turbo lag. man vs auto

[Cassera]

Sorry I didn't realize you were promoted to Moderator.



And where did this guy come from?


Sounds like you're just trying to prove to everyone that autos are better. As far as that goes, do what you like. I like rowing through gears, but it's w/e.



And OP, I think your question as already been answered (no), but you need a stall like already stated.

The only information you provided to the OP on this post was, "I like rowing through gears, but it's w/e."

Instead of bashing other people for their opinions, why dont you try and answer the OP's post directly? But anyways....

blktalon3: I look at it like this, when your at the line ready to launch with a manual car you of coarse have to rev it to a certian rpm than engage.
So when you compare that to an automatic, you of coarse have to rev it also (brake boost) at the line in order to get a correct launch.

IMO when you say you just slam on the gas in an auto and it doesnt sool as fast as it does when you rev and launch in a manual, it's kinda like handicaping the automatic because your comparing the two without leting the auto rev and letting the manual rev.

I hope you get what im saying, thats the best way i can explain it......

I hope I helped

 

[ramsack]

Just to help clear one thing up; all 1g turbo cars ( 91-94) have non-lockup converters..

where are you getting this info? my factory manual states that all 1g automatics (f4a22, f4a33, w4a33) use a torque converter with damper clutch, and all diagrams for fluid routing in certain gears has a lockup listed for each trans.

 

[dsm-onster]

Well, from my experience, it's not the turbo that becomes laggy, but the stall that is 'laggy'. Accelerating through the stall from a stop causes a sag in power. . .IOW, the stall takes time to tighten. This time translates to a feeling of sluggishness. Since we're taught not to press the brake and gas at the same time in Drivers' Ed . . . Thus the factory installed a smaller turbo to keep the power band more in line with it's manual bretherin through normal pedal usage.

If you actually look at a log of an auto, you will see that the spool speed is right where it should be given the gearing once the stall is tight.

 

[GDNF2ET]

where are you getting this info? my factory manual states that all 1g automatics (f4a22, f4a33, w4a33) use a torque converter with damper clutch, and all diagrams for fluid routing in certain gears has a lockup listed for each trans.

The easiest way to answer that is there is no torque converter clutch solenoid valve on the valvebody of a 1g turbo car..

 

[ramsack]

The easiest way to answer that is there is no torque converter clutch solenoid valve on the valvebody of a 1g turbo car..

so there is no solenoid, but the torque converter has a damper clutch. this i imagine could be enabled with a non-turbo valve body and tcu as the valve bodies are identical.

or a 2g valve body and tcu.

 

[thiazole]

Well, from my experience, it's not the turbo that becomes laggy, but the stall that is 'laggy'. Accelerating through the stall from a stop causes a sag in power. . .IOW, the stall takes time to tighten. This time translates to a feeling of sluggishness. Since we're taught not to press the brake and gas at the same time in Drivers' Ed . . . Thus the factory installed a smaller turbo to keep the power band more in line with it's manual bretherin through normal pedal usage.

If you actually look at a log of an auto, you will see that the spool speed is right where it should be given the gearing once the stall is tight.

THAT I agree with - especially if you aren't in the throttle very much. It can be pretty annoying trying to take off at a stop light "normally" and is also annoying if your car is loud, since you find yourself revving it everytime you take off from a stop light. Still, if you have to step on the gas without warning, you'll do better with a higher stall torque converter in an auto than a manual. High stall torque converters definitely have their downsides, though. At least one of them has been addressed with the advent of a lock up converter - in fact, I think some of the manual controllers might even have a lock up switch so that one could technically lock the converter up once you get the tires rolling at a stop light. I'm not sure if that would be good for the torque converter or not, though.

 

[GDNF2ET]

so there is no solenoid, but the torque converter has a damper clutch. this i imagine could be enabled with a non-turbo valve body and tcu as the valve bodies are identical.

or a 2g valve body and tcu.

This quote is from Kiggly in reference to a 1g awd auto,

"The 1g trans does not, nor can it, have a lockup converter. There flat out is not enough room to fit a lockup converter and still have it fit the frame rails. The non-lockup transmission was made by mitsu specifically to fit the 1g DSM chassis. Every other mitsu model of this trans is a lockup."

 

[ramsack]

i really don't understand that. my non-turbo lockup converter was no bigger than a turbo one. and the 2g's had it, can this trans not physically fit in a 1g or what?

 

[HighPSI TSi Guy]

i really don't understand that. my non-turbo lockup converter was no bigger than a turbo one. and the 2g's had it, can this trans not physically fit in a 1g or what?

It is just plain not there. I'm not sure how much simpler the answer can get?

I feel like most properly built auto cars are more responsive than their manual counterparts. If not, then something was done wrong. I've yet to run into one that isn't. RPM wise, the log will show a laggier result, but but dyno and elapsed time always tell a different story. My car as an auto would easily murder my car when it was a 5 speed from a roll.

 

[thiazole]

Logic has to be based on some reality, I argue from first hand experience and leave logic to the philosophers. I'll go ahead and disagree with point 3). I've been in that situation many times and slipping isn't going to help you. In that scenario, you left foot brake and floor the throttle to load the motor and BUILD boost WHILE you are moving. In some case its better than downshifting, like when your already in 1st gear and have nowhere else to go, and its alot less upsetting to the chassis than a downshift.

Alright, my car has been converted to an auto and I've been driving it for a week now, and I can tell you that it is MUCH more responsive as an auto and it spools much faster, just as I predicted. And hammering it in a gear that is too high for the speed you are going (even if it doesn't automatically downshift) yields much better results. Here is a challenge for any manual guys who think their car is so much faster and streetable with the manual: I was doing a 0-60mph pull on the street and accidentally left my Road Surge shift box in 3rd gear. I still went 0-60 in 5.5 seconds (and have the log to prove it). If your manual is so fast, I challenge anyone with a manual to even come close to that leaving the car in 3rd gear from a stop.

One thing that I thought would be bad, but isn't at all, is the looseness of the converter. It feels slightly looser than the stock converter when driving normally. I don't have to rev the rpms when taking off at a stop light - I hit the gas and the car immediately takes off.

It really just baffles me to still see some people wanting to go backward and switch from an auto to a manual. I know there are some applications where a manual is going to be superior, but most DSMers making that switch just want a good DD street car that can go down the 1/4 track in a respectable time. I can guarantee you that from the improvements I'm seeing in my 0-60 times (when I launched it starting from low gear) will translate into a solid 0.5 second improvement in my 1/4 mile time if not more - and my car is actually fun to drive on the street again!

 

[dsm-onster]

I swapped to a manual, because I like rowing through gears and the feeling. . . My car is built for experience: certain hp number, certain powerband, transmission that's more "fun".

But I kept my auto rear diff and have an eprom TCU . . . If the manual breaks, I'm going auto. I already have an eagle/wiseco motor. There would be nothing holding me back from pushing the envelope, considering how much torque the automatic can handle. . .

 

[thiazole]

I agree that the manual is more fun up to a certain power level. When I was running low 13s, I could make a perfect run down the track almost every time. But as I got into the 12s, especially the low 12s (with trap speeds that should have resulted in mid 11s), it became harder and harder to drive the car. I went from 80% of my runs being perfect to needing to run down the track 5-10 times just to get 1 good time slip. And just about every time I went to the track, something in my drive train would break. Look at a lot of the fast manual guys who don't have $5000+ tied up in their drive train - they are breaking multiple times every year. The other thing I began to hate about the manual was that low gear became worthless on the street and very difficult to handle on the track. It was all I could do to get a 1.8 60' time and it would rev through low so fast that I often hit the rev limiter and would have trouble throwing it into second quickly (because the rpms were so high the clutch would drag). My first 0-60 street pull with the auto in drive (using IPTs transmission boost controller to get full line pressure) leaving at 14psi netted a 1.75 second 60' time and I didn't even slip the tires (and 1, these are just performance all season radials, not sticky drag tires and 2, the track that I had to kill myself to get 1.8 second 60' times is WAY stickier than the street - I could never launch on the street without either destroying the tires or bogging with the manual). Yeah, 2nd and 3rd gear pulls were still fun on the street with the manual, and driving in the mountains is a blast with the manual (I doubt the auto will be able to compete there), but all in all, I'm enjoying the auto more than I have the manual since the my car was running high 12s.