Hey Mikee2, your numbers look good, but a couple of other factors are that on an '05 Premium in the 5AT has intelligent key, memory seats and rear air vents which are not available on the 6MT. Also in speaking with a friend of mine who sells Infinitis, dealers had factory incentives on G's in early July which they would have used to discount (or make more profit from those who didn't know about it), all in all it probably wasn't as even a trade as it appears.

 

My point is that you can't use the so called "experts" as the bible of performance when it comes to acceleration times. They vary all over the place. The lowest legitimate # I've seen for the auto is 5.9. I've seen 6MT's as high as 6.1. I have only seen two tests done for an auto coupe (not sure about sedan) That number could essentially not be the best time available in the G. If you compare the best time in the MT against the limited data in the auto- on paper it looks faster. If you compare the highest times in the MT against the best times in the auto (according to the mag data I've seen) they are comparable. The best way to make the determination is at the track- this will indicate what is consistently obtainable numbers with the G. The mags are only for relative comparisons of general performance.
With that said, what are you basing your "FACT" on? What is actually fact is that the 6MT is marginally quicker at best- nothing that is going to be of much signifigance.

For instance the 5AT coupe post 0-60 at 6.2 quarter mile times on this site in 14.66 @ 98.32 One of the quickest 6Mt posts I've seen is 0-60 at 5.6 and quarter miles at this site in 1/4-mile 14.4 sec @ 98 mph... (sorry couldn't find a site that tested both [ funny though how that exact same test mag got 0-60 in 6.0 and a quarter mile in 14.6 on the MT in a test just a few months later])
Now are we saying that the 6MT can get to 60 at a whopping 6 at tenths of a second quicker but can only get to 98 in a relative comparison at just 2 tenths of a second faster? This would indicate that the 5AT is actually walking the 6MT... Again different tests under different conditions but based on the 0-60 times they should have produced the same relative results on the high end. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point that the times are so close that one cannot say unequivocally that the 6MT is faster in all situations.

 

I picked a 05 6MT sedan because it was the only nice 4 door 6 speed I could find that was priced right.. The Volvo S60 was 10K more and the STI is an ecnobox...

BUT, it the last year, I have had mostly Auto's and was ready for a change so I got the 6 speed.. Is it faster, I have no idea, but it is soooo much more fun, to ME..

In the last year, I have had:

2005 Magnum RT 322HP at wheels 13.8 1/4 Sold
1998 Lexus GS 400 280HP at wheels Sold
1997 Supra TT 12.7 in 1/4 miles Sold
those were my daily drivers.
I also have
1997 Jeep Wrangler 5 speed Still Have
1965 Corvette Convertible 4 Speed Still Have
1968 Corvette Convertible 4 Speed Sold

 

THE 6MT IS FASTER. PERIOD.

Funny how all the auto guys say the difference is so small? Come on, the 6MT is at least 1/3 to 1/2 second faster to 60 mph. This has been proven time and time again for the 2003/2004 models. As far as the 2005, there isn't enough tests out yet. That is a huge difference, especially if you run a quarter mile. There are stock 6MT thats run 13.9 at over 100 mph, THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN WITH THE 5AT.


The bottom line is if I have a perfect or near perfect run a stock 5AT HAS NO CHANCE OF BEATING ME. PERIOD. You can make all the excuses in the world (most MT drivers suck, ect.) but the bottom line is a good MT driver will smoke you. LIVE WITH IT. You choose to have the convience of an AT, just don't expect to beat good MT drivers on a consistent basis.

 

I'm not getting into the my-*****-are-bigger-than-yours p[i]ssing contest that is this thread. I do, however, want to point out an error in your logic here, which is this: You're forgetting about how velocity and time are intertwined. The two-tenths better quarter-mile time you're using as an example relative to a six-tenths quicker zero-to-sixty has nothing to do with the 5AT "catching up" with the 6MT. It's just the elapsed-time gap closing due to relative speed.

A three-car-length gap with both cars traveling at 60 mph might equate to half a second. The same gap at 100 mph would be timed substantially shorter. I'm sure a math whiz here can present the appropriate equation(s).

 

03/04 5AT vs 6MT: The 6MT has been dynoed above the rated 260 hp/260 torque...but NOT the 5AT. I think many of you are forgetting or unaware of this fact. This has been discussed too many times. Bottom line: The 6MT will consistently beat the 5AT in a race...from a roll, from a stop, on the highway, whatever.

05 5AT vs 05 6MT: I would expect both to be about equal to 60 and 1/4 mile. On a track, the 6MT would be faster.

 

This discussion is nonsense. The fastest 6MT vs the fastest 5AT, puhleeeeeze!

Individual cars vary - period. 6MT vs 6MT or 5AT vs 5AT or 6MT vs 5AT. The difference between any two cars (stock) in any single run is up for grabs.

LIVE WITH THAT!

If you want to really want to discuss minor differences: after a point that extra gear helps out and a 6MT will/should always start to pull on an auto - but I believe that point is above 90-100 mph. From a standstill, the auto will/should have the advantage thanks to torque converter multiplication.

