Aggro_Al

Auto transmissions now use a lock-up clutch on at least one gear. Performance ATs can lock-up multiple gears. When the torque converter is locked both the impeller and the turbine will connect and spin together at the same speed similar to the pressure/friction plates in a manual. There is less driveline loss when the torque converter is locked. When necessary the lock-up clutch can unlock to synchronize different gears. This would be similar to a manual double clutching or double declutching and rev-matching. On the 5AT, with the TC unlocked, the driver can manage torque through the throttle pedal or have the computer do it electronically.

Darthvol

[In my best Sam Kinnison (sp?) scream, w/sarcasm] "OWW! OOWW! OOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!! THE FLAMES!!!! I'M BURNING!!!!!!

Just curious, how old are you? You don't seem very "aged," or so I would guess. In any event, I KNOW you're old enough to read, get on a computer and type, but you didn't read very many of the posts from 5AT drivers; most of them stated that the drivers DO know "stick". They CHOSE the auto b/c they preferred it for their situation. If you'd read my posts, you'd have seen that I've owned 11 manual tranny vehicles over the course of the last 18 years, 3 of them sports cars, and I learned to drive on a stick. Great gravy, I said I traded in a 6MT G35 coupe on my Z! Make any other assumption you want, but don't assume I don't know how to drive a manual. If MY assumption about your age is correct, I'll bet you that I've shifted a whole heckuva lot more gears over the years than you have.

Darthvol

Hmmm, you could be right. Then again, as a lawyer, to quote from "The Argument Clinic":

John Cleese: "I could be arguing in my spare time."

OR maybe Michael Palin: "This isn't an argument; it's just contradiction!"

OR maybe Graham Chapman: "Oh, sorry, this is abuse."

P.S. Aggro, two thumbs up for the great info. I KNEW this tranny felt much quicker and better than other manumatics I had tried; now I know WHY, thanks to you.

NismoKid

Aggro, if we're going to play with symantics and how the BMW mechanics refer to the transmission, BMW's option list for the M3 clearly says "Sequential Manual Gearbox (SMG)3" on their site and in brouches (not Sequential M Gearbox as you stated). It has a clutch, it has a flywheel, and doesn't have a clutch pedal, it's a hybrid (neither manual nor automatic). If it has a torque converter (fluid), it's an automatic. The point is, new ideas are made every year and they don't have to fall into previously made categorys. A lot of things make their own newly made niches (i.e CVT and SMG).

For anyone else quoting Webster's Dictionary as reference for what an "automatic transmission" is, you're obviously entering high school or still in it. You should've learned never to use a definition of a word in an argument. Why? Because it makes you look stupid.

Transmissions are defined by their components and not how they're "branded." Do you really think when the "automatic" transmission was invented, people probably thought there was going to to be a new kind of transmission? Probably not, or else they would've called it something like the "torque converter transmission." The reason why people name things so basic, is to make it easier for future reference, not as a way to explain how something works.

If you think I'm bashing those who purchased the automatic transmission, I'm not. I said in my earlier post that there's a reason for choices and I don't have a problem with that. Like I said previously, I would've purchased an automatic if I lived with a lot of traffic or in a place like northern California. I'm done with this thread.

Aggro_Al

Okay, so basically you're saying that BMW doesn't know what they are talking about when it comes to the SMG and that you know better. My choice is to side with BMW because I think they know just a little bit more about the SMG than you. If you want to flame me on my choice of who I want to believe and tell me I'm wrong, my flame suit is on.

In the US, BMW marketing calls it the sequential manual gearbox because that is what people want to hear. It makes some think they are buying a manual. It is also called the sequential manual gearbox because it uses the parts from a manual gearbox and automates it with computers not because it is a manual transmission. The manual from BMW called it the Sequential M Gearbox for the M Series BMW. Sorry, if I used BMWs own design title and not the marketing title for the transmission. Our car is the Z33 in the Nissan tech manuals you won't find that title on the website or the sales brochures. In an earlier post, I had posted a link to BMW's dealer manual regarding the SMGII with Drivelogic. This is the manual that BMW distributes to their dealers. In this manual BMW callls the SMG an automatic. It describes the SMG as having all the capabilities of an automatic but without the use of a torque converter. It describes how it uses the inner workings of the manual and how they used electronics and computers to automate the system. If you read the manual, you will find that the SMGs clutch is "electro-hydraulic" like our 5ATs clutch. So guess what, SMG does use hydraulic fluids. If BMW is going to call the SMG an automatic, I'm pretty sure I can call it an automatic also.

