According to the literature I got from my dealer this weekend on the 2005 GTO, it says the Automatic will do 0-60 in 4.6 and the stick in 4.8.

I found this a bit curious but in reading the material it says that the automatic has a launch mode feature which "preloads" the power to the rear wheels prior to hitting the gas (sort of like power braking I would imagine). Pretty cool B)

Still getting the stick though :D

This car is going to be spectacular!



__________________________________________________
2005 Cyclone Gray GTO, M6, 18" Tires, Atermarket Wheels

That's total bulls***. There is no way they should make the automatic faster than the stick.

What this means is that in a stop to 60 race an excellent driver can lose to some idiot that can hardly drive just because they have the preloading automatic.

This is a sad day.

Unless this is a misprint.... If the 05 Auto is faster than the Manual then the 04 Auto should be faster also. Does anybody have the 04 numbers?

I would say you are right that in the 1/4, the stick will catch up and most lileky surpass the auto in a good drivers hands.

First I thought it was a typo until I read the details about the launch mode. Hopefully the mags will run full tests of both in the next month or so.

Manufacturers performance specs don't mean diddly :ph34r:

Originally posted by forestdweller@Aug 8 2004, 09:36 PM
Manufacturers performance specs don't mean diddly :ph34r:
Thats true. I was watching car and driver on tv today and they had a Mercedes Benz SL600 that did 0-60 in 3.6 but on MB's website it says 4.5

Originally posted by BLKGTO@Aug 8 2004, 03:52 PM
Sorry put this in the wrong thread...should have been in 2005 GTO Specific

According to the literature I got from my dealer this weekend on the 2005 GTO, it says the Automatic will do 0-60 in 4.6 and the stick in 4.8.

I found this a bit curious but in reading the material it says that the automatic has a launch mode feature which "preloads" the power to the rear wheels prior to hitting the gas (sort of like power braking I would imagine). Pretty cool B)

Still getting the stick though :D

This car is going to be spectacular!



__________________________________________________
2005 Cyclone Gray GTO, M6, 18" Tires, Atermarket Wheels
04's have launch mode as well. When you shift into drive the rear end sags down about 1 - 1.5" like a sling shot. Pretty cool!

as for the numbers, we will just have to wait and see if they are real.

Moved the topic for you! :)

JohnPaulPSU,

Please don't turn this into a M6 vs. A4 thread. When you start using the term idiot and automatic in the same sentence you are throwing out an insult and alienating every A4 owner here. Thank you.

As for 0-60 quoted 2004 times

M6 5.3
A4 5.4

Orbit Orange: Thanks for moving the thread! :)

Mike D: I didn't know the 2004's had the launch mode feature on the Automatics. Sounds pretty cool though.

Like you said, we will wait and see what the mags say when they flog these cars in the coming months. I think we will see a full 1/2 second shaved off the 0-60 times from the 2004 numbers that Orbit Orange noted above.

At the end of the day, both cars will be fantastic. Can't wait :afro:

Originally posted by Orbit Orange@Aug 9 2004, 12:21 PM
JohnPaulPSU,

Please don't turn this into a M6 vs. A4 thread. When you start using the term idiot and automatic in the same sentence you are throwing out an insult and alienating every A4 owner here. Thank you.

I'm sorry that you took it that way. I thought I was being very careful to discern between just any Automatic driver and "some idiot that can hardly drive"

I definitely don't think that Automatic drivers are idiots and I hope that nobody else interpreted it that way.

In fact if you go back and read what I actually said, I think you'll find that I was not "throwing out an insult and alienating every A4 owner here."

If however you still think I was being insulting then let me apologize for using the phrase "excellent driver" and idiot in the same sentence. I didn't mean to insult any good drivers that may have read my post. And if any moderators are offended by this post then I apologize for that too. But please don't spin my posts in the future to make it sound like I meant something that I did not say.

Thank You.

Originally posted by BLKGTO@Aug 9 2004, 12:25 PM

Mike D: I didn't know the 2004's had the launch mode feature on the Automatics. Sounds pretty cool though.


They had to give us A4 owners something to get excited about :dribble:

a computer can shift faster than any human can...







http://www.v6performance.net/forums/images/smilies/hide2.gif

JohnPaulPSU

No need to apologize if that was not your intention. I am sorry if you thought I was putting words in your mouth. I'm not trying to do that. I just get a little jumpy around the A4 vs M6 debate as we have had some knock down, drag out flame wars over it quite a while ago, before you joined the board. Think of it as I was trying to feel you out to see where you stood. There's a method to my madness. Now I know, sorry if I went about it the wrong way. Don't let my paranoia sour your use of the forum here. :)


a computer can shift faster than any human can...


I agree, BUT the computer doesn't know what exactly it is you want the car to do. I might want 1st gear to come hard out of a turn and I give the throttle a moderate amount and the computer says oh it's not over XX percent throttle so I'm going to downshift into second instead of third. but this is getting too much towards that M6 vs. A4 debate and we really need to stay away from that.

I think the question should be HOW is the A4 getting a better 0-60 time than the M6?

an automatic is going to be faster when it comes to 1/4 mile races or 0-60 times because the computer is shifting faster. For around town on highways/streets stuff where there is a lot of slowing down and more agressive driving then a m/t keeps it interesting. If you are building a gto and your main concern is doing 1/4's then I'd say get an automatic. Just my humble opinion.

If you are building a gto and your main concern is doing 1/4's then I'd say get an automatic. Just my humble opinion.



I agree. Not to mention an automatic is going to be much more consistent in 1/4 mile times, which is important to bracket racers concerned about running consistent times, I take.

