Quote:
Originally Posted by b15
Every single 7AT vs manual references this. #2 argument is that manuals are archaic. Last I checked, so are TC automatics. In the old days, making a slushbox shift fast required aftermarket mods, so it is good to see manufacturers finally doing this from the factory. It's still not a direct connection like a manual or semi-automatic. Yes I know the TC locks up...
And for FPenvy....I still think the 7AT is a good trans  |
FWIW, I'm not making a case, per se, for old vs. new tech, but rather for performance metrics.
If a TC impelled AT performs as well as a standard MT (in the hands of a competent driver) in terms of speed, precision, etc, then that seems like a reasonable lower bound.
If it outperforms a MT, then we have no reason to even debate it, other than personal preference.
My point is that there is a weird and somewhat arbitrary view of "manual-ness" that doesn't always map onto the actual mechanisms involved or the performance of those mechanisms.
Performance does seem to matter in these evaluations, but not as much as
perceived manual-ness. That makes no sense to me.
As someone else on here posted, if a TC impelled AT performs as well and as reliably as a more complex automated dual or single clutch "manual" transmission, why opt for the more complex system?
However, my guess is that folks would still prefer the "automated manual" over the TC impelled automatic simply because of perceived manual-ness, even though for the end user the inputs, qualia, and results would be the same.
That's kind of silly.
A thought experiment: If the GT-R switched to a better performing TC based trans, that even lowered the cost to the consumer. would people hate it on principal? If so, why?