Really pumped about 2011 RA!
Newbie
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
From: VA
Thats when you determine if the slight extra weight outweighs the quicker shifting, either way, quicker shifting for slightly more weight will usually win overall, but again, this whole transmission discussion is over done.
Who know, it likely depends on the car and the conditions being tested. The cars in question have large displacement motors that produce a lot of torque very quickly. The kind of transmission needed to hold this power isn't exactly light, imagine how heavy the transmission is in the Veyron.
Evolved Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
From: michigan
I would estimate the additional weight of the necessary electronics and hardware to turn a manual into an automated manual would be in the neighborhood of 20 to 30lbs. So, affects on overall performance would be negligible.
I doubt it would be that small. The curb weight difference between the GSR and the MR is about 80 lbs despite the MR having lighter wheels and I believe other weight saving differences. Considering that the two cars in question, the Viper ACR and the Corvette ZR1, make 600+ HP, the transmission would need to be stronger, ie. larger and heavier. With a limitless budget, you could easily make a very good, track ready TC transmission but the same could be said of a traditional manual, if you have lots of money and want a track car, you could go with a dog box transmission and shift like a race car driver, complete with the noise.
The next thing you know, you'll be telling people that the Bugatti Veyron has been replaced as the "Fastest Production Car" in the world, by a car with a manual 6 speed!
Evolved Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
From: michigan
^ Not a koenigsegg, but supposedly some bland american supercar.
Anyways, back on the subject of auto-manuals.. At the last detroit auto show, ford had a twin clutch box on display with a cutaway view. It was tiny compared to an automatic mated to a similar engine, and even looked smaller than a typicaly manual that would be mated to the engine. Of course, it might just seem that way as two separate input shafts allow it to be shorter.
As for the MR being heavier - I was under the impression that it was supposed to be a bit more luxurious than an MR - having things such as more sound deadening material. I wouldn't doubt that the SST is heavier than the 5mt, but I would imagine the difference would be negligible, and that's partially why, as far as I'm concerned, stock MRs post better lap times than stock GSRs.
an auto-manual is not inherently weaker or stronger than a regular manual, as it completely depends on design and materials. It is safe to say, however, that multi-clutch auto-manuals are inherently faster shifting than a syncromesh manual.
Anyways, back on the subject of auto-manuals.. At the last detroit auto show, ford had a twin clutch box on display with a cutaway view. It was tiny compared to an automatic mated to a similar engine, and even looked smaller than a typicaly manual that would be mated to the engine. Of course, it might just seem that way as two separate input shafts allow it to be shorter.
As for the MR being heavier - I was under the impression that it was supposed to be a bit more luxurious than an MR - having things such as more sound deadening material. I wouldn't doubt that the SST is heavier than the 5mt, but I would imagine the difference would be negligible, and that's partially why, as far as I'm concerned, stock MRs post better lap times than stock GSRs.
an auto-manual is not inherently weaker or stronger than a regular manual, as it completely depends on design and materials. It is safe to say, however, that multi-clutch auto-manuals are inherently faster shifting than a syncromesh manual.
Evolving Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
From: Laguna Hills
I dont even know why I am replying to this nonsense,
but Sith Killer..."the pwn is strong with you"...crack me up lol.
you guys are all over the place with comparisons.
I have yet to see one person make the connection with sst transmission and rallly racing.
the transmission was inteded for 300hp cars...IE group N and the WRC. Circuit driving is of second importance. Yes it is cool that the evo x is about as quick as a gtr...but the evo's heritage is rally racing or just straight versatility.
and yes I have yet to see a SST transmission rally on at least the group N level...but have seen plenty of semi automatic ones...and the thought that something similar to that is available to us serfs is great.
on a tertiary note, I was talking with the owner of the sierra sierra evo and they are still running the stock tranny because they are looking for a decent alternative. He mentioned sequential shifting semi auto transmission, but the available options are for around 300hp and not the 500+ hp they are throwing down.
they all have their place
but Sith Killer..."the pwn is strong with you"...crack me up lol.
you guys are all over the place with comparisons.
I have yet to see one person make the connection with sst transmission and rallly racing.
the transmission was inteded for 300hp cars...IE group N and the WRC. Circuit driving is of second importance. Yes it is cool that the evo x is about as quick as a gtr...but the evo's heritage is rally racing or just straight versatility.
and yes I have yet to see a SST transmission rally on at least the group N level...but have seen plenty of semi automatic ones...and the thought that something similar to that is available to us serfs is great.
on a tertiary note, I was talking with the owner of the sierra sierra evo and they are still running the stock tranny because they are looking for a decent alternative. He mentioned sequential shifting semi auto transmission, but the available options are for around 300hp and not the 500+ hp they are throwing down.
they all have their place
^ Not a koenigsegg, but supposedly some bland american supercar.
