Why would someone buy an automatic sports car?

[Kremlar]

Going to have to pick a nit over your costs argument; in a lot of sports cars, the manual transmission is the option; hence it would increase the price of the car. Along the same lines, a strong auto tranny (Ex: 700R4, 4L60E, 4L80E) holds up very well and has no clutch to wear down.

I've never heard of a manual being an additional cost over an auto. What cars?

Also, how about all the other components of an automatic transmission that wear??

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Because they're lame poseurs. Those who really care about driving realize that "I drive in traffic" is no excuse.

And it's infrequently got anything to do with benefits of an auto; afterall I can think of only one exotic off the top of my head that uses a true automatic transmission. Torque convertors are still crap.

Skoorb, despite his attempt to slam "poseurs" really hit the nail on the head.

I know it tough to understand for all you super cool I-drive-like-this-is-a-rally-race-instead-of-rush-hour people, but there are people out there who don't care as much about cars as you do. People who buy auto sports cars want something that's fun to drive without being extra work.

This is not a complex concept. Have you car people inhaled too much carbon-monoxide or something?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Maybe they drive an auto because they're not like 90% of the lamers in this thread who drive a manual to be "cool"

I don't drive manuals to be cool. I drive manuals because I am cool.

That is truly sig worthy. Edit: Just an expression, I don't like quoting AT people in my sig 😉

There are no words to describe how hard I laughed when I read that.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews
I firmly believe that 90% of the "OMGZ!!!!1! Automatic sports cars make baby Jesus cry" crowd have never actually driven a sports car.

For the record, I've got a 91 Vette convertible auto. 2.59:1 rear end. 250HP and 350ft/lb tq. Dad's got a 96 auto coupe 3.06:1 rear, 320 HP 330ft/lb tq.

I'll be the first to grant that not all companies auto trannies are created equal (*cough*Honda*cough), but as an example GM's 700R4 and 4L60E autos are both excellent transmissions. That said, ragging on someone's car just because of the transmission in it is very immature. There are plenty of very fast autos out there; google 4L80e and amaze yourself.

:roll: Bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

I've driven a couple 'Vettes, a 3000gt vr4 and an s2000, all manual the way it should be 😉 I firmly believe 90% of the auto crowd has no issues or anything with it, they just want convenience and/or don't care. I feel a bit of a pang seeing a gorgeous sports car with an auto regardless, but it's their car...

OTOH there's the 10% who have to put down anyone who drives / wants to drive a stick, who can't even read responses in this thread detailing good reasons for it, instead skimming/skipping over them and 'hearing' the chatter of wannabes, ie. "omgz autoz suxx0rz" and such. Almost comical really, as no one has responded that way, but quite a few have given practical reasons. I'd recommend learning to drive a stick for this 10%, it's not that hard and you wouldn't feel so unmanly for not knowing, which is the real culprit behind your hateful responses. Reading the thread before posting could have the same effect, actually, but learning to drive stick would take care of the problem on a deeper level.

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: Gurck
Or maybe, as I already posted, they're after the increased control one has with a stick, the lower initial costs, and lower repair costs.

Going to have to pick a nit over your costs argument; in a lot of sports cars, the manual transmission is the option; hence it would increase the price of the car. Along the same lines, a strong auto tranny (Ex: 700R4, 4L60E, 4L80E) holds up very well and has no clutch to wear down.

Any examples where stick is more expensive? Not all options increase the price, some lower it. Some Ferarri or other has a paddle shifter standard, getting the stickshift drops ~$12,000 off the price. Just an example off the top of my head.

Trannies have a lot of parts that wear. The only autos I've ever seen go over 100k miles without needing repair (which runs $3k+) are those in cars whose gas pedals have never been depressed more than 1/4 of the way. In a stick if you replace a worn clutch you're pretty much good to go. Other problems can arise if the car & transmission have really been beat on, of course, but that's only natural.

 

[DougK62]

Funny how so many are clueless about what they're talking about.

