I have a 991 GT3 and a 91 NSX. The GT3 is incredible. The shifting is just something that you have to experience under full throttle. On the other hand i also really enjoy the manual in the NSX and even the three on the tree thats in my old bronco.
Article on why manual shifting transmissions are being phased out
- Thread starter JD Cross
- Start date
As the steering wheel paddles only activate switches, I suppose the aftermarket could design a center console mounted lever that would look like a manual shifter.
It could move forward or back like a sequential shifter activating the same switches that have been moved from the steering column to the center console.
Judging from the number of manual shifter supporters there might be a market for this.
Last edited:
Edging close to my "dummy"/electronic clutch statement :wink:
All audis that have s-tronic boxes already have a centre shifter that let's you manually select up or down a gear exactly like a sequential box.
your logic is flawed as they don't buy GT3 because of PDK but because of GT3 and all those GT3s would be sold even if they came as only manual, the same stands for McLaren F1 which is today worth over 5 million per car and it comes with manual transmission, so should I say now that it's worth so much because it doesn't have sequential gearbox?
A real sequential race gearbox with straight cut gears will be superior without any doubt for racing. But it's horribly noisy (even more than the engine itself usually) not to mention mechanical stress upon shifting.
Auto transmissions used to be slush boxes that steal a lot of power and have a sluggish response to throttle input, now they have come a long way with DCT and such. I think many of us who look down on auto have only tried these "old" transmissions (including what we had on the NSX) and i can understand why they do so.
A modern "semi-auto" with DCT and paddle shift will be more efficient than any manual shifting unless you are Stirling Moss himself and even though you would be, the new models are becoming lightning fast on top end cars. And keeping both hands on the wheel while shifting is clearly superior.
The only downside i see for those inclined to modding is the complexity of these transmissions - questions their tolerance to power increases and aftermarket part costs.
Auto transmissions used to be slush boxes that steal a lot of power and have a sluggish response to throttle input, now they have come a long way with DCT and such. I think many of us who look down on auto have only tried these "old" transmissions (including what we had on the NSX) and i can understand why they do so.
A modern "semi-auto" with DCT and paddle shift will be more efficient than any manual shifting unless you are Stirling Moss himself and even though you would be, the new models are becoming lightning fast on top end cars. And keeping both hands on the wheel while shifting is clearly superior.
The only downside i see for those inclined to modding is the complexity of these transmissions - questions their tolerance to power increases and aftermarket part costs.
I do not follow this logic. All motorcycles are now defuct given this train of thought. 99.9% of motorcycles are still manual and require more involvement than a manual car and people love them as much today as at any time in the past. A much bigger PITA in traffic/bad weather than an NSX as well.. that I can assure you.
Right tool for the right job. No exotic or highly focused performance car is going to be ideal for stop and go traffic.
Last edited:
This thread is getting weird...motorcycles now? Whats next Cannondales?
The article introduces a facet that is not normally thought of when associating the benefits DCT or "new autos." My biggest question is the longevity or cost over time for the new DCTs more expensive or less than the classic manual tranny? We've seen the costs involved in the GTR debacle. However, if they are built to last the lifespan of the vehicle and are designed to endure the expected abuse from aggressive launches and driving, then there's the other huge perk of never having to worry about replacing the clutch every 20K, 30K, 60K, etc. One other expensive maintenance item off the list, very much like the transition of timing chains.
I don't need to re-iterate that the DCT will shift perfectly and almost instantly when you tell it to shift up or down.
If the computer can maximize efficiency in the shifting process and limit clutch/tranny wear, then there should be minimal if any need of a replacement clutch right? A good stick driver can get 70K-100K+ miles out most OEM clutches. Can't the DCT computer extract 200K+ miles then with virtually perfect shifting?
I don't need to re-iterate that the DCT will shift perfectly and almost instantly when you tell it to shift up or down.
If the computer can maximize efficiency in the shifting process and limit clutch/tranny wear, then there should be minimal if any need of a replacement clutch right? A good stick driver can get 70K-100K+ miles out most OEM clutches. Can't the DCT computer extract 200K+ miles then with virtually perfect shifting?
Do you feel good to show off your bike? ;
pWhat's next? Better than Cannondale: Cervélo!!!
Attachments
Agreed!
I have spoken to a few owners and to Rick Demann owner of Demann Motorsports who build and races Porsche's. He stated that most 997 GT3 owners are holding onto their cars because there is not manual option on the 991. If you look at the used price market, they are really high esp since the new model is out with no manual.
