auto vs stick
- Thread starter cutthroat
- Start date
Perform a search using the words "conversion of auto to manual" and several threads will pop up.
To me they may as well be different cars. Essentially, they are. Different transmissions, different cams, different horsepower, different red line, and so on. It all depends what you are looking for. I have had a '91 (auto), '92 (5-speed), and '94 (5-speed), and can say that for me the 5-speed manual is the perfect car. I actually owned my '91 (auto) and '94 (5-speed) at the same time for about 8 years and barely drove the automatic after I bought the '94 with the 5-speed. The whole experience was different, and I loved shifting and having that 8,000 RPM red line. Plus, since my '94 has the manual steering rack, and the '91 automatic had the electronic power steering, that played a factor too. The manual steering rack makes me feel connected to the car, and I love that. But, honestly, the two cars did not even feel the same to me.
Now, you seem to have found a rare bird in that year and color. Plus, if your needs require the automatic, and you love it, who cares what anyone else thinks? Buy it and enjoy.
Last edited:
The 91 auto does not compare to a 95 plus auto with Sports Shift. But, the sports shift is not quite the same as a manual.
Ummm...with the exception of the essentially useless Sport Shift part, the power and everything else is the same. Wait....actually you are right. The targa top car does weigh more, and is slower....so I guess they are different.
Why is it useless? The sportshift allowed you to hold a gear. Thats actually pretty big on an auto trans in the absence of a rear diff, TC or TCU upgrade.
The weight difference between coupe and T is 95lbs... So all told less than a tenth of a second impact from weight stock.
Last edited:
I just think the speed of shifts is a joke with the Sport Shift system. Porsche and BMW have much better options available....and we will not even approach the F1 system in the Ferraris, which is pretty much the closest thing to a street legal race car transmission that you can get. It is just my personal opinion that the Sport Shift was a lame attempt that was executed poorly. Others may like it, but I just am not a fan having driven several other cars with much better semi-automatic transmission options.
As far as the weight, I only mention it because this forum is full of people pulling out their spare tires, buying a smaller battery for their car, and other things to 'save weight'. So noting that the targa top automatic is the heaviest and slowest NSX out there was something I felt like mentioning.
Last edited:
Those are facts, and you can't argue with that.
Here is another fact:
In the 5 years of membership in NSX Prime, I have learned that manual owners that post on this matter never have accepted the automatic trans. They vehemently argue against the auto. However, I have yet to see an auto owner put down the manual trans. This could mean that auto owners take no exception to manual trans, or that manual owners that post tend to be narrow minded. In my opinion, I think it is the latter!!!!!!!
In the 5 years of membership in NSX Prime, I have learned that manual owners that post on this matter never have accepted the automatic trans. They vehemently argue against the auto. However, I have yet to see an auto owner put down the manual trans. This could mean that auto owners take no exception to manual trans, or that manual owners that post tend to be narrow minded. In my opinion, I think it is the latter!!!!!!!
Last edited:
I don't think any of the competition was sporting much better auto trannies in 1995:smile:
the NSX automatic is better than average, but it is not even close to a built automatic nor one found in modern sporty cars. can't even mention it in the same breath as the Ferrari F1 trans... unless you are delusional. its not bad, but its just an old automatic... the virtues of the NSX are beyond its acceleration, so the experience is still good and its easier to drive. you simply get a better experience, the intended experience, with a manual provided you can drive it.
Exactly my thoughts. :smile:
I have an auto and drive it to work every day, rain or shine. I estimate that I would have to shift something like 120 times on the drive home if I had a manual. I had a loaner with a manual transmission that I drove for a week. Mine has been ponied up about 25 or so hp. You can dash someone from a stoplight for lane choice from a complete stop. You will never get it into 1st gear if you are moving faster than about 15 mph.
My wife bought mine for me and she cannot drive a manual and after 20 plus years of putting up with me, she is still a trophy wife. If it came down to a decision, I would have to get a different car.
My wife bought mine for me and she cannot drive a manual and after 20 plus years of putting up with me, she is still a trophy wife. If it came down to a decision, I would have to get a different car.
Wait....