What an automatic is not going to do though is hold a gear higher into the rev range to eek out any last little bit of power out of that gear. That's what the manual does. (If someone is proficient at it.) Now that's something that a shift kit and torque converter can make up for though.

This is why it would be nice to have an autostick or clutchless manumatic that would have the best of both worlds. :)

Orit Orange thanks for explaining that.

The 2004 manual GTO is faster than the Automatic.
The 2005 has the same transmissions as the 2004.

This combined with the fact that I have never in my entire life seen a car run faster with an automatic than it does with a manual transmision suggests to me that these numbers are false.

Does anybody know of a car that is faster with an automatic than a stick?

Or can anybody explain to me how adding 50 more power to the same transmissions in the same car results in the automatic losing .8 seconds off the 0-60 times whereas the manual only managed to shave off .5

I can think of nothing that would cause this uneven gain so once again I'm going to have to suggest that these numbers are false.

John Paul, I am going to have to agree with you on your assessment. In the end, I think we will in fact see the M6 a bit quicker than the auto.

But as it was mentioned in this thread, this car is a lot more than just 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. (I'm guessing the 1/4 mile time for the M6 will be in the low 13's (around 13.1 - 13.2).

It's going to be a great car for a very fair price. I can think of nothing in this price range that will perform like the GTO with the exception of the Evo MR and STI but I don't like the looks of these.

The C6 is spectaular but at about $12k more.

I read somewhere that the A4 was modified/changed in the 05 due to the increased power/torque. I don't know what was changed, the article didn't state specifically. I just figured this is why it was a little bit faster.

Tom :type:

I am wondering if GM didn't reprogram the A4 for 05. As all of the 04 A4 owners know - the torque managment software really slows down the A4. Remove/modify that and and the GTO A4 takes off like a bat out of hell.

Originally posted by Orbit Orange@Aug 9 2004, 05:21 PM
Moved the topic for you! :)

JohnPaulPSU,

Please don't turn this into a M6 vs. A4 thread. When you start using the term idiot and automatic in the same sentence you are throwing out an insult and alienating every A4 owner here. Thank you.

As for 0-60 quoted 2004 times

M6 5.3
A4 5.4
Some people are not so sensitive :hysterical:


But some facts. The A-4 is always quicker off the line, the M-6 will pull harder past mid track.

I would be suprised if the A-4 was quicker overall, unless they finally upgraded the tranny. Torque managment was pretty bad in the 02 F-bodys.. anohter 50 or so ft lbs torque on the LS2 :woot:

If they have the A-4 set up to launch better than the M-6 ie whatever this rear squat is, you have a couple of tenths right there, plus most M-6 drivers don't get a good laucnh on street tires..

Originally posted by Denali@Aug 10 2004, 01:26 AM
a computer can shift faster than any human can...







http://www.v6performance.net/forums/images/smilies/hide2.gif
While that is true - I watched a show a couple of years ago where they took Derek Bell and the best traction control system out there, ran a whole ****load of road course laps with and w/o the T/C on - and Mr. Bell was faster w/o the T/C than he was with. They had some up and coming professional driver who was about even, and a magazine writer who was much quicker w/ T/C on.

Now, given there's a few years worth of development it may be much closer now - and obviously the more information in the database and the more processing power gives the computer the advantage. Also, this was in a time when F1 was not running t/c and rallye cars were just getting started, IIRC. It's amazing what a WRC car will do on gravel or ice for acceleration...
Dan

I read an article recently [1] in which they suggested that a dragstrip blast was the only place their drivers were better than the computer. FWIW...

[1] I'm thinking it was in evo and about the Enzo but I may have just fabricated that on-the-fly.[2]
[2] 76% of all statistics are made-up, you know.

Originally posted by gto_in_nc@Aug 10 2004, 03:23 PM
I read an article recently [1] in which they suggested that a dragstrip blast was the only place their drivers were better than the computer. FWIW...

[1] I'm thinking it was in evo and about the Enzo but I may have just fabricated that on-the-fly.[2]
[2] 76% of all statistics are made-up, you know.
I don't know if its what you read, but I read an article about the clutchless manual in one of the ferraris. It said it was quicker than their testers like 90% of the time, but the best run with the traditional manual was still slightly quicker than the computer shifted one.

What percentage of statistics on statistics are made up? ;)

Originally posted by forestdweller@Aug 10 2004, 05:49 PM

What percentage of statistics on statistics are made up? ;)
I don't know but in a study released today 50% of the population were found to be male while surprisingly the remaining 50% were found to be female.

^^^ LOL

To quote a friend of mine on another board (since we too are beating this subject to death) ;)

"The more power you have, the more difficult it is to control clutch slippage, wheelspin, and throttle all at once with a manny tranny for a drag launch. Depends on the car and the engine as to where the cut over point is. Live-axle RWD would be able to handle the most, and a FWD would be able to handle the least.

A 6spd would be quicker from a roll since it puts more power to the ground and is lighter, but an automagic may be able to launch so much better that it blows the 6spd away out of the hole and is never able to catch up. The best 04 Maxima stock times are by automatic guys who've been able to cut 2.0-2.1 60' times. The 6spd guys are trapping quicker I think by 1-2 mph (more powerful from a roll) but the car is a bear to launch and they can't get out nearly as well (2.3-2.4 60' times I think). I know LS1 auto guys have run just as well as LS1 6spd guys stock. 9 times out of 10 an auto will probably take a drag race, except for the 1 time when the 6spd guy really nails his launch down perfectly, or if they're insanely skilled. Modified = automatic, no question about it. A mildly modified LS1 making 450hp with a higher stall TC and slicks will probably do 11/12's pretty easily.

