. A pity. I'd be very surprised if GM did not use it during their testing.

Note that the quoted differences are very small and what difference there is may be mostly due to the speed of the shifts. The auto pre-engages the next gear, so it's only a matter of releasing one clutch and engaging the other, resulting in near-constant acceleration (it is still a planetary gearbox and not a dual-clutch automated manual). During no-lift with the manual, while boost is maintained and the revs are held, there is loss of acceleration during all of the time the clutch is disengaged.

Frank Rizzo
06-20-10, 02:05 PM
Great info - thanks for this.

I too waived off the V1 because of the manual trans only dilemma. If it's your daily driver and you live in Los Angeles, the intense traffic makes a manual a difficult choice.
The manual is slower because of the human factor - it's slow, sloppy and inexact. I for one think it would be great if the V had a DSG transmission option. I have one in my R32 and it's the best of both worlds. The days of cars with three pedals are numbered, everything will be dual clutch manumatics in the near future.

Great review from motortrend review of the Porsche PDK (emphasis added):


After driving a couple of Cayman S's fitted with the thing, I'd say the computing power has caught up rather nicely. It's tempting the wrath of some of you, but I now think the concept of traditional manual shifting ought to be officially boxed up and quietly placed into the technological attic alongside crank-starting and diddling with ignition-advance levers on the steering column. While Porsche's PDK is actually replacing its automatic-based Tiptronic transmissions, inevitably it's going to slowly marginalize the traditional heel-and-toe manual right into oblivion. Trust me, the day will come when the last of its octogenarian practitioners finally has a hip replacement and just can't crook that arthritic old right leg sideways anymore. And that will be that. (Until then, last year's five-speed manual gains an extra cog for those of you hopelessly fixated on slow, inexact shifting).

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0903_2009_porsche_cayman_s_pdk_drive/transmission.html#ixzz0rPxQr94l

4gear70
06-20-10, 03:02 PM
The days of cars with three pedals are numbered, everything will be dual clutch manumatics in the near future.


.. and what a sad day that will be for the manual tranny enthusiasts (like myself).
What the writer of that article fails to understand is the intangible connection of man and machine that only a traditional manual with three pedals can provide. There's just something indescribably wonderful about rowing through the gears using both hands and feet. I'll take 'slow, sloppy and inexact' shifting anyday and when that's gone.. I'd rather take the bus.

backup
06-20-10, 05:44 PM
.. and what a sad day that will be for the manual tranny enthusiasts (like myself).
What the writer of that article fails to understand is the intangible connection of man and machine that only a traditional manual with three pedals can provide. There's just something indescribably wonderful about rowing through the gears using both hands and feet. I'll take 'slow, sloppy and inexact' shifting anyday and when that's gone.. I'd rather take the bus.

I love this argument. I am one who currently believes the same thing - the driving experience is enhanced with three pedals and a manual shift lever. I know the facts are that DSG, electrohydraulic PFM shifting, or whatever you want to call it is faster, quicker, better for your clutch, more reliable, hell probably even cheaper pretty soon. But this is not a race car, I knowingly gave up a tenth or two 0 to 60mph by selecting the manual. I want an engaging fun driving experience, and for that a manual does a better job!

I hope the traditional manual remains an option. The thing that will drive it into oblivion is the decreasing number of people that know how to use one. I just salivated over a review of the new 599 GTO and was bummed when I read that there is no manual option (yes I know the F1 tranny is faster, quicker, lighter, yadda yadda yadda). I want to feel that magic of a perefectly time heel and toe rev match, snick into gear, and go!

backup
06-20-10, 10:19 PM
Another bit of trivia on the CTSV tranny. According to GMpartsdirect the manual trans costs $3600. The auto costs $1900. I have no idea why the difference - you would think the manual would be less. Maybe it is a typo, that seems too low for an auto trans.

CopperSunburstCTS
06-21-10, 12:35 AM
Thanks for the review form Caddynoob. I am about to order a Coupe-V, since they don't have any exciting colors to decide upon, the only main decision left is Manual or Auto. I thought I had gotten all my shifting enjoyment out with my 03 CTS with a 5-speed, it was the Getrag model and probably one of the best reviewed manual trannys. The whole thing with a Caddy and Manual is just TOO cool. Now with 556 HP AND a Caddy, i just can't see buying the Auto tranny unless it is going to be my daily driver. The "daily driving" aspect ruined the enjoyment i got from my manual tranny in my 03 in my area's heavy traffic and stop lights and signs at every block. But (for me) it is hard to justify the gas mileage, poor tire life, and noisier cabin, as a daily dirver car, soooo I am thinking to go with the manual and occasional use. I was about 90% set on the manual, because I want an "involved" feeling that others on here have said. I like to feel the mechanics and be part of the driving experince, i like having to exibit skill, or at least psychologoically feel like i am part of the "power" of the car, if that makes sense and anyone can relate. Of course those aspects diminish the "luxury" and the major convenince factor of a luxury car, so to me that is a dellima of sorts, if anyone can relate to that as well, haha.

I was going to get a manual in the new Camaro (as the occasional use shifting toy car when i feel like driving a manual) and get the Caddy in the auto, but i just hate being in the Camaro, it has a claustraphobic feeling because of the window and windshield field of vison, combined with seating postion and height of hood. The akward steering wheel and shifter and ergonomics of the car also leaves much to be desired, as much as I really want to like the car with the style and cool colors they have.

I think after reading Caddynoob's post I have increased my desire for the manual to 95%, so THANK YOU Caddysnoob. The pedal effort, travel, engage point, tourqe of car to start out and ability to skip shifts certainly are good points. Not enought to make an "auto person" switch to a manual, but definetely good points to make a "manual person" like this particular manaul even more! :thumbsup:


If I may also add my $0.02 here.

Originally I wanted an automatic V without the ultraview roof. Basically the same configuration as the one that went around the Ring under 8 minutes. Fair enough! Plus that I need to use the car to drive clients around town. I was worried that the manual would be difficult to drive smoothly. Another issue is the lack of "hand brake" to hold the car when starting on a hill. Call me old school but I think that's a fundamental safety issue.

But at the end of the day I could only find a manual to test drive and I immediately fall in love with the manual. The clutch pedal is perfect both in terms of travel and weight. Excellent communication from the pedal, you can easily feel the biting point which is fairly low. This is good because you can keep your heel on the floor and have very precise control over the clutch engagement without giving your left leg a work out.

The shifts are precise and I did not notice excess vibration from the shifter under acceleration. The shift throw is not extremely short but perfect for day to day spirited driving. I wouldn't feel the need for an aftermarket short throw kit for myself. Then there is the engine. The LSA has so much power down low you can leave the car in 4th most of the time and still easily keep up with the traffic in the city. The engine does not struggle at all. You can skip the 1-2 and 2-3 shift most of the time if you just want to just relax and make your way home.

In my humble opinion, some gearboxes work with you and some you have to work with them. The Audi/VW manuals that I have driven are the ones that you have to work with. Long clutch pedal travel, high engaging point, and not a lot of communication. Shift throws are long and not well defined. It literally takes the fun out of driving the car. I really enjoyed the stick shift from Honda and BMW, the ones that I have driven at least.

After driving the V, I can honestly say that the CTS-V manual transmission is the most satisfying and the best that I have driven so far. A rather pleasant surprise if I may be honest. The wide power band from the engine certainly helps. I can see why most people opt for the automatic, I was one of them. But if you have the chance to take the manual for a spin, why not give it a try?

Hopefully this helps. Enjoy in good health.

garfin
06-21-10, 07:50 AM
Another bit of trivia on the CTSV tranny. According to GMpartsdirect the manual trans costs $3600. The auto costs $1900. I have no idea why the difference - you would think the manual would be less. Maybe it is a typo, that seems too low for an auto trans.

Interesting... in Canada the auto in the V is a $1700 option!

Best regards,

Elie

shchow
06-21-10, 07:50 AM
.. and what a sad day that will be for the manual tranny enthusiasts (like myself).
What the writer of that article fails to understand is the intangible connection of man and machine that only a traditional manual with three pedals can provide. There's just something indescribably wonderful about rowing through the gears using both hands and feet. I'll take 'slow, sloppy and inexact' shifting anyday and when that's gone.. I'd rather take the bus.

When I researched the E60 M5 before getting it, BMW designed the car around the SMG tranny.
Then the company retrofitted a 3 pedal manual exclusively for the North American market. I read an interview discussing this topic. It seems that the American market uniquely identifies 'enthusiast' with manual, whereas most of the rest of the world does not have this bias.
There are alot of factors that influence this thought. Probably the fact that automatic transmissions are so prevalent and most of us in the US grew up driving automatics make the manual seem 'special'.
For the rest of the world, automatics are less common and most grew up driving manuals and view it as nothing special and prefer the convenience and performance of clutchless trannys.

JFJr
06-21-10, 07:52 AM
I haven't driven a "V" with the automatic transmission, but based upon experience, I would bet that it feels and sounds quite different than its manual transmission stable mate. I like the aural sensations as well as the mechanical feel and driving involvement required by my car, could care less about 1/4 mile times, and don't need any aftermarket "tunes" or "parts." The "V" is a road racer not a drag strip queen, but at the end of the day, it's all about what puts a smile on your face.

caddynoob
06-21-10, 08:09 AM
You are welcome. I am just glad to be contributing to this wonderful community.


Thanks for the review form Caddynoob. I am about to order a Coupe-V, since they don't have any exciting colors to decide upon, the only main decision left is Manual or Auto. I thought I had gotten all my shifting enjoyment out with my 03 CTS with a 5-speed, it was the Getrag model and probably one of the best reviewed manual trannys. The whole thing with a Caddy and Manual is just TOO cool. Now with 556 HP AND a Caddy, i just can't see buying the Auto tranny unless it is going to be my daily driver. The "daily driving" aspect ruined the enjoyment i got from my manual tranny in my 03 in my area's heavy traffic and stop lights and signs at every block. But (for me) it is hard to justify the gas mileage, poor tire life, and noisier cabin, as a daily dirver car, soooo I am thinking to go with the manual and occasional use. I was about 90% set on the manual, because I want an "involved" feeling that others on here have said. I like to feel the mechanics and be part of the driving experince, i like having to exibit skill, or at least psychologoically feel like i am part of the "power" of the car, if that makes sense and anyone can relate. Of course those aspects diminish the "luxury" and the major convenince factor of a luxury car, so to me that is a dellima of sorts, if anyone can relate to that as well, haha.

I was going to get a manual in the new Camaro (as the occasional use shifting toy car when i feel like driving a manual) and get the Caddy in the auto, but i just hate being in the Camaro, it has a claustraphobic feeling because of the window and windshield field of vison, combined with seating postion and height of hood. The akward steering wheel and shifter and ergonomics of the car also leaves much to be desired, as much as I really want to like the car with the style and cool colors they have.

I think after reading Caddynoob's post I have increased my desire for the manual to 95%, so THANK YOU Caddysnoob. The pedal effort, travel, engage point, tourqe of car to start out and ability to skip shifts certainly are good points. Not enought to make an "auto person" switch to a manual, but definetely good points to make a "manual person" like this particular manaul even more! :thumbsup:

GMX322V S/C
06-21-10, 02:53 PM
...For the rest of the world, automatics are less common and most grew up driving manuals and view it as nothing special...Couldn't agree more, although I grew up driving manuals here in good ole sunny southern California. It was nothing special in my experience either--seems like everyone I knew drove 'em, girlfriends and sisters included. I get the "connectedness" and "oneness' of the driver's interface to the car--but for me, it's the entire experience, not just that one control interface. In this world-class Grand Touring machine, the auto suites me just fine...

cdog533
06-21-10, 04:15 PM
I just get the feeling of not doing anything in an Auto... The manual is a more interactive experience, for better OR for worse. In traffic, it sucks.

