What's wrong with Automatics

[TomoHawk]

only certain transmissions have the ability to use a lockup torque converter, so all you got is a regular one. Even a higher stall speed converter will cost almost as much as a trans swap.

[beandip]

My other car was a Jeep Lorado and it had a 5 speed. I wanted the manual because it was a 4 X 4 . I drive for the most part in the city and on freeways about 20% in the open road and mountains. I like the automatic for the ease of driving in town and the performance is fine , for a street driver. At least for me . Sitting is gridlock with a stick can be a pain in the neck . I agree that a true sports car being driven as a sports car is better with a manual , at least it feels more like you are part of the car and how it performes. :classic:

[TomoHawk]

You mean "old-fashioned sports car," not 'true sports car....

No reason that a "sports car" HAS to have a manual-shift transmission. But you can have that opinion and preference.

[speedyblue]

My 4X4 has an auto in it and i wouldn't have it any other way.

I have an International Scout with no roof as a weekend car. I drive it to the beach and such so I'm always in traffic and it would be a mission changing gears all the time. It uses a chrysler 727 torqueflite behind the 345 cube international donk and has a real low stall converter. The stall is generally supposed to be set where the engine makes max torque, which is at 1800rpm on the scout.

It's the perfect car for dragging off guys in their Range Rovers.

But for the 240Z, definately prefer the 5-speed.

[PyroSparks911]

My 77 280 had an auto in it when i first bought it. THat thing would do donuts like there was no tommorow and it would power slide like crazy. Then I deceided I wanted to jam some gears so I opted for the 5 spd. Nothing wrong with an auto, I just love pushing in that clutch and watching that tach climb!

[TomoHawk]

It's too bad you can't get the parts to convert the Z auto trans to a manual valve body. You might be able to convert a shifter.

[Fun_in_my_z]

that would be cool

[beandip]

I just read a test results that was done by Motor Trend on the early '71 240. The results at 1/4 mile times was only .5 sec slower for the automatic . 82.0 for the auto and 84.5 for the manual four speed. The test cars got 21 miles per gal for the stick and 19 for the auto. Now my L-24 was getting 23 on the hi way with the automatic , but I havent had the speedo checked . I have read some test results that the turbo will be faster with the automatic because it keeps the turbo spooled up between shifts witch is quicker. I guess it all boils down to the fact that there is a "POT FOR EVERY BUTT " . All the best to all. Gary

[GunnerRob]

Originally posted by beandip

82.0 for the auto and 84.5 for the manual four speed.

Wouldn't that be 2.5 sec. slower?

[MikeW]

Originally posted by GunnerRob

Wouldn't that be 2.5 sec. slower?

Nope, 2.5 mph faster.

[GunnerRob]

Originally posted by MikeW

Nope, 2.5 mph faster.

Oh, I see. My mistake.:stupid: Sorry.