Notices
Scion xB 1st-Gen Owners Lounge
First Generation 2004-2006.5 [NCP31]

Acceleration difference between Manual & Auto

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-30-2005 | 04:15 AM
  #21  
p2filz's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 355
Default

i liked that poster in the beggining but noticed that in the max permissable speed it shows 4th gear and no 5th for the manual, and only 3rd for auto what gives... go ahead take a look
Old 12-30-2005 | 04:42 AM
  #22  
melton83's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 42
From: Robins AFB, GA
Default

If you already have an Audi to have fun with, I would go for the Automatic. It feels peppy enough to me, and I've never had trouble merging with or passing traffic. Plus it's a great cruiser.
Old 12-30-2005 | 05:17 AM
  #23  
rdclark's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 466
From: Suburban Philadelphia
Default

Originally Posted by p2filz
i liked that poster in the beggining but noticed that in the max permissable speed it shows 4th gear and no 5th for the manual, and only 3rd for auto what gives... go ahead take a look
Max speed for 5th (Manual) and 4th (Auto) is the car's max speed. First number at the top.

RichC
Old 12-30-2005 | 06:20 AM
  #24  
p2filz's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 355
Default

hmm ok makes sense i guess...
Old 12-30-2005 | 07:59 AM
  #25  
ITSAXA's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 176
From: Norwich, CT
Default he said highway driving....

My Xa has the 5spd..... it is doing 4000 rpm @80 ! Its got ***** for a 1.5 .......but my landlord likes my xa so much he just got a '06 ...... With an auto hes cruising nicely down the highway WITH A VERY NOTICEABLE 1000 rpm less !

BUT I SMOKED HIM TWICE ALREADY.

both are window stickers say 38 highway.

get the auto
Old 12-31-2005 | 04:12 AM
  #26  
p2filz's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 355
Default

depends what u like!
Old 12-31-2005 | 05:00 AM
  #27  
SmokingTires's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member

SL Member
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 681
From: San Francisco, CA
Default

I got the auto, I would get the auto again if I had the choice. It goes great gettin on the freeway plenty of get up and go
Old 12-31-2005 | 10:31 PM
  #28  
xActly's Avatar
Senior Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 268
From: Northern Connecticut
Default

Originally Posted by hotbox05
the difference between auto and manual are NIGHT and DAY

Yeeeaaahhhhhh...night & day...in Alaska during a solstice


Truth be told, the automatics in these cars are amazingly refined & efficient...some reviewers saw no difference in feel between the Scion & Lexus lines.

Besides, in what alternate reality is a 100hp car quick, EVEN with a stick?


All this said, the choice should have NOTHING to do with performance. Do you want to shift yourself? Buy a manual. NO? Buy an automatic.

That's really about as far as it goes...
Old 12-31-2005 | 10:33 PM
  #29  
hotbox05's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member

SL Member
Team N.V.S.
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 13,706
From: Sacramento, CA / Nor*Cal
Default

Originally Posted by xActly
Originally Posted by hotbox05
the difference between auto and manual are NIGHT and DAY

Yeeeaaahhhhhh...night & day...in Alaska during a solstice


Truth be told, the automatics in these cars are amazingly refined & efficient...some reviewers saw no difference in feel between the Scion & Lexus lines.

Besides, in what alternate reality is a 100hp car quick, EVEN with a stick?


All this said, the choice should have NOTHING to do with performance. Do you want to shift yourself? Buy a manual. NO? Buy an automatic.

That's really about as far as it goes...
ha ha ha . well while i've driven them back to back it's night and day. i wouldnt buy these cars in auto if it would save my life.

100hp quick? yeah. maybe youve been asleep to the import world for the last 10 or so years.
Old 12-31-2005 | 10:40 PM
  #30  
xActly's Avatar
Senior Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 268
From: Northern Connecticut
Default

Originally Posted by hotbox05
100hp quick? yeah. maybe youve been asleep to the import world for the last 10 or so years.

Think about what you just said...no, you're not done. Walk away from the computer and REEALLLYY think...


Ok, now do you understand just how dumb it sounds?


A 100hp car will NEVER be fast...unless you make it weigh 300 pounds. Guess what...you just turned it into a mortorcycle.

The import scene for the last 10 years has not made 100hp cars quick...it's taken 100hp cars AND ADDED HORSEPOWER to make them quicker. Genius.
Old 12-31-2005 | 10:42 PM
  #31  
hotbox05's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member

SL Member
Team N.V.S.
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 13,706
From: Sacramento, CA / Nor*Cal
Default

Originally Posted by xActly
Originally Posted by hotbox05
100hp quick? yeah. maybe youve been asleep to the import world for the last 10 or so years.

Think about what you just said...no, you're not done. Walk away from the computer and REEALLLYY think...


Ok, now do you understand just how dumb it sounds?


A 100hp car will NEVER be fast...unless you make it weigh 300 pounds. Guess what...you just turned it into a mortorcycle.