Once could pick up a base 991 GT3 for what some owners are asking for used 997.2's.
Looked at a 997.2 GT3 and this is exactly right.
What nonsense, all gt3s hold their value, regardless of their gearbox.
Motorbikes don't have room for dcts, and sequential are already very fast and efficient. They are also not hampered by traffic do the situation doesn't apply equally.
I'd quite happily sit in traffic in a 918 our new NSX in electric only auto mode.
GTR gearboxes were and are more than up to the task. Horror stories were created by the fact that main dealers were incapable our not allowed to service the faulty parts and so had to replace at a cost of $30k. 99% of gtr gearboxes issues can be fixed for about $1500 Max, majority of these by just resetting the software.
Dcts are no less capable of handling higher power than manual gearboxes. If anything they have twice the clutches to share the wear. In performance situations they are a better bet as there's no chance of beating the synchromesh and damaging the gear teeth when shifting fast.
Motorbikes don't have room for dcts, and sequential are already very fast and efficient. They are also not hampered by traffic do the situation doesn't apply equally.
I'd quite happily sit in traffic in a 918 our new NSX in electric only auto mode.
GTR gearboxes were and are more than up to the task. Horror stories were created by the fact that main dealers were incapable our not allowed to service the faulty parts and so had to replace at a cost of $30k. 99% of gtr gearboxes issues can be fixed for about $1500 Max, majority of these by just resetting the software.
Dcts are no less capable of handling higher power than manual gearboxes. If anything they have twice the clutches to share the wear. In performance situations they are a better bet as there's no chance of beating the synchromesh and damaging the gear teeth when shifting fast.
- Joined
- 4 October 2002
- Messages
- 569
The article is bullshit and full of excuses. Written by a guy who sees things from one angle - software coding and calibration.
Coding is a small element of the decision. It is also is a common excuses exercised by manufacturers to get drivers to switch over and conform because the majority of boutique sports car owners have become softies and they value bragging rights on lap times and convenience over a more engaging driving experience. The other marketing excuse often exercised is all race car driver uses automated shifting. So what! Most race cars have no Air conditioning. What's the point? Its a race car, not a sports car.
Yea, we all know PDK is faster and easier in traffic. It also makes sense on the track where ultimate speed and lap time is the key objective. But there is minimal debate that MT is more engaging to drive.
For those that choose to compare MT to antiquated technology such as points ignition or a carburetor, your argument lacks merit. There are technical advancement that makes new systems superior and there are advancements which removes the driver from a desirable engaging experience. With that said, ABS is largely welcomed even though it is less engaging. But people don't bitch about ABS because I wouldn't quantify pumping brakes and threshold braking in the rain as a desirable engaging experience, neither is crank starting your model T. Beside ABS is a safety issue and most drivers cannot outbrake ABS unless they are on snow. For that, ABS is widely accepted and welcomed, even though it is a system that disengages the driver.
Traction control and skid control is a safety feature but also can be quite a kill joy in a controlled environment. The system significant removes the driver from an engaging experience. But it is also a critical safety feature. For that, most manufacturers offer us an option to defeat both TC and skid control system. Having an option is the best of both worlds because it allows the driver to choose. For that same reasoning, manufacturers shall give us a choice to choose between automated Trans or MT. However, for that MT option to continue, buyers will need to demand it since the take rate for MT is low but I read that it improved this year compared to last year.
As for the excessive emission related to slamming a throttle shut and reopening it during a shift, it can largely be dialed out. Yea, it takes calibration and that takes a little bit of time. So as calibrating the suspension and chassis for a low volume Type S or Type R NSX takes time. Since transmission type is a personal choice, the question isn't which transmission is more desirable. The question is which manufacturer operates by a code beyond cost and profit alone and which manufacture is more dedicated to offer sports car buyers distinct choices.
Porsche still offers us entry level 911s with 7 speed manuals and so does Corvettes. A dual clutch mandate for the NSX is a deal breaker for me. Perhaps Honda will offer the manual trani for the mini-NSX. But that mini-NSX is too far away and most recently, several former Honda CEO's met with and chewed out Ito. In response, it looks like Honda is redirecting engineering resources to fix quality problem on mainstream vehicles. There are whispers that low volume vehicles like sports car may be further delayed. I'm tired of waiting for that new Honda sports car. I've already paid several visits to my local Porsche dealership and I've combed thru their brochures and configured my vehicle. The writing is almost on the wall.