Since I was 16, I've had a few autos, but mostly manuals. You get used to them and it feels odd not having to shift. But, I do agree that F1 style automanuals are/will replace the old H style gear lever.

Luna.
06-21-10, 07:58 PM
Why the manual is a tenth slower still puzzles me. I know automatics can do very well at the drag strip generally. But it just doesn't add up on paper.

We know that there is actually more power to the wheel and less weight with the manual. In the spreadsheet that I attached, it shows that the overall ratio are about the same in 3rd and 4th gear between the manual and auto.

True, the auto has a more aggressive first gear but you are traction limited in 1st gear anyways correct?

Is it then because the auto is easier to launch or the fact that there is no lift on the up shift with the auto that makes up for all the differences? I am assuming that no lift power shift was not used on the manual during test by magazines.

Not trying to stir the pot, just deeply curious as to way.

PERFECTLY ASKED. I've yet to hear a reasonable answer.

Last year, someone spouted off, "because of the gearing." (you mentioned 3rd and 4th gear, but maybe it's 1st and 2nd?)

Now what kind of logic is that?

What can you do with "automatic" gearing than you can with "manual" greaing?

I guess the idea was that GM wanted the 2 versions to be nearly identical in terms of acceleration, so they nerfed the manual transmission car(s).

If that's the case, GM should be shot in the head. Build them each to accelerate as fast as possible and let the consumer pick which version they want. But for God's sake, don't nerf one version because you want to make them accelerate the same--that's just STUPID.

Further, if that is true, then I'd love to know what gear ratios "should" be put in the manual to accelerate faster, for there is NO reason why an automatic is faster than a manual, all things equal.



The manual is slower because of the human factor - it's slow, sloppy and inexact. I for one think it would be great if the V had a DSG transmission option.

Sorry, but this is rubbish.

If one wanted to argue that the auto is more consistent, that might be a true statement. But, barring some driver error, no way does the "human factor" slow the car down, especially since the car is lighter and putting more power to the ground.

Inconsistent? Yeah, because the "human factor" might miss a gear or whatever. BUT, when/if such errors are avoided, which really isn't THAT hard to accomplish, especially for those with lots of experience, then no way is that a true statement.

There's something else going on.

I might be able to buy that the auto is easier to launch, which can generate better 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. But you'd think that those experts would launch the manual great every once in a while...

caddynoob
06-21-10, 09:19 PM
PERFECTLY ASKED

...

Further, if that is true, then I'd love to know what gear ratios "should" be put in the manual to accelerate faster, for there is NO reason why an automatic is faster than a manual, all things equal.

...

Inconsistent? Yeah, because the "human factor" might miss a gear or whatever. BUT, when/if such errors are avoided, which really isn't THAT hard to accomplish, especially for those with lots of experience, then no way is that a true statement.

...

I might be able to buy that the auto is easier to launch, which can generate better 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. But you'd think that those experts would launch the manual great every once in a while...

Some people mentioned that the automatic transmission with the CTS-V can preselect the next gear. So, that surely is one of the factors. Still feels strange to me on paper though.

Is there a link to that info by the way, anyone? I wonder if the same source mentions anything about shift time of the transmission.

Now sadly, a good PDK/DSG type of gearbox will be faster doesn't matter how good you can drive the manual. Ferrari and Lambo are moving completely away from manual. McLaren is not offering manual either. Why bother with the R&D when over 95% of the buyer will opt for the F1/DSG. Mind you that there is nothing wrong with easy performance. F1 and Rally cars use paddle shift for good reasons. The drivers already got enough to worry about and plenty to do, like drinking coke.

Check this video out.
YouTube- Porsche 911 Turbo

Frank Rizzo
06-25-10, 12:37 AM
Sorry, but this is rubbish.

snip

There's something else going on.

I might be able to buy that the auto is easier to launch, which can generate better 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. But you'd think that those experts would launch the manual great every once in a while...

Well then, you should continue asking the question until you get the answer you are looking for.

To insinuate that a human being can outperform a computer controlled six or seven speed automatic transmission is foolish and uninformed. :histeric:

The primary reason to go with a manual transmission is personal enjoyment. The tactile feel is important to the overall driving experience but only makes the car "feel" faster but not actually faster in real life.

Dont forget to lament the disappearance of the manual parking brake. It's on the hit list too....

mugatu22
06-25-10, 03:25 AM
Well then, you should continue asking the question until you get the answer you are looking for.

To insinuate that a human being can outperform a computer controlled six or seven speed automatic transmission is foolish and uninformed. :histeric:

The primary reason to go with a manual transmission is personal enjoyment. The tactile feel is important to the overall driving experience but only makes the car "feel" faster but not actually faster in real life.


+1 nail on the head

SD Detail
06-25-10, 09:28 AM
In my humble opinion, some gearboxes work with you and some you have to work with them. The Audi/VW manuals that I have driven are the ones that you have to work with. Long clutch pedal travel, high engaging point, and not a lot of communication. Shift throws are long and not well defined. It literally takes the fun out of driving the car. I really enjoyed the stick shift from Honda and BMW, the ones that I have driven at least.



+1 on the Audi manual. I drive a 6spd. A5 and there is almost no pedal feel, the shifts are squishy and not as direct as I would like. I have had my car for 18months and I can drive my friends Porsche Turbo manual more precisely than my own... that says something about Audi manuals.

One of the reasons in fact I am looking to get out of my car and into a V :thumbsup:

neuronbob
06-25-10, 10:09 AM
The primary reason to go with a manual transmission is personal enjoyment. The tactile feel is important to the overall driving experience but only makes the car "feel" faster but not actually faster in real life.

Too true. I keep my Honda S2000 precisely for this reason....not to mention that it has the sweetest short shifting 6MT I've ever had the pleasure to experience. Then there's that shriek once you get it into VTEC, headed for 9k rpm. :drool: It will be a sad day when MTs are gone forever, and that day is not too far off.....

JFJr mentioned the aural experience of the manual transmission. He's also right about that. In this car, if you tune the tranny (I know, you don't want to JFJr, but I have to mention it... :) ) and use the sport setting, the aural experience is almost there.

backup
06-25-10, 02:51 PM
The difference in performance betwen auto and manual is simply due to the time required for a manual shift. If the scale is tenths of a second in acceleration, the .2 or .3 seconds a perfect manual shift takes is all the difference versus a .1 second (or less) shift of the auto. No-lift shift is fun and keeps the boost on, but you still have to clutch-in, shift, clutch-out.

If your measurement is 0-150, the manual may be quicker as the weight and power difference has a chance to makeup the lost time in shifting versus the auto. But in 0-60, or even 1/4 mile times the auto is proven quicker and more consistent.

I still prefer the manual though! Just feels better to me. That said, extremely quick shifting in the TR-6060 is a weak spot, I have banged a gear or two trying to get too fast. Especially 1st to 2nd on a no-lift shift. Could be a synchro thing.

GMX322V S/C
06-25-10, 03:24 PM
When you M6 guys are hustling, do you like to pre-load the shifter before de-clutching or do you only start the shifter moving as you're de-clutching? Pre-loading can make for some lightning shifts--if the synchros are up for it of course.

JFJr
06-25-10, 04:02 PM
When you M6 guys are hustling, do you like to pre-load the shifter before de-clutching or do you only start the shifter moving as you're de-clutching? Pre-loading can make for some lightning shifts--if the synchros are up for it of course.Under those circumstances I usually have my hand on the shifter all the time until I'm finished going through the gears. I probably am exerting a little pressure on the shifter before de-clutching, but wouldn't too much pressure lead to missed shifts? Do you have personal experience with that or are you volunteering for the experiment (ha haa!)? I'm a fairly slow shifter and wouldn't be a good guinea pig.

caddynoob
06-25-10, 04:18 PM
To insinuate that a human being can outperform a computer controlled six or seven speed automatic transmission is foolish and uninformed. :histeric:



Actually with all due respect I disagree!

First of all, let's separate "automatic" transmission into 3 different categories.

1. Automatic with torque converter. E.g. IS-F, CTS-V, and most cars from AMG, Porsche Tiptronic.

2. Automated manual. E.g. Ferrari 360/F430/575/599, BMW M3/M5 SMG.

3. Twin Clutch Gearbox. E.g. Porsche PDK, Ferrari California/458, Audi R8...etc.

With category 2 and 3. I would agree that all other things being equal, it's hard to beat them with a manual gearbox. But for something with a torque converter, I am not so sure.

Torque converter have come a long way, but I am not sure if they have the advantage over manual in the performance department. After all, Porsche Tiptronic did not outperform their manual counter part with maybe the exception of 997.1 Turbo.

GMX322V S/C
06-25-10, 04:54 PM
Under those circumstances I usually have my hand on the shifter all the time until I'm finished going through the gears. I probably am exerting a little pressure on the shifter before de-clutching, but wouldn't too much pressure lead to missed shifts? Do you have personal experience with that or are you volunteering for the experiment (ha haa!)? I'm a fairly slow shifter and wouldn't be a good guinea pig.Personal experience, but not in a V. Preloading allows the lever to begin moving as soon and as quickly as possible--of course, pulling too hard is hard on your shift forks before release and hard on your synchros if you crash in, so there's a balance.

If you want a great demo, try to catch an Australian V8 Supercars race on Speed. They sometimes do these great in-car shots where you can watch some of the guys works the controls--it's a beautiful symphony to behold (the announcers remain silent and enjoy it with the viewing audience). You can clearly see preload in action--but keep in mind they're running race-prepped/purposed trannys...

garfin
06-25-10, 05:28 PM
Personal experience, but not in a V. Preloading allows the lever to begin moving as soon and as quickly as possible--of course, pulling too hard is hard on your shift forks before release and hard on your synchros if you crash in, so there's a balance.

If you want a great demo, try to catch an Australian V8 Supercars race on Speed. They sometimes do these great in-car shots where you can watch some of the guys works the controls--it's a beautiful symphony to behold (the announcers remain silent and enjoy it with the viewing audience). You can clearly see preload in action--but keep in mind they're running race-prepped/purposed trannys...

I've definitely pre-loaded the shifter a number of times when shifting in my Camaro and not only does it make for slightly quicker shifts, it also seems to make it easier to shift smoothly at higher RPMs. The Camaro's tranny has been beefed up a bit for track use, with stainless steel shift forks and carbon fibre synchros, but I still wouldn't want to make a regular habit of shifting this way...
Haven't done it with the V yet.

Best regards,

Elie

snzuloz
06-25-10, 05:43 PM
Actually with all due respect I disagree!

First of all, let's separate "automatic" transmission into 3 different categories.

1. Automatic with torque converter. E.g. IS-F, CTS-V, and most cars from AMG, Porsche Tiptronic.

2. Automated manual. E.g. Ferrari 360/F430/575/599, BMW M3/M5 SMG.

3. Twin Clutch Gearbox. E.g. Porsche PDK, Ferrari California/458, Audi R8...etc.

With category 2 and 3. I would agree that all other things being equal, it's hard to beat them with a manual gearbox. But for something with a torque converter, I am not so sure.

Torque converter have come a long way, but I am not sure if they have the advantage over manual in the performance department. After all, Porsche Tiptronic did not outperform their manual counter part with maybe the exception of 997.1 Turbo.