My dad bought an automatic Corvette because he's old and not getting any younger. Clutches are getting harder for him to operate.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Kremlar

Going to have to pick a nit over your costs argument; in a lot of sports cars, the manual transmission is the option; hence it would increase the price of the car. Along the same lines, a strong auto tranny (Ex: 700R4, 4L60E, 4L80E) holds up very well and has no clutch to wear down.

I've never heard of a manual being an additional cost over an auto. What cars?

Also, how about all the other components of an automatic transmission that wear??

350Z and G35 come to mind. With a good auto tranny cooler and scheduled ATF changes, wear and tear on an auto is minimal. There is a viscous coupling instead of clutch. Torque converter can handle a lot of power with little wear and tear.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: Gurck
Trannies have a lot of parts that wear. The only autos I've ever seen go over 100k miles without needing repair (which runs $3k+) are those in cars whose gas pedals have never been depressed more than 1/4 of the way.

You need to stop talking - you're just making yourself look dumb. Most automatic transmissions will easily last well over 100k without needing any more than your basic fluid change at scheduled intervals.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: Gurck
Trannies have a lot of parts that wear. The only autos I've ever seen go over 100k miles without needing repair (which runs $3k+) are those in cars whose gas pedals have never been depressed more than 1/4 of the way.

You need to stop talking - you're just making yourself look dumb. Most automatic transmissions will easily last well over 100k without needing any more than your basic fluid change at scheduled intervals.

Mine would be a good example. 130k and still going strong, no problems at all. My last car had 150k before it started having issues with the tranny, and it was crap to begin with.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: Gurck
Trannies have a lot of parts that wear. The only autos I've ever seen go over 100k miles without needing repair (which runs $3k+) are those in cars whose gas pedals have never been depressed more than 1/4 of the way.

You need to stop talking - you're just making yourself look dumb. Most automatic transmissions will easily last well over 100k without needing any more than your basic fluid change at scheduled intervals.

It's happened to me more than once and many friends as well, my parents, extended family, family friends, friends' parents, friends of friends, etc., various makes of cars. The only autos I've heard of going 100k+ without needing extremely expensive repairs are those driven mostly by the elderly. If going on many experiences is dumb, what exactly would you consider intelligent?

 

[JustinSampson]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: Gurck
Trannies have a lot of parts that wear. The only autos I've ever seen go over 100k miles without needing repair (which runs $3k+) are those in cars whose gas pedals have never been depressed more than 1/4 of the way.

You need to stop talking - you're just making yourself look dumb. Most automatic transmissions will easily last well over 100k without needing any more than your basic fluid change at scheduled intervals.

It's happened to me more than once and many friends as well, my parents, extended family, family friends, friends' parents, friends of friends, etc., various makes of cars. The only autos I've heard of going 100k+ without needing extremely expensive repairs are those driven mostly by the elderly. If going on many experiences is dumb, what exactly would you consider intelligent?

Just wanted to add our automatic Jeep Cherokee has 160K and is still going fine. That car has been driven as hard as you possibly could...

And our automatic Camry has 100K and is still perfectly fine too.

I know of maybe one person that has had a auto. transmission go before 80K.

 

[Gurck]

I wonder.. you live in a generally flat area?

 

[Nebor]

Because I can't drive a stick well at all, and I don't really care to.

Lightning Owner (only autos)

 

[Kremlar]

350Z and G35 come to mind. With a good auto tranny cooler and scheduled ATF changes, wear and tear on an auto is minimal. There is a viscous coupling instead of clutch. Torque converter can handle a lot of power with little wear and tear.

Uhhh, no. Just popped by Nissan's website, and the auto is a $970 option over the manual on the 350Z Enthusiast trim. The manual transmission PACKAGE of the G35 is more money, but only because it comes with a limited slip, upgraded flywheel, upgraded brakes, etc... it's actually a better deal.

