This is a rather interesting point.

Many folks like the manual because they believe that it's faster than the automatic. However, personally, I think that this is factually incorrect. The automatic benefits by some extreme slippage with the torque converter...........allowing the engine to instantly jump to 2000 rpm off the line and climb from there. The manual has no such benefit.

If you look at the hardware on Lance's vehicle, you'd think that it would smoke just about any other 617 out there. But, it's only in the mid 13's. This is in a lighter 240 body, with a Vnt, and a 3.46 axle ratio. A good running stock automatic with a 2.88 or a 3.07 will beat it

You are 100% correct.

NA vs NA the stick is definitely faster. But turbo vs turbo the automatic will catch up between the manual's shifts.

My primary reasons for going manual are simplicity, better control and to be different. If pure acceleration was my goal I would have used an automatic with the higher stall speed 85 torque converter.

With an automatic, you are able to stay on the throttle and keep the turbo spooled up during shifts, maintaining boost. A number of turbo enthusiasts I know in the BMW world choose automatic cars for this very reason, and one actually swapped in an automatic in place of a manual. Also, many choose lower numerical gears to stay in a particular gear longer and thus keep the turbo spooled longer.

Got some data for these?

I would think the torque converter would allow the automatic to jump up to it's peak torque much faster due to the t/c. Furthermore, the t/c allows the engine to offer higher torque for any given road speed.

Does the comparison include the same diff ratio for the two vehicles?

A 240D's 0-60 is 3 seconds faster with the manual.

The auto can power brake, the manual can clutch dump. Both can cheat a few tenths off their time. I'm talking about a right foot off the brake and onto the throttle acceleration. No playing footsie with the throttle and brake.

Yes. The 240D uses a 3.69 no matter the tranny and the euro 4-speed 300D uses the same 3.46 as the nonturbo 300D automatic.

That's quite interesting as well. Clearly, the auto loses too much in the transmission........despite the torque improvement.

Do any tests of the five cylinder?

An automatic uses quite a bit of horsepower in its operation. If you have a powerful engint this becomes insignificant, with a small engine like a 240 it is very significant and cuts the power available to accerate the vehicle to a noticable degree.

There are many different situations you could use to test quickness including acceleration and decelleration as you would do in an autocross, too. That type of situation I would expect the stick to do better than the automatic.

But in the end the real reason to convert these old cars to stick is for economy of operation.

Tom W

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

I'm thinking that the power loss in the automatic is not directly proportional to the engine power. As an example, a 62 hp engine might lose 15 hp to the transmission. However, a 123 hp engine might lose 18 hp to a very similar transmission. The more horsepower available..........the less the proportional loss in the transmssion.

So, where a 240D is severely restricted in acceleration with the automatic, a 617 vehicle or a six cylinder would not be in quite the same situation.

Remember, from 0-60, that torque converter provides quite a bit more output torque relative to vehicle speed..........hence the name.