Are you implying that the manual is faster than an auto then? How can you compare shift times, the auto is going to shift faster no matter what you do, why do you think they have faster quarter mile times? what do you think the torque converter is doing? why do people always think the manuals are the best at everything :thepan: :stirpot:

GMX322V S/C
06-25-10, 05:48 PM
Here's an interesting article on how manual trannys work, along with some of the differences between a street trans and a racing trans: Car Craft: Inside a Drag Race Transmission (http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_0904_inside_a_high_performance_drag_race_manu al_transmission/index.html)

"Racers demand fast, accurate shifts. "Synchronizers can bind and hang up between shifts. You can't have that happen during a race," McManus says. So most racing transmissions don't run traditional synchros and blocking rings. Instead, sliders directly engage dog rings attached to the gears. The dog rings' teeth are much wider and are spaced farther apart than in street transmissions. Lugs on the slider engage and lock the dogs very quickly, allowing lightning-quick shifts without the pause in Neutral you feel in a street transmission. It's even possible to upshift a dog box without using the clutch. A quick lift off the gas unloads the gears, and you can pull the lever directly into the next gear and get right back on the gas."

Sounds like powershifting :)

Why synchros and not direct dog engagement in a street trans? Probably noise and maintenance requirements. Maybe some racers can chime in.

Another interesting tidbit I had forgotten about: for very high horsepower applications, the Lenco uses a planetary gearset--just like an automatic transmission :)

4gear70
06-25-10, 05:49 PM
why do people always think the manuals are the best at everything

:bigroll:

4gear70
06-25-10, 06:05 PM
Why synchros and not direct dog engagement in a street trans? Probably noise and maintenance requirements. Maybe some racers can chime in.


It makes it harder to shift under part throttle as well some accelerated wear but allows much better shifting at high RPM.
Grinding off every 2nd tooth on the syncros in the old Muncies accomplished a great high rpm shifting tranny but not very streetable.. so mostly used in racing applications.



Another interesting tidbit I had forgotten about: for very high horsepower applications, the Lenco uses a planetary gearset--just like an automatic transmission :)

Take a look at Jerico Performance Transmissions. They make excellent racing trans (Drag and Road racing) including clutchless versions.

snzuloz
06-25-10, 07:07 PM
:tisk:
:bigroll:

Luna.
06-25-10, 09:06 PM
Well then, you should continue asking the question until you get the answer you are looking for.

To insinuate that a human being can outperform a computer controlled six or seven speed automatic transmission is foolish and uninformed. :histeric:

The primary reason to go with a manual transmission is personal enjoyment. The tactile feel is important to the overall driving experience but only makes the car "feel" faster but not actually faster in real life.

Dont forget to lament the disappearance of the manual parking brake. It's on the hit list too....

First of all, I am a fan of how this reply was worded: "...that a human being can outperform a computer controlled..."

Wow, when you word it like THAT, yeah, it doesn't seem possible.

Unfortunately, we aren't talking about Excel calculating the square root of 5,678,345 vs. a human, we're talking about shifting gears in a '09/10 CTS-V, and we aren't exactly talking super-trans with that setup either.

Now, I never drove an auto-shifting V, but my initial reaction was, "no friggin way."

As such, I went to my local dealership and drove one around for a few minutes and now I say,

NO FRIGGIN WAY.

If that transmission shifts significantly faster (if faster at all) than me in my manual, I'll eat my football, especially if we are talking about the 1-2 shift. 2-3 seems to be the most difficult, while 3-4 is back to pretty friggin fast, for you just slam it straight down.

Hell, I'm willing to bet that's one of the bigger requests for improvement for after-market tuners, "Make this trans shift faster!"

Now, here's the interesting part:

These miniscule, claimed improvements over the auto shifting vs. the manual shifting...

It overcomes (on average, based on Gary Wells earlier threads) about 30 rwhp/rwtq, as well as the manual car being lighter?!?!?

Sorry, that just doesn't pass the smell test to me.

I got news for you: You can FEEL an improvement of even 10 rwtq.

And you're going to tell me that upwards of 30rwhp/rwtq, as well as less weight, gets eaten up by a faster shifting transmission in the 1/4 mile?

Keep dreaming...there's something else going on here.

As such, yeah, I'll keep asking until a reasonable answer is found, for this certainly does NOT seem reasonable to me.

I'm also considering that maybe the auto is just easier to launch/control down the track or something. It's often easier to launch a car with less rwhp/rwtq than one with more (this isn't a bash towards the AT transmission), so maybe that has something to do with it.

Only as a result of faster shifting?

A serious head-scratcher, if not downright B.S., that's for sure.


Are you implying that the manual is faster than an auto then? How can you compare shift times, the auto is going to shift faster no matter what you do, why do you think they have faster quarter mile times? what do you think the torque converter is doing? why do people always think the manuals are the best at everything :thepan: :stirpot:

There are so many things incorrect about this quote, I'm not sure where to start, but it's easiest at the end.

That, by definition, is a strawman argument.

Try again...

caddynoob
06-25-10, 10:42 PM
Are you implying that the manual is faster than an auto then? How can you compare shift times, the auto is going to shift faster no matter what you do, why do you think they have faster quarter mile times? what do you think the torque converter is doing? why do people always think the manuals are the best at everything :thepan: :stirpot:

Ever heard of the term slushbox? Automatic transmission have always known to have worse performance. With very special exceptions like modified Toyota Supra, no lift uplift helps keeping the boost.

In recent years, automatic transmission have gotten better and better. The auto out accelerates the manual on the 997.1 Turbo. Mind you that it is NOT because the auto shifts faster. Gearing and no lifting during upshift has more to do with it.

With the exception of the boosted 997.1 Turbo, Porsche Tiptronic did not out perform on Boxster, Carrera and Carrera S. Try explain that.

The fact that the auto out-performed the manual on the V does not make it the general case. In fact it really is the exception rather than the norm.

caddynoob
06-25-10, 10:50 PM
As such, yeah, I'll keep asking until a reasonable answer is found, for this certainly does NOT seem reasonable to me.

I'm also considering that maybe the auto is just easier to launch/control down the track or something. It's often easier to launch a car with less rwhp/rwtq than one with more (this isn't a bash towards the AT transmission), so maybe that has something to do with it.

Only as a result of faster shifting?



You can keep on asking the question but never get the answer that you are looking for or get the answer that you want.

I have never driven the auto V, but I have watched the video of one going around the Ring. My impression is that it doesn't shift crazy fast. Nothing like a DSG/PDK to say the least.

snzuloz
06-25-10, 10:51 PM
First of all, I am a fan of how this reply was worded: "...that a human being can outperform a computer controlled..."

Wow, when you word it like THAT, yeah, it doesn't seem possible.

Unfortunately, we aren't talking about Excel calculating the square root of 5,678,345 vs. a human, we're talking about shifting gears in a '09/10 CTS-V, and we aren't exactly talking super-trans with that setup either.

Now, I never drove an auto-shifting V, but my initial reaction was, "no friggin way."

As such, I went to my local dealership and drove one around for a few minutes and now I say,

NO FRIGGIN WAY.

If that transmission shifts significantly faster (if faster at all) than me in my manual, I'll eat my football, especially if we are talking about the 1-2 shift. 2-3 seems to be the most difficult, while 3-4 is back to pretty friggin fast, for you just slam it straight down.

Hell, I'm willing to bet that's one of the bigger requests for improvement for after-market tuners, "Make this trans shift faster!"

Now, here's the interesting part:

These miniscule, claimed improvements over the auto shifting vs. the manual shifting...

It overcomes (on average, based on Gary Wells earlier threads) about 30 rwhp/rwtq, as well as the manual car being lighter?!?!?

Sorry, that just doesn't pass the smell test to me.

I got news for you: You can FEEL an improvement of even 10 rwtq.

And you're going to tell me that upwards of 30rwhp/rwtq, as well as less weight, gets eaten up by a faster shifting transmission in the 1/4 mile?

Keep dreaming...there's something else going on here.

As such, yeah, I'll keep asking until a reasonable answer is found, for this certainly does NOT seem reasonable to me.

I'm also considering that maybe the auto is just easier to launch/control down the track or something. It's often easier to launch a car with less rwhp/rwtq than one with more (this isn't a bash towards the AT transmission), so maybe that has something to do with it.

Only as a result of faster shifting?

A serious head-scratcher, if not downright B.S., that's for sure.



There are so many things incorrect about this quote, I'm not sure where to start, but it's easiest at the end.

That, by definition, is a strawman argument.

Try again...

Whatever to the last part of your story... When you test drove the car did you use the sport setting or just the regular position? big difference between the two. The other thing about it if you like the manual better buy it and don't complain about the automatics, i could care less what you think... what are the quarter mile times like with the manuals? are they really that much different than the auto's? isn't this what the forum's are for-conversation or just bashing? typical

snzuloz
06-25-10, 10:55 PM
Ever heard of the term slushbox? Automatic transmission have always known to have worse performance. With very special exceptions like modified Toyota Supra, no lift uplift helps keeping the boost.

In recent years, automatic transmission have gotten better and better. The auto out accelerates the manual on the 997.1 Turbo. Mind you that it is NOT because the auto shifts faster. Gearing and no lifting during upshift has more to do with it.

With the exception of the boosted 997.1 Turbo, Porsche Tiptronic did not out perform on Boxster, Carrera and Carrera S. Try explain that.

The fact that the auto out-performed the manual on the V does not make it the general case. In fact it really is the exception rather than the norm.

The old term slushbox is just that-old! get into the new millenium and look around, and there are plenty of vehicles that outperform with a well built automatic vs a manual. Like i said before just giving my .02$, IF YOU WANT EITHER BUY IT AND ENJOY, I DO...:duck:

Luna.
06-26-10, 12:43 AM
Whatever to the last part of your story...

Now why is that? Because I'm right??? :confused:

It's a strawman argument. Don't get mad because you made a mistake.



When you test drove the car did you use the sport setting or just the regular position? big difference between the two.

Sport, of course.


The other thing about it if you like the manual better buy it and don't complain about the automatics, i could care less what you think...

Huh??

Who's complaining about automatics?

Further, if you don't care what I think, don't read, nor respond, then.


what are the quarter mile times like with the manuals? are they really that much different than the auto's? isn't this what the forum's are for-conversation or just bashing? typical

The manuals have often timed a hair slower than the automatics and some, myself included, just want to know WHY.

I, for one, certainly am NOT bashing automatics (hell, I almost purchased one), nor do I want them to be slower, think they suck, or anything else. Try reading what was actually said, not what you want it to say.

I'm just very curious as to why the manuals time slower than the autos, that's all. It's just very confusing to me, for, on paper, that seems almost impossible (& I think Caddynoob agrees here--hell, I was responding to his initial question!!).

Then again, I HAVE READ Car and Driver literally say exactly that. Two versions of basically the same car, on paper, was just impossible for 1 to be faster than the other, but that's what happened on the road.

Maybe this is one of those times...a mystery of some sorts.

The only complaint I logged was that IF GM intentionally did something (like gearing) to make the cars accelerate the same, held one version back, etc., that would be egregious and just an awful decision to make & GM should be stoned if that's true.


You can keep on asking the question but never get the answer that you are looking for or get the answer that you want.

I just want an explanation that makes sense. I just have to believe that someone, somewhere, knows the "truth" and can provide good feedback.

Is that really so awful?? :hmm:

I honestly could care less which is faster than the other.

And if the answer really is only due to a faster shifting transmission, so be it (& I'm talking about no-lift from the manual perspective as well). I have no bias or axe to grind. It's just head-shakingly illogical though & I'd have to think about it a lot more if that was reality.

GMX322V S/C
06-26-10, 05:12 AM
...And if the answer really is only due to a faster shifting transmission, so be it (& I'm talking about no-lift from the manual perspective as well)...But Luna, even with no-lift, the car briefly stops accelerating during shifts, whereas the automatic basically keeps accelerating with its dual-clutch planetary gearbox. With the torque converter locked from 2nd on up, maybe that makes a minuscule difference.