But that's legal dragstrip racing from a dead stop. From a roll the advantage goes back to the 6spd again whether stock or modified."

This is what I've always heard about manual vs. auto:

It's conservation of energy--you have to think of the car as an energy system. Basically, an auto sucks more power because it uses some power to automatically shift the the gears, therefore applying less power to the wheels.

To see this idea in action, sit in your stationary idling car (with power steering) and watch the revs as you quickly turn the wheel and hold it in the turned position---you will see them drop slightly. This happens because the engine at idle (being the car's energy source) is inputting a constant amount of energy into the vehicle system. When you turn the wheel, the power steering pump sucks some of that energy, decreasing the amount of energy that is applied to the idling driveshaft--causing a slower rpm. Then as you hold it there, you will see the computer sense this and slowly adjust the throttle to bring the car back to it's normal idle speed. Same is true with the auto trans---you need to take some power away from the engine to operate it whereas the manual does this using mechanical power supplied by the driver.

Since the engine in a manual trans has to devote zero energy to shifting, a quick shifting driver should be able to make it move a bit faster, assuming all else is the same.

I know that there are other factors involved, but I think this is the main reason why manuals as a general rule are a bit faster than autos and autos guzzle a little more gas.

You have just desribed a torque converter... :blink:





:beer:

Originally posted by Denali@Aug 10 2004, 07:31 PM
The best 04 Maxima stock times are by automatic guys who've been able to cut 2.0-2.1 60' times. The 6spd guys are trapping quicker I think by 1-2 mph (more powerful from a roll) but the car is a bear to launch and they can't get out nearly as well (2.3-2.4 60' times I think).
The example of the Maxima is an odd case because it is very powerful and FWD, which really skews the results. That car was actually tested quicker by most all the mags when it had LESS power than it does now, because FWD transfers too much weight to the wheels not pulling.

Just about anyone who's been to the dragstrip before can beat an Auto with a Manual in a RWD car. A manual can really kill an auto if he's willing to sacrifice a little clutch by not lifting. Autos are more consistant, but put less power to the ground and usually have less gears as well. When you get into the really high power range autos are better because traction becomes much more a limiting factor than power.

Now a clutchless manual transmission like those used in F1 ferraris give you the best of both worlds...

How much power can the 4spd auto in the gto handle? whats it rated for?

This has to be the most powerful set this transmission has been used with.

How reliable will it be with this much hp?

Its too bad gm couldn't use the new 5sp auto from the vette!

I wonder which tranny 4spd or 5spd would produce the best 0 -60 and 1/4 times?

the 05 vette with the 6sp according to motor trend is 0-60 4.3 and 1/4 in 12.7.

so my thoughts being the GTO is approx 500lbs heavier then the vette it should do it in just under 5sec and the 1/4 in 13sec..
**** near vette performance for about 10- 15k less!!!

Well some interesting info not introduced...

auto has 4 gears
Standard has 6

Both have equal rear end gears and the same size tires.

So if both have to be able to hit bearble highway cruise RPM, (dont own an auto so you auto people may be able to clarrify some of this) say 70MPH between 2-3K RPM, this means that the auto must have lower (numerical) transmission gears than the stick, and thus lower acceleration.

AN auto can be made to be as fast as a standard and while it may shift faster, there are things it can not do. It can't slip the clutch, it can't powershift, it can't downshift to brake the car, It doesn't know when to shift to get the most performance out of a turn. It also must rely on a torque convertor which leads to a lag in throttle response.

An auto can be made to perform just as well, but often from the factory it doesn't. A auto is more consistant, easier to launch and drive, but it lacks some of the higher skilled abilites that come with an M6.

Processing power of computers has increased yes, but the demand for it is null, computers being faster in cars doesn't mean it will shift faster, just that it decides it needs to shift faster.

But as to the 05, the launch mode could help a bit I assume, but I doub't its that much, its probably just preliminary numbers used by "GM" drivers.

Originally posted by Nocturn@Aug 11 2004, 01:57 AM

But as to the 05, the launch mode could help a bit I assume, but I doub't its that much, its probably just preliminary numbers used by "GM" drivers.
Good points, but I am assuming that the 04 also has launch mode, since one driver on this forum was describing what it was like on his car.

It most certainly does! :)

I wish someone with a video recorder would put it on the site here. If I had one I would. Surely someone who has an 04 A4 would do this.

:)

Pontiac engineers re-mapped the A4 for 2005. The auto is in fact a little quicker than then manual. No need to get excited by this. The 2004 A4 map tables really sucked big time!

Reason autos post better 60' times and often quicker ETs in drag racing:

1) the torque converter multiplies torque to the wheels as it stalls, and it does this smoothly, which increases your chances of remaining hooked up

2) power is applied 100% of the time, even through a shift. even if you power shift a manual (keep the throttle to the floor through a shift) there is still time the clutch is disengaged

That said, the same car with a manual transmission will ALWAYS post better trap speeds (more efficient transmission, thus fewer drivetrain losses and higher HP to the wheels). From a roll, all of the automatics advantages are gone, unless you include downshift time, which could also be faster in an auto.

