therm8

Reliability is in the tune. And I'll bet Moon's AT is currently as fast or faster (depending on standing start or roll) than the stock manual. That may not seem impressive to 6MT owners, but considering how slow the 4AT is off the line, I think it is pretty impressive. The only limiting component in the 4 port as it is, is fueling, but that's easily remedied (an extra oil cooler would be a good idea). Maximum potential is a different story, but 99.99% of modders will never come close to max. Rwd ATs generally only ~5% less efficient than rwd MTs. And given the same trim level, the 4AT equipped 8 is only 15lbs heavier than the 6MT (and that extra weight is in the absolute best spot CoG wise). Sure the exact same mods on a 4port and 6MT will still make the 6MT much faster than the 4AT, but the 4port will have a higher % improvement. I'm not trying to start any debates here, just correcting some misinformation.

0-60 is a bullshit marketing tool anyway. Very few of the cars out there achieve their times without tire shredding, clutch abuse. 5-60, 20-50 etc are much more interesting as they are real world, and only measure the car.

swoope

iTrader: (5)

stock bridgesones w 22k miles on them.. 28psi in the rear.. outside temp 74 deg... night..

beers

sosonic

The RX-8 Auto's ECU are easily flashed in Japan (Re-Amemiya, R-Magic, etc...) With ATF cooler, AT fluid, and ECU flash you will see a different RX-8 Auto. Supercharge it on top of that and it will surprise a whole lot of people. Main issue with the RX-8 Auto is just launching it from a stand still because of the torque converter limit of 2,500 rpm. There are a couple of solutions for the torque converter issue, but it does not seem to have been tried yet. Though RX-7 Auto people should of and there are some RX-7 Autos known to have put the "hammer down" on MTs.

Neutral slams can be done on the RX-8, but a new tranny can be expensive. Nevertheless, if you neutral slammed an RX-8 Auto (w/ ATF cooler and ECU flash) at 5,000 RPMs you could (in theory) see 6s in the 0-60 (I just don't feel like paying for going there). Lord knows what a supercharged one like Pettit or maybe the AFSC would do. Don't sleep on the RX-8 Auto. Plus, shifts in manual mode in the RX-8 Auto are going to be more consistent than the RX-8 MT.

eviltwinkie

Have I told you that I love you therm?? Cause I do...haa haa

eviltwinkie

Well financially speaking...

Dropping the equivalent cash into a MT will net you better gains. Of course a modded to hell AT might eclipse the performance of a stock MT...but then thats also a bit like saying...

I'm going to spend money and turn my bicycle into a motocycle and beat your bicycle...kinda pointless unless you both spend equal amounts of money just to be fair.

So coming full circle...we start off with say one AT and one MT...pop the same supercharger only in both cars and we end up with...the MT still being significantly faster more than likely...in the long run I'll also bet that the MT will be more reliable as it was designed for a larger range of conditions (second oil cooler for example)...and finally has anyone ever seen what FI does to the clutchpacks of an AT? The inherent design simply does not welcome FI application as readily as a MT does. Maybe something has changed since back in the day...but all FI or high HP applications on an AT vehicle in the past required you drop the tranny and beef them up for the abuse.

I will close my argument with...the AT was designed for what it is and it does a good job at it as is. I'm not against increasing the performance of the AT, however I would say that if you were chasing high performance or if that was important to you...it should have been a high enough priority to have gone for the MT off the bat so you had a soild basis to start from instead of trying to push the AT into an envelope it was not intentioned to do without significant work.

Of course this is all at the end of the day a matter of opinion...and think all 8's still rawk all day and all night long...baby...

therm8

Not true. Using the exact same modifications, a supercharger for example, the AT will have a greater gain in acceleration. Up to a point of course. I'm talking about buying something like Pettit's kit, not going all out. This has been seen, back in the early days of the Greddy kit. A 4AT's 0-60 dropped into the 5's, while 6MT's went from high 5's, low 6's to low 5's (stock boost).

The 4AT comes from the FD, so any wear from FI is factored into the design already, at least up to stock FD power levels. Reliability shouldn't be any worse, if the proper cooling modifications are taken care of. None of us AT owners are looking for 400+whp, 200-250 is plenty.

eviltwinkie

But again your talking about the % of gain and not greater performance for the equal amount of cash.

It's an exponentially increasing proposition to push anything faster and faster...for example after 140 the amount of air resistance that is needed to be overcome as you go faster requires increasing amounts of power exponentially...not in a linear add 10+HP to get 5mph faster...

