[radgator1]

Originally Posted by ArmyBimmerDude

Oh calm down princess, I'm not insulting you or any AT guys. When I went to BMW to test drive the car, they gave me an AT 335i. I was kinda disappointed at first but once I drove I was amazed by its quickness. Really impressed. I'm just a MT guy for life or until I live somewhere like NY where I have to stop every 30 seconds or so.

I realize that only one AT has been upgraded with the Xede and dyno'd. We can only go off that one until more are tested. However, its a proven fact that you lose more power in auto's than manuals. As the numbers get higher, technically the gap will widen.

Nice work, turn to personal attacks when your argument looks weak. Bottom line, one data point from a car that wouldn't dyno correctly isn't significant and the AT reportedly has 2% higher drivetrain loss per BMW. No reason to expect it to be significantly different than that. Meanwhile we just saw a 5% difference bewtween 2 MT cars on the same day. Like I said, we will see whos fastest but it won't be determined here because you declared it as "fact".

[ArmyBimmerDude]

I never declared anything as fact. The only indisputable fact is that math is math and that 2%(If thats accurate) will become more significant as the HP go up. Or am I wrong about that? Thats all I said.

Oh and with the personal attacks, if you had posted replies the last two times that showed that you were open minded and insightful instead of ignorant and close minded, I would never have made that princess comment.

[radgator1]

Originally Posted by ArmyBimmerDude

I never declared anything as fact. The only indisputable fact is that math is math and that 2%(If thats accurate) will become more significant as the HP go up. Or am I wrong about that? Thats all I said.

Oh and with the personal attacks, if you had posted replies the last two times that showed that you were open minded and insightful instead of ignorant and close minded, I would never have made that princess comment.

Previous post:
Not wanting to start a MT vs AT fight again, its just facts.

This post:
I never declared anything as fact.

I think you're starting to confuse yourself now. No one is arguing over the 2%, however it is very possible that the faster shifts and ability to keep the revs higher between shift may come close to, or even completely compensate for the small difference in power getting to the wheels.

I didn't see anywhere in your post where you said you expected to only see a 2% difference, here is exactly what you said:

I mean look at it now with just the Xede the power at the wheels:

AT: 317HP
MT: 330HP-348HP

When I pointed out that it is reaching to make these statements based on one suboptimal dyno result you apparently took offense and went for the insults. Anyway, I'm done with it, go ahead and add a couple more insults to the 3 you already threw out there, I'm sure it will make your case that much stronger.

[PresaMat]

While the AT is a great transmission the fact is - it is still a normal auto. I originally ordered the AT because it was so good... but at the last minute changed my mind because I decided I wanted to do a lot of tuning. Stock there probably isnt much of a performance difference between the two... its when you start putting more power into any AT it shows. This has been known to tuners for a long time. No matter what you do practically any torque converter will suck up more power... and the more power you put through it the more it will suck up. MT do the same... but not nearly as bad.

Example: You have the engine running 300HP/TQ (at the crank). With a manual you will get say... 280RWHP/TQ - with the Auto you will get 275. All of this stock. Now put an extra 50 flywheel HP/TQ on the engine... the manual will run 310 the auto will run 300. This example isnt exact but i am trying to make a point - I am not taking sides.

Also as many people have said the 0-60 isnt the best judge. The manual and auto have different internal gearing. Also the AT has a 3.46 rear gear compared to the manuals 3.08. This would mean that the auto has a higher chance of getting upto 60mph in the same if not better speeds then the manual.

If you wanted to do a closer performance comparison put the same rear gear in each car and see how it does.

[ArmyBimmerDude]

Originally Posted by radgator1

Previous post:
Not wanting to start a MT vs AT fight again, its just facts.

This post:
I never declared anything as fact.

I think you're starting to confuse yourself now. No one is arguing over the 2%, however it is very possible that the faster shifts and ability to keep the revs higher between shift may come close to, or even completely compensate for the small difference in power getting to the wheels.

