Buying a name

Home  \  General Chat  \  Buying a name

It seems to me, that nowadays, people are buying a name instead of a vehicle. Earlier today, a girl told me that a BMW had a V-8, so it’s faster than any V-6 or V-4 (I’m not joking, that’s an actual quote). Why do people buy names? Because they have cash, they spend it just to know that they drive around a an outdated Ferrari, simply because it’s red and has a “horsey” on the back and front hood.

http://www.nagaokaseiki.co.jp/ferrari.emblem.jpg

WTF. Why don’t people do their research? A tuned civic can take out a classic Ferrari. I was even more disgusted when I say this commercial where these parents buy a SUV, and the father opens the hood and shows his son the engine. “Son, there’s only one thing you need to know. HEMI!” I nearly threw up

http://www.mopartsracing.com/parts/blocks/hemi.jpg

because someone can slap on a sticker, does that make the car faster? No. Even if there was an engine like the one above, it would still be lugging along 4500 pounds. Probably around 5500 with the passengers. People seem to like buying a name, regardless of what that nam entails. It’s even more present in the ducati 999r.

http://www.bsmotoring.com/walpprs/2005ducati999r/8.jpg

It’s a fast motorcycle, but you have to run the RPMs high, and it’s still not as fast as a hayabusa or GSX R1000. Oh yeah, the ducati also costs 3 times as much as the R1000. Why buy a name. the only reason I can think of, is that people think they make better vehicles. And then, only people who don’t know anything about cars will respect you. Those who actually know what HEMI stands for will laugh at you for wasting your money. Is that what people want? To play off ignorance? What gives?

The other day, I saw a Saleen mustang. I automatically turned my head until my neck almost snapped. But, as I got further down the road, I began to think about why I did. It’s a way overpriced car with a saleen sticker on it.

http://www.hollywoodpicturecars.com/cars/muscle/4663-02%20FordMustangSaleen ConvFTQ.jpg

WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY? They’re paying for a name, not a car. I guess you’re playing off of people’s ignorance, and if that’s what you want, then sure, go for it, but is it better to have a fast car or is it better to drive a black civic that does 10 second quarter miles and just know that you’re faster?

posted by  Godlaus

very good point
many people fail to resist being blinded by labels....not much you can do about it. =/

posted by  b_DuB13

Well first off all the girl didn't know what the hell she was talking about with the V-8 thing. Second of all in the HEMI commercial, its just an advertising thing to get people who dont know much about cars. And third, people buy Ferrari's not because they are fast but because they make beautiful cars that just look fast. It looks fast at a dead stop. They just like the name as well. Educated car enthusiasts have a better perspective of whats good and whats not good so we say damn that's stupid or i'd never get that car because we know the pros and cons of said actions. Other people see something for alot and think it must be nice because it costs so much, and in reality the things that do cost alot generally are worth it. Face it no civic could look like a Ferrari. No civic would have the Ferrari heritage and history to make its name standout in the crowd. Cause in the end a civic is a civic.

posted by  VMJYogi

People who have the money generally buy cars such as Ferrari's because of the statement it makes. You see a Ferrari driving down the street, and you know it's someone rich sitting in there. High Profile people drive High Profile cars because they want to stand out. Also, so much care is put into building a Ferrari or other expensive cars. For example, most expensive cars, such as Bentley's, are hand-built. This craftsmanship takes precision, devotion, and A LOT of passion for building cars. Where as the Civic on the other hand is thrown on an assembly line, test drove, and sold. (That was a little exaggeration...) Plus, driving a Ferrari, let's say, is completely different than driving any other car. Just standing next to it, you can feel the attention to detail and perfection. It's just like buying cereal: Most of us buy the Post or Kelloggs brands because they are big companies and you trust them. However, there are always some people who buy the store brand (Jewel, Dominicks, etc.) just because they don't care enough about what cereal they eat to buy the more expensive brands.

posted by  moostang104314

I'd buy a name when and if I can afford one. And I'm not even going to try and justify it by "performance" or whatever. I still don't know enough about cars to make an educated decision based on that.