The overall drive ratios/speed in gears are very close between the transmission types (except 6th of course). The auto's torque multiplication in 1st isn't much of an advantage when the manual can completely roast the tires in 1st as well, but maybe the fluid coupling helps regulate wheelspin out of the hole? (max acceleration is achieved when there is the slight amount of wheelspin)

I'm on the fence with the absolute differences in weight and efficiency too. The GM Media spec'd weight between the two trannys was like 40 pounds or something like that--whatever it was, it wasn't the 100 "est." pounds mentioned in all of the early press releases. No doubt the auto is less efficient--I mean, the energy needed to create line pressure that works the clutches and gearchange has to come from somewhere, right? But how many HP is it really--and is it parasitic enough to overcome the slight constant acceleration advantage?

Whatever the net difference is, we know it's very, very small...

mugatu22
06-26-10, 05:15 AM
Ever heard of the term slushbox? Automatic transmission have always known to have worse performance. With very special exceptions like modified Toyota Supra, no lift uplift helps keeping the boost.

In recent years, automatic transmission have gotten better and better. The auto out accelerates the manual on the 997.1 Turbo. Mind you that it is NOT because the auto shifts faster. Gearing and no lifting during upshift has more to do with it.

With the exception of the boosted 997.1 Turbo, Porsche Tiptronic did not out perform on Boxster, Carrera and Carrera S. Try explain that.

The fact that the auto out-performed the manual on the V does not make it the general case. In fact it really is the exception rather than the norm.


Slushbox = torque converter.

Dual clutch hydraulic "automatic" = better performance than a manual. Faster shifts, faster down shifts, perfect rev matching. It's why Porsche went to the PDK...doesn't use a torque converter. Neither do the Ferrari or Lamborghini or BMW or new MBZ autos.

BTW the PDK equipped 911 Turbo out-accelerates the 6spd, as most DCT versions do for almost all marquees.

neuronbob
06-26-10, 06:17 AM
Um, guys......getting a little hot under the collar about tranny selection, are we?

Does it REALLY matter which one is better? I really don't care, to be honest. I like my auto V because I drive it in rush hour traffic and don't want to wear out my shifter leg. On the days I feel like shifting, that's what my S2000 is for. See, I get the best of both worlds. If you love your 6MT V, good on ya, I rode in wait4me's last weekend and it was a BLAST, a bloody thrill ride....and that was just on the street.

Can't we just accept and be happy that both the 6AT and 6MT are faster than 99.8% of all cars out there, and that we are privileged to be able to afford to drive one? Most people can only DREAM of driving a V, let alone OWN one in these uncertain economic times. Things could be worse.....I could have to drive a rusty Yugo to work every day....

"Can't we all just get along?" :rofl:

roarkb
06-26-10, 08:58 AM
There are many theories about why the auto is faster posted on this site. Most posted by people who have never launched a 6m from a standing start who speak as if they are experts. I have a 6m and have been to the drag strip a few times and will offer some insight.

Driving a manual V off the line is a significant challenge to do properly. I would have to admit that the auto would most likely be easier to accomplish a powerful start.

Based on my experience of trying to launch the V, the problem is that the torque curve of the V starts so early, that leaving without massive wheelspin is very difficult. The skill of releasing the clutch while simultaneously pushing the gas seems difficult to master, especially on street tires. I have several runs under my belt now and seem to be getting much better. The weather has not cooperated here locally to let me test the last 2 weekends, but I will get back out there shortly.

The local track is a 1/8 mile so I will get the launch down and then go fine a ¼ mile track to get some direct comparisons. In just two outings of testing, it is clear that the problem is in the first 60 feet, once it gets traction the car accelerates at an incredible pace. My 60 foot times have been awful around the 2.1-2.2 range. The car is so powerful that it just rips the tires to shreds (meaning no acceleration) or if I drop the RPM’s to low it stalls (meaning no acceleration). Finding the right combination, with me as rookie drag race driver, has proven to be difficult. But my time has improved over 1/2 of second is only two outings. The no lift shift works great and my shifting is getting much better. I think I can find another 1/4-1/2 second and I am convinced it will come with more practice, as I am currently not even close to optimum.

I recognize the problem is my skill at launching the car, not that the 6m is slow. I am not saying buy a 6m or auto. I would like them both for different reasons. Choose what you want. But don't assume the 6m is slow, just because some magazine driver can't launch the car. You might see the taillights of one of us who is taking the time to learn. :stirpot:

backup
06-26-10, 09:01 AM
I'm on the fence with the absolute differences in weight and efficiency too. The GM Media spec'd weight between the two trannys was like 40 pounds or something like that--whatever it was, it wasn't the 100 "est." pounds mentioned in all of the early press releases. No doubt the auto is less efficient--I mean, the energy needed to create line pressure that works the clutches and gearchange has to come from somewhere, right? But how many HP is it really--and is it parasitic enough to overcome the slight constant acceleration advantage?

Whatever the net difference is, we know it's very, very small...

According to GM Media the weight difference is 95 pounds, with fluids. Also, according to the data and analysis done by Gary, the manual trans allows about 30 more rwhp and tq. Therein lies the crux of this debate - why is the manual slower in acceleration with less weight and more power to the wheels. It must be gearing or shifting, and I think shifting is the biggest factor.

dqw1
06-26-10, 09:58 AM
There are many theories about why the auto is faster posted on this site. Most posted by people who have never launched a 6m from a standing start who speak as if they are experts. I have a 6m and have been to the drag strip a few times and will offer some insight.

Driving a manual V off the line is a significant challenge to do properly. I would have to admit that the auto would most likely be easier to accomplish a powerful start.

Based on my experience of trying to launch the V, the problem is that the torque curve of the V starts so early, that leaving without massive wheelspin is very difficult. The skill of releasing the clutch while simultaneously pushing the gas seems difficult to master, especially on street tires. I have several runs under my belt now and seem to be getting much better. The weather has not cooperated here locally to let me test the last 2 weekends, but I will get back out there shortly.

The local track is a 1/8 mile so I will get the launch down and then go fine a ¼ mile track to get some direct comparisons. In just two outings of testing, it is clear that the problem is in the first 60 feet, once it gets traction the car accelerates at an incredible pace. My 60 foot times have been awful around the 2.1-2.2 range. The car is so powerful that it just rips the tires to shreds (meaning no acceleration) or if I drop the RPM’s to low it stalls (meaning no acceleration). Finding the right combination, with me as rookie drag race driver, has proven to be difficult. But my time has improved over 1/2 of second is only two outings. The no lift shift works great and my shifting is getting much better. I think I can find another 1/4-1/2 second and I am convinced it will come with more practice, as I am currently not even close to optimum.

I recognize the problem is my skill at launching the car, not that the 6m is slow. I am not saying buy a 6m or auto. I would like them both for different reasons. Choose what you want. But don't assume the 6m is slow, just because some magazine driver can't launch the car. You might see the taillights of one of us who is taking the time to learn. :stirpot:
Off topic, but what color is your V? The only V I've seen in the area is the silver one belonging to Asabase. Mine is a Raven with Roll-Tide plates. Hope to see you on the road somewhere.

caddynoob
06-26-10, 10:07 AM
I just want an explanation that makes sense. I just have to believe that someone, somewhere, knows the "truth" and can provide good feedback.

Is that really so awful?? :hmm:

I honestly could care less which is faster than the other.

And if the answer really is only due to a faster shifting transmission, so be it (& I'm talking about no-lift from the manual perspective as well). I have no bias or axe to grind. It's just head-shakingly illogical though & I'd have to think about it a lot more if that was reality.

Oh no sir. Don't get me wrong. I am just as curious about the truth as you do. I am just not sure if we can find it here.

caddynoob
06-26-10, 10:12 AM
Slushbox = torque converter.

Dual clutch hydraulic "automatic" = better performance than a manual. Faster shifts, faster down shifts, perfect rev matching. It's why Porsche went to the PDK...doesn't use a torque converter. Neither do the Ferrari or Lamborghini or BMW or new MBZ autos.

BTW the PDK equipped 911 Turbo out-accelerates the 6spd, as most DCT versions do for almost all marquees.

If you read my original posts, you will see that I clearly know the differences between different transmission technology. By the way, not only is the 997.2 PDK faster than the manual. Even the Tiptronic 997.1 Turbo is faster than the manual, but not the naturally aspirated Tiptronic models. I never denied that traditional auto can be faster than manual. But most people should know that it is the exception rather than the norm.

The CTS-V has a torque converter, which puts it in the slowest category of automatic transmissions. Yet the number suggests that it has a slight edge in performance, which makes me curious as to why, that's all. I don't care which is faster at the end.

caddynoob
06-26-10, 10:20 AM
The old term slushbox is just that-old! get into the new millenium and look around, and there are plenty of vehicles that outperform with a well built automatic vs a manual. Like i said before just giving my .02$, IF YOU WANT EITHER BUY IT AND ENJOY, I DO...:duck:

I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. I would love to see a list of vehicles where the auto (with a torque converter) outperforms the manual. Let's see if you can find 10. Like you said, there should be plentiful. I will start the list for you.

1. Porsche 997.1 Turbo Tiptronic
2. CTS-V
3. ___________

roarkb
06-26-10, 10:55 AM
Off topic, but what color is your V? The only V I've seen in the area is the silver one belonging to Asabase. Mine is a Raven with Roll-Tide plates. Hope to see you on the road somewhere.

Black Raven - Plate "Bills V"

snzuloz
06-26-10, 10:57 AM
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. I would love to see a list of vehicles where the auto (with a torque converter) outperforms the manual. Let's see if you can find 10. Like you said, there should be plentiful. I will start the list for you.

1. Porsche 997.1 Turbo Tiptronic
2. CTS-V
3. ___________

There are plenty of cars out there that the automatics are just as fast or faster than the manual version, just about any performance based vehicle now has a much better automatic than the old days... ever see a turbo buick with a stick? wonder why? whatever, some people never learn. Keep reading road and track...

snzuloz
06-26-10, 11:04 AM
There are many theories about why the auto is faster posted on this site. Most posted by people who have never launched a 6m from a standing start who speak as if they are experts. I have a 6m and have been to the drag strip a few times and will offer some insight.

Driving a manual V off the line is a significant challenge to do properly. I would have to admit that the auto would most likely be easier to accomplish a powerful start.

Based on my experience of trying to launch the V, the problem is that the torque curve of the V starts so early, that leaving without massive wheelspin is very difficult. The skill of releasing the clutch while simultaneously pushing the gas seems difficult to master, especially on street tires. I have several runs under my belt now and seem to be getting much better. The weather has not cooperated here locally to let me test the last 2 weekends, but I will get back out there shortly.

The local track is a 1/8 mile so I will get the launch down and then go fine a ¼ mile track to get some direct comparisons. In just two outings of testing, it is clear that the problem is in the first 60 feet, once it gets traction the car accelerates at an incredible pace. My 60 foot times have been awful around the 2.1-2.2 range. The car is so powerful that it just rips the tires to shreds (meaning no acceleration) or if I drop the RPM’s to low it stalls (meaning no acceleration). Finding the right combination, with me as rookie drag race driver, has proven to be difficult. But my time has improved over 1/2 of second is only two outings. The no lift shift works great and my shifting is getting much better. I think I can find another 1/4-1/2 second and I am convinced it will come with more practice, as I am currently not even close to optimum.

I recognize the problem is my skill at launching the car, not that the 6m is slow. I am not saying buy a 6m or auto. I would like them both for different reasons. Choose what you want. But don't assume the 6m is slow, just because some magazine driver can't launch the car. You might see the taillights of one of us who is taking the time to learn. :stirpot:

Very good write-up, definately not that easy to launch apparantly with a 2.1-2.2 60ft. I had even worse 60ft's first time with mine also running 13-14 second quarter miles. The auto is not easy to launch, basically just squeezing the throttle down slow or the tires let loose instantly, my best 60 was 1.9, compare the loss at the start at it's easy for the e.t. to slip away fast.

