now do you guys agree that he will NEVER change his way of thinking no matter how much proof you throw at him??


Now he will quote me and say yet another pointless statement.

 

Right I am saying the cars were = I am sure the auto would win. LOL the only way to end the argument to to Race 2 identical cars...Do you race on paper alot...I bet you win alot that way.

 

Proof??? The only proof is to race it? I have in the past and first hadn sene the proof

 

told ya so....






*steps up on stage, slowly walks to podium.* *taps on microphone, a loud buzz can be heard* *clears throat*



PUT THE CRACK PIPE DOWN!!!

Thank you.


*steps away from podium and slowly walks to seat*

 

???? think your in the wrong forum. do you aimlessly respond or do you read the prior posts? Now is the time to use your qupte "Now he will quote me and say yet another pointless statement." <----Boy you got that right

 

I must admit I am Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo happy you finally deceided to put your crack pipe down.

We all thank you!!

 

wow, again, ignored my post. only responds to every other. i sort of expected that.
breaking news: manual loses to auto in identical cars = bad manual driver. (listen dont take that personally, i dont mean "bad", just not "great", if that makes any sense)

bottom line, no matter what craziness you throw out, if two cars, one auto one manual, launch from a stop,
when the auto shifts to second, the manual will still be in first = manual is still accelerating faster.
when the auto shifts to third, the manual will still be in second= manual is still accelerating faster.
etc...

anyway, nothing personal meant by this, im just swamped at work so im stressed about other stuff, no hostility intended

 

Sorry for not responding to your post.......
a and b...Please post examples what does not make sense
The only way (as I have stated) to resovle this is to test it out as I already did.
Yes I read it.
I assume when someone brings up a 455 we are talking htje car is completly stock
since that was the point of the thread. So I am assuming the auto trans, converter ect is from the stock car that held the 455
I have raced at the track for MANY years and can tell you all the horsepower in the world does you no good unless you have prper traction. I sent the link to http://www.dragtimes.com I can cut and paste auto's beating manual all day if you like. This is where the proof is on the gtrack not the street or some stat sheet you download from how stff works. I can t take too much seriously from a site that also tells you how a blender works....LOL I typicall try to stay away from racing on paper as this thread is enjoying. No problem I dont mind responses that are atleast intelligent.



let me ask you a question. for the past 10 posts or so, all i have been reading is babyish retorts.
a) you are not making sense anymore (at least earlier you were trying to)
b) you havent said anything to back your case. only things like "i am right and you are all wrong".

did you read the info i linked to, on howstuffworks.com?
and dont respond with "i didnt need to since i know everything about transmissions" since you definitely have things to learn.

the only thing you keep saying is "yes i agree about old engines"...etc etc etc.
but listen to yourself. what does the engine have to do with the drivetrain power loss? they were just comparing *transmission of power from engine to wheels*. where the power comes from or what kind of engine makes it has no bearing on the ability of the the tranny to use the power.

you say you lose power when you chirp tires. ok, ill conceded that you do lose traction when that happens. but thats for a split second, before and after which your car is accelerating faster than the auto. and like someone else said, the car is not going to slow down appreciably during that time, so the fact that you lost traction there is inconsequential.

closing remarks:
the only reason this board got hostile is because you are being incredibly closed minded. if you would have responded with something like "oh, i didnt know that, let me do some more research" you would not have received such a response from the people here, most of which do know their share of automotive info.

noone said that an auto is a bad tranny. but the fact is you were comparing identical cars. if the auto had enough power to make up for the power loss (i.e. more than the manual car) and modified shift points (and the driver launched instead of punching from idle) then fine, you could make the case that the auto would have a chance since it would be putting similar power down and shifting perfectly at high rpms. but with identical cars with stock trannys this is not the case.

 

It's true tho. the ONLY excuse in a street car for an auto is consistency. But even that has it's pitfals. your only inconsistent if you can't drive. I have been to the track 4 times. Each time I learn. The first time I had bad bad RT's and bad bad 60 foots. The next time I got betterr 60 foots but red lighted all the time. The next time my 60 foots got even better and my RT's were imporving. Now when ever I go I hit a 0.020-0.030 Rt with a 1.95-2.0 60 foot EVERY time. It just takes practice.


your little "experiment" doesn't prove anything other then the stick driver sucked.

 

Who was the driver? Apparently you know him and how he drives??? Come on man you said you put the pipe down? RT of .2 and .3 is a red light. I guess do not know what your doing at the track.

http://www.staginglight.com/guide/react.html