But think about it, really. If you're buying a car and you have basic requirements, how many cars out there do not satisfy them? You need to be contained safely and secured in a vehicle and you need to be transported from point A to point B and it needs to be able to last X number of years. When it comes down to it, most any car would get the job done. From then on out, whatever you reason is is pretty much up to you.

To me, some of the comparisons and such you're doing might as well be like someone doing upper level calculus in order to decide on which pair of jeans to buy. I have an extremely hard time believing that that many people would go into such detail.

posted by  JaneiR36

i would buy Porsche toilet paper if they made it just cuz :mrgreen:

posted by  BanffAutoSpa_ap

i'm with you on that one. lol

posted by  carlos

If I had cash, by which you mean was rich, I would buy and outdated ferrari over a current civic. Heres an outdated ferrari:

http://bim.km.ru/funky-killer/nfs4/cars_pre/1991_ferrari_testarossa-1.JPG
and heres a current civic:

http://www.detnews.com/pix/2003/01/06/roadahead/d05civic.jpg

I dont care how modded the civic is, even if it looked like this (which is pretty damn ugly):

http://www.topgear.com/content/fun_stuff/carbage/carbages/81/03/image_02.gi f

Even if neither cars had names nor reputations, i think after test driving both cars, even the civic supposedly modded enough to beat the ferrari, i would still take the ferrari.

I think all of this crap running around about modding cars is getting out of hand. Everyone keeps asking ridiculous questions like "Why would you buy an M3 when you can have a civic thats more powerful and cheaper!" Its a stupid question. If you can afford it, why wouldn't you buy a nicer, already fast car, DESIGNED to go fast, DESIGNED to look nice, and DESIGNED to take corners better?

posted by  Mathew

All this talk about Ferraris and buying true performance cars over buying a name makes me think of an Italian coffee shop owner I talked to while visiting Florence, We were on the suject of italian supercars and he said to me

"look, in Italy, the Italians all praise the Ferraris and Maseratis, but always look down on Lamborghini" he said
I looked at him incredulously, "What are you talking about, everybody here loves Lamborghini!"
"Yes, we love them, but we always say that they are trying to be like Ferrari, a real sports car."
"Why would you do that?"
"We say this, so rich americans buy Ferraris, and leave the the Lamborghinis for the Italians!!"
I laughed and drank the last of my Cafe au Lait, and said goodby to him.

Of course, he spoke much more broken english then I put down, but if he spoke perect english I'm sure thats how he would say it.

posted by  Zalight

my 300 dollar 1st gen rx7 (now sold) is a great example of a cheap yet sweet ass car.

posted by  Low Impedance

That's what I mean, playing off of ignorance. In the end, it's all based upon what you want. If you want a faster car for a cheaper price than a ferrari, go for a z28 or something along those lines. It's faster, RWD and powerful. It all depends on what you want. Different strokes for different folks. Do you want to be adored by the large, but ignorant public, or the small and intelligent car people?

posted by  Godlaus

You assume it has to have jack squat with being "adored."

Same with the assumption about a "faster" car. It's just like the other person asked. Most of the time, in the US, where are you gonna go with it? And with your flashy car, Smokey is just waiting to ticket you, anyway.

The name continues to speak volumes more than any rationalization ever will, IMO.

posted by  JaneiR36

well, my current gf is one of those "flashy" kind of girls. she loves to buy everything that comes from Gucci, Versace, and all of those people. i come from a poor lower medium class family, so im not used to any of that expensive stuff. still, ive always asked her why does she buy such expensive stuff, n she always tells me that its not just because they wear an expensive name, it just due to the "special designs" that they come with.


i guess ppl who "buy names", also buy other things that ONLY come included with those articles in particular. maybe those things do sound somewhat dumb to us lower class people, but think about it. those of us who just cant afford Vipers (like my dad in law), Ferraris, Rolls Royce, Gucci, Moncherries for every weekend, think about these things as dumb things or just unnecessary cuz we were raised to be thankful for wat we have (and if ur not thankful, ur just a rotten bastard). those ppl can afford those things, so let them. sure, those insane amounts of cash could be used for other more necessary things, but if ppl didnt buy Ferraris and Lamborghinis, then wat kinds of out-of-our-range cars will we hope to see on the streets every single day and break our necks looking at them while they drive past by for just 5 seconds?

posted by  Inygknok

What a load of jibberish mind-less garbage.