I didn't see anywhere in your post where you said you expected to only see a 2% difference, here is exactly what you said:

I mean look at it now with just the Xede the power at the wheels:

AT: 317HP
MT: 330HP-348HP

When I pointed out that it is reaching to make these statements based on one suboptimal dyno result you apparently took offense and went for the insults. Anyway, I'm done with it, go ahead and add a couple more insults to the 3 you already threw out there, I'm sure it will make your case that much stronger.

Ha ha ha ha, oh lord you're a trip.

Fact: Those HP numbers from the dyno or am I wrong.
Fact: 2% additional loss(and we all know its going to be different for each vehicle. Maybe more/maybe less)

What did I say in the last post that insulted you? I didn't think I needed to add on the 2% difference because other knowledgable forum members already talked about that.

I didn't take offense to anything you said. To take offense to something means that you actually care.

We all know that the AT shifts like a champ and that the last dyno wasn't up to snuff for whatever reason. I just posted what the numbers were.

I really wish that someone would make a video of an AT vs MT, so we can stop having these meaningless fights.

[ArmyBimmerDude]

Originally Posted by PresaMat

While the AT is a great transmission the fact is - it is still a normal auto. I originally ordered the AT because it was so good... but at the last minute changed my mind because I decided I wanted to do a lot of tuning. Stock there probably isnt much of a performance difference between the two... its when you start putting more power into any AT it shows. This has been known to tuners for a long time. No matter what you do practically any torque converter will suck up more power... and the more power you put through it the more it will suck up. MT do the same... but not nearly as bad.

Example: You have the engine running 300HP/TQ (at the crank). With a manual you will get say... 280RWHP/TQ - with the Auto you will get 275. All of this stock. Now put an extra 50 flywheel HP/TQ on the engine... the manual will run 310 the auto will run 300. This example isnt exact but i am trying to make a point - I am not taking sides.

Also as many people have said the 0-60 isnt the best judge. The manual and auto have different internal gearing. Also the AT has a 3.46 rear gear compared to the manuals 3.08. This would mean that the auto has a higher chance of getting upto 60mph in the same if not better speeds then the manual.

If you wanted to do a closer performance comparison put the same rear gear in each car and see how it does.

Now THAT is an awesome post.

And that was all I was trying to say! When you start adding mods and upping the power, the gap between the AT and MT will widen! Plus from past experiences auto's won't be able to handle as much power as manuals.

[PresaMat]

Originally Posted by ArmyBimmerDude

Now THAT is an awesome post.

And that was all I was trying to say! When you start adding mods and upping the power, the gap between the AT and MT will widen! Plus from past experiences auto's won't be able to handle as much power as manuals.

The part about the power widening is true BUT the part about the auto not handling the power I dont believe is. From what I have read/heard the AUTO is actually the stronger transmission when it comes to torque. This is the reason the auto is the only choice for the diesel. This is actually the case in most senarios with well built transmissions. Because of the manual clutch and the manual shifter the way it transfers torque through the drivetrain it is harder on the transmission then an auto. But as shiv has said earlier at the power levels we are currently at either will be fine.

I have a fair ammount of experience with this torque wars. I am coming from old school big blocks with monster torque. When you start getting past the 600-650RWTQ range your only real choice becomes the auto.

[RiXst3r]

Originally Posted by ArmyBimmerDude

auto's won't be able to handle as much power as manuals.

Thats not true... tell that to the 335d, that was limited to auto only because of the torque...

the 335 Auto and Manual trasmissions can handle anything a Xede/Exhaust can throw at it... start getting up over 500 and you might start slipping the clutch on the manual...

[ArmyBimmerDude]

Originally Posted by PresaMat

The part about the power widening is true BUT the part about the auto not handling the power I dont believe is. From what I have read/heard the AUTO is actually the stronger transmission when it comes to torque. This is the reason the auto is the only choice for the diesel. This is actually the case in most senarios with well built transmissions. Because of the manual clutch and the manual shifter the way it transfers torque through the drivetrain it is harder on the transmission then an auto. But as shiv has said earlier at the power levels we are currently at either will be fine.

I have a fair ammount of experience with this torque wars. I am coming from old school big blocks with monster torque. When you start getting past the 600-650RWTQ range your only real choice becomes the auto.

Yeah, thats true. I forgot about the 335 Diesel's. I guess I'm used to the AT's in the Supraworld not being able to handle nearly as much as the MT's without being rebuilt first.