Originally posted by kevm14@Aug 13 2004, 01:00 PM
That said, the same car with a manual transmission will ALWAYS post better trap speeds (more efficient transmission, thus fewer drivetrain losses and higher HP to the wheels).
Typically, yes. Though theoretically, it depends on the # of tranny gears, rear end gearing, etc. If both auto and manual are 5 speeds (like in the new Mustang) but the auto was geared shorter (no idea if the mustang is like that, i doubt it) I could see it having the higher trap speed.

i do not think the 04 has a pre-launch mode, unless brake torquing is considered "pre-launch mode" That is what makes the a** end sit down when the car is just sitting there. not any fancy "mode". Just good old fashioned brake torquing. For those that are not familar with it: You just push hard on the brake and rev up the engine. Launch by letting go of the brake and hammer the gas at the same time

Actually the 04 does have it, as MANY auto owners will pruodly testify to lol. The rear lowers an inch if you have your foot on the brake and shift it down from Neutruel to drive...I think...not to sure on what gears it is, but Orbit Orange will know for sure as he loves it.

inkwell

Let me assure you the A4 2004 GTO DOES HAVE THE LAUNCH MODE!!!

Let me repeat. It HAS IT.

I'll get the GTO brochure literature out as well that states it if you want me to.

As an owner of an automatic 2004 GTO it has got it. When you apply the brake and shift from Neutral into Drive the rear end squats down a good inch or so. This is the Launch Mode. You don't even have to keep the revs up it just does it. After that sure you can brake torque to your heart's content.

I just wish I had a camcorder to record it to show it to everyone so we could quit this "Well I don't think the 04 has it."

It's got it!!! :)

Originally posted by Orbit Orange@Aug 11 2004, 04:11 PM
I wish someone with a video recorder would put it on the site here. If I had one I would. Surely someone who has an 04 A4 would do this.

:)
Hey...I believe you guys.

That's a great idea...I wish someone would do that! Would love to see it. :D

http://www.bmrfabrication.com/minigto


Click jukebox, then video 3
Watch when he gets to the line, the back end drops about an inch, it looks sweet.

thanks orange. i figured all autos have the ol break torque!!! so is it slightly different in the GTO?

You guys don't seriously think that there is something at work other than engine torque that is making the rear end go down do you? I hope not.

JohnPaul is right, it's called RWD and gobs of torque! Any car with that kind of power, especially RWD, will squat like that, there's no magic smoke in the suspension or anything. If there was Pontiac would be giving us the technical info on what they did and how, and bragging about it.

Not to burst anyone's bubble.

There is no launch mode. You are just transferring the power to the rear wheel drive while still holding the car with the front brakes. That causes the back of your car drop down. You can do the same thing with M6.
It will work better if you have three legs because you have to work with all 3 pedals. :rolleyes:

Of course it is engine torque on the rear diff. that is causing this. It's not some magical hydraulic system or airbags we all know.

If Pontiac wants to call this launch mode then why not. No difference in calling it Launch Mode over say "Ram Air" which technically doesn't ram that much air into the intake in the first place and generally adds nothing to a car until a reasonable speed is reached. It's a marketing gimmick but if they want to call it launch mode so be it.

As for it also occuring on the M6, I haven't heard any M6 owners claiming the rear end squats down on shifting into first off idle. But you are correct in that you better have a 3rd leg to do it.

As a side note, do we have any A4 TransAm or Camaro SS owners here that can confirm that their F body does the same thing on launch? Close torque figures so shouldn't the LS1 A4 F bods do the same thing? And how about A4 Vette owners?

The reason I ask is simply this. Will a live axle vehicle do this? ie the F body. Is this only specific to independent rear suspension RWD models. I've been in plenty of V8 RWD vehicles and even owned a few and NEVER had the rear end even squat down a fraction of an inch. Granted these weren't high torque monsters but I've never felt it. They were also all live rear axle vehicles.

And as another point, the vehicle does this OFF IDLE. RPM's are in the 700 to 1000 rpm range. What is the torque output of the LS1 at 1000 rpm? It can't be that high. So technically I should be able to brake torque to say 2500 or 3000 rpm and feel the rear end of the Goat squat down another inch or two. I've done it and it doesn't.

I'm no engineer by any means, but I do believe there is a little something more to "Launch Mode". I'm blind guessing that it has something to do with the IRS of the GTO and the torque applied to the rear diff.

Lastly come to think of it. We have some older GTO owners here. Ask them if this happens? Those old Pontiac blocks have more Torque than our LS1's so any automatic owners should feel their rear ends lowering by a good 1 to 2 inches by just shifting from N into Drive off idle.

Hey 1964GTO does your 64 do this?

We need answers here not more guesses.

:)

"Launch Mode. Shift from Park to Drive, the GTO's legendary V8 power transfers to the driveline. Even at idle, it preloads the rear wheels, setting you into the starter's blocks for instant acceleration."

Im assuming its something put into the GTO's tranny that isn't in a cavalier or some other car with the same tranny that when shifting like that it preloads power to the wheels more so than other cars, which causes the shift in ride heighth. I'v also herd that in this mode you can't rev past 1500 RPM with your foot on the brake as there is a rev limiter there untill you let off the brake.

Originally posted by Orbit Orange@Aug 18 2004, 04:19 PM
Of course it is engine torque on the rear diff. that is causing this. It's not some magical hydraulic system or airbags we all know.

If Pontiac wants to call this launch mode then why not. No difference in calling it Launch Mode over say "Ram Air" which technically doesn't ram that much air into the intake in the first place and generally adds nothing to a car until a reasonable speed is reached. It's a marketing gimmick but if they want to call it launch mode so be it.

As for it also occuring on the M6, I haven't heard any M6 owners claiming the rear end squats down on shifting into first off idle. But you are correct in that you better have a 3rd leg to do it.

As a side note, do we have any A4 TransAm or Camaro SS owners here that can confirm that their F body does the same thing on launch? Close torque figures so shouldn't the LS1 A4 F bods do the same thing? And how about A4 Vette owners?