People can and will buy what they want to. Incase you havnt grown up yet, you havnt yet realized a car or any type of vehicle for that matter, is not all about speed. I don't give a crap how fast your car is, if it's for the street, you have speed limits.

In simple terms, grow up. It isn't all about speed. I don't see why you have a problem with what people want to buy.

If you were a real car enthusiast, you'd know a little something about car history and you'd have an appreciation for just about every vehicle out there on the market and what was out there previously.

I find it ironic you are supposedly preaching about ignorance and look at yourself, you are crowned with ignorance.

posted by  DodgeRida67

Because any assclown can buy off the rack. It takes skill and ingenuity to build something yourself, or make somehting from a lesser car, for less money. Or or even for the same money.

It's the same with making ANYTHING yourself. Building a computer yourself from parts YOU sourced rather than buying one already built. Like fabricationg your own deck chair rather than just buying one from a store, etc.

It's called a hobby for a reason, and its the reason we don't all own the same f*cking car. We get to buy OR build what we like, not what someone else thinks is the better choice.

......................

And I think that hemi ad is hilarious! it's playing off the "manly" reasons to buy a vehicle, rather than the practical, family reasons, and it's FUNNY.

posted by  ChrisV

Ding! Winner! Post of the effin' year!

And if he was a well rounded enthusiast, he'd also know why the names got to wher they are, and why they are respected.

posted by  ChrisV

maybe, even though some of us would rather build a car than buy one off the rack, we ALSO love cars because we love them. I love F40s. I also love '63 250 GT berlinetta Lussos, even though they aren't any faster or built any better than many other cars I could actually afford. I like cars becaeu I LIKE them. Sometimes others like them, too. Sometimes, i'm the only one!

But, some people like to wtch theater, and some people like to be on stage. And amongst those who like to be on stage, there are those who like to be part of an ensemble, and those who like center stage. Apparently you're not one who likes to be center stage. Fine for you, but that doesn't mean, as you are implying, that those who DO like center stage are stupid.

I'm building my '63 Comet as a show car. that means it's a car that I'm building specifically becaeu it's a car *I* like (and not a popular year or model), but it's also supposed to be an eye catcher, meant to make people look at it, and maybe even "adore" it. According to you, that makes me a bad person, and that's horseshite.

posted by  ChrisV

I'm all for modifying cars, especially when it comes to people who are passionate about it and like to do things themselves. However, that still doesn't justify someone saying something stupid like "Why would you buy an M3 when you can have a civic thats more powerful and cheaper!". I myself am in training to be an automotive mechanic, and aspire to modify (and restore) cars when I am older. However, if I could afford it, I would still buy an M3 or a Ferrari or whatever. And I'm not talking about car people here, most people who can afford cars like this have never opened a hood in their life. Its ridiculous to think that they should buy a grocery getter, and modify the shit out of it. I don't look down on a rich guy that buys an M3 instead of modifying a lesser car. He obviously has a sense of style and has done his research. Nor do I look down on the guy who buys a beater and makes it a race car. However, the guy who says "Why would you buy an M3 when you can have a civic thats more powerful and cheaper!" is still a retard.

ChrisV, I respect your opinions because I admire a man who knows what he's talking about, but I stand by my point.

posted by  Mathew

While you are on the right point your biased judgment about "rich" people not having any know how of cars is simply pertruded by ignorance. My father has owned a couple handfulls of Mercedes, BMW's, and a couple older Ferrari's. I can assure you that he's looked under the hood on all of him. Aside from the fact that hes an automotive engineer he has tons of associates whom take their expensive Mercedes and Audis to him when they need help. I can assure you that they too have looked under the hoods of their $80,000+ cars also.

