AT isn't as bad as all the posters here are making it, seems like fanbois to me.

Sure the 04-05 with only 4 gear autos is definitely a no-go but like the original poster said - the post 2006 ATs actually do seem to be cheaper. With max torque at around 5000 RPM on both specs, that extra 1000 rpm on the Manual isn't that big of a deal for road driving. Sure if you are taking the car to track days - go with a manual for sure.

I might be mistaken, but I seem to remember reading some car reviews of Porches or some other high-end cars, where the 0 - 60 times were actually quicker with the AT model than the MT version. Was I dreaming that, or did anyone else see that? If so, their "slush boxes" must have kickass "slush" in them! So, if so, what do those who say AT's will NEVER equal MT's say to that?

It would make sense as an auto transmission usually will have shorter gearing than a manual transmission which means more acceleration but a lower top end.

the auto in a porsche is not the auto in rx8.

1/4 mile for the rx8, which is all about acceleration..
MT: 14.4
AT: 16.0
04-05 AT: 17? im not sure.

so, take what you want from that.

and i see so many people confusing the automated manuals, like porsches PDK or bmws SMG, for a slushbox. they are NOT the same.

Exactly right. Not the same animal.

I know there is no comparison, and I know about the automated manuals. But I was responding to those who were making general statements dissing ALL automatic transmissions. You're right - they are NOT all the same!

Yes and as you said - you were talking about a Porsche, not a Mazda :)