Lets be clear here for any folks reading that are new to this topic and may get confused.
A Ferrari F1 sequential, or a modern *dual clutch* sequential (which is a hell of a lot better than single clutch - the F458 has Ferrari's dual clutch) is *not* an automatic other than in a pure semantics sense. It's really unfortunate that the press *insists* on abusing this term.
A "clutch pedal free" manual is an entirely different beast than a *true* automatic. My Mitsu Ralliart has a dual clutch. I love it. But it is *not* an automatic. It is a manual where the computer actuates the clutch (two clutches in this case) The result is insanely fast shifts (measured in hundreds of milliseconds) and better than traditional manual performance in *most* situations, even in "auto" mode. Put it in paddle shift mode and its a manual where you flip a lever rather than push a clutch and shift a stick. The downside, though, is that *no* sequential type trans is as smooth as a real auto. Riding around in my Mitsu feels like a manual car does, even with the dual clutch. It is a lot "rougher", for example, than my 335xi.
A real auto has a torque converter mated to an automatic transmission and TCU. It's a totally different beast. The viscous coupling of the torque converter makes for the smoothest drive you can get, and can even deliver some incredible straight line acceleration, at the expense of efficiency and gear selection performance.
A while back, Porsche introduced tiptronic (and registered a copyright on that term) which is just a way to keep the automatic transmission from automatically shifting gears. Thats all it is. Performance impact was pretty minimal, but better than nothing in the absence of other auto trans upgrades. The industry followed suit and we have things like Honda "sport shift", BMW "steptronic", etc etc etc
I can tell you with 100% certainty, having owned and driven both for 1000s of miles, that there is 0 difference between tiptronic in a 99 911 and sport shift in a 98 NSX... same shit.
I also had a regular, no shift lever, automatic on a C5 Vette, but "built" a bit with a higher stall torque converter, higher gear ratio differential, and re-programmed TCU and it would decimate either the NSX or 911 despite the ability to hold a gear in the shiftable autos.
A *true* "built" auto tranny (like what you can get from L10) is yet another entirely different beast. These autos can hold a lot of power and have application specific torque converters and gearing.
The term "automatic" can't be used as a blanket term.
PDK, DCT, SMG, F1, SST, DSG, etc etc are *not* "automatics" and, to be fair, Honda stopped development of any kind of auto in the NSX pretty much after day 1. That said, it was fine for the task. It is only *very* recently that dual clutch transmissions from Borg Warner, Getrag, Marelli have started to become a commodity. A modern 5 or 6 speed automatic would have been nice in the NSX (maybe with a more aggressive transmission profile and TC), but given how dismal NSX sales were, no way that was going to have happened in 02 (when it would have been feasible)
Last edited:
OP-
If you haven't already, also go test drive a manual. Drive the auto again and if it still has that same good feeling, why not? I still don't understand the whole thing with "buying a nice sports car but has to be an automatic so the wifey can drive it too." If you like occassional spirited driving, personally I would go for the manual. It seems to me you just need a car to cruise in on a nice day; if so then get the auto.
If you haven't already, also go test drive a manual. Drive the auto again and if it still has that same good feeling, why not? I still don't understand the whole thing with "buying a nice sports car but has to be an automatic so the wifey can drive it too." If you like occassional spirited driving, personally I would go for the manual. It seems to me you just need a car to cruise in on a nice day; if so then get the auto.
IMHO, it's a no brainer when performance is of concern (If you're interested in an NSX then it most certainly is one of the essentials) that manual is the better choice. But here lies the dilemma...people that normally don't drive manual are going to have issues with the "foot work" in an NSX. It's not the manual transmission you get in a civic that you can just pick up and abuse. You will burn out the clutch a lot faster and you'll have an expensive fix ahead of you. Look into the cost and if it seems affordable to you them I highly suggest manual. If not go with auto and save yourself the cost. You probably just want a car to enjoy and cruise around in on a nice day. I've been driving manual since 96 and even my daily is a manual. I shift a lot during my commutes and put nearly 30K miles/year on my daily driver which is a manual late model Accord. The NSX for me was almost second nature when I first got it. It does have a high/late catch point and the clutch is noticeably stiffer than the Accord (makes sense given it's Engine size and power). I had a 350z before and the clutch in that car had a similar feel in terms of stiffness but a much earlier "catch" point. My transition was virtually seamless and I'm very light on the clutch since I can pick up the footwork quickly as a result of my "practice" which made my preference/choice to get manual much easier. If you're not used to it, it's gonna take you a bit and as mentioned above you'll likely spend some extra money a lot sooner than planned. At the end of the day, it's gonna be your choice. Base it on what you want out of the car and if you're ready for the maintenance. It's you that's gonna drive and maintain it. Every other "get this or that" is a matter of personal opinion. Either way you'll be in an NSX and that my friend is a good thing! 