Not everyone is a mechanic and not everyone knows the exact specs to create a race engine. That does not mean you can't appreciate a well made car. I don't know how the computer that I'm typing on works down to the smallest electron, yet I can still appreciate a good one when I see one. Its all a matter of personal preference. The fact that you can build a Civic that will be faster than Ferrari might appeal to some people. The fact that you can buy a $145,000 Ferrari that could kill almost every other car might be appealing to others.

Its ALL about personal preference. Nothing more, nothing less....

posted by  DSMer

I'm not saying all rich people don't know anything about cars. I'm sorry if I was too general. But I am referring to the type who don't even pump their own gas. You know the type.

posted by  Mathew

Man Chris that is like 3 posts in a row.... You whore! (ya right) Chris once again you choose to bless us with terrific insight. I am building a computer as we speak and I have nothing but respect for those individuals out there that can do the same on a car, even a POS civic. Even the great Carroll Shelby applauds today's youth at what they can accomplish with the limited funds they have. But that doesnt mean that when I pull up to a kid in a "pimped" Saturn or Dodge Stratus I wont laugh (cause you know I will). You give me a chioce between a classic Ferrari or a Civic, that is a no brainer. Those companies have built names for themselves have done so for a reason, and it isn't just a fad to own a BWM, it is a sign of wise investment in a company that has proven to produce a quality automobile.

posted by  Voda48

Now, now, ChrisV, remember this started because somebody was questioning why people buy a ready-made high performance vehicle, not the other way round. I say to each her own (yes, you're all girls :laughing: ).

The Hemi commercial is totally funny. After it came on once, I was asking a friend what it was, exactly. He was like, it's in the engine, it gives it higher performance... I'm like, yeah, what is it, then? Personally, I think Hemi = Macho = Cha-ching for Auto marketters targetting young money-earning men :smoke:

posted by  JaneiR36

A hemi is an engine with a hemi-spherical combustion chamber. SO yea it means more performance, macho, cha-ching and all that.

posted by  Zalight

in defense of ferrari, they cater to rich people because there is heritage and feeling behind them, they are hand built and may be driven by rich idiots but nevertheless i'd rather steal a ferrai and suffer the consequences than steal a modded civic and get away. on a little sad note about ferraris, an exceedingly rich pompous ass who lives near my buddy (in the area we only refer to as "the hills" ) spent upwards of 8k to make his *sniff* modena, a *sniff, an automatic! what kinda bs is that, people like that should be shot.

posted by  choke

Well first of all the guy likes automatics. I give him props for doing that cause it's not very common for having an automatic ferrari. He basically pimped out his ride. I bet a lot of (rich) people will wanna follow in his tracks. and secondly...

WOW!!!! did you guys read my first post? i was like "hey appreciate the heritage man" and then ChrisV was like "hey idiots u are too stupid too know anything u friggin idiots. u should appreciate the heritage" For once i felt really smart... ChrisV, and DodgeRida67 said what i said. :oops:

posted by  VMJYogi

Apparently you didn't read my second post. Which talks about loving the cars that have heritage and a name.

But seriously, your post stating "If you can afford it, why wouldn't you buy a nicer, already fast car, DESIGNED to go fast, DESIGNED to look nice, and DESIGNED to take corners better?" Is usually used as a put down of people who chose to spend their money and use their skills to build something they like. It's usually used to say "why spend $30k on a Civic when you could buy a car already designed to go fast?" It's an insulting mindset right off the bat and it smacks of elitist tendencies.

See in this thread I end up defending both cars that have heritage and a name because of it, as being worthy of being bought FOR that name, and also defending modding a lesser car to work as good or better than the name brand rather than buy something already done and "off the rack." AND I end up defending cars bought OR built to be center stage.

And the main point I'm trying to get across is buy or build what you like and don't say anything bad abut someone else buying or building what THEY want or like.

posted by  ChrisV

And I responded to that, as well. Again, see my THIRD post.

"maybe, even though some of us would rather build a car than buy one off the rack, we ALSO love cars because we love them. I love F40s. I also love '63 250 GT berlinetta Lussos, even though they aren't any faster or built any better than many other cars I could actually afford."