Both the sequential shifters and the tiptronic shifters in manual mode only allow the driver to choose the time when they want to shift. Once the transmission gets the shift command, the whole gear change is done automatically. In automatic mode, it is just that like it says automatic. No definitions required here. It is common sense. Only standard manuals can be considered true manual transmissions.

BTW I think the first auto transmissions used mechanical flywheels. The first auto transmissions didn't even use torque converters. It wasn't until much later that Cadillac used a hydraulic transmission similar to todays torque converters. Now technology has advanced auto transmissions again in the new style Tiptronics and Sequential Shifters. Advanced computers and electronics have opened up new options. Who knows, maybe in the future the new auto transmissions will do away with mechanical gears and clutches all together and use electro-magnetic fields to transfer power or some other yet unknown method. If it handles the power transfer automatically it will probably still be called an automatic transmission.

BTW How would using the definition of something make anyone stupid? Intelligent people have used it in debates several times. If you were a lawyer, your whole career would revolve around definitions and intent and arguing the merits of each. Are we going to call all the lawyers stupid also?

NismoKid

Let me see if I can simplify what I said before. Call it what you want. You can call the "manual transmission" a "feces box" or the "automatic transmission" a "bake my cookies oven." I don't care what you name anything. I don't care if BMW names their transmission as an "automatic" or "slow pos." The components and the functioning of a "manual transmission", "automatic transmission", "SMG transmission", and "CVT" of today vary greatly enough that they can be distinguished mechanically from one another. I'm putting quotations around their names because I really could not care less how you label their names. They are all different and they should not be thought of as the same thing. People in today's society want to group things together and generalize since they are too lazy to realize a difference. You pointed out the difference between the "SMG" and "automatics." There is large enough difference to call both separate. I never said the "SMG" should be referred to as a manual. I was trying to show how symantics mean nothing when describing a transmission.

And for the record, I do not like most lawyers and their use of definitions. The majority of lawyers I've seen play with words to distort images and go around facts to "win." There shouldn't be "winning" in court. Justice should be served and not shown as a win or loss in any perspective. One person is guilty, one person is innocent. I don't see why someone is happy when they come out of court innocent. If they were innocent to begin with, they shouldn't be so surprised at the outome. So if you want to read my view of lawyers as me thinking they're "stupid," then by all means do. Just remember I never said they were "stupid."

By the way, definitions are not facts. Not everyone agrees with what a definition is. Most aren't detailed enough to have everyone in the world agree with it. That's why I think one shouldn't use definitions to support an agrument.

Also, I won't be responding to this thread anymore, but feel free to PM me.

Darthvol

Aggro, I think I'm at least one in the category of "anyone else" to whom the above "stupid" flames were directed, so I think he DID call at least ONE lawyer stupid.

Kid, if someone can back it up, I have NO problem whatsoever with someone telling me he knows more about cars than me (Aggro sure doesn't need my help; it looks to me like he knows a lot more about transmissions of ALL varieties than you and I put together). I'm here to learn and share opinions and information about cars. I'm sure no mechanical engineer, and LOTS of people on this forum know an awful lot more than me about an awful lot of subjects.

What I do know, however, backwards and forwards, is how to argue. I have twelve years of trial and appellate advocacy experience, and in a sense, my doctorate might be accurately called a degree in arguing. In law school, I was on an evidence moot court team from a poor little public southern law school that placed second in the nation, ahead of Duke and NYU. The next year I co-coached the same team to a win at the national competition. In undergrad, I was on a debate team that placed second in a national competition. So Kid, the argument doctor is in! Please note the following (non-inclusive) rules about how to have an "argument" and not "look stupid":

1. An argument is an intellectual excercise in which each participant attempts to prove (defend) or disprove a given proposition (an old one I had to argue was "Resolved that further United States covert involvement in Nicaragua would be undesirable"), and hopefully, everyone learns from the process.

2. In accordance with rule #1, name-calling (e.g., telling your opponent his argument makes him "look stupid") is not allowed. The old debaters' saw is, "Show me a debater who resorts to personal attacks, and I'll show you a debater who's losing his case."