Something doesn't add up if the manual car weighs that much less and has more power the e.t.'s should be noticeably different.

What's the fastest 1/4 mile that a stock manual has achieved?

JFJr
06-26-10, 11:34 AM
Ha haa! I'm still trying to picture this high performance luxury sedan as a drag strip queen; it's hilarious! Some of you guys are possessed (in a good way). At least the discussion is getting more objective now that the emotions seem to be calming down. While I could care less about drag racing, I am interested in the real reasons the auto is quicker in the 1/4 mile, and it appears that we are getting close to the answer. The fact that we can have this discussion about a Cadillac is amazing in itself. Remember the days before the last generation CTS-V?

caddynoob
06-26-10, 11:46 AM
There are plenty of cars out there that the automatics are just as fast or faster than the manual version, just about any performance based vehicle now has a much better automatic than the old days... ever see a turbo buick with a stick? wonder why? whatever, some people never learn. Keep reading road and track...

In my line of work, one simply cannot just make a claim without supporting data. That is what you are doing here, which makes this discussion pointless.

I found another one example for you by the way. The 2010 Camaro. The GM press said that this is due to optimized shift points with the automatic. So, in some cases, it could be that the manual gearbox is not as well optimized, rather than torque converter automatic being a fundamentally superior technology for acceleration performance.

1. Porsche 997.1 Turbo Tiptronic
2. CTS-V
3. 2010 Camaro
4. ________

snzuloz
06-26-10, 12:19 PM
In my line of work, one simply cannot just make a claim without supporting data. That is what you are doing here, which makes this discussion pointless.

I found another one example for you by the way. The 2010 Camaro. The GM press said that this is due to optimized shift points with the automatic. So, in some cases, it could be that the manual gearbox is not as well optimized, rather than torque converter automatic being a fundamentally superior technology for acceleration performance.

1. Porsche 997.1 Turbo Tiptronic
2. CTS-V
3. 2010 Camaro
4. ________

:worship::yawn:

Gary Wells
06-26-10, 12:42 PM
There are plenty of cars out there that the automatics are just as fast or faster than the manual version, just about any performance based vehicle now has a much better automatic than the old days... ever see a turbo buick with a stick? wonder why? whatever, some people never learn. Keep reading road and track...

Nope, never seen one. Not that I remember. At least any documented on the build sheet out of the factory. How could that be?

trans_lux
06-26-10, 01:02 PM
Auto's, and the acronyms i.e. SMG, PPK, DKG, F1 etc. are faster in the hands of 99% of drivers and offer an option for those who either can't or don't want to deal with the 3rd pedal.
However IMHO a good manual transmission with proper pedal placement such as the one in the CTS-V connects and involves the driver with the car that none can and I think I have driven most if not all of them.
Yes I'm slower in the manual, miss a gear every now and then, and my left leg gets tired in stop and go traffic but its all worth the joy I feel when I row through the gears with a couple no lift shifts and hit a couple heel toe downshifts.

This for me this is what high performance driving is all about.

4gear70
06-26-10, 01:17 PM
There are many theories about why the auto is faster posted on this site. Most posted by people who have never launched a 6m from a standing start who speak as if they are experts. I have a 6m and have been to the drag strip a few times and will offer some insight.

Driving a manual V off the line is a significant challenge to do properly. I would have to admit that the auto would most likely be easier to accomplish a powerful start.

Based on my experience of trying to launch the V, the problem is that the torque curve of the V starts so early, that leaving without massive wheelspin is very difficult. The skill of releasing the clutch while simultaneously pushing the gas seems difficult to master, especially on street tires. I have several runs under my belt now and seem to be getting much better. The weather has not cooperated here locally to let me test the last 2 weekends, but I will get back out there shortly.

The local track is a 1/8 mile so I will get the launch down and then go fine a ¼ mile track to get some direct comparisons. In just two outings of testing, it is clear that the problem is in the first 60 feet, once it gets traction the car accelerates at an incredible pace. My 60 foot times have been awful around the 2.1-2.2 range. The car is so powerful that it just rips the tires to shreds (meaning no acceleration) or if I drop the RPM’s to low it stalls (meaning no acceleration). Finding the right combination, with me as rookie drag race driver, has proven to be difficult. But my time has improved over 1/2 of second is only two outings. The no lift shift works great and my shifting is getting much better. I think I can find another 1/4-1/2 second and I am convinced it will come with more practice, as I am currently not even close to optimum.

I recognize the problem is my skill at launching the car, not that the 6m is slow. I am not saying buy a 6m or auto. I would like them both for different reasons. Choose what you want. But don't assume the 6m is slow, just because some magazine driver can't launch the car. You might see the taillights of one of us who is taking the time to learn. :stirpot:

Good post and you've pretty much answered the real question here. The V is traction limited as it is with the street tires. Couple that with questionable track prep and with a manual you're battling with lots of extra variables to get a consistent quality launch. I've been to the drag strip and road track with many cars in my life (autos and manuals) and the launch is everything for the 1/4. That 60' time is the difference in ET... mph not so much. On street tires, the auto has the advantage of not shock loading the drivetrain as much (and shredding the tires) and launching well at idle or slightly higher rpm. The auto does a good job of absorbing much of the launch shock. Throw some slicks on these cars and see that the manual will actually 60' better.. why? because you can launch at whatever rpm you decide (3500, 4000, 5000 whatever) and hooking up is everything. Hook up with a high RPM launch and watch that ET drop fast! Rough rule of thumb for this class is every 1/10 off the 60' is good for about 1.5-2 tenths off the top end.

Now on a road course, I would suspect very little difference in times between auto/manual as launching from a stand still isn't usually an issue. Those in between gear changes (2-3, 3-4) really don't make that much of a difference. Take any road racing course and see that they instruct you to make your shift quick and smooth and get your hands back on the wheel. You don't have to power shift or slam through the gears as it will make very little difference to lap times. However on any long straights, I'd give the high mph edge to the manual with it's fully locked up clutch putting all the power to the wheels (which is what we are seeing with the dyno runs).
Btw, this is not directed at you roarkb, but one other thing is Quicker and Faster are two different things!

Oh, and I think both the Auto and Manual version of this car are Awesome!!! Different people prefer different versions and that's perfectly fine. Enjoy whatever you drive! :)

Gary Wells
06-26-10, 01:37 PM
Aha, how about some "food for thought" questions? And maybe a few thoughts of my own.
From a sample size of 22 different dyno runs on a DynaJet dyno, the A6 automatic averaged 463 RWHP & 449 RWTQ.
From a sample size of 4 different dyno runs on a DynaJet dyno, the M6 manual averaged 491 RWHP & 480 RWTQ. (4 readings is a weak sample size but it's all that I have found). So, the manual has 38 or so more RWHP & 31 RWTQ that the auto.

Now, of all of the recorded 1/4 '09 & up CTS-V runs that I have all are autos excepting 1.

Cad CTS-V2 bone *stock* ¼ elapsed times & MPH’s, Owners, 60 ft.

¼ ET------MPH------trans-----owner---------60 ft. times

11.99-----118.0-----auto-----mpouls1--------1.801= 60 ft
12.06-----119.6-----auto-----tedboss1-------1.950=60 ft
12.10-----118.0-----auto-----brent eb02
12.10-----119.0-----auto-----srt8/bmw
12.15-----116.5-----auto-----ctsveee---------1.885= 60 ft
12.20-----?????------auto-----fastrunner
12.22-----114.3-----auto-----veelocity-------1.83= 60 ft
12.31-----119.8-----manl----easy2speed
12.31-----114.4-----auto-----ctsveee---------1.92= 60 ft
12.32-----116.0-----auto-----hondarrr
12.36-----117.0-----auto-----pat-kat mcrat
12.40-----116.4-----auto-----snzuloz---------1.94= 60 ft
12.49-----116.9-----auto-----coolsly----------2.1= 60 ft
12.50-----?????------auto-----ready2roll
12.53-----118.4-----auto-----tedboss1-------2.19=60 ft
12.69-----111.0-----auto-----intervention302--- (ls1tech)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
196.72 / 16 runs = 12.295 average

I have always heard that the auto is a tad quicker on the street and on the track, and for a long time, I felt that my chart verified / validated that, but is that a logical assumption or thought process?
16 runs, 15 from autos only, & 1 run from from a stick.

Could it be possible that the stick is quicker, or just as quick as the auto, but we don't have enough data to represent that? Could it be that we just don't have enough documented runs for the stick. The ET readings from the chart above show that the stick holds slot # 8, or about half way up the chart.

Not to discourage or throw stones at expert shoes on this forum, but could it be possible that the stick is just as quick as the auto? We just don't have enough samples. We don't have enough manual runs, we don't have enough M6 cars, could skew the average data to misrepresent the chart and / or averages of the times.
Is "Ranger" on this forum the same "Ranger" as on Corvetteforum"
Could we get any guesses from Jason at Katech
Who was the other shoe over on Corvetteforum a few years back, and could they offer any insight?
Just a few random thoughts.

GMX322V S/C
06-26-10, 03:56 PM
...The CTS-V has a torque converter, which puts it in the slowest category of automatic transmissions...What does this have to do with how "fast" the transmission is? The torque converter locks in 2nd gear and up. Now, it does have planetary gearsets vs. helical-cut gears, so maybe there is an efficiency/mass difference there. Planetary gearsets can change ratios very quickly and handle lots of power (Lenco anybody?), but I think the CTS-V's auto shifts relatively slowly compared to a DSC mostly in the interest of self-preservation :) --it could probably bang off shifts faster than Bob Glidden with a Lenco, but not for long--certainly not 100,000 miles.

Luna.
06-28-10, 03:05 PM
But Luna, even with no-lift, the car briefly stops accelerating during shifts, whereas the automatic basically keeps accelerating with its dual-clutch planetary gearbox. With the torque converter locked from 2nd on up, maybe that makes a minuscule difference.

That's definitely possible, my friend.

Still very, very strange though that such a miniscule difference wouldn't be more than made up via more rwhp/rwtq and a lighter weight though.



The V is traction limited as it is with the street tires. Couple that with questionable track prep and with a manual you're battling with lots of extra variables to get a consistent quality launch.

...Throw some slicks on these cars and see that the manual will actually 60' better.. why? because you can launch at whatever rpm you decide (3500, 4000, 5000 whatever) and hooking up is everything. Hook up with a high RPM launch and watch that ET drop fast! Rough rule of thumb for this class is every 1/10 off the 60' is good for about 1.5-2 tenths off the top end.

Great thoughts. This is precisely why I previously said that I think the auto must just launch better, which generates the better times. I'm still not positive though, that's for certain.

I know if it was me, I'd much prefer sitting in an auto at the starting line of a 1/4 mile race than a manual, if such car(s) were stock, as it just seems far easier to launch...

It would seem to me that if both a stock manual car and a stock auto car ran from a roll, the manual should surely pull on the auto, for the launch has been taken out of the equation. If it didn't, then something else is really going on...lol :)

concorso
06-28-10, 03:11 PM
It would seem to me that if both a stock manual car and a stock auto car ran from a roll, the manual should surely pull on the auto, for the launch has been taken out of the equation. If it didn't, then something else is really going on...lol :)So we need 2 individuals with stock V's and different gearboxes willing to make a few runs on video... Would the Texas Mile event allow 2 cars to run at the same time? :)

caddynoob
06-28-10, 08:41 PM
So we need 2 individuals with stock V's and different gearboxes willing to make a few runs on video... Would the Texas Mile event allow 2 cars to run at the same time? :)

Actually if we use V-Box Pro we can use multiple cameras and gather GPS data at the same time. Once we plot out the data, it should give us an insight on how the V launches and accelerates. Mind you that one car per each type of transmission is too small of a sample size to get a conclusive result.