The great marques got that way for a reason, and when you strip away the wannabe's that buy many of the cars, you'll see they are still BUILT for those reasons.

posted by  ChrisV

Let's look at it this way, someone buying a Ferrari, or other sports car for that matter, are getting their money worth. I stopped by the Ferrari dealer near my house, and it is mind-blowing to see how the dealer achieves customer satisfaction. Imagine buying any ol' car. You look at the cars, sit down and talk with the salesman, maybe get a cup of coffee. But buying a Ferrari, let's say, is entirely different. You walk into the dealer and get greeted by a very professional-looking man. You look around the showroom. Get treated to a drink at the wet bar. Maybe shoot some pool or hit a few balls on the indoor putting green. And the bathrooms were the most amazing washrooms I have seen in my life! Heated toilet seats, a flat screen television, complimentary mouthwash, cloth towels, etc... You're paying $200 thousand plus, the buying experience better be worth it.

As I said in the other thread. There's nothing the same about standing next to an Aston Martin, Ferrari, etc. The craftmanship is SO beautiful, if you're were allowed to actually touch the cars, my hands would rub every surface of that vehicle.



I totally agree. If all rich people bought a Honda Civic and modded it, companies like Ferrari and Porsche would only exist in the racing world. They probably wouldn't even be involved with racing! These companies put so much passion into their cars, it creates dreams for all people, young and old. And it's the dreaming about the Ferrari Enzo or BMW M3 that brings all auto enthusiasts, and others together. Without these "Dreamcars," every road and every street corner would be lined with every day, average cars. It's cars like Ferraris that keep us dreaming, and makes life a lot more colorful and interesting.

posted by  moostang104314

Dammit ChrisV, I can't seem to find that thread where you explained the biased feelings against cars with automatic trannys. I'm seriously tired of hearing every one equate a third petal and 5 numerical selections on a lever with performance. Maybe you could possibly find it that post needs to be stickied...

posted by  DSMer

dsm all i ment by tha post was that i'd rather drive a manual than an automatic. no i didn't mean to confuse manual with performance, just ment that if ur gunna spend a large sum of money to make a ferrari a automatic maybe you would be better off getting a car built for a smooth ride instead of performance. manual generally give you better control of a car as opposed to an automatic i.e. double-clutching

posted by  choke

Last time I checked control of the car consisted with the steeringwheel not the transmission. The Modena was'nt built for pure performance. It was built as one of Ferrari's cars that you would be able to drive every day. The car is going to have a smooth ride regardless to it being automatic or manual. The transmission type really has little or no significance to the suspension quality.

The M5 has a 7-speed manual gearbox and do you think that its ride quality will be any less than that of a 5-series automatic BMW. Point being is that alot of people seem to confuse the qualities of manual transmission with the advantages of an automatic transmission. You seem to be disgusted at a guy who turned his Modena to an automatic transmission. Yet you probably cheer for the dragsters whom you probably don't even know use manual transmissions.

posted by  DSMer

i feel what you say about the suspension but i ment the big picture, like if you want to cruise around (i'm thinking american graphitti style, 50's impalas) then hell yea automatic will be more comfy, but if if you were more enthusiastic about driving more agressively then manual would be more appropiate. but then again that's my opnion. and i didn't understand the drag comment. do you mean that dragsters use automatic or manual? cuz honestly i'm not sure but i know manual cars usually have faster acceleration based on driver skill.but with a dragster the overwhelming speeds might would make it kinda hard to shift gears wouldn't it? even on a speed shifter (i think thats what they use)?

posted by  choke

No manual cars do not have faster acceleration. A heavily modified automatic transmission will shift faster, quicker, and on the exact point every time. Then again you speak about manuals as if they are "enthusiastic".

On average of taking a cruise to the store and back in a manual car how many times did you shift? How many of those shift did you actually enjoy? How many of those did you stop and think "Hey I'm shifting this is fun!"? The point is you did'nt. People who drive manuals don't think about shifting it become a learned instinct. So how can driving a manual over an automatic be any more different than simply manualy breathing for a few controlled breaths then automaticly beginning to breath on your own?