The import scene for the last 10 years has not made 100hp cars quick...it's taken 100hp cars AND ADDED HORSEPOWER to make them quicker. Genius.
that's what i'm talking about.

with just boring biolt on's i'm running faster than a 15.9

i ran 15.9 before i added the lightweight pulley , damper , and irids.
Old 12-31-2005 | 10:51 PM
  #32  
xActly's Avatar
Senior Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 268
From: Northern Connecticut
Default

Originally Posted by hotbox05
that's what i'm talking about.

with just boring biolt on's i'm running faster than a 15.9

i ran 15.9 before i added the lightweight pulley , damper , and irids.

Wow. I give up.


And just so you know, 15.9 is slightly better than walking.

THESE CARS WEREN'T MEANT TO BE FAST. There's a headline for ya.
Old 12-31-2005 | 10:53 PM
  #33  
hotbox05's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member

SL Member
Team N.V.S.
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 13,706
From: Sacramento, CA / Nor*Cal
Default

alright bro. just wait till the motorswap is done.

I dont come and ____ in your cheerios so don't ____ in mine. as well as many others. everyone wants a fast car.

most will do things like bolt ons. I will go to the end of the world to make the car i love into what i want. aka fast.
Old 12-31-2005 | 10:54 PM
  #34  
hotbox05's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member

SL Member
Team N.V.S.
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 13,706
From: Sacramento, CA / Nor*Cal
Default

also. i know about fast 1/4 mile times. i've driven more than a few fast cars. I can't pay the insurance on em tho. so....

hell even my beater supra ran 14.8. not bad for a n/a supra. fastest n/a 3rd gen supra.
Old 12-31-2005 | 10:59 PM
  #35  
killerxromances's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,808
Default

Originally Posted by xActly
Originally Posted by hotbox05
that's what i'm talking about.

with just boring biolt on's i'm running faster than a 15.9

i ran 15.9 before i added the lightweight pulley , damper , and irids.

Wow. I give up.


And just so you know, 15.9 is slightly better than walking.

THESE CARS WEREN'T MEANT TO BE FAST. There's a headline for ya.
Your point? Civic hatchbacks weren't meant to be fast, but people spend the money for k20a, h22, so on so forth swaps making them extremely fast, and reliable. Did you have a point or are you just putting down 50% of the tuners out there? The fun, to me about tuning a car is watching it grow. Starting with a slow car and building it to perform is fun, while keeping it reliable because i'd rather build a track/street car vs. a strictly track or show.
Old 01-01-2006 | 06:50 PM
  #36  
p2filz's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 355
Default

ok this thread is dead
Old 01-01-2006 | 09:33 PM
  #37  
xA_Factor's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 762
From: N/A
Default

How did we end up talking about Civcs? Who cares? This is a thread about trannies in the Box.
Old 01-01-2006 | 11:48 PM
  #38  
xActly's Avatar
Senior Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 268
From: Northern Connecticut
Default

Originally Posted by killerxromances
Originally Posted by xActly
Originally Posted by hotbox05
that's what i'm talking about.

with just boring biolt on's i'm running faster than a 15.9

i ran 15.9 before i added the lightweight pulley , damper , and irids.

Wow. I give up.


And just so you know, 15.9 is slightly better than walking.

THESE CARS WEREN'T MEANT TO BE FAST. There's a headline for ya.
Your point? Civic hatchbacks weren't meant to be fast, but people spend the money for k20a, h22, so on so forth swaps making them extremely fast, and reliable. Did you have a point or are you just putting down 50% of the tuners out there? The fun, to me about tuning a car is watching it grow. Starting with a slow car and building it to perform is fun, while keeping it reliable because i'd rather build a track/street car vs. a strictly track or show.
If you'd read the entire exchange between hotbox & me you'd see that my point is not to "put down 50% of tuners"...mine was a futile attempt to explain that a car with 100hp ISN'T FAST (unless you drop it from a plane at 30,000 feet), so to base a transmission choice on said car's performance is really kind of stupid.

Hotbox started trying to convince me that 100hp cars were fast because of the recent import scene...I then tried to explain that a 100hp car is only MADE FAST by increasing the horsepower SINGNIFICANTLY, thereby eliminating it from the 100hp category he was trying to defend. He just didn't get it. Do you?
Old 01-02-2006 | 12:02 AM
  #39  
xA_Factor's Avatar
Senior Member
10 Year Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 762
From: N/A
Default

I understand your point. Here's a quote from my post on page 1:

Originally Posted by xB_Factor
Honestly, from the seat-of-the-pants driving, I didn't notice a significant difference in acceleration between the auto and the manual. There's only so much you can do with a 100hp either way.
Old 01-02-2006 | 12:53 AM
  #40  
xActly's Avatar
Senior Member
5 Year Member
SL Member
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 268
From: Northern Connecticut
Default

Originally Posted by xB_Factor
I understand your point. Here's a quote form my post on page 1:

Originally Posted by xB_Factor
Honestly, from the seat-of-the-pants driving, I didn't notice a significant difference in acceleration between the auto and the manual. There's only so much you can do with a 100hp either way.

EXACTLY.


Quick Reply: Acceleration difference between Manual & Auto



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:23 PM.