The reason I ask is simply this. Will a live axle vehicle do this? ie the F body. Is this only specific to independent rear suspension RWD models. I've been in plenty of V8 RWD vehicles and even owned a few and NEVER had the rear end even squat down a fraction of an inch. Granted these weren't high torque monsters but I've never felt it. They were also all live rear axle vehicles.

And as another point, the vehicle does this OFF IDLE. RPM's are in the 700 to 1000 rpm range. What is the torque output of the LS1 at 1000 rpm? It can't be that high. So technically I should be able to brake torque to say 2500 or 3000 rpm and feel the rear end of the Goat squat down another inch or two. I've done it and it doesn't.

I'm no engineer by any means, but I do believe there is a little something more to "Launch Mode". I'm blind guessing that it has something to do with the IRS of the GTO and the torque applied to the rear diff.

Lastly come to think of it. We have some older GTO owners here. Ask them if this happens? Those old Pontiac blocks have more Torque than our LS1's so any automatic owners should feel their rear ends lowering by a good 1 to 2 inches by just shifting from N into Drive off idle.

Hey 1964GTO does your 64 do this?

We need answers here not more guesses.

:)
No it dosent but it isnt IRS. It does have a s***load of torque though. My non radial redlines in the rear can attest for that :)
I actually test drove an auto GTO the other day and the rear launch thing was awsome. It made me smile every time. The car was a blast( just like any GTO ive ever driven).

OO
1.To see same effect you need to have a similar Rear Suspension you can take BMW E30 and some others (cars you are listed have different Suspension)
2. Torque Converter must transfer more power to the rear and you can see it in the 04 GTO

Then Corvette A4 will start sliding back down from the hill GTO will still go forward (no throttle being touched )

You can go see BMW 330I AT with sport mode. It will do a same thing when the sport mode is selected (not as much as GTO)

1.To see same effect you need to have a similar Rear Suspension you can take BMW E30 and some others (cars you are listed have different Suspension)

There is my answer I believe.

It is the IRS that is letting the rear end "hunker" down on torque loading of the rear.

You can go see BMW 330I AT with sport mode. It will do a same thing when the sport mode is selected (not as much as GTO)



This would make sense as I believe it also has an independent rear suspension.

By the way I went out and did brake torque it up to about 1500 rpm and the rear settled down about another inch also. (Had to go see it for myself.)

Now for solid rear axles I can see how the axle would prevent the rear from lowering on torque loading due the the axle being "fixed". And for kicks I hopped in my El Camino (350 4bbl TH350 tranny) and brake torqued it to see if there was any "squatting". Not a lick BUT it would twist or rock to the right when torque loaded. This would make sense to me because if you even see any of the old Goats launching at the drags often you will see one wheel off the ground and the other in contact, "twisting the frame".

So I think I might have answered to myself at least how this is happening. So can we say a medium to high torque RWD vehicle with an independent rear suspension will do this. Where a solid axle will not??

This brings me back to the Vette. The Vette has an IRS but has that transaxle dealy (highly techinical term there). Would this effect this "launch mode" or brake torquing effect.

Do we have any C4 or C5 A4 Vette owners that can shed any light.

Good points are being raised here. I appreciate all the comments. :)

yes, it has to do with IRS, but there is a lot of different IRS's in different cars and the one used in GTO (and E30) will be able to create "launch mode". The IRS used in Corvette is a different system (long arm - short arm) positioned perpendicular to the length of the vehicle so the back of Corvette shouldn't really drop unles you have really bad bushings.

Originally posted by Orbit Orange@Aug 18 2004, 10:02 PM
This would make sense to me because if you even see any of the old Goats launching at the drags often you will see one wheel off the ground and the other in contact, "twisting the frame".


Yes...I've seen that on a late 80's Mustang on the track. Scairy to watch! :o

Actually what I meant was the Mustang had one back wheel on the ground.

also, I don't really see why GM didn't make an option in the car to select the torque pressure and they could call it "sport mode" like BMW did it. And also, it shoudn't affect your braking because the computer in the car should know when the car is moving or standing still.

Note that this function occurs when 1) your foot is on the brake, and 2) you have shifted from neutral to drive. GM says this function is to remove the slack in the driveline caused from shifting into neutral. Basically GM is preloading the system at this point but instead of doing it as we would by reving the motor up so the torque convertor catches, it just locks the torque convertor up at idle rpm. It accomplishes the same mission with less stress on the hardware. Now I hadn't heard anything about the 1500 rpm limiter in this mod but that would make sense since you wouldn't want to rev up the motor with the car at a dead stop with brakes clamped and the torque convertor locked up. Its the transmissions computer doing one really cool thing. Since manuals don't have computer controlled lock up torque convertors but a clutch completely under driver control, it doesn't do this.

Now I admit that I don't know this is for sure what is going on but it would explain what owners are seeing.

Now that we've discussed all this, let's get back to the overall topic of the auto being faster than stick for the 05. If the 04 also has the launch mode then how can the 05 auto be faster than the stick when the 04 isn't? This brings us back to: what is different about the 05 auto tranny? We are all too impatient to wait for the details from GM so let's theorize!!

Again, it won't be. Manufacturer's stats don't mean sqat, especially 0-60 stats. Wait for the real tests.

Just something to remember, the 04 0-60 times (Pontiac quoted) are 5.3 for the M6 and 5.4 for the A4. A mere 0.1 sec.