Needless to say the first few weeks of owning a new manual car will be learning and fun but anything after that will simply be like blinking your eyes. I drive a manual to work, school, and recreational events every day. I can honestly say that if my knees did'nt take the wear and tear from traffic I would'nt even know that I drive a manual car.(Aside from when certain girls in my car make reference to the "stick" and I pay conscious attention to what I am doing)

posted by  DSMer

I'm not arguing whether or not they have a choice to buy, as they can buy whatever they want, it's just one question/statement that I had,


I made the mistake of making my post come off as all about speed, and that's my fault, but my point/question still stands as above. People buy names and not products.

My problem with what people buy is that they buy it for the wrong reason. Ever heard of an alienware computer? I can make you a faster computer that looks better for half the cost. Sometimes, it almost seems like a duty to me to stop people from buying from alienware, because they're throwing away their money.

posted by  Godlaus

This thread is never going to end.

Its all about opinion. If Someone is rich enough to buy a ferrari, but instead buys a Civic and Beefs it up, thats thier decison. Likewise, If they decided to get the Ferrari/M3/Lambo/whatever, its because they wanted to.

posted by  Zalight

In response to Choke and DSMer arguing about autpmatics....

PLEASE DONT START!!!! Choke forget everything you think you know abou manuals being better than automatics. Automatics are in fact just as good as manual transmissions in every way shape and form. Manuals just offer easier change of shifting point like whenever you feel like it. Autos have to be preset to a certain shifting point of whatever you like it to be. AUTOS AND MANUALS ARE BOTH REALLY REALLY NICE!!! Remember this the automatic transmission was invented after the manual. The automatic is more complex and was created for a better driving experience, than having to shift gears all the time. So they both have their strong points.

And like Zalight said "this thread will never end"

And yes ChrisV it would be good if you could find the thread so you can school the kiddies about their automatic ignorance.

posted by  VMJYogi

Arn't manuals faster than autos because the engine is directly connected to the tranny and wheels? Why do people who race choose manual then if its not faster? Arn't autos slow when they shift? Why are you guys saying autos are faster than manual? Autos are heavier too right? Help me anyone Chris V DSMER,....

posted by  CarEXPERT

Since when is the engine not directly connected to the tranny on an automatic transmission? Are you referring to the flex plate and torqe convertor in an automatic as opposed to a flywheel and clutch in the manual? What do you mean engine connected directly to the wheels? What are you asking?

People race manual over automatic because they choose tome. Sometimes it may be cheaper to build a manual transmission than an automatic or vice versa. What do you mean slow when they shift? How could an automatic be slow when it shifts? What does the wieght of the transmission have to do with its ability to shift faster? You've got a lot of questions and you don't understand the basics of tranmission and engine operation. So telling you why won't mean any more than saying "Blue cows make chocolate milk."

posted by  DSMer

dsmer what do you mean by tome? and where did cost come from? isn't the reason for the majority of race cars in most classes being the fact that its simply easier to handle a manual under extreme driving conditions ( i guess at a track) than a automatic? its just every single race car i've seen have a stick shift

posted by  choke

There should be no "me" at the end of that word. You keep equating a manual transmission with hadling. So if you have a manaul transmission you'll be able to avoid a serious accident whereas if you had an automatic you would not?

Your definition of handling does'nt support what its actual meaning is.

The transmission has very little to do with how the car handles. It simply supplys a rotational force to the wheels. That is all, nothing more nothing less. So long as it is functioning properly there is no reason that a manual transmission or automatic should effect the cars handling ability.

posted by  DSMer

Let me set this strait. :banghead:


Which is faster? Auto or Manual? Simply put; Neither.


Let me explain really quickly. This is a simple one. Just like everything else in an automobile is done... the transmission type is put into the equation when designing an automobile.



It may end up like this, it may not. There are variables and alot of them:

Car #1, stock, auto. 13.00s 1/4

Car #2, stock, manual. 13.00s 1/4

Convert car #1 to manual, now it runs 14.00s in the 1/4.
Convert car #2 to auto, now it runs 13.8 in the 1/4.


What I'm saying is simple. How a transmission performs totally depends on how it is applied. Saying one is faster than another is bull.