But at least with the V-Box Pro, they don't have to run at the exact same time. Just one after another will do.

V&Vette
06-28-10, 09:17 PM
The problem is that this debate has raged on in all forums for a very long time.

You can always line a 6 speed and auto up and have them go at it. The problem being in that case is that no drivers are created equal. Some will be better than others and therefore the illogical outcome cannot be determined as consistent.

Those who call an auto a slush box looses credibility from the start. That's kind of childish and honestly speaking...i've always had torque converted (high stall) autos that I prefer to track over that of a 6 speed for obviously reasons (shouldn't have to explain to someone who's familiar with sport cars).

To which the question of why the auto was proclaimed a tenth quicker....off the line...about it. With this car, stock form, ps2's...a stick is going to spin more than an auto. Too much power. Now with a proper driver and some drag radials...different story. My advice, enjoy the cars and practice your launch no matter what trans you have. Would love to see more people hitting the 11's with either minimal mods or stock. These cars are most certainly capable in both stock forms (auto and stick).

BTW, with only a CAI, I'm chirping 1st to 2nd with almost no shift feel in between. Will be going to the track in the next two weeks and am hoping to get this beast into the 11's....one way of the other.

Luna.
06-28-10, 09:29 PM
The problem is that this debate has raged on in all forums for a very long time.

You can always line a 6 speed and auto up and have them go at it. The problem being in that case is that no drivers are created equal. Some will be better than others and therefore the illogical outcome cannot be determined as consistent.

Ehhh, to be honest, I think you missed the issue.

This has nothing to do with one transmission being inherently "better" than the other (well, at least for me it doesn't, that I can guarantee).

This is to help explain why the same basic car, save for a different transmission, DOESN'T accelerate (significantly??) better/different than the other when one version of the car is seemingly lighter (90 lbs??) & has, on average, say 30 more rwhp/rwtq.

It simply doesn't make any sense and I think that many of us are struggling to understand that.

As for me, I think there are a lot of smart people on this forum and I'll be damned if we can't find a reasonable solution.

And I'd say that the more the race starts from a roll, the less talent there is needed to drive the car (in a straight line, of course), especially if such race starts in 3rd gear (or higher)--even a lab monkey can mat the throttle and shift into 4th gear pretty easy.

V&Vette
06-28-10, 09:40 PM
Ehhh, to be honest, I think you missed the issue.

This is to help explain why the same basic car, save for a different transmission, DOESN'T accelerate (significantly??) better/different than the other when one version of the car is seemingly lighter (90 lbs??) & has, on average, say 30 more rwhp/rwtq.

And I'd say that the more the race starts from a roll, the less talent there is needed to drive the car (in a straight line, of course), especially if such race starts in 3rd gear (or higher)--even a lab monkey can mat the throttle and shift into 4th gear pretty easy.


Nope, didn't miss the issue. Just stating that different drivers no matter what the transmission will affect the outcome every time. I understand your goal is clarification on why the auto was stated at being quicker. If you read my entire post I go on to state why this may be apparent (Launch/Traction). If you look at launching this car with a 6 speed compared with the auto, i'm surprised the deficit isn't greater. My guess is off the line, the gap between the auto and stick is pretty wide and as acceleration increases...so does the gap.

Agreed with your last few sentences, but there is still a difference. Believe me..i've met plenty of people that can't shift an auto perfectly in this type of car (same goes for stick which is a bit more of a challenge to some).

Thanks,

mugatu22
06-28-10, 09:43 PM
Lots of editing in this post...sorry, just found the official trans data...

From what little research I could find, the auto has much more aggressive gear ratios for acceleration...

Auto 6L80
1st: 4.027:1
2nd: 2.364:1
3rd: 1.53:1
FINAL DRIVE ratio: 3.23:1

Manual TR-6060
1st: 2.66:1
2nd: 1.78:1
3rd: 1.30:1
FINAL DRIVE ratio: 3.73:1

Those are HUGE differences in gear ratios! From the looks of those ratios, the auto gets the gearing into the meat of the engine's power-curve faster. I'm surprised that there's over a 1:1 ratio difference in 1st gear alone. That would ease the initial torque hit w/the manual but would make it (in theory) slower, all things being equal and assuming a good launch w/out spinning in the auto equipped car.

If this data is off, then oops on my part. This is all I could find.

Given the gear ratios alone, it makes sense why the auto equipped V would be faster to 60mph.

GMX322V S/C
06-29-10, 02:36 AM
Yes, the gearbox ratios are pretty different, but if you look at the overall ratios (multiply gearbox ratios with final drive ratios), I believe you will find that they are pretty close, which reduces the slight advantage to less loss of acceleration between gears and less driveline shock at launch due to the torque converter.

Gary Wells
06-29-10, 04:32 AM
The data as far as the A6 rear ratios do not agree with what is posted above. Anybody know which, if either is correct. Also, I show a 6L90 instead of a 6L80?




Cad CTS-V2 automatic versus manual trans data (as of 05-16-2010):


Manual trans (M6): Tremec TR6060 6 speed manual, fully synchronized with single overdrive (MG9): Gear ratios (:1) 1st: 2.66, 2nd: 1.78, 3rd: 1.30, 4th: 1.00, 5th: 0.80, 6th: 0.63, final: 3.73, reverse: 2.90

Gas Guzzler (GG) tax of $1300, or half that of the A6
Faster by 16 MPH (191 MPH versus 175 MPH (governed))
A tad slower in the 1/4 & on the street
A tad better *mileage* than the *auto* but probably not significant
About 38 more RWHP than the auto on the average
About 30 more RWTQ that the auto
About 95 lbs lighter that the auto
No remote start feature
Has “no lift-shift” feature



Automatic trans (A6): Hydra-matic 6L90 6 speed electronically controlled automatic overdrive with torque converter clutch (MYD): Gear ratios (:1) 1st: 4.03, 2nd: 2.36, 3rd: 1.53, 4th: 1.15, 5th: 0.85, 6th: 0.67, final: 3.23, reverse: 3.06

Gas Guzzler (GG) tax of $2600, or twice that of the M6
Slower by 16 MPH (175 MPH (governed) versus 191 MPH)
A tad quicker in the 1/4 & on the street
A tad worse mileage than the manual but probably not significant
About 38 less RWHP than the manual on the average
About 30 less RWTQ that the manual on the average
About 95 lbs more that the manual
Remote start feature

About 1 in every 10 ’09 CTS-V’s were / are manual trans (M6)

roarkb
06-29-10, 05:09 AM
Btw, this is not directed at you roarkb, but one other thing is Quicker and Faster are two different things!

Oh, and I think both the Auto and Manual version of this car are Awesome!!! Different people prefer different versions and that's perfectly fine. Enjoy whatever you drive! :)

You are correct. We in our slang often confuse quicker and faster. I am frequently guilty of this sin.

You are also correct in your assertion that both versions are great cars.

I love my 6m, but I currently plan to purchase a coupe later this year or early next year to sit next to my sedan, It will most likely be an auto....just so the wife will be comfortable driving it.

I will drive the Coupe on really hot or really cold days... so I can use my remote start from inside the office before walking outside. My Black Raven has been very hot here in Bama in this recent heat wave. A little cooling before I got there would be really nice!

mugatu22
06-29-10, 09:35 AM
Gary, the data I posted may very well be incorrect but it's what I found on the Cadillac website...?

Even though the final drive ratios are different to compensate, let's look at 1st gear alone according to the numbers you posted (which look identical to the ones I posted?)

Auto:
1st: 4.03:1 x 3.23 final drive ratio = 13.017:1 first gear overall ratio

Manual
1st: 2.66:1 x 3.73 final drive ratio = 9.922:1 first gear overall ratio

This alone is over 3:1 gear ratio difference, as the auto's 1st gear is muuuuch shorter. This should according to my tired math equate to better comparative acceleration if you launch correctly. Same goes for 2nd gear.

Add in faster shifts on average w/better gearing for acceleration from a dig, and the automatic transmission looks to be faster on paper. Seems to be that way on the street too. ~35whp and ~30lb/ft torque produced at higher RPM isn't going to overcome the gearing difference from a dig...the engine isn't at the correct RPM yet to make that slight extra power effective. The 'higher' overall gear ratio in the automatic helps get the car off the line and into the meat of the power band faster than the manual, there's no 2 ways about it.

From a gearing standpiont, the auto should be (and is) faster from a dig to at least 60mph. That's my theory & I'm stickin' to it :cool2: Until someone shows me I'm off, which I very well could be (but I don't think I am!).

GMX322V S/C
06-29-10, 12:19 PM
^^^
Mmm...point taken, but the difference between overall ratios in 1st gear is more like 1.3:1 :) I haven't done the multiplication for every gear, but the speed in gears tables I've seen indicate the two are pretty closely matched ('cept for 6th, natch :) )

4gear70
06-29-10, 12:33 PM
Gary, the data I posted may very well be incorrect but it's what I found on the Cadillac website...?

Even though the final drive ratios are different to compensate, let's look at 1st gear alone according to the numbers you posted (which look identical to the ones I posted?)

Auto:
1st: 4.03:1 x 3.23 final drive ratio = 13.017:1 first gear overall ratio

Manual
1st: 2.66:1 x 3.73 final drive ratio = 9.922:1 first gear overall ratio

This alone is over 3:1 gear ratio difference, as the auto's 1st gear is muuuuch shorter. This should according to my tired math equate to better comparative acceleration if you launch correctly. Same goes for 2nd gear.

Add in faster shifts on average w/better gearing for acceleration from a dig, and the automatic transmission looks to be faster on paper. Seems to be that way on the street too. ~35whp and ~30lb/ft torque produced at higher RPM isn't going to overcome the gearing difference from a dig...the engine isn't at the correct RPM yet to make that slight extra power effective. The 'higher' overall gear ratio in the automatic helps get the car off the line and into the meat of the power band faster than the manual, there's no 2 ways about it.

From a gearing standpiont, the auto should be (and is) faster from a dig to at least 60mph. That's my theory & I'm stickin' to it :cool2: Until someone shows me I'm off, which I very well could be (but I don't think I am!).

Yes, gearing is also very important as you state. Steep gearing is huge in accelerating. However, there is the assumption of an important variable.. Traction. This is were the auto has the advantage with less of a shock load at launch. It can more 'easily' apply that power at launch without breaking that tire/surface barrier. It's already been shown that with the factory tires, the manual will still rip them appart at anything above idle so putting steeper gearing will make it no better. On a perfectly prepped track with VHT soaked PS2's or BFG drag radials or ET Streets or..., then I'd say we'll start to see some sub 1.9 60' from a manual.

V&Vette
06-29-10, 01:54 PM
Yes, gearing is also very important as you state. Steep gearing is huge in accelerating. However, there is the assumption of an important variable.. Traction. This is were the auto has the advantage with less of a shock load at launch. It can more 'easily' apply that power at launch without breaking that tire/surface barrier. It's already been shown that with the factory tires, the manual will still rip them appart at anything above idle so putting steeper gearing will make it no better. On a perfectly prepped track with VHT soaked PS2's or BFG drag radials or ET Streets or..., then I'd say we'll start to see some sub 1.9 60' from a manual.

Exactly what I was saying earlier regarding the traction. I agree 100%:highfive:

Luna.
06-29-10, 02:53 PM
Given the gear ratios alone, it makes sense why the auto equipped V would be faster to 60mph.

Well, now you're referring to what I was talking about previously.

Why not just "gear" the manual better/different then??

If this is possible, was this a conscience decision by GM then to nerf the manual?