Ya got me

[radgator1]

Originally Posted by PresaMat

While the AT is a great transmission the fact is - it is still a normal auto. I originally ordered the AT because it was so good... but at the last minute changed my mind because I decided I wanted to do a lot of tuning. Stock there probably isnt much of a performance difference between the two... its when you start putting more power into any AT it shows. This has been known to tuners for a long time. No matter what you do practically any torque converter will suck up more power... and the more power you put through it the more it will suck up. MT do the same... but not nearly as bad.

Example: You have the engine running 300HP/TQ (at the crank). With a manual you will get say... 280RWHP/TQ - with the Auto you will get 275. All of this stock. Now put an extra 50 flywheel HP/TQ on the engine... the manual will run 310 the auto will run 300. This example isnt exact but i am trying to make a point - I am not taking sides.

Also as many people have said the 0-60 isnt the best judge. The manual and auto have different internal gearing. Also the AT has a 3.46 rear gear compared to the manuals 3.08. This would mean that the auto has a higher chance of getting upto 60mph in the same if not better speeds then the manual.

If you wanted to do a closer performance comparison put the same rear gear in each car and see how it does.

Why would we want to do that? What we are trying to compare are Xede equipped 6MT vs Step 335i's. What we need are 60ft ET's, 1/4 mile ET's and trap speeds and since Shiv can't provide them we are relying on our "early adopters" to help us out. I recall you said you might be willing to go but wanted to wait for warmer air (which I couldn't understand since Dec in Houston should = perfect track weather).

Help us out bro and git er done !!

[Weedo]

Can someone post the facts on the 13% and 15% drivetrain loss?

I don't think there was a "problem" with the dyno on the AT car. He simply couldn't dyno from, say, 2,000rpm up to redline in 4th gear. The hp number is still there as shown on the dyno/computer; it was 317.

As far the argument about how fast is the fasted 0-60? One of the 4.8's was me, in my manual trans car. Am I a perfect driver? No. How many miles were on my car? 80 miles. What kind of road? Just a crappy back road that was by no means perfect. I ran the 4.8 both ways on the road (of course I also got in a couple of 4.9's and 5.0's just to clarify). I also live in Arizona where our 1/4 mile tracks consistantly get roughly .4 slower in the 1/4 mile than other areas such as the East and Midwest. This is because of both temperature and altitude. So if no one can better my 4.8, I'll be shocked. What I can tell you is that there is so much power (stock) that I have to feather into the throttle through 1st gear as the tires won't keep up. Throw a set of sticky tires on an auto and a manual and the difference, again, becomes much greater. (Note: I owned a 2000 Camaro SS with Drag Radials: I dropped .7 off my 1/4 mile time by adding a 3200rpm stall converter. The manual trans guys just had to raise the rpm when they launched, something the auto won't do without a Stall. This goes along with someone elses comment here about how adding an Xede, exhaust, or whatever else we do will put the manual that much farther ahead in power and speed.

We can also note the German magazine that TESTED both the auto and the manual cars, same day, same place. The auto was, what, .4 quicker 0-60? And yes, I recognize that other magazines have tested both the auto/manual at 4.8 seconds. Again, if you could give the manual more than 3/4 throttle anywhere but the top of 1st gear the times would be greatly reduced!!

Anyone in the Chandler/Mesa/Tempe area with an auto that would like to GTech it? This way we could at least get an apples/apples comparison in the same State on the same street in the same weather? Honestly, I could care less about what the actual times are; it would be fun to see though.

I'll GTech again when my Xede arrives but being that the car (manual) has more power than the tires can handle, I don't expect much of a decrease in 0-60 times. 1/4, yes...

[williamf]

Here is my question again.. put a different way. I think we all agree that the apples to apples rwhp difference for the MT/AT is about 2%. So at 300 rwhp this is about 6 ponies. Lets assume (for the sake of discussion), that as one modifies his car this percentage gap widens a little, lets say 4 percent. So at 400 rwhp there is a 16 rwhp gap. On paper this is significant. However, won't some of the hp gains be offset because it is more difficult and challanging to get that hp into usable thrust, instead of wheel spin or gaps in shift time. I am not saying I have the answer, but it just seems to me that unless the gap is significantly wider, the MT/AT debate seems to be about even money to me.