 

Isn’t there one key difference between the manual transmission cars and the automatics? The automatic transmissions are much less efficient! If you had two engines each with identical torque and HP hooked up to each transmission, then the manual transmission would put more hp to the ground just because the automatic is a more lossy transmission. Even if the gearing and engines are the same then the manual transmission car should be lighter and more powerful. As it stands the 05 manual transmission car has a theoretical 20 more HP at the crank and it has a less lossy transmission. It stands to reason that there is no way the 05 auto could keep up with the manual transmission car in any acceleration test unless one of the cars was not driven to its full potential or the conditions were not the same.

 

Ummm, there is a reason high-end drag racers use autos, ya know?

Because all differences discussed above are minor in comparison to the chance of driver error with a MT!!!

 

I was speaking solely in terms of speed and not distance. Perhaps the term "walking was not an optimum term but if I reach 60 at a rate slower than another can then I match the velocity- that would indicate that I have begun the process of making up ground. At my rate of continuing acceleration, I should technically eventually be at a quicker velocity based on the mags. The point is than mag racing is not accurate.
As regards those who say that regardless of how they drive they will beat an AT - take off the blinders... And as regards being proven time and time again- Where?
There are only limited publicized tests of the AT. And if you think that that will give you an accurate rneding of it's performance then you are ignorant as regards the performance of the vehicle (not a stab at intellect). As regards dyno numbers- in the AT the TC plays m a factor in consistency with those numbers. The TC performs differntly under varying loads. Thus the reason why the numbers are so close in the car even though teh dyno numbers are all over the place. There was a guy last week who posted 240+ after correction factors in a stock 5AT on a dyno.
If you go to my 350Z.com there are autos who perform in the 13's all the time consistent within 1 tenth of a second of the manuals according to their best time slip reports. I am speaking on what I've seen as well as experienced against other 6MT's. Many 6MT drivers speak out of the air because they want to beleive that they are driving an elite version of the vehicleand since we were taught all their lives that MT's are much faster than AT's, that's what many beleive and make baseless statements. The quickest stock 5AT I've seen was 14.2 in a quarter someone said that a stock 6MT did 13.9-I'm not arguing those numbers because I've seen the same thing and this is extremely rare- but (roughy 3 car lengths in a quarter mile)that is marginal and not worthy of a description of being "SMOKED" especially since that number is in no way consistent. I've seen 6MT's do high 14's in the quarter just the same.

 

0-60 mph = Avg 30 mph = 44 ft/second

Infiniti G35 6MT: 0-60 in 5.8 seconds
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo MR: 0-60 in 4.8 seconds

The Lancer will blow away the G35 by 44 ft or 3 car lengths.

 

This is hilarious...move on already.

I have an auto and I agreed 100% given a good driver, M/T will always be faster than auto. Auto drivers...please do not kill me

I for one loves M/T but if anyone had read my posts in the past...is that I am dying for a M/T Awd but obviously they won't come out with one.

I don't even care if Auto is faster than M/T, even if it's faster than 1/2 seconds. The point is M/T is just more fun to drive and more control over the car period. If they have a Awd M/T that goes to 0-60 in 6.5 or the slowest of the bunch I'll still take it in a heart beat.

Let's not say oh then why don't you get a subura wrx or cheaper cars with awd. Well...I like the style of the G

I came really close in purchasing a 2004 325i rwd M/T before my X. Even placed the down payment. If given another chance even though the bmw 325i is almost 100 horses less I might of chosen the 325i even THOUGH IT'S NOT AWD but I've come to the point that I found out M/T is more important than AWD at least at this moment.

I still love my car but maybe if something nice is along the road in a couple years I might consider trading in. Who knows maybe I'll have kids and trade it in for a slow SUV.

Guys...please relax. We should be out killing those new 325i's with 225 horses and the underpower audi's etc. Don't fight against each other's G's !!!

To all you wise guy M/T rwd mario andretti's . Come to NY one day and get buried in the snow of about 8+ inches and see how you can get your cars out. I can !!!!!

 

Really? Then how can you explain why my 03 sedan with just a Z pipe runs the same 14.4s@97-98mph as the 6MT sedan at my track, which gets better 60 foots no less, or how my 5AT is only about .2-.3 seconds and 1-2mph slower than the 6MT 350Z at my track? It's pretty clear that the 03/04 5AT sedans are making the same power as the 280hp coupes and 05 5AT sedans.

 

The JATCO 5AT is very light, compact, and efficent. The 5AT weighs about 35lbs less than the 6MT. The JATCO 5AT also has ideal gearing (especially for the 1/4 mile) and a pretty high stall torque converter (~2600rpm according to the FSM). The 5AT makes about 8-10whp/wtq less than the 6MT.

Once someone figures out how to get the sub 4000rpm bog out of the 5AT, these cars will be beasts and will easily shed .3 seconds off the 1/4 mile. The bog kills the 5AT.

 

True, but autos are also used for the following reasons:

1) High stall torque converters can offer a crap load more torque multiplication than a typical manual tranny ever could.

2) Built autos can withstand quite a bit more power than built manuals because launch torque/shock isn't remotely as direct.

3) Autos are far less abusive on the drivetrain because you can load the drivetrain prior to launch and greatly reduce driveline shock.

4) Heavy duty clutches are expensive, hard to modulate, and smoke/glaze over easily if clutch slips too much.