Anyways, back on the subject of auto-manuals.. At the last detroit auto show, ford had a twin clutch box on display with a cutaway view. It was tiny compared to an automatic mated to a similar engine, and even looked smaller than a typicaly manual that would be mated to the engine. Of course, it might just seem that way as two separate input shafts allow it to be shorter.
As for the MR being heavier - I was under the impression that it was supposed to be a bit more luxurious than an MR - having things such as more sound deadening material. I wouldn't doubt that the SST is heavier than the 5mt, but I would imagine the difference would be negligible, and that's partially why, as far as I'm concerned, stock MRs post better lap times than stock GSRs.
an auto-manual is not inherently weaker or stronger than a regular manual, as it completely depends on design and materials. It is safe to say, however, that multi-clutch auto-manuals are inherently faster shifting than a syncromesh manual.
Anyways, back on the subject of auto-manuals.. At the last detroit auto show, ford had a twin clutch box on display with a cutaway view. It was tiny compared to an automatic mated to a similar engine, and even looked smaller than a typicaly manual that would be mated to the engine. Of course, it might just seem that way as two separate input shafts allow it to be shorter.
As for the MR being heavier - I was under the impression that it was supposed to be a bit more luxurious than an MR - having things such as more sound deadening material. I wouldn't doubt that the SST is heavier than the 5mt, but I would imagine the difference would be negligible, and that's partially why, as far as I'm concerned, stock MRs post better lap times than stock GSRs.
an auto-manual is not inherently weaker or stronger than a regular manual, as it completely depends on design and materials. It is safe to say, however, that multi-clutch auto-manuals are inherently faster shifting than a syncromesh manual.
I dont even know why I am replying to this nonsense,
but Sith Killer..."the pwn is strong with you"...crack me up lol.
you guys are all over the place with comparisons.
I have yet to see one person make the connection with sst transmission and rallly racing.
the transmission was inteded for 300hp cars...IE group N and the WRC. Circuit driving is of second importance. Yes it is cool that the evo x is about as quick as a gtr...but the evo's heritage is rally racing or just straight versatility.
and yes I have yet to see a SST transmission rally on at least the group N level...but have seen plenty of semi automatic ones...and the thought that something similar to that is available to us serfs is great.
on a tertiary note, I was talking with the owner of the sierra sierra evo and they are still running the stock tranny because they are looking for a decent alternative. He mentioned sequential shifting semi auto transmission, but the available options are for around 300hp and not the 500+ hp they are throwing down.
they all have their place
but Sith Killer..."the pwn is strong with you"...crack me up lol.
you guys are all over the place with comparisons.
I have yet to see one person make the connection with sst transmission and rallly racing.
the transmission was inteded for 300hp cars...IE group N and the WRC. Circuit driving is of second importance. Yes it is cool that the evo x is about as quick as a gtr...but the evo's heritage is rally racing or just straight versatility.
and yes I have yet to see a SST transmission rally on at least the group N level...but have seen plenty of semi automatic ones...and the thought that something similar to that is available to us serfs is great.
on a tertiary note, I was talking with the owner of the sierra sierra evo and they are still running the stock tranny because they are looking for a decent alternative. He mentioned sequential shifting semi auto transmission, but the available options are for around 300hp and not the 500+ hp they are throwing down.
they all have their place
It was beaten by SSC Ultimate Aero, produced by Shelby SuperCars (SSC). Top speed of 257 MPH!!! Powered by a small block Ford V8 and 6 speed transmission. MSRP is just $654,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSC_Ultimate_Aero_TT
Yes, despite Top Gear announcing the death or near death of the American V8, blenders are NOT the only thing for which they remain useful.
Sorry about the wiki link, but I'm not trying to make a major point, just fun facts, you get the idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSC_Ultimate_Aero_TT
Yes, despite Top Gear announcing the death or near death of the American V8, blenders are NOT the only thing for which they remain useful.
Sorry about the wiki link, but I'm not trying to make a major point, just fun facts, you get the idea.
[QUOTE=madcows;7288417]^ Not a koenigsegg, but supposedly some bland american supercar.[QUOTE]
yep I've seen this car at cars n coffee in vegas it's got the new vette motor in it twin turbo'd think the same engine that's in the zr1
sorry to get off topic.. I really liked the ralliart and it seems not too bad until they didn't offer a manual ..I think they should've offered a manual option
yep I've seen this car at cars n coffee in vegas
it's got the new vette motor in it twin turbo'd think the same engine that's in the zr1sorry to get off topic.. I really liked the ralliart and it seems not too bad until they didn't offer a manual ..I think they should've offered a manual option
Prototype (2004)
SSC Aero SC/8T prototype #001 was built using a supercharged Corvette ZR1 engine with G-64 6-speed manual transmission (also seen in the Dodge Viper. It weighs 2800 lb. Prototype #001 was sold in 2008 Barett-Jackson Palm Beach auction with winning bid price of (estimated) $172,000.