There, we have an explination. :thumbs:

posted by  DodgeRida67

DSMer, he doesn't mean handling of the car, he means control of the engine. You have better control of the engine speed with a manual. Which is why most road racing/drifting/autocross cars are manual. The driver controls where the engine is at in rpms by changing gears, so he can stay in the power band or wherever he wants in order to get exactly what he wants out of his car.

posted by  Zalight

When I was referring to faster I meant as in the switching of gears. While a good drag racer may be able to shift accuratley and very well. He will never be as precise and quick as an automatic transmission. That is what I meant by being faster.



I've seen quite a few automatic road racers with electronics that allowed them to control their rpms(i forget the name). Changing gears is'nt the only way to control RPMS, good throttle control helps the situation.

posted by  DSMer

Just on the note of throttle control, I thought it was impossible to drift in an auto, can't drifting only be done in a manual?

posted by  GreekWarrior

No, its possible to drift with an automatic tranny.

posted by  DSMer

Oh ok. :thumbs:

posted by  GreekWarrior

Actually, if it's a street auto, then it's really hard to drift in it, as the gears will probably keep on changing around. It's easier to drift in a manual, and harder to in an auto, but it's not impossible.

Side note = is there a world record for fastest hand shift? I'd like to see it compared to a f430 shift time (140 milliseconds) so that we have proof to this auto/manual argument.

posted by  Godlaus

There is no way any one man can move a gear in 140 milliseconds. The time it takes to move your hand to the shifter, clutch, and move the gear selector would ammount to at least a 1-2 second of shifting time. Even if your hand was allready on the selecter and you were just waiting for the RPMs to reach where you wanted it(wich so many racers do), you'd still be at .5-1 seconds.

Not saying its impossible for a manual to beat an automatic tranny. I'm simply stating that an automatic tranny geared to shift at the exact points will be within milliseconds of the correct shift point everytime. Manual has room for driver error and delayed or missed shifts. Even the best of drag racers miss shifts and iono about your trannys but my car shifts at 2800 on the dot everytime.

posted by  DSMer

thnx zalight that is what i ment. and still the statement remains uncontested that race cars are generally manual (autocross). any comments dsmer? not being sarcastic but plz enlighten us.

posted by  choke

I never said anything about autocross. I was strictly talking straight line.

posted by  DSMer

my apologies then, yes i know now that an automatic can be faster that a manual is drags n such. guess i should be more clear in the future.

posted by  choke

Who cares about auto or manual. I drive a manual because goddamnit it's fun. Now I don't realize that I am shifting all the time, most of the time it's just something my body is doing while I drive. But there are those times when you feel like someone from your favorite car chase scene or something when you're rowing through the gears. It is fun. But if I was driving a luxury care I would want auto. I would just like to sit back and relax and enjoy the car without listening to my engine so I can shift.

Also, the best time to drift an auto is in the winter. During one particular winter storm everyone was worried about driving home from work. One lady asked me if I had four wheel drive because if I didn't I should go home early. "**** that," I said, "When we get out tonight I'm gonna be Colin McRae the whole way home." I guess it wasn't true drifting, since I could only see snow but no pavement, but hell, that was the best ride I've ever had in the old '90 Buick Century winter beater. That is what the love for driving is all about. :smoke:

posted by  eclipso

I think stick is faster than auto because stick doesnt have a torque converter and the flwheel is directly connected to the tranny than a torque converter. Isnt that why a stick would be faster than auto? And also manuals usually have more gears than auto so the RPMs will go up faster because of the gear ratio right? Autos usually have 4 gears and some 5.

posted by  CarEXPERT

CarNEWB just be quiet. What you think is irrelivant as to 99.9% of the time its always wrong. All cars manual or auto have some sort of a flywheel that directly connects to the tranmission. You're thinking of the mass, wich has nothing to do with the subject at hand. We are speaking faster in terms of shift time, wich has abosulutley noting to do with the flywheel or ammount of gears.

posted by  DSMer

I told him to change his name to carNOVICE, but nooo. :laughing:

posted by  GreekWarrior

greekwarrior, can your sig get any bigger?