Coding is a small element of the decision. It is also is a common excuses exercised by manufacturers to get drivers to switch over and conform because the majority of boutique sports car owners have become softies and they value bragging rights on lap times and convenience over a more engaging driving experience. The other marketing excuse often exercised is all race car driver uses automated shifting. So what! Most race cars have no Air conditioning. What's the point? Its a race car, not a sports car.
Yea, we all know PDK is faster and easier in traffic. It also makes sense on the track where ultimate speed and lap time is the key objective. But there is minimal debate that MT is more engaging to drive.
For those that choose to compare MT to antiquated technology such as points ignition or a carburetor, your argument lacks merit. There are technical advancement that makes new systems superior and there are advancements which removes the driver from a desirable engaging experience. With that said, ABS is largely welcomed even though it is less engaging. But people don't bitch about ABS because I wouldn't quantify pumping brakes and threshold braking in the rain as a desirable engaging experience, neither is crank starting your model T. Beside ABS is a safety issue and most drivers cannot outbrake ABS unless they are on snow. For that, ABS is widely accepted and welcomed, even though it is a system that disengages the driver.
Traction control and skid control is a safety feature but also can be quite a kill joy in a controlled environment. The system significant removes the driver from an engaging experience. But it is also a critical safety feature. For that, most manufacturers offer us an option to defeat both TC and skid control system. Having an option is the best of both worlds because it allows the driver to choose. For that same reasoning, manufacturers shall give us a choice to choose between automated Trans or MT. However, for that MT option to continue, buyers will need to demand it since the take rate for MT is low but I read that it improved this year compared to last year.
As for the excessive emission related to slamming a throttle shut and reopening it during a shift, it can largely be dialed out. Yea, it takes calibration and that takes a little bit of time. So as calibrating the suspension and chassis for a low volume Type S or Type R NSX takes time. Since transmission type is a personal choice, the question isn't which transmission is more desirable. The question is which manufacturer operates by a code beyond cost and profit alone and which manufacture is more dedicated to offer sports car buyers distinct choices.
Porsche still offers us entry level 911s with 7 speed manuals and so does Corvettes. A dual clutch mandate for the NSX is a deal breaker for me. Perhaps Honda will offer the manual trani for the mini-NSX. But that mini-NSX is too far away and most recently, several former Honda CEO's met with and chewed out Ito. In response, it looks like Honda is redirecting engineering resources to fix quality problem on mainstream vehicles. There are whispers that low volume vehicles like sports car may be further delayed. I'm tired of waiting for that new Honda sports car. I've already paid several visits to my local Porsche dealership and I've combed thru their brochures and configured my vehicle. The writing is almost on the wall.
Enjoy the Porsche my friend. They have the sales clout to justify a manual tranny like Corvette and other best selling sports cars. The NSX is not slated and will not sell enough to warrant extra cost of making two trannies available, especially with such sophisticated technology that needs to be in perfect sync for power delivery. If it was not hybrid, then I could see it happening and I hope the mini-NSX/S2000 rumor will support the manual tranny.
Totally agree.
Whether people admit it or not, the writing is on the wall for the manual gearbox. In 10-15 years, perhaps with the exception of the cheapest cars out there, I suspect all cars will be at least twin clutch.
As for drive engagement rowing through a manual box, that's purely historical. Had electronics pre-dated mechanics, then manual gearboxes might have been button operated, in combination with a clutch. There's nothing magical about the physical action of stirring the gear stick and engaging the clutch, it's an arbitrary result of the lack of a better way at the time and as I said above, is not fundamental to the act of controlling a vehicle, merely a symptom of poor torque spread.
Electric cars simply do not need gearboxes, because the fundamental technology is better in so many ways.
Do people mourn the manual choke?
As for making a manual NSX, N Spec has it right, there's far too much highly integrated technology in the car already to take something as base as the gearbox and opt for the "pure" option. It also would be against the mantra of NSX, which I've inly recently learned about.
On a separate note I would like to compliment the contributors to this forum on their perceptions, intellect and use of language. It's so refreshing compared to the neanderthals I've had to tolerate on so many other car forums. I may not agree with all opinions on here but everyone seems to state their case eloquently and succinctly using the correct language. It's a pleasure to read!