[williamf]

Originally Posted by ArmyBimmerDude

Ha ha ha ha, oh lord you're a trip.

Fact: Those HP numbers from the dyno or am I wrong.
Fact: 2% additional loss(and we all know its going to be different for each vehicle. Maybe more/maybe less)

What did I say in the last post that insulted you? I didn't think I needed to add on the 2% difference because other knowledgable forum members already talked about that.

I didn't take offense to anything you said. To take offense to something means that you actually care.

We all know that the AT shifts like a champ and that the last dyno wasn't up to snuff for whatever reason. I just posted what the numbers were.

I really wish that someone would make a video of an AT vs MT, so we can stop having these meaningless fights.

Mat,

I think we owe a duty to these guys to go out to the track soon and give them what they want. I don't think I can make it to the BMW driving school this weekend, but I should have time to do something the following week.

Also, does anyone know how much those speed meters run and are the acurate enough to give us good info.

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by Weedo

As far the argument about how fast is the fasted 0-60? One of the 4.8's was me, in my manual trans car. Am I a perfect driver? No. How many miles were on my car? 80 miles. What kind of road? Just a crappy back road that was by no means perfect. I ran the 4.8 both ways on the road (of course I also got in a couple of 4.9's and 5.0's just to clarify). I also live in Arizona where our 1/4 mile tracks consistantly get roughly .4 slower in the 1/4 mile than other areas such as the East and Midwest. This is because of both temperature and altitude. So if no one can better my 4.8, I'll be shocked. What I can tell you is that there is so much power (stock) that I have to feather into the throttle through 1st gear as the tires won't keep up. Throw a set of sticky tires on an auto and a manual and the difference, again, becomes much greater. (Note: I owned a 2000 Camaro SS with Drag Radials: I dropped .7 off my 1/4 mile time by adding a 3200rpm stall converter. The manual trans guys just had to raise the rpm when they launched, something the auto won't do without a Stall. This goes along with someone elses comment here about how adding an Xede, exhaust, or whatever else we do will put the manual that much farther ahead in power and speed.

We can also note the German magazine that TESTED both the auto and the manual cars, same day, same place. The auto was, what, .4 quicker 0-60? And yes, I recognize that other magazines have tested both the auto/manual at 4.8 seconds. Again, if you could give the manual more than 3/4 throttle anywhere but the top of 1st gear the times would be greatly reduced!!

Anyone in the Chandler/Mesa/Tempe area with an auto that would like to GTech it? This way we could at least get an apples/apples comparison in the same State on the same street in the same weather? Honestly, I could care less about what the actual times are; it would be fun to see though.

I'll GTech again when my Xede arrives but being that the car (manual) has more power than the tires can handle, I don't expect much of a decrease in 0-60 times. 1/4, yes...

Don't let reason get in the way of a good argument

[williamf]

+1 LOL

[Weedo]

Originally Posted by williamf

Mat,

I think we owe a duty to these guys to go out to the track soon and give them what they want. I don't think I can make it to the BMW driving school this weekend, but I should have time to do something the following week.

Also, does anyone know how much those speed meters run and are the acurate enough to give us good info.

The GTech meters are anywhere from $25 (old model) to a couple hundred. They're accurate to within about .1. I've used mine on at least a couple of dozen cars. All of my GTech times run about, on average, .4 seconds slower than Car and Driver times do. This makes perfect sense based on the Arizona weather/elevation/etc. In fact, my brother has the same GTech. I sold him my old car and he ran .6 quicker time after time in Michigan. This is why I hope someone will GTech their manual 335i in another state besides my slow 4.8 Arizona time!

Just for fun, here's a few of the cars I've GTech'd in the same range:

330i (auto): 6.6
'07 Camry SE: 6.4
Magnum SRT8: 5.8
300C SRT8: 5.6
IS350: 5.5
Supercharged '05 Mustang GT (auto): 5.8 (slow huh? thats with 368rwhp)
335i (manual): 4.8

I'm trying to hook up with another local guy that has a 335i auto to see what it will do. Good stuff!

