This is certainly not accurate at all. Maybe in the 93s, I don't know many specifics about 93 besides they were speed density cars. The LS1 manuals are definetly faster than the autos, especially on the top end.


It wasn't in all car rags either, because I have the Road and Track article featuring the new fbodies, and that was not their conclusion.

 

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

 

A friend of mine has an 07 A6 Corvette. No it doesn't exactly emulate a manual, but you do have control of gear selection when you want it and you have automatic mode for D/D and best straightline acceleration. It may add a few pounds to the car compared to the manual but it is very fast anyway.

 

the Vette has 436hp now if you get the optional exhaust

 

For me I won't buy any car w/o a stick. Daily driver and all. There is a reason why I'm doing a T56 swap with the LS1 in my GTA. And it's not going to be a weekend only car. 3 seasons of the year it will be my DD.

Why is it that only the most high hp engine is allowed a stick?? Just because I can afford/ don't want the most expensive model, doesn't mean I don't want to have fun.

Then there is the other half of the stick shift equation. I'll get better milage too. Maybe that's why I'm getting it?? I can have my fun, save on the initial purchase price and then save on gas. It works on any size engine.

 

I assume that's a rhetorical question?

These days, there are several automatics that get better mileage than the sticks in the same model.

 

Examples?

 

Off the top of my head the 5-speed auto Accord V6 gets better mileage than the 6-speed manual Accord V6, but that is because variable cylinder motors don't play nice with manual transmissions, so on the manual models, it is disabled.

 

I don't know who thinks manual is faster at shifting than a computer, but having a manual is nothing to do with shift speeds.

In fact, the "consisency" of the automatic is the most annoying feature of the auto transmission. Always having the car upshift from 1st into 2nd at precisely 15 mph when you feel it should hold it out longer (say, 20 or 25 mph) is the most annoying part of the transmission controlling you.

Drivers learn to compensate for shift times of the automatic, good drivers do anyway. When slowing down to make a turn, the auto transmission keeps the car running at the lowest possible RPMs. Then when you need to accelerate after making the turn (or while making the turn), there is usually a delay for the transmission to downshift and for you to get teh power you're looking for. Something completely avoidable in a manual transmission, where you're usually in the correct gear as you enter the turn. So to compensate, I have to play with the accelerator of the automatic car a second earlier before my intended move.

The end result is that I fall under a very small percentage of drivers (my guess) who drive their cars with precision and clearly take advantage of added control of the manual transmission. Excuses such as traffic, uphills, and so on just do not apply. If they apply, then you're cut out for automatic transmission and manual is not for you.

To emphasize, a manual tranny is not about racing downtown streets like F1 circuit. It's about driving in a civil manner with precision and control that enhances the driving experience and puts a smile on one's face. That is me

Unfortunately my current car is not manual. Previous 2 were. The next one will be.

 

Not to mention Manuals put more power to the ground, less drivetrain loss. Driving a stick is a dying art, fewer and fewer cars are gonna be offered with them in the future. People are getting lazier and more distracted, who wants to change gears when they can talk on the phone, text message, do their makeup, etc... I would have said women doing makeup but there are plenty of metrosexuals nowadays that wear the **** too.

 

IMO the manual is all about being able to brag that you DIY. Of course the only one's who'll be impressed are other manual users. Now the argument about better economy did hold true. But I'd say that the new 6 spd. autos will eliminate that.

 

http://www.bowlinggreenassemblyplant...VetteStats.pdf

According to Bowling Green Assembly, about 45% of 2007 Corvettes, including Z06 models, were manuals.

But your point is still right.

I've always wondered how a CTS-V would sell with an automatic, and soon we'll find out. But with today's market, I wouldn't be suprised if even the Z06 had a 50+% take rate on an automatic if it were offered as such.

 

Check out the 2008 model data at fueleconomy.gov. You can download the spreadsheet .

The Mazda 6 3.0 is one that I found.

Probably the best example is the Lexus IS250.

 

I just came across another one - the Acura TSX 4-cyl gets 0.5mpg better with the 5-speed auto than with the 6-speed manual, and no cylinder deactivation or other power train differences are to blame in this case. The all new 2009 model sees even more of a difference... about 1.5mpg better on the auto model, still 5-speed compared to 6-speed.

 

Manual GTOs were in fact more popular than automatics.

GTO transmission production breakdown for 2005:
61.5% manuals
38.5% automatics

There is an inaccuracy going on in sales breakdowns, however it's the GTO that is the odd one, not the Corvette and Camaro. The reason is very simple. GTO's market.

GTO was a specialized car the way the GXP line is being mareketed. As a high performance GT. The GTO attracted pretty much the same market that the Thunderbird SC attracted (another car that had a high manual take rate the 1st few years) as well as the Mustang Cobra attracted. Older gents that liked to DRIVE, liked something they didn't see coming and going every day, and is mechanically intresting.

Mustang Mach 1s also fall into that catagory. Of 9652 Mach 1s made in 2003, 7709 (80%) were manuals. A a mere 1943 were automatics.

It's obvious that buyers of GTOs, Mustang Mach 1s, and even early model Thunderbird SCs (and just as convincingly, Mustang Cobras) are more bigger fans of (and more inclined to actually buy) manual transmissions than Camaro SS & Z28, Firebird Trans Am, and Corvette buyers.

Overall, of 24,805 LS1 Camaros made in 2002, only 10,188 had 6 speed manuals. A little less than 30% with manuals.

In 2005, Of 47,447 Mustang GTs sold, 28,185 had the manual transmission. That's roughly a 60% take rate to Camaro's 30.

In 2002, even among only Camaro SS coupes (8338 total), 4,811 had the manual. a 58% take rate overall.


Bit of trivia:
In 2002, there were 6828 Firebird WS6 coupes (GTO's essential successor) sold with a manual transmission. In 2004, 8486 GTOs (53%) were sold with manuals. 2006, 8,764 GTOs were sold with a manual (63%).


If you measure enthusiasts level by the percentage that buys manuals, then GTO had a deathlock on enthusiasts, and Mustangs not only have larger number of enthusiasts, but more passionate enthuisasts than Camaro & Firebird.

Of course, this isn't accurate. Neither is the idea that manual transmissions are a must on everything with 4 wheels and a steering wheel.

The G8 GT has an automatic with tapshift. The G8 GXP will have a manual. It makes perfect sense, it's cost efficient, and it accurately reflects the real market where people actually buy cars.