MEGAREDS

Sorry to be drawn into this again... can't help myself. Sorry if you've heard me do this spiel before...

I haven't had any particular problems at all with my AT, and only regret the decision to go with the AT slightly. Keeping the car under 80 is a chore, and I'm always behind traffic. That's frustrating, and it has nothing to do with the AT being limited. It's acceleration you guys are arguing about, not speed... handling and stopping are essentially the same. The MT guys pay about $1500 for their clutch, get an extra 40HP or so for their money and suffer an ever-so slight loss of torque at the low end.

MT owners have the option of adding Canzoomer's ECU upgrade, which the AT owners can't do because Canzoomer doesn't make one for the AT, meaning the HP loss is even greater if you are the type to do a retune. Gordon has posted his opinion in other threads that the AT owners will suffer a loss in value when the 2005 or 2006 AT gets released with a 5-speed clutch (and a 9k redline?). I suppose that's entirely possible; he seems to have sources on this that he's not talking about. Then again, AT buyers aren't usually the type to care too much about numbers. I envision my car ending up in the hands of my son nine years from now... I doubt it will make much difference for him at that time, or for me what the 2006 AT HP is, and although he'd probably like the MT, I will be glad it doesn't have one then, I'm sure.

I bought my 8 with an AT because my wife feels strongly that she shouldn't have to learn to drive a MT. I also was getting well over my $30k self-imposed limit after going with the GT and NAV options (I will never buy another car without a NAV system, BTW -- no regrets there at all). If I had it to do over, I'd pony up the extra $1500 for the clutch and 3-port engine, but not because I think I'm missing any power in the real world... my 8 has a full 2x horsepower over my previous '91 Honda Civic, and it's just not a big deal since I drive my car pretty much back and forth to work... I'd do it differently only for the same reason I bought the GT package in the first place... just so I'd get a sense of what I was missing.

If you are very concerned about acceleration or want the maximum power available because that's who you are, you are likely to want the MT. That's not a dig... I am exactly that way when it comes to my computers, even though Pentium 2 at 133mhz would do 90% of what I need without problem whatsoever -- I just enjoy having a top-end machine on my desktop, and "sportscar enthusiasts" seem to feel that way about their cars. The same goes if you are someone who enjoys driving with a clutch. The MT looks very fun to drive if you can find a road that will let you get through 5 or 6 gears.

guy321

Is this your only vehicle? If it isn't just get the manual and she either has to learn how to drive an MT or she doesn't drive it. Just tell her how it is! that's what i'd do if i had a wife.

myking76

No--it doesn't take the AT 9 seconds to get to 60--in reality its high 7s-low 8s.

mysql101

Yes, and if you bothered to read what I said just before the comment of 'sub-optimal', you'd have seen:

I stand by that. I doubt one will care too much on daily driving.

But this is a sporty car, and one that already lacks in the torque and horse power area. It's not a drag racer and was never meant to be, but when you put in a 7500 limit on a car that starts to generate most of it's power in the upper rpm, it IS sub optimal. You can argue with me all you want that the auto version is optimal, but you'll only make yourself look foolish.