And as for maintenance costs, I went 160K on my last manual transmission car before needing clutch work (which actually was a leaking master cylinder), and it only cost me $400 or so. I'm currently on 110K miles on my '99 M3 with the original clutch, and 85K miles on my '94 RX-7 with the original clutch.

I'd say if you can drive well, there's no reason a manual transmission will have issues before an auto, and when the do fail, the repair cost is typically cheaper than an auto. It's common sense - it's a much less complicated system.

 

[boyRacer]

Originally posted by: Kremlar

350Z and G35 come to mind. With a good auto tranny cooler and scheduled ATF changes, wear and tear on an auto is minimal. There is a viscous coupling instead of clutch. Torque converter can handle a lot of power with little wear and tear.

Uhhh, no. Just popped by Nissan's website, and the auto is a $970 option over the manual on the 350Z Enthusiast trim. The manual transmission PACKAGE of the G35 is more money, but only because it comes with a limited slip, upgraded flywheel, upgraded brakes, etc... it's actually a better deal.

And as for maintenance costs, I went 160K on my last manual transmission car before needing clutch work (which actually was a leaking master cylinder), and it only cost me $400 or so. I'm currently on 110K miles on my '99 M3 with the original clutch, and 85K miles on my '94 RX-7 with the original clutch.

I'd say if you can drive well, there's no reason a manual transmission will have issues before an auto, and when the do fail, the repair cost is typically cheaper than an auto. It's common sense - it's a much less complicated system.

Wow. E36 M3 and 3rd gen RX-7... :Q :heart:

I love you. :lips:

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: bR

Originally posted by: Kremlar

350Z and G35 come to mind. With a good auto tranny cooler and scheduled ATF changes, wear and tear on an auto is minimal. There is a viscous coupling instead of clutch. Torque converter can handle a lot of power with little wear and tear.

Uhhh, no. Just popped by Nissan's website, and the auto is a $970 option over the manual on the 350Z Enthusiast trim. The manual transmission PACKAGE of the G35 is more money, but only because it comes with a limited slip, upgraded flywheel, upgraded brakes, etc... it's actually a better deal.

And as for maintenance costs, I went 160K on my last manual transmission car before needing clutch work (which actually was a leaking master cylinder), and it only cost me $400 or so. I'm currently on 110K miles on my '99 M3 with the original clutch, and 85K miles on my '94 RX-7 with the original clutch.

I'd say if you can drive well, there's no reason a manual transmission will have issues before an auto, and when the do fail, the repair cost is typically cheaper than an auto. It's common sense - it's a much less complicated system.

Wow. E36 M3 and 3rd gen RX-7... :Q :heart:

I love you. :lips:

Hehe my thoughts exactly 😛

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: TerryMathews
I firmly believe that 90% of the "OMGZ!!!!1! Automatic sports cars make baby Jesus cry" crowd have never actually driven a sports car.

For the record, I've got a 91 Vette convertible auto. 2.59:1 rear end. 250HP and 350ft/lb tq. Dad's got a 96 auto coupe 3.06:1 rear, 320 HP 330ft/lb tq.

I'll be the first to grant that not all companies auto trannies are created equal (*cough*Honda*cough), but as an example GM's 700R4 and 4L60E autos are both excellent transmissions. That said, ragging on someone's car just because of the transmission in it is very immature. There are plenty of very fast autos out there; google 4L80e and amaze yourself.

:roll: Bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

I've driven a couple 'Vettes, a 3000gt vr4 and an s2000, all manual the way it should be 😉 I firmly believe 90% of the auto crowd has no issues or anything with it, they just want convenience and/or don't care. I feel a bit of a pang seeing a gorgeous sports car with an auto regardless, but it's their car...

OTOH there's the 10% who have to put down anyone who drives / wants to drive a stick, who can't even read responses in this thread detailing good reasons for it, instead skimming/skipping over them and 'hearing' the chatter of wannabes, ie. "omgz autoz suxx0rz" and such. Almost comical really, as no one has responded that way, but quite a few have given practical reasons. I'd recommend learning to drive a stick for this 10%, it's not that hard and you wouldn't feel so unmanly for not knowing, which is the real culprit behind your hateful responses. Reading the thread before posting could have the same effect, actually, but learning to drive stick would take care of the problem on a deeper level.