posted by  Godlaus

Im asking if a manual is faster tahan an auto cuz some ppl say its the same. the auto have a flexplate and autos need power to run the torque converter while a clutch in a manual doesnt so isnt manual faster? Dont autos lose more power when shifting too? Oviously mauals will shift slower cuz you have to shift the gears maually.

posted by  CarEXPERT

You need to read Automatics Vs Manual (http://www.car-forums.com/talk/showthread.php?t=1596&highlight=Auto+Manual ) and stop asking questions. Try learning on your own for a chance. Its very satisfying to achieve something on your own. You'd be surprised how good you'll feel once you work for something instead of freeloading.

posted by  DSMer

So manual is faster for smaller cars with high revin engine.

posted by  CarEXPERT

I can't stop it, it's out of control!!! :mrgreen: :laughing:

posted by  GreekWarrior

If you read that entire 100+ post thread and you still don't understand you need to go to a school and pay for your education. Because teaching you is becoming a full time job...

posted by  DSMer

I've tried to get him to find a starting point to learn from, he just won't do it. One day he'll find out he can't learn doing it the way he's doing it. :banghead:

posted by  DodgeRida67

I'll have to admit while his questions come by the handfull they are questions deserving good answers. He ask a hell of alot better ones than some of them I've been seeing latley. "Uh duh, should I get a Ferrari or a Skyline?" :doh: . I just don't have the time to answer them all indepth, sometimes I don't even know the answer. Other times his answer could be really simply awnswered by some simple reasearch.

Seriosly CarNewb, you really need to read some books on how cars(in general) work. You'll understand alot more that way. So when somone talking about suspensions you'll know what a McPherson(sp?) Strut and Trailing Link are. You gotta know the basics to understand the complex stuff.

posted by  DSMer

Speaking of the nature of his questions, most of the questions he asks he could answer himselve if he learned what he should be learning. He should be learning how the bake the cake, not how it tastes. Once he knows how to bake it, then he can taste it. See what I'm saying? I hope, because if not, that's going to sound screwy. :screwy:

posted by  DodgeRida67

:cussing: DSM you dont know shit about my knowledge. I know how engines work and the basic things but then there are something that seems basic but I know about it but it just doesnt make sense with eveyting else when I think about it. I partly know about what im asking and just making sure if im right and i might learn some more stuff about the basic thiings while at it. :cussing:

posted by  CarEXPERT

Yeah, OK. You seem to think that a clutch connects/disconnects a "driveshaft."

If you'd be a big boy and take the advice you'd be way better off.

posted by  DodgeRida67

I've said that lots of times DR. In order to understand the WHY you have to learn the HOW first. You learn HOW a car functions and the WHY will come to you. But I don't think hes willing to read basic functions of a car, even I know it can get pretty boring but its worth it in the long run.


You don't understand how a basic car works. Else you would'nt have to ask such simple questions.

posted by  DSMer

What!! I know how a basic fuking engine work and function!!!

And I never said a clutch disconect conect a driveshaft!!!

posted by  CarEXPERT

I never said you did say that. The clutch temporarily disengages the clutch disc away from the flywheel. Just in case you did'nt know that. You don't have to tell me you know the basics of car functions. I allready know you don't your post speak for themselves.

posted by  DSMer

DSMer vs. carNOVICE , yeah this is a real battle, look out DSMer. :laughing:

posted by  GreekWarrior

Easy, They're status symbols. People want the most attention they can get. So they blow all their money on a name, like Gucci or Prada. I think it's pretty ironic that women spend all they're money on $400 Coach purses but in the end they have no money to put in them :laughing: . Like the 2005 Saleen s281, The 0-60 is actually slower than a stock mustang gt. But people still pay $80,000 for their rear bumper to say "SALEEN". Or when people pay 200 grand for a lamborghini gallardo, when they could have bought 4 2004 Corvette Z06s which have faster 0-60s. All in all: people want to be noticed, it makes them feel special. When in reality they're just making themselves look stupid.

posted by  TurboLag

Look at how many months old this thread is :wink2:

posted by  99integra

Your Message