Does anyone have information on the acceleration numbers of 2006-7 V70R with automatic vs manual transmission ?<br>The specs suggest 0-60mph times of 5.8 sec for manual, 6.5 sec for automatic (I think). However, in practical daily driving, the auto may be faster than<br>manual, assuming clean and smooth manual shifts ? Comments appreciated. Thanks Peter
acceleration manual vs automatic ?
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Re: acceleration manual vs automatic ? (peterdri)
Welcome to SS.<p>regardless of model year and variance, it all depends on the driver's skill........or lack thereof. In short, don't sweat it.<p>P.S. There are many threads on this topic through the years......so have some fun and search around.
Welcome to SS.<p>regardless of model year and variance, it all depends on the driver's skill........or lack thereof. In short, don't sweat it.<p>P.S. There are many threads on this topic through the years......so have some fun and search around.
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
I really dont think the auto will ever be faster, given a descent manual driver.
Joined
·
6,526 Posts
Re: acceleration manual vs automatic ? (peterdri)
An R equipped with a MT is faster than one equipped with a GT. While this may not be universally true of other cars with double-clutch gearboxes, the old adage still holds true with the R.<p>-Eric
An R equipped with a MT is faster than one equipped with a GT. While this may not be universally true of other cars with double-clutch gearboxes, the old adage still holds true with the R.<p>-Eric
Re: acceleration manual vs automatic ? (Sue Esponte)
If I recall correctly, there were some theories that the MT was faster 0-60, but that GT may have been faster in the 1/4 mile due to quicker shifts. I'll never find the thread now, but there were talks of this.
If I recall correctly, there were some theories that the MT was faster 0-60, but that GT may have been faster in the 1/4 mile due to quicker shifts. I'll never find the thread now, but there were talks of this.
Re: acceleration manual vs automatic ? (jdog)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>jdog</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If I recall correctly, there were some theories that the MT was faster 0-60, but that GT may have been faster in the 1/4 mile due to quicker shifts. I'll never find the thread now, but there were talks of this.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>I don't see a GT ever being faster in the 1/4 mile. You can't launch the car as you can with a MT, and these automatics are rather slow.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>jdog</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If I recall correctly, there were some theories that the MT was faster 0-60, but that GT may have been faster in the 1/4 mile due to quicker shifts. I'll never find the thread now, but there were talks of this.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>I don't see a GT ever being faster in the 1/4 mile. You can't launch the car as you can with a MT, and these automatics are rather slow.
Joined
·
386 Posts
an automatic drag car properly set up with a high stall speed would be quicker than a manual....but for real world driving....the stall is set so low to make the car more drivable, and the auto will not run the gears out the way a manual can....thats why stock vs stock...a manual will win every time
Joined
·
6,526 Posts
Re:
The one thing you're all forgetting is that GT's come equipped with something that's not even an option on the MT...a mangina.<p>So, you can debate amongst yourselves the virtues of one transmission vs. the other but unless you're a fan of the GT's standard "equipment" the discussion is pointless. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/smile.gif" BORDER="0"><p>-Eric
The one thing you're all forgetting is that GT's come equipped with something that's not even an option on the MT...a mangina.<p>So, you can debate amongst yourselves the virtues of one transmission vs. the other but unless you're a fan of the GT's standard "equipment" the discussion is pointless. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/smile.gif" BORDER="0"><p>-Eric
Re: acceleration manual vs automatic ? (MagoonR)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>MagoonR</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><br>P.S. There are many threads on this topic through the years......so have some fun and search around.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Be sure to use the "Google Search" and not the other <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://********************/smile/emthup.gif" BORDER="0">
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>MagoonR</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><br>P.S. There are many threads on this topic through the years......so have some fun and search around.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Be sure to use the "Google Search" and not the other <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://********************/smile/emthup.gif" BORDER="0">
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
I guess the OP question comes down to this: Does the GT's faster shifting in manumatic mode make up for the difference off the line?<p>I say no, it doesnt.
Re: acceleration manual vs automatic ? (S60R1)
I thought this was all laid to rest a couple of years ago.<p>My stock Auto at the strip was faster than my friends R manual which had the same engine performance as mine. Slush box R's don't loose boost and in Manual Mode you can shift it how ever you want. I did two runs. One in Manual mode (14.12) and one in straight auto (14.28). I was faster by almost 2/10ths in Manual mode and 3/10ths against my friends MT R. This was also when I was running Heico 19's against stock Peg 18". Temp was 54 degrees.<p>With my 17" Track rims/ tyres and Evolve rotors i am much faster than stock. I have no engine mod's and still very comparable with MT's running Rica II and IC's.
I thought this was all laid to rest a couple of years ago.<p>My stock Auto at the strip was faster than my friends R manual which had the same engine performance as mine. Slush box R's don't loose boost and in Manual Mode you can shift it how ever you want. I did two runs. One in Manual mode (14.12) and one in straight auto (14.28). I was faster by almost 2/10ths in Manual mode and 3/10ths against my friends MT R. This was also when I was running Heico 19's against stock Peg 18". Temp was 54 degrees.<p>With my 17" Track rims/ tyres and Evolve rotors i am much faster than stock. I have no engine mod's and still very comparable with MT's running Rica II and IC's.