So...while putting in the SC will get you a greater % of gain than the MT...thats primarily due to where your starting from...much lower...performance wise I again would say that the equal kit on boths cars will not translate to equal performance.

therm8

That's exactly the point I was trying to get across. I even said that given equal mods the MT will be faster, that's just common sense. The performance gain is what I was talking about. That's the argument I use against those who say the AT is a waste of money to mod. I am glad we are now on the same page.

playdoh43

% gain is a pretty irrelevant stat
how much power the car is making after the mod is what matters

eviltwinkie

Sweet...I still love you tho...why arent we on the same page for that?! heh

Slick8

I experienced the same thing with a 350Z on the PA turnpike, very weird, I was surprised. Something about the gearing in the upper mph. The car isn't a stoplight king, but once you get going things are very different. The 350z and I were both surprised.

Edit, this was before I went turbo.

Stavesacre21

I'm guessing that it's more then likely due to the fact that it's peak power is made at 8500 RPM...making it very slow off the line but still a challenger as long as your keeping it on the boil at speeds. It's never been a slacker for it's whole 232HP when kept up high on the tach, and seems to make respectable pull for the amount of HP its producing.

Shini

Why does everyone always hate on the 04 Auto's!

Are they REALLY that bad?

RojoOcho

(Not going to say anything so no one is offended.)

½mv²

Because compared to the MTs they're slower, plus the fun of driving a rotary is holding it in the high revs for sustained periods, which can't (easily) be done with an AT.

Nah. Once both cars are above 30~40mph they're virtually the same. We just like to rag on them because... well... why not?

Shini

Because everytime someone does rag on them a little piece of me dies inside for not trying to get a newer model, or even an MT for that matter. Maybe next time I'll get a MT 05 or newer so I can join in on torturing the 04 AT's like the rest!

Renesis07

iTrader: (1)

in 2003, before the RX-8s even came out, an 04 ran 0-60 in 5.9, 0-100 15.9, 1/4 mile in 14.5 at 95.6mph, and posted a .89g, and slalom of 65mph. That was for an 2004 RX-8 and those numbers were taken directly from a Road and Track magazine I have sitting on my toilet that I never threw away Thats for the dude that said 04s are slugs. I own an 04 and mine hits 0-60 faster than 8 seconds!!!

Raptor2k

Yes. They're slower than Civics

Stavesacre21

not nessicarily true. The 04 auto only revs to 7500, and only has the 4 port engine, not the 6 port, thus keeping the engine more tame then the manual. So saying that they're the same once you get moving isn't really all that accurate. However, I think it was in 06 that the autos started coming with the 6 port, but is still supposedly 20HP weaker than the manual.

NgoRX8

iTrader: (1)

^what he said.

i switched from an 04 AT to an 05 MT. big difference!

RotaryP7

8 sec? Can't be.. A Scion tC is quicker, and that's not the case here..

Mazdaspeed3

I believe it. RX-8 autos (my wife has an '05 AT) are VERY slow 0-25mph. Once you reach about 4500 rpm they are decent. But below 4k they are VERY weak. Also, I know in 06 they went to the 6 speed AT, which would help a lot because the 4 speeds lose a lot of gusto shifting into 2nd and 3rd. It bums me that I can't get much power out of the engine without spending $6k. Oh well, that's what I have my speed3 for (and to carry around all my guitar gear), and if that's not fast enough, my 400 hp/430 ft. lbs torque (340 rwhp) LT1 Trans Am.

But as everyone says, the RX-8s look and turn great, don't they?

tajabaho1

ok, so first of all who the hell revived this thread?

second, I kind of came to terms with my car...its never going to be as fast as a manual(yet, not faster, yet)
but hey, with decent money, I found out that an AT rx-8 "in theory" can be even faster than an MT, but it requires a bunch of cash

for example, my uncle opened up my tranny about 2 and a half months ago when they were fixing my car from the accident, and he said its probably the shittiest AT tranny he ever saw, but he also said that with some custom job, it can withstand a way better rpm range, and I wouldn't have to bruise my left foot trying to get that damn starge 3 copper clutch down either, but you just gotta have the money.

in other essence, apart from the tranny my 07 auto is basically the same as any MT rx-8 out there, and once I drop some cash on it (which is like......never) I might be as fast, and in essence faster than the MTs, since basically effortless shifting

but in 0-60 going, I think low 5s are as good as ATs are going to go, maybe high fours with about 10k mods

Stavesacre21

you know what everyone else says also?

If you're having trouble fitting your head through the door you could always invest in a vice.