[sflgator]

Originally Posted by Weedo

The GTech meters are anywhere from $25 (old model) to a couple hundred. They're accurate to within about .1. I've used mine on at least a couple of dozen cars. All of my GTech times run about, on average, .4 seconds slower than Car and Driver times do. This makes perfect sense based on the Arizona weather/elevation/etc. In fact, my brother has the same GTech. I sold him my old car and he ran .6 quicker time after time in Michigan. This is why I hope someone will GTech their manual 335i in another state besides my slow 4.8 Arizona time!

Just for fun, here's a few of the cars I've GTech'd in the same range:

330i (auto): 6.6
'07 Camry SE: 6.4
Magnum SRT8: 5.8
300C SRT8: 5.6
IS350: 5.5
Supercharged '05 Mustang GT (auto): 5.8 (slow huh? thats with 368rwhp)
335i (manual): 4.8

I'm trying to hook up with another local guy that has a 335i auto to see what it will do. Good stuff!

The '07 Toyota Camry is faster than the BMW 330i??? I know, I know, it's got the same 3.5L engine as the Lexus IS350 (just detuned a bit). Also, I would've thought that the Dodge Magnum SRT8 and the 300C SRT8 would be much faster 0-60mph since the car mags have tested the 300C SRT8 and done ~ 4.5 sec. 0-60mph! Not sure how they did that, but... That thing is a big, heavy boat, but it's got that 400+HP Merc. supercharged engine in it.

[Weedo]

Originally Posted by sflgator

The '07 Toyota Camry is faster than the BMW 330i??? I know, I know, it's got the same 3.5L engine as the Lexus IS350 (just detuned a bit). Also, I would've thought that the Dodge Magnum SRT8 and the 300C SRT8 would be much faster 0-60mph since the car mags have tested the 300C SRT8 and done ~ 4.5 sec. 0-60mph! Not sure how they did that, but... That thing is a big, heavy boat, but it's got that 400+HP Merc. supercharged engine in it.

I agree. Both the Magnum/300 were really fast, in fact, much faster after, say, 20mph than before. The 300 had a hard time keeping the rears planted. The Magnum was heavier with the weight on the back. Most of my times were before any of my cars were broken in too, but at least I'm consistent! Getting magazine times here in AZ seems to be impossible. The closest car I had was the IS350 which was .4 off Car and Driver. Then came the 335i which managed the same. Who knows why. I had an Avalanche that was 1 second off the magazine claims!

The Camry test was funny. It's my Dad's car (he's 65 and still loves the power but didn't want to spend a ton of money). The front end hopped all over the place with too much gas! But with the gearing and nearly 270hp I actually pegged it at a 6.4 before we ran it.

Here's something interesting about our times here: I spoke with a guy that has a GTO. He said there were two GTO's out at the 1/4 mile track running 14.0's (with the 6.0 liter). He mentioned it because I was in the IS350 and he said they were in the 13.7 range. I ran a 13.9 in the Magnum (although other parts of the country supposedly have them in the upper 12's from what I've read??).

(As for the 400hp Merc engine. It's actually a 425hp Hemi from the Chrysler division. Great, great motor. I pumped it up to 150mph one day with ease, but the average gas mileage was around 13).

[williamf]

Weedo,

Where is a good place to get a GTmeter E-bay? Online store? Local retailer? Do you know which one is a good model. I don't mind spending the money to get a good one, but I don't want to just throw money away on one that isn't any better than a lower model.

Thanks.

[G35revup]

How is the MT in this car compared to others? Is the throw truely short or is it just another one of those dealer named "short throw" shifters that has about 12 inches between 1st and 2nd?

[G35revup]

Originally Posted by williamf

Weedo,

Where is a good place to get a GTmeter E-bay? Online store? Local retailer? Do you know which one is a good model. I don't mind spending the money to get a good one, but I don't want to just throw money away on one that isn't any better than a lower model.

Thanks.

Just get the Gtech pro SS, its like $199. if you shop around you can find it cheaper though. I would google or froogle it.

[335i=:)]

Just get the Gtech pro SS, its like $199. if

Just ordered mine. Will post results when I get them.