I don't see it out of the realm of possibility that the auto just might nip the stick. Although I find that highly dubious myself. I just don't think you can say it is impossible. Sure a good manual driver is going to wring more out of the M6 than the driver of the A4. It could just be a flat out reversal of the numbers too. BUT.......... maybe just maybe the auto is a click faster. Remember 2/10 of a second is a very tiny increment of time. I'm starting to think about exactly which gear will each be in as they hit 60 mph. I need to look up the ratios of the first two gears of the M6 vs. the first 2 of the A4. I remember one is shorter one is taller. If the A4 had the numerically shorter 1st and 2nd wouldn't it be theorhetically possible that the A4 could just be 2/10 of a second quicker to 60.

Just mere guesses here. Maybe someone with a little more technical knowledge could shed some light.

I find the claim doubtful myself but I don't see it as an impossibility. :)

Just looked up the ratios again of 1st and 2nd of both A4 and M6

A4: 3.05 first, 1.62 second
M6: 2.66 first, 1.78 second

So I guess it is theorhetically possible that the A4 with a shorter first gear could get the jump on the slightly taller 1st geared M6 and hang on through 2nd to barely nip the M6 from 0-60. Once again I'm just going by these numbers, I know there is more involved in it that just that. :)

Anyone else care to add? :D

On orbit's point, maybe the m6 requires one more shift between 0-60 which causes a slight time lag. Due to gearing, perhaps the m6 hits redline in 2nd gear at maybe 45-50 mph and the required shift is enough to make a4 faster to 60. I know that in a grand am v6 (no flames please, just making a comparison) at full throttle from launch, it doesnt shift to 3rd until about 72 mph.

Either way, all this talk is fun as hell since none of us know for sure what the hell is going on!!!

inkwell makes a good point.

maybe the m6 requires one more shift between 0-60 which causes a slight time lag. Due to gearing, perhaps the m6 hits redline in 2nd gear at maybe 45-50 mph and the required shift is enough to make a4 faster to 60.

We need an M6 owner to verify what gear they are in a 60 on a flat out 0-60 run.

And frankly I need to go out and make one myself to see if I'm in 2nd or 3rd at 60 on a WOT blast to 60.

Usually I'm still in the throttle well past 60 so I'm not paying attention. ;) Ah, the LS1 :D

Originally posted by Orbit Orange@Aug 19 2004, 11:00 PM
Just looked up the ratios again of 1st and 2nd of both A4 and M6

A4: 3.05 first, 1.62 second
M6: 2.66 first, 1.78 second

So I guess it is theorhetically possible that the A4 with a shorter first gear could get the jump on the slightly taller 1st geared M6 and hang on through 2nd to barely nip the M6 from 0-60.* Once again I'm just going by these numbers, I know there is more involved in it that just that.* :)

Anyone else care to add?* :D
2004 GTO The 6-speed manual transmission (RPO M12)

Gear M12 Ratio (:1)
FIRST 2.97 47mph@6300rpm
SECOND 2.07 68mph@6300rpm
THIRD 1.43 99mpr@63000rpm
FOURTH 1.00
FIFTH 0.84
SIXTH 0.57
REVERSE 3.28

A4
1st Gear Ratio 3.059:1
2nd Gear Ratio 1.625:1
3rd Gear Ratio 1.000:1
4th Gear Ratio 0.696:1
Reverse 2.294:1

Looks like our M6 gearing info differs. Looks like the A4 info is the same.

I'll try to doublecheck those M6 gear ratios.

Where did you get your info if I could ask. I got mine off the GM Dealerworld site. It has been known to have the wrong info.

:)

Just doublechecked, but I'll try to get the info from another source too.

Pontiac*GTO

MN6 6-SPEED MANUAL TRANSMISSION SPECIFICATIONS

Transmission model MANUAL 6 -SPEED w/OVERDRIVE TremecT56
RPO Code MN6
GEAR RATIOS *
**First 2.66
**Second 1.78
**Third 1.30
**Fourth 1.00
**Fifth 0.74
**Sixth 0.50
**Reverse 2.90
TORQUE CONVERTER *
Maximum Engine Torque (lb-ft/N-m) 385/519.75
LUBRICANT CAPACITY (pints/litre) *
**Fluid Capacity 4/3.7856

This shows the tranny as RPO code MN6 not M12.

Could someone else confirm any of this info. Thanks for the info to dede. :)

Well I just referenced 3 magazines and they all have dede's numbers. One also mentioned RPO code M12 too. So I'm guessing the info I have is incorrect. GM really needs to get this stuff right on their own site. If anyone can say for definite that it's not please do. I do know mags can get ahold of the wrong info too. :)

My info from GM Service Information (SI)
Gear
MM6 Ratio (:1) M12 Ratio (:1)

FIRST 2.66 2.97
SECOND 1.78 2.07
THIRD 1.30 1.43
FOURTH 1.00 1.00
FIFTH 0.74 0.84
SIXTH 0.50 0.57

REVERSE 2.90 3.28

Let me get this straight...

If the gear ratio for first is 2.97 then this means that the engine does 2.97 revolutions per 1 revolution of .... the drive shaft?

And the higher this number the faster you'll be able to launch, but the faster you'll have to shift, right?

Also are the rear diferentials the same on the Auto and the Manual?

If anybody would like to go into detail about the advantages and disadvantages of gear ratios I'd love to hear it.

Thank You

Also are the rear diferentials the same on the Auto and the Manual?

As far as I know yes. If I'm wrong someone please correct me. Both rear diff. ratios are 3:46. I'm no expert though. Someone add if they can. :)

If anybody would like to go into detail about the advantages and disadvantages of gear ratios I'd love to hear it.