I think the "auto vs manual" thing is kind of silly (as are most subjective arguments) when it heads down the "religion" path.
For anyone who *enjoys* rowing gears, the manual is a no brainer (of course it is also an endangered species)
For anyone who does *not*, the automatic was a viable option. In straight line performance (which is all most people use to define "performance" anyway), an auto equipped car (a *traditional* TC based auto), absolutely *could* decimate a manual car, in a straight line, if setup right. You can see this all day long in Mustang, Vette, AMG Benz and 911 turbo forums. Even *if* the manual is theoretically capable of a better time, it doesnt mean the driver can shift that well.
Now we really are seeing the end of the clutch pedal so the point is kind of moot. Dual clutch sequentials will probably *fully* replace traditional manuals within a few years.
At that point, you'll just get the transmission that the OEM felt was most appropriate for the application and you'll have an "auto mode" whether it is a dual clutch or a traditional automatic.
Many manual owners will lament the loss of direct gear selection, but I think this is more of a "fun nostalgia" thing than practical concern. Even in my Mitsu (much less a monster like a GTR or F458), I can flick the paddle twice and be in the gear I want quicker than I could physically execute a 6->4 downshift, for example.
Either way, it is what it is... In ten years a new generation will look up these "philosophical debates" and say "what the heck is a "clutch pedal"???"
For anyone who *enjoys* rowing gears, the manual is a no brainer (of course it is also an endangered species)
For anyone who does *not*, the automatic was a viable option. In straight line performance (which is all most people use to define "performance" anyway), an auto equipped car (a *traditional* TC based auto), absolutely *could* decimate a manual car, in a straight line, if setup right. You can see this all day long in Mustang, Vette, AMG Benz and 911 turbo forums. Even *if* the manual is theoretically capable of a better time, it doesnt mean the driver can shift that well.
Now we really are seeing the end of the clutch pedal so the point is kind of moot. Dual clutch sequentials will probably *fully* replace traditional manuals within a few years.
At that point, you'll just get the transmission that the OEM felt was most appropriate for the application and you'll have an "auto mode" whether it is a dual clutch or a traditional automatic.
Many manual owners will lament the loss of direct gear selection, but I think this is more of a "fun nostalgia" thing than practical concern. Even in my Mitsu (much less a monster like a GTR or F458), I can flick the paddle twice and be in the gear I want quicker than I could physically execute a 6->4 downshift, for example.
Either way, it is what it is... In ten years a new generation will look up these "philosophical debates" and say "what the heck is a "clutch pedal"???"
I agree, drive both a manual and an auto, particularly an auto with "Sports Shift" and make your choice. I would also not buy an auto to satisfy the spouse. However, it appears that there are those that just do not believe that one can experience spirited driving with an auto NSX. That may be partially true for the 1991 - 1994 autos. However, spirited driving is absolutely possible (including up and down shifting) with the 95 plus autos with "Sports Shift". However, the Sports Shift auto is not as fast in straight line runs as the manuals due to weight, HP and gearing differentials. 95 plus autos also cannot accelerate out of hairpin turns as quickly. As for the pre-95 autos, you can still enjoy spirited driving. During the HPDE at the Las vegas NSXPO, I passed my share of manuals while in full auto mode. Granted, I was in the novice group and some guys may have had problems shifting, but it was also my first time on a track. Also, I should make it known that my auto trans failed in the process and ended up costing $3,100 to repair.