3. Everyone has the same standards applied to their arguments. Hypocrisy, such as arguing that someone else shouldn't look to Webster's for a definition in an argument on transmissions, while using a Webster's definition of "hybrid" in the same fashion in your own argument, is frowned upon.

4. If you can't agree on how the terms used in the argument are defined, you aren't really communicating with each other, and thus, there is no "direct clash" between arguments (I used to write the phrase "Two ships passing in the night" on ballots, when I judged debate competitions). For example, in the resolution given as an example above, the team who could win the argument on how broadly or narrowly to define the term "covert" usually won the debate. The very first thing you have to do to have an argument is to define terms; all I did was observe that the reason some folks seemed to be on "different wavelengths" was because they were defining "manual" and "automatic" differently. Stated differently, semantics do matter.

5. Whatever definitions you use must be used consistently throughout your argument. For example, and BTW, I do agree w/you that "hybrid" is a good descriptive term, as defined by Webster's, for modern transmissions like a CVT or SMG, but if an SMG is a hybrid, then so is a manumatic like the Z's.

6. Hoping to be recognized for your intellectual prowess, but introducing yourself to the (female?) debate judges with the byline "BoobsBoobs" isn't recommended.

To most everyone else reading the above rant, please accept my sincere apologies for the above; I don't usually get worked up when "arguing in my spare time," and for free, no less, but guys, I just couldn't let this one pass. Sorry.

And one last rule: If decorum breaks down, don't sink to the level of your opponent... Oh, what the he**! J/K

spf4000

I'm just going to quote myself from another thread:

Darthvol

Dadgum, he must've been typing while I was doing the same. I could sense he was another "lawyer hater" (sigh). After a while, we can smell 'em coming a mile away (yeah, yeah, skid marks in front of the 'possum, I've heard 'em all). Several observations: 1. Kid, you never said lawyers were stupid? Oh, yeah, that's right, you only said my argument made me "look stupid." Sounds like an argument a lawyer would make (defending his client for slander, while the opposing lawyer would respond that it's "a distinction w/o a difference").

2. Seriously, though, he points out a common misconception about the role of the attorney in the legal system. Our job is to be an ADVOCATE for those who cannot speak for themselves; the art of advocacy is persuasion, not the pursuit of truth. The judge and/or jury has the job of "fact finding," and thus determining "THE TRUTH", after hearing two adversarial presentations. If an attorney doesn't zealously represent his client's interests, he is UNethical, and while some people speak disparagingly of that role in the abstract, the same people sure want their interests represented "zealously" when THEY are the ones w/a legal problem. Sure, some lawyers are scumbags, just like all professions, but I don't feel like a bad person if I've just helped someone recover from a drunk driver for killing her son.

3. ". . . one shouldn't use definitions to support an argument"??? For once, I'm speechless.

Primaltone

I never would have believed the bit about better lap times in an AT than a MT. I agree - regardless, I have more fun shifting. It reminds me: I've downloaded and watched countless car reviews from 5th Gear and Top Gear, many of which have F1 transmissions. Even though the reviewers know that the F1 gearboxes should easily outperform their totally manual counterparts, they almost always prefer the totally manual gearboxes. Once again, it's all about fun.

zzzya

iTrader: (2)

My Camaro has a Manual Transmission, but not a 6-speed.

You can not control RPMs on launch or between shifting gears like you can with a manual tranny since you can control clutch engagement and disengagement. The TC in the 5AT locks in 4th and 5th gear, which should help eliminate driveline loss when dynoing. The biggest reason for the HP difference in my opinion is the difference in the final drive ratios. Sure in 4th gear the 5AT Tranny has the same ratio as the 6MT Tranny in 5th gear, but the final drive is still different thus resulting in different speeds at the wheels at any given rpm. This does affect the way the 5AT cars perform compared to the 6MT and can negatively effect Dyno results. Slower acceleration, slower rpm climb. Obviously there can be variables namely the quality of shifts from the 6MT driver and the HP being made at the crank, but given the same HP at the crank, no other driveline mods and a good driver, the 6MT will win every time in a 1/4 mile race because of that final drive. If you drop the same final drive into the 5AT, then it becomes very interesting indeed. I do not think many people realize this, but the final drive in the 5AT is different than that of the 6MT and it makes a big difference!!!