Re: (imageomega)
Well seeing as I test drove both types before I bought mine......the difference is like night and day....the auto r is slow compared to the manual r referring to the owners manual once again, it puts out about 37 less ft lbs....258 vs. 295....sorry to dissapoint gt owners.....
Well seeing as I test drove both types before I bought mine......the difference is like night and day....the auto r is slow compared to the manual r referring to the owners manual once again, it puts out about 37 less ft lbs....258 vs. 295....sorry to dissapoint gt owners.....
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
Coolbob, you own an 04 and you're right, for 04 and 05 models.<p>This torque difference is not there on an 06+ like pimpn has.
Re: acceleration manual vs automatic ? (PMPN8EZ)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>PMPN8EZ</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I thought this was all laid to rest a couple of years ago.<p>My stock Auto at the strip was faster than my friends R manual which had the same engine performance as mine. Slush box R's don't loose boost and in Manual Mode you can shift it how ever you want. I did two runs. One in Manual mode (14.12) and one in straight auto (14.28). I was faster by almost 2/10ths in Manual mode and 3/10ths against my friends MT R. This was also when I was running Heico 19's against stock Peg 18". Temp was 54 degrees.<p>With my 17" Track rims/ tyres and Evolve rotors i am much faster than stock. I have no engine mod's and still very comparable with MT's running Rica II and IC's. </TD></TR></TABLE><p>Please refer to "Manginia" post, nuff said
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>PMPN8EZ</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I thought this was all laid to rest a couple of years ago.<p>My stock Auto at the strip was faster than my friends R manual which had the same engine performance as mine. Slush box R's don't loose boost and in Manual Mode you can shift it how ever you want. I did two runs. One in Manual mode (14.12) and one in straight auto (14.28). I was faster by almost 2/10ths in Manual mode and 3/10ths against my friends MT R. This was also when I was running Heico 19's against stock Peg 18". Temp was 54 degrees.<p>With my 17" Track rims/ tyres and Evolve rotors i am much faster than stock. I have no engine mod's and still very comparable with MT's running Rica II and IC's. </TD></TR></TABLE><p>Please refer to "Manginia" post, nuff said
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
Re: acceleration manual vs automatic ? (PMPN8EZ)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>PMPN8EZ</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> One in Manual mode (14.12) and one in straight auto (14.28). Temp was 54 degrees.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>1) Not much room for driver error in an auto, so this is probably very reproducible, time after time.<p>2) STOCK manual owners have posted 13.6.<p>You can figure it out.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>PMPN8EZ</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> One in Manual mode (14.12) and one in straight auto (14.28). Temp was 54 degrees.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>1) Not much room for driver error in an auto, so this is probably very reproducible, time after time.<p>2) STOCK manual owners have posted 13.6.<p>You can figure it out.
Re: acceleration manual vs automatic ? (imageomega)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>imageomega</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><p>1) Not much room for driver error in an auto, so this is probably very reproducible, time after time.<p>2) STOCK manual owners have posted 13.6.<p>You can figure it out.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>I can't believe a slushbox is even being compared to the MT, the slushbox will be more consistent but will never be faster than the MT unless you're talking about the dual clutch systems. And as above, I doubt any GT ran 13.6 stock.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>imageomega</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><p>1) Not much room for driver error in an auto, so this is probably very reproducible, time after time.<p>2) STOCK manual owners have posted 13.6.<p>You can figure it out.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>I can't believe a slushbox is even being compared to the MT, the slushbox will be more consistent but will never be faster than the MT unless you're talking about the dual clutch systems. And as above, I doubt any GT ran 13.6 stock.
Re: acceleration manual vs automatic ? (xman03)
I have not driven a manual transmission R but I have a auto(It is an 06 so its not the same as the 04-05), I can tell you that my car went 14.1 @ 101, the nice thing about the auto is consistancy it is much easier to post times close together compared with a manual (based on driver experiance). From what I can tell the biggest advantage the manual has would be on the launch but again only if you have a better driver. IMO the manual would be faster with a better driver but not hugely seeing as the best stock time is 13.6 and I ran a 14.1 (on a hot humid day)......just my two cents
I have not driven a manual transmission R but I have a auto(It is an 06 so its not the same as the 04-05), I can tell you that my car went 14.1 @ 101, the nice thing about the auto is consistancy it is much easier to post times close together compared with a manual (based on driver experiance). From what I can tell the biggest advantage the manual has would be on the launch but again only if you have a better driver. IMO the manual would be faster with a better driver but not hugely seeing as the best stock time is 13.6 and I ran a 14.1 (on a hot humid day)......just my two cents
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
Mittley, youre very right. However everyone wants to test their driving skill, which is why a manual is great.<p>Also, .5 seconds on a quarter mile is quite a thing. Its not "only a half second" when you're there...<p>
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Join the discussion
SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum
A forum community dedicated to Volvo owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, builds, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, new releases, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
Join now to ask and comment!