I guess, what bugs me the most is that some manual owners don't know enough, or don't care, about the auto trans to appreciate that they are still fun to drive. They are just not as quick. An NA1 is not as fast as an NA2, but you generally don't hear or read about people putting down the NA1 like they do an auto. So why the constant lack of respect for the auto? Now I sound like Roger Dangerfield LOL
I guess, what bugs me the most is that some manual owners don't know enough, or don't care, about the auto trans to appreciate that they are still fun to drive. They are just not as quick. An NA1 is not as fast as an NA2, but you generally don't hear or read about people putting down the NA1 like they do an auto. So why the constant lack of respect for the auto? Now I sound like Roger Dangerfield LOL
Last edited:
IMHO, it's a no brainer when performance is of concern (If you're interested in an NSX then it most certainly is one of the essentials) that manual is the better choice. But here lies the dilemma...people that normally don't drive manual are going to have issues with the "foot work" in an NSX. It's not the manual transmission you get in a civic that you can just pick up and abuse. You will burn out the clutch a lot faster and you'll have an expensive fix ahead of you. Look into the cost and if it seems affordable to you them I highly suggest manual. If not go with auto and save yourself the cost. You probably just want a car to enjoy and cruise around in on a nice day. I've been driving manual since 96 and even my daily is a manual. I shift a lot during my commutes and put nearly 30K miles/year on my daily driver which is a manual late model Accord. The NSX for me was almost second nature when I first got it. It does have a high/late catch point and the clutch is noticeably stiffer than the Accord (makes sense given it's Engine size and power). I had a 350z before and the clutch in that car had a similar feel in terms of stiffness but a much earlier "catch" point. My transition was virtually seamless and I'm very light on the clutch since I can pick up the footwork quickly as a result of my "practice" which made my preference/choice to get manual much easier. If you're not used to it, it's gonna take you a bit and as mentioned above you'll likely spend some extra money a lot sooner than planned. At the end of the day, it's gonna be your choice. Base it on what you want out of the car and if you're ready for the maintenance. It's you that's gonna drive and maintain it. Every other "get this or that" is a matter of personal opinion. Either way you'll be in an NSX and that my friend is a good thing!
Hmmm... interesting.
I still remember testing driving mine 9.5 years ago and got used to the clutch within 5 minutes just like any other car.
I find the NSX very easy to drive, even easier than my E36 M3 daily driver. The pedals are nicely spaced, not too close and not too apart. You'll appreciate it even more after driving a Diablo (it's so >>cramped<< up).
Agreed.
I've always had a blast when driving my brother's '95T with Sports Shift. In fact, my Dad's '90 auto was the one that got me hooked to the NSX.
They are all fun to drive, it merely comes down to: Auto (fun) < Sports Shift (more fun) < Manual (most fun)
While the "auto vs stick" discussion may go on and on, to those who still respond to the OP, cutthroat already mentioned in Post #17 of this thread that he'd go for a manual.
I learned to drive stick on my NSX. Was out on the main roads after 10minutes of practice.
He did, but that was after about a dozen posts of people essentially saying you'd have to be crazy to buy an auto.
Pretty much every response was "HUGE difference... nearly a different car!"
Since I doubt he's actually gone out and bought one yet, it seems reasonable for the thread to continue and provide some more balanced perspective. Like for example the main "swing point" for the OP seems to be the assertion that somehow auto in a Vette is some dramatic difference from auto in an NSX. Having owned both for years and years, I think this is totally false. They are very similar. The engine in the auto Vette may not be de-tuned, but the gear ratio is completely gimped. The NA1 engine in the 5 speed vs the auto isnt a gigantic difference, so I think it is very similar to the Vette scenario - if anything, *more* thought went into keeping the performance profile of the NSX auto, IMO, because the detuning of the engine was specifically so the car would deliver more torque down lower.
Now if his budget stretches to a 1997+, thats a big difference. IMO the 6 speed NA2 is miles away from both the NA1 5 speed and, of course, the NA1 auto.
Plus, people will be told "search is your friend!" 99% of the time they ask this question in the future and probably end up bumping into this thread years from now
Last edited:
