For your information, the auto is not going to be and isn't faster than the manual SS..

Here is a quote from a discussion someone had with a person that ACTUALLY has tested the new camaro. I knew this was going to be the case all along. People had the times backwards as I thought. 4.6 for MT 4.9 for AT

"After Al announced 0-60 in 4.6 at the Summit the other night, I walked over and asked him specifically if that time was for the stick or the auto, since I was also under the impression that the auto was supposed to be faster.
Al replied replied that the 4.6 time was indeed, for the stick and that he was the one who actually wrung that time out of the car.
To confirm, I then said, "So the manual is quicker?" and his response was, "Yeah, by a couple of ticks."

... and the manual is actually now very easy to launch with the new Launch Control feature that's available on the SS. Al explained during the info session yesterday that in the right setting, just get the revs up and dump the clutch... and the car takes off with optimal grip. "It will make for very consistent times", was how Al described it.

He also added that they had just found there was actually a little bit of brake drag from the Brembos, and that he would be looking forward to a little better time once that gets ironed"

Here is a thread where this is talked about for many pages..

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7141

 

Driver's skills with the stick can determine which is faster.

Normally aspirated the stick will be faster.

With turbo chargers the automatic can be quicker because of less boost loss during shifting.

 

0 to 60 certainly but down the quarter is a different story. No matter how good a driver you are you can't outshift an automatic. You can launch harder (as hard as the rear can handle) and make a little more power but all things being equal auto's generally ET better. This may not be relevant since the new M6 ss will have a power advantage BEFORE driveline loss. I'd be interested to see a couple head down the strip in person, and see how they stack up to the hype and each other.

All I'm saying is 0-60mph isn't a race, 0-60ft is and it's one where auto's shine.

 

Factory autos usually don't ET better. I am skeptical about the claim that the stock A6 will get down the track faster than the stock M6. Less power to the ground in the auto, paired with the engine making less power than the M6 model, and a wussy factory converter, and I am inclined to believe that a skilled driver with a stick is still gonna get down there faster, regardless of how GM might have rated the times. Time will tell as these things hit the road though. It will be interesting to see.

 

In my new "Automobile" magazine on page 46, their numbers came to :

0-60- Manual 4.8 seconds, Auto 4.9 seconds.
1/4 mile: Manual 13.3 @ 111 and Auto at 13.4 @ 109

 

Like I said, I have no problem seeing the new car run consistently in the 12s. I have seen better times out of stock cars in Popular Mechanics than I have in C&D, Automobile, MT, etc. I don't know how their system works, what correction system they use (they probably shouldn't use one at all), how they drive their cars. All I know is I am almost always underwhelmed by their test data.

I also think it is kind of hokey how they will get a car that has 10 hp more than it's original revision, say a freshen up in the cars current life cycle, and always seem to pull another .1 seconds out of it. Even today, cars are not that consistent. A large part of that probably has to do with most humans will never be that consistent.

 

Well with humans never being able to be that consistant as quoted from post 21 shouldnt that mean that if you got your gears reprogramed so they respond immediately instead of delayed that the auto tapshift would be faster since it should be a smoother computer guided shift?

 

Autos don't put power to the ground efficiently as a manual. The auto can shift faster, but the manuals lesser parasitic drivetrain loss more than makes up for it, as one can see with a manual car's trap speeds. The auto v8 car makes less power at the crank anyway, so that compounds it.

 

Thats wassup thanks for breakin that down for me!

 

Not really a fair comparison as the factory auto is stuck with a pig torque converter. First thing I do on any car I own that is a "performance" car is pull that fat, heavy turd out and put in a nice Yank SS3600. It will be a new machine.

I'm interested to see what it would be like with an A6 and a nice converter. You will ALWAYS be in the 5k-6k range at WOT even with a 3600 converter which is perfectly DD'able!!!

 

thats what i was just about to ask was does that go for those that replace stock with high stall torque converters? With a 3000+ stall converter on an auto wouldnt that be enough to walk a stick considering the shifts would be computerized thus smoother?

 

In my experience, no. Maybe a better drag racer due to it's consistent nature, but it still puts less power to the ground, both cars being equal. On the street, especially from a roll, the still will still pull away, all things being it. A higher stalled car is much, much nicer on the street than a factory stall car though.

Also, a smooth shift is a soft shift, and a soft shift usually is indicated of a slower shift. All the built up auto trans cars I have been in have pretty hard shifts associated with them.


Edit - the converter is only part of the cost of installation. You will likely need a tune with a 3000 rpm stall converter, and anything above that you definitely will need one. Most guys install shift kits after a converter install as well, because the shifts get pretty soft after a high stall converter goes in.

 

And now you are talking about Modding the Auto. Which is not the purpose of this discussion. My only question is one that I do not have the answer to and I know I could look it up but am to lazy. What type of transmissions do NHRA and IHRA drag racing use?

 

AFAIK, most of them use clutchless manuals that are entirely different from anything you can get in a factory car (which is what we're talking about in this thread).

BTW, this thread is more than two months old.

Anyway, somebody posted a 12.89 @ 109 in their 2010 M6. I'm still waiting to hear a good A6 time -- best I've heard so far is 13.1.