Auto:
1st: 4.03:1 x 3.23 final drive ratio = 13.017:1 first gear overall ratio

Manual
1st: 2.66:1 x 3.73 final drive ratio = 9.922:1 first gear overall ratio

This alone is over 3:1 gear ratio difference, as the auto's 1st gear is muuuuch shorter. This should according to my tired math equate to better comparative acceleration if you launch correctly. Same goes for 2nd gear.

That's my theory & I'm stickin' to it :cool2: Until someone shows me I'm off, which I very well could be (but I don't think I am!).

I presume you left out engine RPM, as that should be a constant, yes?

I haven't done this calculation in over a decade, so I can't recall it off the top of my head, but I think you are missing something, for how can the gear ratios be THAT far off in 1st and 2nd gear, yet the max MPH (per gear) from the manual and auto be so similar?

In other words, the auto should be traveling at a lower rate of speed, perhaps significantly slower, at ~6,200RPM than the manual then, requiring a shift into 2nd gear earlier, perhaps much earlier.

I don't think we're seeing that phenomenon though.

EDIT: Oh, tire height is another thing that's in that calculation--again, that should be the same "constant" as the engine, but... :)

I'm just trying to remember the whole calculation. lol


^^^
Mmm...point taken, but the difference between overall ratios in 1st gear is more like 1.3:1 :) I haven't done the multiplication for every gear, but the speed in gears tables I've seen indicate the two are pretty closely matched ('cept for 6th, natch :) )

Agree. It seems that we are missing something.


Yes, gearing is also very important as you state. Steep gearing is huge in accelerating. However, there is the assumption of an important variable.. Traction. This is were the auto has the advantage with less of a shock load at launch. It can more 'easily' apply that power at launch without breaking that tire/surface barrier. It's already been shown that with the factory tires, the manual will still rip them appart at anything above idle so putting steeper gearing will make it no better. On a perfectly prepped track with VHT soaked PS2's or BFG drag radials or ET Streets or..., then I'd say we'll start to see some sub 1.9 60' from a manual.

Can you refresh my memory as to why the auto gets better traction, due to the shock load, again??

I'm a little fuzzy with that.

Also, isn't it true that steep gearing gets you distance, but not MPH? MPH you get from shorter gearing.

I've NEVER understood where the appropriate point to draw that line is though, nor have I found someone who could reasonably explain it to me.

Further, if the auto's primary benefit is from a stop, wouldn't that support the notion that a manual should pull on an auto from a roll then??

mugatu22
06-29-10, 03:22 PM
Yes, gearing is also very important as you state. Steep gearing is huge in accelerating. However, there is the assumption of an important variable.. Traction. This is were the auto has the advantage with less of a shock load at launch. It can more 'easily' apply that power at launch without breaking that tire/surface barrier. It's already been shown that with the factory tires, the manual will still rip them appart at anything above idle so putting steeper gearing will make it no better.

I agree. Along w/the gearing, the better launch of the auto helps its acceleration times.


Well, now you're referring to what I was talking about previously.




I presume you left out engine RPM, as that should be a constant, yes?

I haven't done this calculation in over a decade, so I can't recall it off the top of my head, but I think you are missing something, for how can the gear ratios be THAT far off in 1st and 2nd gear, yet the max MPH (per gear) from the manual and auto be so similar?

Not missing anything in the equation. The gear ratio is the ratio, regardless of other factors; all engine RPM does is determine the rate of wheel rotation. The engine RPM & tire size is the same on both the auto and 6M transmission. The only difference in the equation is the overall gear ratio, which is the transmission ratio * final drive ratio. With the CTS-V, the automatic transmission has the "higher" final drive ratio (more engine rotation per wheel rotation) and therefore offers better acceleration in gears 1 & 2.



In other words, the auto should be traveling at a lower rate of speed, perhaps significantly slower, at ~6,200RPM than the manual then, requiring a shift into 2nd gear earlier, perhaps much earlier.

I don't think we're seeing that phenomenon though.

Correct, the auto should in theory be traveling slower but not by too much. The gear ratios I quoted are correct, you can see the brochure here:

http://www.cadillac.com/assets/en/pdf/requestByEmail/CTS-V_Brochure.pdf




Agree. It seems that we are missing something.

Can you refresh my memory as to why the auto gets better traction, due to the shock load, again??

I'm a little fuzzy with that.

Further, wouldn't this support the notion that a manual should pull on an auto from a roll then??

The manual should not pull on an auto from a roll unless the auto was in the incorrect gear and the manual was in the exact gear required. At much higher speeds where the ratios begin to even out, the cars should even out w/the manual perhaps having the advantage due to lighter weight & "more power" through the efficiency of the transmission.

The automatic provides a less jarring launch, a more consistent launch and quicker overall shifts, PLUS the gear ratio allows it to out accelerate the manual trans. It should be 100x easier to launch an automatic V repeatedly with repeated fast runs than it would to launch the manual equipped V. Not saying it can't be done, but it's REALLY tough to modulate all that torque manually compared to the auto transmission.

BTW Road & Track's independent testing confirms these theories, and their test numbers mirror virtually all other media's testing numbers. I know these numbers are a bummer for 6spd manual owners but IMO it's all in the gearing and launch. The difference to 100mph is substantial.

0-60mph
Auto: 3.9
Manual: 4.1

0-100mph
Auto: 9.2 sec
Manual: 9.5 sec

1/4 Mi
Auto: 12.2 @116.1
Manual: 12.4 @115.9

caddynoob
06-29-10, 03:49 PM
To facilitate the discussion I attached another table that shows the engine rpm after shifting into next gear at 6100rpm. Also the corresponding speed at the 6100rpm shifting point for each gear.

Clearly the auto has optimal gearing for the 0-60 run and 0-100km/h run for that matter. So, it is never a surprise that the Auto is "quicker" to 60mph or 100km/h.

The 1/4 mile on the other hand, finishes in 4th gear (auto/manual have almost identical overall ratio in 4th). My hypothesis is that the less weight, and more power to the wheel with the manual transmission will close the gap in 2nd and 3rd gear in the 1/4 mile run.


I don't think the automatic transmission shifts faster in general or on the V. Nobody has yet to providing data that shows the automatic V shifts faster or how fast it can shift. Without data it will be a pointless argument to get into. We have all made out points and stated out positions on that matter earlier in the thread.

I am curious as to what happens in 2nd and 3rd gear during the 1/4 mile run between the auto/manual as stated in my hypothesis.

caddynoob
06-29-10, 03:57 PM
...

0-60mph
Auto: 3.9
Manual: 4.1

0-100mph
Auto: 9.2 sec
Manual: 9.5 sec

1/4 Mi
Auto: 12.2 @116.1
Manual: 12.4 @115.9

Actually that is not a good enough sample size. Plus that the two cars might be tested under different conditions. Temperature, altitude, tire wear...etc. The same way that you cannot directly compare the Top Gear Power Lap time of two different cars. Too many variables.

Having said that, all signs still point to auto being faster. Interesting stuff.

caddynoob
06-29-10, 04:06 PM
Well, now you're referring to what I was talking about previously.

Why not just "gear" the manual better/different then??

If this is possible, was this a conscience decision by GM then to nerf the manual?


In my humble opinion, I think the manual transmission is clearly geared towards road course track. Long first gear coupled with closed ratio 2-6. You see this kinda setup quite often with GT race cars.

Not necessarily saying that the auto is optimized for the drag strip mind you. 0-60 perhaps.

mugatu22
06-29-10, 04:16 PM
I agree, the manual seems geared for tracking. The auto seems optimized for quicker launches and blasts from 0-60 or 0-100.

This is still a 'family' 4-door we're talking about, so neither configuration is "optimized" for a road course or a drag strip 100%.

RE: sample size, there have been enough CTS-Vs tested by more than enough media outlets (with proper timing equipment) in various environments/altitudes/temperatures to indicate the auto is simply quicker to 60 and 100mph than the manual car...and it does it repeatedly, in an easier to repeat fashion.

Luna.
06-29-10, 04:29 PM
Not missing anything in the equation. The gear ratio is the ratio, regardless of other factors; all engine RPM does is determine the rate of wheel rotation. The engine RPM & tire size is the same on both the auto and 6M transmission.

I know.

I thought I specifically said that they were constants, didn't I?? :confused:


The only difference in the equation is the overall gear ratio, which is the transmission ratio * final drive ratio. With the CTS-V, the automatic transmission has the "higher" final drive ratio (more engine rotation per wheel rotation) and therefore offers better acceleration in gears 1 & 2.




Correct, the auto should in theory be traveling slower but not by too much. The gear ratios I quoted are correct, you can see the brochure here:

http://www.cadillac.com/assets/en/pdf/requestByEmail/CTS-V_Brochure.pdf


I find these quotes interesting, for in 1 comment you are saying that the "higher" final drive ratio offers better acceleration in gears 1 & 2, yet in the next comment you almost dismiss it, saying that the auto shouldn't be traveling too much slower.

Am I missing something or do those seem contradictory?

In any case, if you really believe that, you failed to answer the most important question(s) of all:

Why can't someone simply re-gear their manual then to get the same advantage?

Further, if that's correct, did GM intentionally nerf the manual (for they definitely know acceleration is going to be compared between the two versions)??




The manual should not pull on an auto from a roll unless the auto was in the incorrect gear and the manual was in the exact gear required. At much higher speeds where the ratios begin to even out, the cars should even out w/the manual perhaps having the advantage due to lighter weight & "more power" through the efficiency of the transmission.

So it's all about the gearing and the auto should win no matter what (at lower speeds/non-launch). Is that what you are saying?

And I don't think there is any doubt that the manual pulls on the auto once 3rd gear is achieved; it's simply illogical for any other answer.

QUESTION:

If I simply re-gear my manual car, say with an even higher final drive ratio than an auto currently has, that would not only "fix" the issue, but I should then out-accelerate an auto, yes?

Where does one draw the line, for clearly there must be some dimishing returns point.

It is still so mind-boggling/borderline illogical that such gearing advantage more than makes up for ~30rwhp/30rwtq, as well as ~90 lbs less weight. I mean, that's simply AMAZING, for those are very significant benefits to the manual.



The automatic provides a less jarring launch

Why?


and quicker overall shifts

Very debatable.


PLUS the gear ratio allows it to out accelerate the manual trans.

See questions above & this can only be at lower speeds


BTW Road & Track's independent testing confirms these theories, and their test numbers mirror virtually all other media's testing numbers.

Sorry, but your conclusion is highly questionable.

The faster times recorded by Road and Track don't confirm much of ANYTHING. Everyone knew before getting into this discussion in the first place... :confused::confused:


I know these numbers are a bummer for 6spd manual owners but IMO it's all in the gearing and launch.

No, it's not. I knew full well that the auto would launch more consistently.

My biggest issue is just understanding why the difference.

What's really interesting is that I didn't get the feeling that many were as disappointed as I was/am in that the manual V DIDN'T get launch control, especially when it IS being offered in other high-performance cars, like the GT-500.


The difference to 100mph is substantial.

0-60mph
Auto: 3.9
Manual: 4.1

0-100mph
Auto: 9.2 sec
Manual: 9.5 sec

1/4 Mi
Auto: 12.2 @116.1
Manual: 12.4 @115.9

As is the fact that the manual starts reeling the auto in at speeds over 100 mph.

Luna.
06-29-10, 04:33 PM
In my humble opinion, I think the manual transmission is clearly geared towards road course track. Long first gear coupled with closed ratio 2-6. You see this kinda setup quite often with GT race cars.

Not necessarily saying that the auto is optimized for the drag strip mind you. 0-60 perhaps.

Good point, for I forgot to mention that earlier.

I don't think, however, either car is truly made for the 1/4 mile though.