I just know some basics, but funny you should mention this but I was reading an article about the old GM Powerglide transmission, a 2 speed automatic. Some drag racers love the consistency of this tranny due to it's taller first gear which tends to limit wheelspin on launch. (They have so much power in the first place a lower ratio might go to waste). I'm not a track hound but I believe some racers still use a variation of the old 2 speed Powerglide today. Any hard-core 1/4 milers out there correct me if I'm wrong.

:D

Originally posted by JohnPaulPSU@Aug 22 2004, 08:58 AM
Let me get this straight...

If the gear ratio for first is 2.97 then this means that the engine does 2.97 revolutions per 1 revolution of .... the drive shaft?

yes

And the higher this number the faster you'll be able to launch, but the faster you'll have to shift, right?
yes

Also are the rear diferentials the same on the Auto and the Manual?
yes it is the same (3.46)

P.S. info for 2004

Just a note, the higher the number the faster the acceleration, but this also limits the top speed of a vehicle as you accelerate to the engines max RPM faster in the highest gear.

Originally posted by Nocturn@Aug 22 2004, 05:17 PM
Just a note, the higher the number the faster the acceleration, but this also limits the top speed of a vehicle as you accelerate to the engines max RPM faster in the highest gear.
In the 6-sp GTO even with Final Drive Raito 4.11 top speed will be 176@5200 rpm :wacko:

regarding this whole launch mode thing,,, don't if this is the same example but I owed 2 300zx's one a 85 turbo and 86 non turbo 2+2. both automatic. When I shifted from p to d the rear end would lower it self about an 1 inch. If I kept my foot on the brake and accelerated it would lower (squat) even more. Just the opps would occur when I would shift into reverse from P. Now I'm almost certain those 300zx had IRS.

Not sure how much torque those cars had but I can tell your the 85 turbo was about 200hp and the 86 nonturbo 165hp v6 3.0

so is this the same thing every one is talking about?

I know this squating effect at least on those 300z cars could get worse over the years and in order to limit it you had to get new rear struts or springs.

Originally posted by dede+Aug 23 2004, 01:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dede @ Aug 23 2004, 01:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Nocturn@Aug 22 2004, 05:17 PM
Just a note, the higher the number the faster the acceleration, but this also limits the top speed of a vehicle as you accelerate to the engines max RPM faster in the highest gear.
In the 6-sp GTO even with Final Drive Raito 4.11 top speed will be 176@5200 rpm :wacko: [/b][/quote]
True but thats gearing limited top speed, not actual top speed as it doesn't account for areodynamics, etc etc.

It is possible for a car with a 4 speed auto to be faster, IN A STRAIGHT LINE, than the same car with a 6 speed manual. While I cannot quote the exact issue, one of the major car mags (motor trend, car and driver, one of those) did an article testing the manual versions of a car verses the automatics. I believe it was back around 2000. One of the cars was a Firebird Formula with the LS1. They had several drives test all the cars, including one who was a former professional race driver. The results were that the Automatic Formula was a tenth or two quicker through the quarter mile than the 6 speed. I will try to find this issue, but I'm not sure I can. I hope someone else on this board recalls this article to back me up.
The important thing to remember, however, is that the Formula with the automatic did it with the performance axle ratio. While I'm not well versed in the exact gear ratios of the GTO, I can see the automatic transmission has MUCH lower gas mileage ratings (especially highway) which leads me to beleive it has VERY aggressive stock gears. Look at the specs for the new 2005 corvette. The 4 speed auto in it gets mileage ratings that are a lot closer to the 6 speeds...even though the engine is basically the same as the GTO.
I have no doubt that the Automatic 2005 GTO can be faster than the 6 speed through the quarter mile and 0-60. However, if it is, then it does it at a LARGE gas mileage penalty as well as driveability penalty (much larger drops in RPM's during gear changes).

Well with a manual alot more of the driver skill comes into skil.

I can see the automatic transmission has MUCH lower gas mileage ratings (especially highway) which leads me to beleive it has VERY aggressive stock gears.

First of all, welcome to the board. :)

In this case the final drive ratios are the EXACT same 3.46 for both M6 and A4. Reference the top gear numbers above to see part of the reason why the A4 gets the poor mileage. Sixth gear in the manual is 0.57 while Fourth gear in the automatic is basically 0.70. There is a little more to it than that but there is the big one.

If this is true (A4 a tick quicker than the M6) I wonder if any possible M6 05 owners will think about going A4 or if they will just "stick" with the manual. I have a feeling they wouldn't. :)

Most people I know drive a standard for the fun of it, not because its faster.

60MPH - 1 mile per minute - 88 feet per second.


Say if both cars started at 60 and went for the time it took to run 0-60 (in this case 4.6-4.8

One would take 404.8ft (auto) and the other 422.0ft (manual) a difference of 17.2 FT

The Auto GTO being 15.816 Ft long, the auto would be ahead by a car length +1.384 FT

This is of coarse assuming both are accelerating at the same rate, the question is does the Auto accelerate faster or does it simply launch better.

feel free to check my math...

Checked your math. ;)

Actually, the math itself is fine it's the Newtonian mechanics that as a bit shaky (Geez!!! That guy again?!?)

To avoid a physics lecture, we'll start one step from Newton - with x=1/2at^2. Integrating once, we get v=at+v0. Since v0=0, however (since it is a standing start), we get v=at or a=v/t.

For the A4, a=88/4.6=19.1 ft/s^2 (I'm going to be slightly loose about significant figures and uncertainty since I'm not planning on doing any error analysis anyhow.)

For the M6, a=88/4.8=18.3 ft/s^2.

x[A4]=0.5*19.1*4.6^2=202ft.
x[M6]=0.5*18.3*4.8^2=211ft.

