[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by Jkfsu

I will be able to answer this with certainty this week. Buddy got a 2016 6spd SS and I have the A8. We're going to do roll runs to see which one is quicker. Although geared different so different rolls will have different advantages to each car

Cool. Hopefully he can drive. A 20 mph roll I'd bet on the auto.

Seen a guy on YouTube with a manual that had beaten his buddy's auto a few times but he has a few mods and the a8 is stock. From the looks of it the higher the speed the more advantage the manual has.

The a8 really seems like it's set up for 0-120 sprints.

[Jkfsu]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Cool. Hopefully he can drive. A 20 mph roll I'd bet on the auto.

Seen a guy on YouTube with a manual that had beaten his buddy's auto a few times but he has a few mods and the a8 is stock. From the looks of it the higher the speed the more advantage the manual has.

The a8 really seems like it's set up for 0-120 sprints.

I agree a lower roll is better for the a8. My buddy can drive and we will do a 30 and 40 roll. I'll probably be in first gear for the 30 and 2nd gear for the 40. I do think the manual will take me from a roll but we will see by how much

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

I guess if you think you know better than GM... they only designed and built the car lol.

So? Their times are estimates, manufacturers are well known to be conservative. Are you disputing that multiple magazines have not beaten GM's quoted 4.3 time? Any car enthusiast knows not to take any manufacturers estimated times as hard facts...

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Crappier 60ft can actually produce higher trap.

Only if the crappier time is due to wheel spin, not gearing. Talking similar equipped cars of course.

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Our fast list looks looks like the auto traps higher. Well besides the one that's not on the list that's a freaky anomaly. Probably modded.

Our fast list is tiny, and has only a handful of manuals on it. Some of which are pretty obviously not well driven...

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Good luck getting better 0-60 with a manual on average.

Correct.

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

I like manuals too but it's not looking much if any faster from a roll and for sure slower in the 1/4.

Stock for stock, good driver to good driver, from a roll (especially in say 3rd or 4th gear for the manual) a manual will pull an auto. Stock for stock in the 1/4, the edge would go to the auto.

My original post was referring to BOTH the Camaro and Mustang trap speeds as well...highest stock trap speeds for both, if you just want to go by magazines, are for manual equipped cars.

I have nothing against, nor am I just for either. I currently own both and both have there ups and downs. I do prefer rowing my own gears if I am forced to choose though...

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by Jkfsu

I will be able to answer this with certainty this week. Buddy got a 2016 6spd SS and I have the A8. We're going to do roll runs to see which one is quicker. Although geared different so different rolls will have different advantages to each car

One group of tests doesn't answer the question though. Especially if your buddy can't row the gears with the best of them. I doubt he will fit that mold anyway, as you said he just got the car. There was a video posted on here last week of an auto vs manual roll race. The manual pulled on the auto, still doesn't mean that is the outcome all the time...too many variables.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Cool. Hopefully he can drive. A 20 mph roll I'd bet on the auto.

Seen a guy on YouTube with a manual that had beaten his buddy's auto a few times but he has a few mods and the a8 is stock. From the looks of it the higher the speed the more advantage the manual has.

The a8 really seems like it's set up for 0-120 sprints.

I saw that video as well, the manual only had a TB (does nothing on these cars) and a CAI if I recall (also does nothing on these cars, and in some cases loses power).

[Snowblind]

Originally Posted by KenH.

This thread is fantastic. Fanboi keeping the mustang dream alive! You are just going to have to wait until Ford changes things up and, hopefully, builds a GT that can compete because right now it does not. It's not an opinion it's just the way it is current day.

I'm enjoying the thread myself I must say. I picked up some skinnies for the front and I've been cutting back on the cheeseburgers....aiming this fall for an untuned +tire only 11.6x

We will see if the competition can match that

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by SS 1LE

I saw that video as well, the manual only had a TB (does nothing on these cars) and a CAI if I recall (also does nothing on these cars, and in some cases loses power).

Secondary cat delete and different mufflers at some point. Not sure what he had from race to race etc. he also jumped just about every race. He also thought his mods helped in some of the comments.

About GM times yes they are estimates... That are in favor of the auto trapping higher. They put the estimates there for a reason...Not like they have any experience with the cars...it was just to make you mad lol

I'm not disputing people have done better or that the GM times are set in stone. You have quite the arguing skills but I think you know exactly what I'm saying. The same can be said about the auto times... And they are quoted as being faster than the manual in the first place. So common sense would say the delta would keep the auto ahead. Unless GM has a conspiracy against the manual and underrated it's times more than the auto.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

The same can be said about the auto times... And they are quoted as being faster than the manual in the first place. So common sense would say the delta would keep the auto ahead. Unless GM has a conspiracy against the manual and underrated it's times more than the auto.

Common sense huh, nice... Well that would allow one to look at all the times as well now wouldn't it then? Let's say for 0-60...GM quotes the auto at 4.0, I have found two magazine tests for the auto, one was 4.0 (RT) and the other 3.9 (CD). They rate the manual at 4.3. I found three tests for these, 4.0 (MT), 4.0 (MT), 4.0 (CD). Looks like the GM rating for the manual is more conservative to me, and that the times are pretty much a dead heat. Will the auto be more consistent, of course, but that wasn't my point. Not to mention making the automatic 0-60 numbers lower in sales literature also could sell more $1500+ automatic transmission options, look at it that way too...marketing is quite the tool.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by SS 1LE

Common sense huh, nice... Well that would allow one to look at all the times as well now wouldn't it then? Let's say for 0-60...GM quotes the auto at 4.0, I have found two magazine tests for the auto, one was 4.0 (RT) and the other 3.9 (CD). They rate the manual at 4.3. I found three tests for these, 4.0 (MT), 4.0 (MT), 4.0 (CD). Looks like the GM rating for the manual is more conservative to me, and that the times are pretty much a dead heat.