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: Gurck
Or maybe, as I already posted, they're after the increased control one has with a stick, the lower initial costs, and lower repair costs.

Going to have to pick a nit over your costs argument; in a lot of sports cars, the manual transmission is the option; hence it would increase the price of the car. Along the same lines, a strong auto tranny (Ex: 700R4, 4L60E, 4L80E) holds up very well and has no clutch to wear down.

Any examples where stick is more expensive? Not all options increase the price, some lower it. Some Ferarri or other has a paddle shifter standard, getting the stickshift drops ~$12,000 off the price. Just an example off the top of my head.

Trannies have a lot of parts that wear. The only autos I've ever seen go over 100k miles without needing repair (which runs $3k+) are those in cars whose gas pedals have never been depressed more than 1/4 of the way. In a stick if you replace a worn clutch you're pretty much good to go. Other problems can arise if the car & transmission have really been beat on, of course, but that's only natural.

Just checked the BYO Vette website. Manual is a $940 option, but it include the 3.15:1 axle that is a $395 option. Net $545 increase to go from auto to manual.

I fail to see why I'm hypocritical? I drive an auto; I do not say there's something wrong with manuals, just that I do not choose to drive one. I correct people who say autos are bad transmissions; I don't say that manuals are bad transmissions.

And finally, for autos with 100k+ miles I'm going to direct you (again) to CorvetteForum.com. I can't overstate it enough; the 700R4 and 4L60E are rock-solid, dependable trannies that will hold up to immense amounts of abuse. There are years where the auto is vastly preferred over the manual in Vettes, the Doug Nash 4+3 tranny comes to mind. 🙂 Anyone who follows Vettes will know immediately what I'm talking about.

EDIT: New thought below
All you auto-haters, let's look at it this way. Can you think of a good reason for a car company to NOT allow the customer ordering the $40,000 automobile to configure it any way he/she desires? It IMO would be akain to Intel saying that their Pentium 4 processors can only be used with RAMBUS, for maximum performance. Oh wait, that did happen and it didn't go too well for them. 🙂

 

[CraigRT]

I think it's stupid too. but that's just me.
at least Dodge does it right, not offering an auto on Vipers 😀

 

[OS]

you know, it's only a matter of time before most performance cars on the market have a 6 or 7 speed automatic. In fact it'll probably be within the next 10 years. At that point, automatics will be consistently faster than manuals. When this happens, how many of you stick shift whores will keep driving manuals even when they're actually SLOWER than automatics? bwuhahahaha. 😛

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: OS
you know, it's only a matter of time before most performance cars on the market have a 6 or 7 speed automatic. In fact it'll probably be within the next 10 years. At that point, automatics will be consistently faster than manuals. When this happens, how many of you stick shift whores will keep driving manuals even when they're actually SLOWER than automatics? bwuhahahaha. 😛

umm? the number of gears != the speed of the car...

Autos will ALWAYS weigh more than a similar-generation stick, and drivetrain loss is more of a problem. Also, while it's true that auto>stick for straight-line performance, having a human brain rather than a computer controlling your shifting can make a big difference around the twisties. Enough to make any stick with a good driver faster than an auto.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: jagec
umm? the number of gears != the speed of the car...

Autos will ALWAYS weigh more than a similar-generation stick, and drivetrain loss is more of a problem. Also, while it's true that auto>stick for straight-line performance, having a human brain rather than a computer controlling your shifting can make a big difference around the twisties. Enough to make any stick with a good driver faster than an auto.

Actually roughly it does. If you've ever seen a dyno graph, nearly all cars have sort of a peak for power output. More gears means you can keep the car in it's power band. But this works better for automatics because shifts are instant, whereas if you had a 7 speed manual, you'd spend a lot of time shifting, instead of accelerating.