Difference of roughly 9 ft.

In any case, though, we are talking a pretty small distance...

Originally posted by Nocturn@Aug 25 2004, 12:10 AM
Most people I know drive a standard for the fun of it, not because its faster.
I plan to buy a six speed GTO. I find it much more enjoyable and exhilerating to shift myself. My wife and I were heading home on a back road last weekend in her 2000 Grand Prix GTP. That's a fun car to drive, but like I told her, I was almost bored taking the curves in the GTP. No shifting, just "cruising". Not my style of driving.

Not to mention the six speed gets much better fuel mileage on the highway (where mos of my driving is).

What are you thinking the top speed will be on the 05. I hear the 05 vettes are getting about 180 so i would assume it should be about the same. The 04s are getting 160 which is also very good.

Originally posted by 1964GTO@Aug 25 2004, 01:05 PM
What are you thinking the top speed will be on the 05. I hear the 05 vettes are getting about 180 so i would assume it should be about the same. The 04s are getting 160 which is also very good.
The 04 GTO has a top speed of 155MPH. The speed is limited by the computer. To do 180 in this car would be sick :woot:. 155 felt pretty stable even though i was just there for a couple seconds.

Originally posted by Orbit Orange@Aug 24 2004, 09:53 PM
If this is true (A4 a tick quicker than the M6) I wonder if any possible M6 05 owners will think about going A4 or if they will just "stick" with the manual. I have a feeling they wouldn't. :)
For straight line 0-60 performance this is already true for the majority of drivers who don't have drag racing experience. Has it stopped them? Of course not, it's still much more fun to drive and quicker around curves even with a newbie clutch driver. There are untold advantages when a human controls the shifting as opposed to a mindless program that shifts without regard to traffic/road conditions.

For those wondering about the Professor's equation, it is VERY helpful.
x=1/2at^2 (x=distance, a=acceleration, t=time)
In order to obtain acceleration you use:
v=at+v0 (velocity = accel*time + initial velocity)
which means a=v/t assuming initial velocity is zero.

If you try out some numbers you realize a HUGE difference between a few tenths 0-60 vs a few tenths over the 1/4 mile

OK, I've read through the brochure book (nice silver colored with color phoitographs), and Im not sure if someone else posted it already (been a while since i've been on) but it does appear that the M6 vs. A4 times was a misprint. The M6 was mentioned 2x as being the quicker one, while the A4 was only mentioned 1x as being such. I will try to scan pages when I get to a scanner. :type:

No way the auto is faster, maybe with a stall converter, I could see a 0-60 time being faster, but what about that 0-100, remember 0-60 isnt much at the strip, i bet a stick will come around and beat the auto in time.

And i'd bet this car will do 170+ no problem a 350 hp doing about 160, imagine speed without electronics

Originally posted by mjd1001@Aug 24 2004, 05:02 PM
It is possible for a car with a 4 speed auto to be faster, IN A STRAIGHT LINE, than the same car with a 6 speed manual. While I cannot quote the exact issue, one of the major car mags (motor trend, car and driver, one of those) did an article testing the manual versions of a car verses the automatics. I believe it was back around 2000. One of the cars was a Firebird Formula with the LS1. They had several drives test all the cars, including one who was a former professional race driver. The results were that the Automatic Formula was a tenth or two quicker through the quarter mile than the 6 speed.drops in RPM's during gear changes).
This is abosultely true. the auto is slightly faster 0-60. Call it what you want, but that engine/tranny is matched very well for that purpose. I prefere a manual myself, cause its a better driving experience for me.

Just an interesting side note: Gm automatic tranny's are amoung the best in the world. You'll never find it on a BMW website, but everyone at GM knows that BMW has been using GM automatic transmissions in their cars for many many years.

:(
I have to correct myself now....I was gonna show the pics I scanned, but it is ref the 04....I kinda forgot this was about the 05. I'll shut up and continue reading now. :D

the answer,gm is using the new 4l65e trans in the 05 gto...its shift programs are better matched to the ls2,it is also quite a bit stronger as its internals have been revised. read about it here: http://www.superchevy-web.com/tech/0311sc_4l65e/ looks very cool, but no mention of the "preloader" feature :blink:

Although interesting, still not sure if I want the A4 or M6 on the 05. Good to hear that they're fine-tuning/adjusting the transmission though.

Originally posted by fastcop@Sep 27 2004, 03:09 PM
Although interesting, still not sure if I want the A4 or M6 on the 05. Good to hear that they're fine-tuning/adjusting the transmission though.
I agree, i'm all for driving a maunal but the A4 being 'faster', shifts for me and holds so much power without going to a better clutch and flywheel, it might just be the route for me as well. I suppose i'll just have to test drive both. :woot:

"I agree, i'm all for driving a maunal but the A4 being 'faster', shifts for me and holds so much power without going to a better clutch and flywheel, it might just be the route for me as well. I suppose i'll just have to test drive both."

Thank you, fastcop! This is my idea exactly. Who knows what the next few years will bring. I lease. So, you know any dealership seeing another GTO roll onto its lots won't turn down a test drive or two. Boy, am I gonna have a lot of fun over the next 35 months. Don't worry fellas, I'll find out which godd@amn goat is faster!!!

"Do you like it sir?"

"Don't know. Let's go test drive that M6 now."

"How bout that sir?"

"Don't know. Have to come back and try the auto again."

Manual 6 speed/Silver/Black interior. Stock 2004 GTO Presently
Manual 2007 Zeta Platform GTO - Future Vehicle (presently saving $$ for, of course!)
:woot: :woot: :woot: