Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys,

Was just wondering which would you think is faster? Let me firstly put this in context - it's 400 metres down a straight line - quater mile...

Two Skyline with exactly the same mods, same car etc line up for a sprint down the track... would an AUTO or a MANUAL win?

This is what I have heard... MANUAL'S down the stretch would win... but AUTO'S launch better and the hold boost better ... is this correct?

I actually own an AUTO - I chose this as a preference.... I used to drive a manual twin turbo ZX300 ... but wanted the cruisieness of an auto for long trips and also I like how the AUTO'S hold boost and spool up the turbo quicker... any thoughts?

Regards,

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/159409-manual-vs-automatic-turbo-skylines/
Share on other sites

if u only care about 1/4 mile, auto is the way to go. Once u start pushing into low 13's high 12's, manual becomes a big disadvantage

Yeah, I must agree.... down a straight line...Auto's shift perfectly.... so your answer is spot on.... :)

Guys ive driven both completely stock

the auto is much slower

especially off initial take-off

its probably about 1 second slower 0-100

(per my mechanic)

and unless you got a transbrake and a big stally

and a beefed up box

and you run sub tens

manual is alot quicker down the quarter

  • 2 weeks later...
Guys ive driven both completely stock

the auto is much slower

especially off initial take-off

its probably about 1 second slower 0-100

(per my mechanic)

and unless you got a transbrake and a big stally

and a beefed up box

and you run sub tens

manual is alot quicker down the quarter

however....

to run a 10 or low 11 second pass you will need above 300 kws at the wheels

for a manual this will include some moster clutch that grips like a muther and will be very hard to launch a rear wheel drive without bogging down, or smoking the rears.

on my wifes car i went the auto road because its very easy for my wife to drive to target or coles in

yet i can get in in it and do a low 11. Manuals with big clutches are a pig if its your family or daily driver.

im running the full built race trans from MV Automatics with all new internals bigger bands etc 3000 rpm high stall,

stage 2 shift kit with a large trans cooler and its a pleasure to drive.

I own a r32 gts t auto, recently iv been test driving allot of manuals gts t's because i want to buy one and i must say iv been dissapointed. The wifes auto feels much quicker than any r32 manual iv driven so far..Maybe all the ones iv driven have been scewed tho..

When we gtech'd it and some of our mates cars it ran a 14.78.(on the gtech) cant remember the exact mph but i think it was 95..if you stall them up with decent rubber they go really hard i rekn. Without stallining it up its slow. Witha auto its not hard to get consistant good times. With manual theres allot of variables.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...