DragonGcoupe

The daily driver comment is kind of old. The MT drivers knew they would have to put up with it.. and do. Having an AT is fine, that's just what you want.

Darthvol

Great post, worth repeating. Having had the manual G coupe and now the auto Z, I had much the same impressions, but not the courage to say so, for fear of having my "manual" skills flamed.

Darthvol

BTW, every auto mag that I remember tested only the 6MT Track coupe and/or 6MT Touring roadster. Does anyone have any actual test (or even personal track) #s 0-60 and in the quarter for a 5AT Touring coupe or Roadster? I'm curious.

Dream

As a third-year law student, I find your remarks and previous commentary regarding my post humorous and insightful. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

On a more serious note, the use of definitions in an argument is generally counter-productive in the sense that, as vituperative racer boy ("VRB") said, words mean different things to different people. As you countered, on the other hand, semantics do matter if you can agree on a definition. You have trial experience. You had to have done jury instructions before, so you know what I'm talking about.

Perhaps the usefulness of definitions in an argument is dependent on whether the participants can readily agree on a particular definition. In troll threads, people flame back and forth and inevitably the discussion devolves to the "YOUR MOM" level. In troll thread situations, I would say that definitions are almost worthless because no one will readily agree on one.

On another note, it's funny how VRB says that no definition is detailed enough that everyone will agree on it, but then goes on to bash lawyers who "play with words to distort images and go around facts to 'win.'" Somewhat inconsistent there, wouldn't you agree? Of course, VRB can simply fall back on the argument that "Justice should be served," but then he's stuck arguing for a rather nebulous system. I totally agree with him that justice should be served, but what kind of system should replace the current one? Should we have no lawyers, just people who show up, present their facts and let the jury decide? What happens if your rapist can argue better than you can, and they convince the jury that you're a damn liar? Is that justice? I'd rather go for a system where someone who argues for a living will present my facts for me.

Lawyers are advocates. It's our job to make sure that your case is presented in the best possible light, period. If you were going up against a non-lawyer in a courtroom situation, you can be damn sure that that person is going to "play with words to distort images and go around facts to 'win.'" Why is it somehow worse when lawyers do it? Would it be any better if it wasn't a lawyer, just a really intelligent and well-spoken person?

Um, something on-topic. I drove an auto Z in manumatic mode once. It was fun. I learned about downshifting and shift braking. With the manumatic, I felt like I got the advantages of the manual without the clutch. Then again, I don't race or do all those other "manly" things.

Pat Boone

My Buick has an automatic transmission. Ever since they invented it over 50 years ago, I don't know why any good church-going folk would want to waste their time and effort on a stick-shift car. I like to take a nap while driving down the freeway. And I can, thanks to my GM slushbox, supersoft springs and cruise control.

eazy

This is the best thread. Ever!

Aggro_Al

You're right many people don't realize that the 5AT and the 6MT have different final drive ratios. The difference in drive ratios is part of the HP difference between the two. I'm not sure how much the final drive ratios contributes to the difference. We'll need to find someone to find some way to measure it and let us all know.

You probably already know this but you can control your RPMs on the launch up to the level of the TC's stall speed by brake torquing. While the turbine (output shaft) is stationary and the impeller (engine shaft) is spinning, the stator will use the speed difference to multiply torque. When you release the brake and depress the throttle the stator will lock, the TC will couple and torque transfer will be almost instantaneous. Almost like flashing to that RPM instantly. This is why high-stall torque converters have such a great affect on acceleration times. Like in a manual car, it is a skill to be able to get max power to the ground without breaking traction. The other way to control your launch in the 5AT is the neutral drop. Just put it in neutral, rev to the desired RPM and drop it into drive. Rev high enough and drop into drive and you'll instantly turn your AT into a manual in more ways than one.

Rev-matching shift manuevers are the only reason I can think of on a MT where you would keep the clutch pedal pressed for an extended period. Maybe there are others reasons. On the 5AT, it's not really rev-matching because TCs don't need to use rev-matching but, the 5AT will do something similar to rev-matching by slipping or using the stator during gear shifts until the turbine and impeller are speed matched. The 5AT is driver adaptable and you have some control over the shift speed through throttle tip-in. So I guess, you are right the 5AT only has psuedo-control. The 6MT doesn't have to worry about the computer taking over during synchronization.