[edit] Specifications (2006)
Styling of the Aero includes the use of butterfly doors similar to those found on the Mercedes/McLaren SLR, Saleen S7, Mercedes-Benz CLK-GTR, and the Ferrari Enzo. Carbon fiber and titanium are used throughout the car, helping to limit the weight to 2,850 lb (1,293 kg) for the standard Aero. Rumors persist that the Ultimate Aero TT is nothing more than a stripped down racing version of the base Aero (rumors that the car has no air conditioning for example); however, such claims have been proven false.[5][6]
The engine in the base Aero model was a Supercharged V8 Ford Small Block series engine rated at 1,062 hp (792 kW) at 6600 rpm and 1,001 ft·lbf (1,357 N·m) at 5800 rpm, with the supercharger at 8 psi and running on 91 octane gasoline. The Ultimate Aero has increased engine displacement of 387 cu in (6.34 L) and increased boost of 14 psi, resulting in 1,146 hp (855 kW) at 6950 rpm and 821 ft·lb (1,113 N·m) at 6200 rpm, running on 91 octane gasoline.[6]
Wind tunnel testing indicates that the Ultimate Aero could theoretically reach a top speed of 273 mph (439 km/h) given appropriate transmission gear ratios, although the supplied transmission would result in 259.8 mph (418 km/h)[6] at the car's redline. The base Aero, however, should "only" reach about 236 mph (380 km/h).[7] The Ultimate Aero accelerates from 0-60 mph in 2.78 seconds,[8] slower than the Bugatti Veyron which achieves 0-60 mph in 2.46 seconds because of its 4WD layout.
SSC Aero SC/8T prototype #001 was built using a supercharged Corvette ZR1 engine with G-64 6-speed manual transmission (also seen in the Dodge Viper. It weighs 2800 lb. Prototype #001 was sold in 2008 Barett-Jackson Palm Beach auction with winning bid price of (estimated) $172,000.
[edit] Specifications (2006)
Styling of the Aero includes the use of butterfly doors similar to those found on the Mercedes/McLaren SLR, Saleen S7, Mercedes-Benz CLK-GTR, and the Ferrari Enzo. Carbon fiber and titanium are used throughout the car, helping to limit the weight to 2,850 lb (1,293 kg) for the standard Aero. Rumors persist that the Ultimate Aero TT is nothing more than a stripped down racing version of the base Aero (rumors that the car has no air conditioning for example); however, such claims have been proven false.[5][6]
The engine in the base Aero model was a Supercharged V8 Ford Small Block series engine rated at 1,062 hp (792 kW) at 6600 rpm and 1,001 ft·lbf (1,357 N·m) at 5800 rpm, with the supercharger at 8 psi and running on 91 octane gasoline. The Ultimate Aero has increased engine displacement of 387 cu in (6.34 L) and increased boost of 14 psi, resulting in 1,146 hp (855 kW) at 6950 rpm and 821 ft·lb (1,113 N·m) at 6200 rpm, running on 91 octane gasoline.[6]
Wind tunnel testing indicates that the Ultimate Aero could theoretically reach a top speed of 273 mph (439 km/h) given appropriate transmission gear ratios, although the supplied transmission would result in 259.8 mph (418 km/h)[6] at the car's redline. The base Aero, however, should "only" reach about 236 mph (380 km/h).[7] The Ultimate Aero accelerates from 0-60 mph in 2.78 seconds,[8] slower than the Bugatti Veyron which achieves 0-60 mph in 2.46 seconds because of its 4WD layout.
Yes, yes, wiki again. Confirmed on the 387.2 cu. in. Ford engine from the official website here:
http://www.shelbysupercars.com/car-specs.php
Also the 2009 has a 15% increase in hp and 5% reduction in drag! So the car has gotten faster, SSC claims it will hit 270 mph, but has yet to put their money where their mouth is.
BTW, it runs on pump gas!
Last edited by sith_killer_99; Jul 16, 2009 at 05:48 PM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
From: michigan
As far as I know, the transmissions in world rally car-class cars are automated sequential dog boxes (they may even have clutch pedals). However, I believe that F1 cars, and some LeMans-grade machinery use twin clutch auto manuals. Regardless, to quote you, they're all "like a manual with an automatic shifter". A standard automatic with a torque converter and planetary gear set is significantly different than any of those. Automated manuals perform better than a standard manual, and that's why they're used in the top levels of racing. Oh, and Jeremy Clarkson sure seemed to have fun in the MR.