For example, correct me if I'm wrong, I'd think they'd go with a solid rear axle (for starters) if they were going that route...

V&Vette
06-29-10, 08:28 PM
Good point, for I forgot to mention that earlier.

I don't think, however, either car is truly made for the 1/4 mile though.

For example, correct me if I'm wrong, I'd think they'd go with a solid rear axle (for starters) if they were going that route...

It is comical though if you think about the fact that these cars are not made for the 1/4 mile but yet they run high 11's to low 12's. Can't imagine if Caddy actually geared the overall car to specifically be a 1/4 beast.:eek:

mugatu22
06-29-10, 10:28 PM
Caddynoob, excellent chart of gearing w/speed for both transmissions. That chart shows the gearing difference right there, and does confirm that the auto has a "higher" gear ratio for more acceleration and less speed per RPM. Given the constants of identical engines, redlines and wheel diameters, the only difference maker in speed per gear is the gear ratio itself. You ask where the diminishing returns come in...it's traction. You could install the auto's gear ratios in the manual car and most likely roast the tires all day long and have a SLOWER 0-60 because of the gearing. I give Cadillac the benefit of the doubt assuming that they optimized the gearing in both transmissions to meet a combination of driveability and optimum performance given the limits of traction.

Luna, too many questions to answer (my beverage awaits) but simply put, yes I believe if the manual had the exact same gearing as the automatic, all things being equal (launch, driver, tires, etc) then yes the manual would be faster due to the increased wheel HP & lighter weight. All of that makes sense and adds up. My guess is that Caddy altered the manual's gearing to be "slower" and less explosive because all of that HP and torque in a more efficient drivetrain makes it difficult to launch smoothly if it were geared like the automatic. As is it's a smoother 1st gear and more every-day livable even if it's not quite as quick as the auto's.

However, as is, the automatic V DOES have the gearing advantage, and as a result, the acceleration advantage to 60mph and 100mph as shown by multiple sources that have no reason to lie. It does seem IMO that Caddy geared the manual more for track use than street acceleration, since in general the type of person who'd order a 6spd manual in a 4-door sedan would likely track the car.

I don't know the statistics but at both Caddy dealerships I've visted in LA, they laughed me out of the showroom when I asked to see a 6spd manual...their words, "that's special order since virtually every V sale we've made has been an automatic transmission version." I understand that the enthusiasts on this board primarily drive 6spd manuals (I don't blame them, I LOVE manuals!).

Whether the auto has the launch advantage is debatable, but the data seems to indicate that the manual is more difficult to launch consistently and even when launched perfectly cannot match the auto's performance up to 100mph. Since I don't have access to 2 CTS-V's, V-Box equipment and a dragstrip to test it all myself, I tend to believe the numbers that the auto media releases, since they all independently have come up with virtually the same performance data. The gear ratios, acceleration results and driving impressions given by the various media explains the auto's acceleration advantage perfectly well to me.

Luna.
06-30-10, 01:51 PM
It is comical though if you think about the fact that these cars are not made for the 1/4 mile but yet they run high 11's to low 12's. Can't imagine if Caddy actually geared the overall car to specifically be a 1/4 beast.:eek:

Totally agree. Technology is getting rather crazy nowadays...:)


Caddynoob, excellent chart of gearing w/speed for both transmissions. That chart shows the gearing difference right there, and does confirm that the auto has a "higher" gear ratio for more acceleration and less speed per RPM.

I'm fairly certain there is a balance here, between "acceleration" and "MPH." You seem to take it at face value that a "higher"/taller gear ratio is de facto better for acceleration than MPH, but I remain confused about that concept.

The more I think about this, the more I think that GM put a really short 1st/2nd gear in the auto because it runs a torque converter, while the manual can launch at any RPM.

Still very strange though...


Given the constants of identical engines, redlines and wheel diameters, the only difference maker in speed per gear is the gear ratio itself. You ask where the diminishing returns come in...it's traction. You could install the auto's gear ratios in the manual car and most likely roast the tires all day long and have a SLOWER 0-60 because of the gearing. I give Cadillac the benefit of the doubt assuming that they optimized the gearing in both transmissions to meet a combination of driveability and optimum performance given the limits of traction.

Not sure I understand this.

If the manual had the same gearing, one could simply launch it at a similar RPM and be good to go. I wouldn't think the 30 more rwhp/rwtq would make much of a difference here, as there's no way to launch the sucker at full power anyways.

Or, are you saying that the additional 90 lbs is giving the auto greater traction??

I'm still unsure why an auto just launches better than a manual. Easier and more consistent? Absolutely. But inherently better? I don't understand why; it isn't like the auto has a solid rear axle or anything...


My guess is that Caddy altered the manual's gearing to be "slower" and less explosive because all of that HP and torque in a more efficient drivetrain makes it difficult to launch smoothly if it were geared like the automatic. As is it's a smoother 1st gear and more every-day livable even if it's not quite as quick as the auto's.

Wouldn't a shorter gear make it smoother?? :confused:


However, as is, the automatic V DOES have the gearing advantage, and as a result, the acceleration advantage to 60mph and 100mph as shown by multiple sources that have no reason to lie.

This doesn't make sense. The auto has to be in 3rd gear by that time and it has lost substantially all of its gearing advantage. The manual simply must be faster in 3rd gear and beyond. 30rwhp/rwtq is substantial, to say nothing about being ~90 lbs lighter.

Unless I'm missing something, but I don't think so.

Perhaps those that suggested that GM intentionally tried to make them accelerate the same were right, which, if true, would be utterly egregious. It wouldn't take much to gear the manual "better" and go from there.




Whether the auto has the launch advantage is debatable, but the data seems to indicate that the manual is more difficult to launch consistently and even when launched perfectly cannot match the auto's performance up to 100mph.

Yeah, I don't think there is any doubt that the auto is far more consistent and easier to launch.

gnxs
06-30-10, 03:44 PM
Not sure I understand this.

If the manual had the same gearing, one could simply launch it at a similar RPM and be good to go. I wouldn't think the 30 more rwhp/rwtq would make much of a difference here, as there's no way to launch the sucker at full power anyways.

Or, are you saying that the additional 90 lbs is giving the auto greater traction??

I'm still unsure why an auto just launches better than a manual. Easier and more consistent? Absolutely. But inherently better? I don't understand why; it isn't like the auto has a solid rear axle or anything..
First off, I'm always amazed by the amount of discussion that goes on in any thread about this car that discusses transmission choice. :duck:

The posts bringing up the differences in gearing, weight, etc. are all very useful, but IMO alot of folks here are really over-thinking this. 4gear70 and GMX322V S/C (and perhaps others) have hit on it already. While I've never taken an M6 CTS-V down the track, all the same principles apply from say a high powered M6 IRS-equipped Cobra, GTO, etc. Perhaps it's hard to understand if you personally haven't tried to plant the power in a high rwhp/rwtq stick-shift equipped car, especially one with a fairly unforgiving clutch (from a slippage perspective), but the key factor was identified by 4gear70 many posts ago:

Yes, gearing is also very important as you state. Steep gearing is huge in accelerating. However, there is the assumption of an important variable.. Traction. This is were the auto has the advantage with less of a shock load at launch. It can more 'easily' apply that power at launch without breaking that tire/surface barrier. It's already been shown that with the factory tires, the manual will still rip them apart at anything above idle so putting steeper gearing will make it no better. On a perfectly prepped track with VHT soaked PS2's or BFG drag radials or ET Streets or..., then I'd say we'll start to see some sub 1.9 60' from a manual.

There's no mystery about it. The keys to the A6 equipped "V" being able to get that first 1/8th mile under it's belt more quickly than the M6 are the tq. multiplication from the converter and, first and foremost, the way the tq. converter cushions the "shock" to the tires on launch.

Unfortunately for the CTS-V crowd:

- A very small % of cars are sold with the M6
- An even smaller amount of those have run the 1/4 mile
- And an even smaller number do so with any regularity

...as a result, there isn't much data to examine.

I tried to search and find some supporting data to the suspicion that the M6 car will start to gain back ground on an A6 "V" in the last 1/8th mile, but I couldn't find any full time-slips (with interval data) on a stock M6 car to compare with a stock A6 car. Granted there is only one M6 car on Gary Wells stock 1/4 mile tracker, but IMO it's not a coincidence that that one M6 car (easy2speed) has a greater MPH than all the A6 cars on the list. A search on a GTO or SVT Cobra Forum would yield similar results in an auto vs. stick comparison (keeping in mind an auto Cobra is not a factory option and would have been added by the owner and likely be an A4 or A3, not an A6.

The gearing advantage of the A6 disappears once each car shifts 4th. I know my auto equipped "V" shifts into 4th gear just past the 1/8th mile marker, so in theory (and with all other factors equal), the rwhp and weight advantage of the M6 should start to show itself at that point. However, since it only takes a little bit more than 4 more seconds to complete the last 1/8th mile, the M6 doesn't have alot of time to utilize it's advantage.

My $0.02.

GMX322V S/C
06-30-10, 03:45 PM
I gotta believe the manual set the standard and the auto was tweaked to make it as quick as the manual. We pay for it with lower mileage/efficiency.

FSTCADY
06-30-10, 04:10 PM
IMHO the quality of the driver will make more of a difference than the transmission for 99% of us. We're talking about tenths of a second here. Go buy whatever you think will be more fun to drive while you're flying past your neighbour in their M/AMG...

mugatu22
07-01-10, 12:30 AM
First off, I'm always amazed by the amount of discussion that goes on in any thread about this car that discusses transmission choice. :duck:

The posts bringing up the differences in gearing, weight, etc. are all very useful, but IMO alot of folks here are really over-thinking this. 4gear70 and GMX322V S/C (and perhaps others) have hit on it already. While I've never taken an M6 CTS-V down the track, all the same principles apply from say a high powered M6 IRS-equipped Cobra, GTO, etc. Perhaps it's hard to understand if you personally haven't tried to plant the power in a high rwhp/rwtq stick-shift equipped car, especially one with a fairly unforgiving clutch (from a slippage perspective), but the key factor was identified by 4gear70 many posts ago:


There's no mystery about it. The keys to the A6 equipped "V" being able to get that first 1/8th mile under it's belt more quickly than the M6 are the tq. multiplication from the converter and, first and foremost, the way the tq. converter cushions the "shock" to the tires on launch.

Unfortunately for the CTS-V crowd:

- A very small % of cars are sold with the M6
- An even smaller amount of those have run the 1/4 mile
- And an even smaller number do so with any regularity

...as a result, there isn't much data to examine.

I tried to search and find some supporting data to the suspicion that the M6 car will start to gain back ground on an A6 "V" in the last 1/8th mile, but I couldn't find any full time-slips (with interval data) on a stock M6 car to compare with a stock A6 car. Granted there is only one M6 car on Gary Wells stock 1/4 mile tracker, but IMO it's not a coincidence that that one M6 car (easy2speed) has a greater MPH than all the A6 cars on the list. A search on a GTO or SVT Cobra Forum would yield similar results in an auto vs. stick comparison (keeping in mind an auto Cobra is not a factory option and would have been added by the owner and likely be an A4 or A3, not an A6.

The gearing advantage of the A6 disappears once each car shifts 4th. I know my auto equipped "V" shifts into 4th gear just past the 1/8th mile marker, so in theory (and with all other factors equal), the rwhp and weight advantage of the M6 should start to show itself at that point. However, since it only takes a little bit more than 4 more seconds to complete the last 1/8th mile, the M6 doesn't have alot of time to utilize it's advantage.

My $0.02.

+1

THIS ^^

Well said. Luna that's about as clear as I could hope to make it, and he said it better than I could. Provided the gearing and the info above, this is why the auto outperforms the manual until 100+mph.