Your little twisties argument can be easily fixed by a tiptronic type of shifter which lets you hold in gears.

Complementing the impressive new power plant is a pair of transmissions that offers excellent flexibility and performance whether you go with the standard six-speed manual or new seven-speed automatic. Last year's manual gearbox suffered from a vague, hollow shifter that inspired little confidence through the gears, but the reworked linkage in this year's model delivers a solid feel and smooth action that transforms the six-speed into a gearbox worthy of consideration. Then there's the seven-speed automatic that offers up serious performance (Mercedes claims that the automatic-equipped SLK is a tenth-of-a-second quicker to 60 than the manual) along with the everyday drivability of a traditional automatic.

link

 

[yellowm50]

problem with tiptronics is the shifts have lag in them and unless you have a ferrari where its a real manual tranny operated by a computer then you are still just stuck with a automatic tranny that tries to act like a manual. but in drag race, yes auto is the way to go. but in racing where there are turns the manual is just way better. you choose when the clutch engages, just way better feel for the car and what its doing, but there are plenty of poeple around me that have automatic M3, Porsches, corvettes. to each there own. there money they can waste it any way they want. but for me i will drive manual.

 

[lostatlantis]

Originally posted by: AgaBooga
My friend's dad has an automatic M3, mid to late 90's model. I think it's a four speed, could be 5 but I'm doubting that, it never shifted into a fifth gear.

I'm trying to understand why someone would buy that, he bought it new so it wasn't a great used car deal or something either. What are some reasons to buying a car like this with an automatic transmission?

Maybe the person just didn't know the pro/con of manual vs auto.

Maybe the car was the one in best shape on the lot. That'll be the case for me with my first car, an automatic firebird. It was in tip-top shape and had custom tinted windows/T-tops over other beat up manuals.

and city travel is a big one. Just spent the summer driving in city traffic and I am glad I had the auto.

 

[powerMarkymark]

Originally posted by: z0mb13
coz some people cant drive manual and they want a sports car??

The I would strongly suggest they learn!

 

[Zanix]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The odd time I have to drive an automatic I find detracts considerably from any 'enjoyment' I might get from driving it.

That and I usually just about put my left foot through the floor when I sit down.

I can understand why someone would want an automatic transmission, but rather than make your vette drive like a Lincoln, you might as well just buy a Lincoln 😉

Exactly what I'm thinking. My bro has a '89 MR2 that I drove around last summer; it manual, and fun as all hell to drive. Now I think it's concidered a sports car by the insurance company, but a high powered sports car I think it is not. Regardless, it seems to me that you'd be missing out on alot of the fun of a sports car if you didn't have the extra pedal and stick to operate. So why not just buy a luxury car?

You guys are talking about preformance and wear and cost, which is important in all, but what about the "sport" in a sports car? I think a major portion of that is lost with a manual.

 

[Vortec4800]

Originally posted by: ectx
Have you driven one of the ealier BMW's? The clutch is heavy. I know a girl who is an excellent driver and always drives a sports car (manual), but she did not like to drive her husband's BMW in stop-and-go traffic. (BMW clutch has since gotten a lot better, I really like the Z-4 I test drove a few weeks ago).

What? Maybe the clutch in that car has never been bled, because I've driven quite a few old BMWs including my buddy's 1973 BMW 2002, a couple E30 318's and 325's, an E30 M3 and an E36 M3. None of the clutches were heavy at all, in fact that 2002 was the lightest of the bunch.

To the auto vs manual topic, whatever the person wants is great. Each company is out to do one thing: make money. They want to sell cars to people who drive manual and people who don't know how or don't want to. Why exclude an entire demographic? My 4Runner is an automatic, that's the only way I could get it. I would only ever own a sports car with a manual transmission, but again that doesn't mean other people don't want to mess with shifting all the time. In a couple years time I'd like to buy an E36 M3 with a 5 speed and have fun with that. Does that mean I can't have my truck with an automatic too for when I don't feel like shifting?