And some owners claim 3.7 with the auto. A dead heat ? A manual with less effective gearing for 0-60 and full of operator error is a dead heat ? No way... More like if you're a professional you can hope to be almost as quick.

Not sure why you keep talking 0-60 when this all started with trap speed. In which you have almost nothing going for your argument. Same day testing shows them identical. GM rates the auto 1mph more. Our fast list shows the auto trapping higher. You have one 118 trap that stated it picked up mph with mileage and no auto to test next to it.

If this were a court case you lose plain and simple. How about looking back in a year with more data.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

And some owners claim 3.7 with the auto. A dead heat ? A manual with less effective gearing for 0-60 and full of operator error is a dead heat ? No way... More like if you're a professional you can hope to be almost as quick.

Not sure why you keep talking 0-60 when this all started with trap speed. In which you have almost nothing going for your argument. Same day testing shows them identical. GM rates the auto 1mph more. Our fast list shows the auto trapping higher. You have one 118 trap that stated it picked up mph with mileage and no auto to test next to it.

If this were a court case you lose plain and simple. How about looking back in a year with more data.

Owners can claim what they want with the gimmick dash timer. A guy on here with a manual claimed a 3.6, big whoop. I hope you don't think that thing is a scientific tool as well...I stated 0-60 times, as you said "GM knows their cars so well" in relation to numbers in sales literature to prove that incorrect.


Going by published times from the big three auto magazines, yes I would say when out of the five published numbers four of the five are the same, and one is one tenth off, that is what you call a dead heat. I did say the auto would be more consistent.

You seem to want to turn this into a manual vs auto argument, which was never my point, my point was that the numbers some quote aren't exactly spot on. Nothing to due with "what's better".

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by SS 1LE

Owners can claim what they want with the gimmick dash timer. A guy on here with a manual claimed a 3.6, big whoop. I hope you don't think that thing is a scientific tool as well...I stated 0-60 times, as you said "GM knows their cars so well" in relation to numbers in sales literature to prove that incorrect.


Going by published times from the big three auto magazines, yes I would say when out of the five published numbers four of the five are the same, and one is one tenth off, that is what you call a dead heat. I did say the auto would be more consistent.

You seem to want to turn this into a manual vs auto thread, which was never my point, my point was that the numbers some quote aren't exactly spot on. Nothing to due with "what's better".

You are diverting from the original trap claim. You are turning it into auto vs manual with all the extra discussion to try and support your argument. To try and say GM cant give a decent estimate of a trap speed of a car they built and that I'm foolish for mentioning it is quite rich IMO. Trap speed will not vary as much as 0-60 (with equal conditions) and is a reach in this argument.

Some more evidence I almost forgot about who just added to this thread.

Snowblind and fraxum were both at atco same night and even raced each other. Guess who trapped higher all night long? Both stock power. Fraxum is experienced and can drive.

The auto in the coyote is not as good as the a8 in the SS. So it's not the same comparison.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

You are diverting from the original trap claim. You are turning it into auto vs manual with all the extra discussion to try and support your argument.

Some more evidence I almost forgot about who just added to this thread.

Snowblind and fraxum were both at atco same night and even raced each other. Guess who trapped higher all night long. Both stock power. Fraxum is experienced and can drive.

No offense to Fraxum, but his ET's are not the best. He is off some two tenths, and Snowblind has probably one of the best running stock autos. That right there makes enough of a difference to make that point pretty much invalid and not apples to apples.

Furthermore...This all started in response to the Mustang guy saying auto Coyote Mustangs trap higher, which they do infact not. I have had both...same mods, same track, same DA, etc, etc...there was a good 2-3 mph difference. You just chose to pick out the Camaro portion of that, even though this is a Camaro vs Mustang thread. You're picking on the wrong side.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by SS 1LE

No offense to Fraxum, but his ET's are not the best. He is off some two tenths, and Snowblind has probably one of the best running stock autos. That right there makes enough of a difference to make that point pretty much invalid and not apples to apples.

Furthermore...This all started in response to the Mustang guy saying auto Coyote Mustangs trap higher, which they do infact not. I have had both...same mods, same track, same DA, etc, etc...there was a good 2-3 mph difference. You just chose to pick out the Camaro portion of that, even though this is a Camaro vs Mustang thread. You're picking on the wrong side.

Like I said before not a good comparison the a8 is better than the ford auto.

So if he could speed shift harder he could pick up 2-3 mph...not sure about that. But you're not even asking for even... You're saying it traps even higher. Think what you want bro. I'm just going off what is pretty obvious to me so far (and GM which i guess doesn't matter)

Good running auto ? They all run nearly the same it's not 1960. Only driver error or improperly running cars

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Like I said before not a good comparison the a8 is better than the ford auto.

You totally missed the point. He was talking about Mustang to Mustang in relation to trap speeds...nothing to due with GM transmissions, or cars for that matter.

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Good running auto ? They all run nearly the same it's not 1960. Only driver error or improperly running cars

Yes, good running. You contradicted your own question with a statement. Do you have much experience running at the track? Autos are not just about putting it in D and mashing the throttle all the time. Track prep, and yes the drivers foot control can make a big difference too. I mean you keep bringing up this forums fast list, go look at it for the autos...there is a SEVEN tenths of a second spread. Some owners are just better at reading track conditions (better drivers), and some cars just hook better, some don't...all of that equals a "good running" car. That's what the term is at the track when someones car is putting down better times then an equal one, it's "good running", or "runs good". It's not just about DA to get a huge spread like that...