That's mainly because electric motors have a perfectly flat torque curve from zero RPM to very high RPM. Not sure we can call it better than internal combustion engines, it's just a totally different technology. It's better from an ecological point of view since they are not relying on fossil fuels, but otherwise for performance / racing applications there are still issues with weight and power storage. I know technology is moving fast, but we are still not there just yet.
Thanks for the summary. Not meaning to be rude but I'm a patent attorney who specialises in the motor industry. I'm well aware of the technological characteristics and limitations of the different methods of propulsion. I also get to know the progress of secret technology before it becomes mainstream by virtue of my profession.
That said, I wasn't talking about the superiority of electric cars, they aren't there yet as you've pointed out, I'm talking about the superiority of the electric motor as provider of tractive effort.
That said, I wasn't talking about the superiority of electric cars, they aren't there yet as you've pointed out, I'm talking about the superiority of the electric motor as provider of tractive effort.
At then end of the day dual clutch technology is the future for now I love manual boxes but that's for the last century. Peopl who whinge and complain have never driven or even been a passenger in a current dual clutch gearbox. The exhilaration of split second gearshifts while your hands never leave the steering wheel can never be matched by manual shifting in a modern car. Current super cars are different creatures to the beast of yrs gone past with super responsive engines that accelerate like crazy manual boxes just don't cut it.
I have either driven or been a passenger in many Ferrari's including 458 Speciale, McLaren mp4 12, 650s, Lamborghini Aventador, Porsche PDK, BMW M5,M6 Audi R8 V10. It would be absolutely crazy to have a stick shift in any of these high performance cars with engines that rev like crazy.
If you even get a chance to go for a drive in an Aventador at full noise its mind blowing from zero to 280km/p paddle gear shifting is the most impressive and exhilarating part of acceleration no stick shift could ever come close to instant and explosive upshifting.
I have either driven or been a passenger in many Ferrari's including 458 Speciale, McLaren mp4 12, 650s, Lamborghini Aventador, Porsche PDK, BMW M5,M6 Audi R8 V10. It would be absolutely crazy to have a stick shift in any of these high performance cars with engines that rev like crazy.
If you even get a chance to go for a drive in an Aventador at full noise its mind blowing from zero to 280km/p paddle gear shifting is the most impressive and exhilarating part of acceleration no stick shift could ever come close to instant and explosive upshifting.
It had nothing to do with the driving experience. Transmissions, on the other hand, affect the driving experience considerably. Add 30hp to an engine and you might feel the difference but change the gear ratios in the trans and you will feel the difference; change the way you use it and you have a totally different car.
I get what you are trying to say, i am an engineer, so i know this first hand. What i am saying though is you have to consider the system as a whole, lets say you can have a wall plug like on an industrial automaton of course electric motors are superior. But on a moving platform (such as a car) you have to carry your power source as well, and at the moment it involves some compromises which are balancing out the inherent superiority of the motor itself. It's a shifting situation though, scientists are making good strides in battery power density. I also can see a lot of new developments for electric motors...
You don't have to carry your power source with you! trains, bumper cars, scalextric! There are options. I also don't think I'm trying to say anything, I said what I meant, that I agree with you on electric cars not being there, but as a propulsion unit alone, I think the electric motor is far better, mainly due to its relative lack of complexity and moving parts, lack of reciprocating mass, and its torque response as you summarised.
But we are straying from the point.
ENT, the manual choke had every bit as much to do with the driving experience as the manual gearbox. Just because it wasn't required for each gearchange doesn't mean it wasn't something that had to be considered when driving a car. Similar to hand signals before indicators were invented, or having to reach over to adjust your passenger side wing mirror if you were lucky enough to have one. The manual gearchange is simply a relic of the lack of technology that forced it into existence as a solution to the limitations of the engine at the time. You see it as a bigger part of the driving experience because you had to use it far more often than the manual choke, or not rainsensing wipers. All these features are things that performed a function to allow you to drive while accommodating the limits of the rest of the technology.
My point is that gearchanges are not part of the purist driving experience. The closest I can think of is a kart. Stop, go and steer, that's it. What you are losing with a twin clutch is the irritation of a habit that you found satisfying and so will miss, but ultimately it was taking you away from the purity of driving.
One final point to NSX-SA is that the aventador has a shocking gearbox that is not twin clutch. It is an automated manual, yes but it has only one clutch despite being incredibly fast.
Similar threads
