# Pontiac web site says 05 6spd 0-60 in 5.3



## taylor65 (Aug 14, 2004)

If you check www.pontiac.com, and click on gto, then click on the tremec 6-speed manual link, it says 0-60 is 5.3 seconds, and the 4spd auto says it's .1 second slower then the manual. Is that just a typo? Everything else I've seen says the auto is quicker.


----------



## Rhino74 (Oct 24, 2004)

The 2005 specs are the same as the 2004 specs, so I suspect they have not updated some of them. That being said, I never really believed the auto would beat out the 6-speed if driven properly. The 05 is lighter and has more torque and hhorsepower, meaning that it should beat the 04's 5.3 0-60 time.


----------



## UrassisDragon (Dec 7, 2004)

The Jan 2005 Car and Driver shows the 0-60 time for the 05 GTO with the 6sp manual at 4.8---1/4 mile of 13.3 @ 107 mph. 

The Pontiac advertisement on the back cover of the C&D magazine lists the following: It doesn't say, "you've arrived". It says, "you'll be there first". The 2005 GTO. 400-hp V8, 0-60 in 4.6 seconds, hood scoops, dual exhaust, and available 18" wheels. GTO sport appearance package shown. Coming soon.(Vehicle is shown on back cover with the GTO sport appearance package).


----------



## LS2GTO (Nov 28, 2004)

From whats being said most places, the 5.3 just hasnt been updated, and 4.6 for auto and 4.8 for M6 is straight outta the GM engineers mouths.


----------



## madx2 (Dec 9, 2004)

Just checked Pontiac's site and it's been updated to this:

Custom tailored and performance tuned, the 4-Speed Automatic provides performance that rivals that of the Tremec given a 0 to 60 time of 4.6 seconds.


----------



## UrassisDragon (Dec 7, 2004)

madx2 said:


> Just checked Pontiac's site and it's been updated to this:
> 
> Custom tailored and performance tuned, the 4-Speed Automatic provides performance that rivals that of the Tremec given a 0 to 60 time of 4.6 seconds.


If I am reading the reports correctly the 4-speed automatic which has been setup to handle the LS2 in the 2005 GTO has been designated as the 4L65-E which is replacing the 4L60-E which was used in the 2004 Goat.


----------



## lambertgoat (Oct 24, 2004)

it's not mechanically possible for an auto to be faster than a stick, unless you have an electronic tranny with the ability to set gear timing and shift times


----------



## GTO TOO (Sep 10, 2004)

lambertgoat,
"it's not mechanically possible for an auto to be faster than a stick, unless you have an electronic tranny with the ability to set gear timing and shift times"

You are making a broad statements, that is uninformed. Manuals can be slower than Autos. Shift times are only part of the equation, and most Auto's today do set shift times and RPM shift points "electronically". And they "learn" those times to repeat them time after time without fail !! 

Stall speeds, axle ratios, GEAR Ratios, etc. all play into the equation. 

Between a manual and auto trans gear ratios and torque mulitpication are not identical even with the same final drive. With electronic controls, it is possible to have adequate "normal" shift feel under most driving conditions yet have very aggressive shift times under Wide open throttle.

Many autos are faster 0-60 just because of more shifts may be required to get to 60. ie. if an auto hits 60 in second gear, and a manuals gear ratios or final drive demand a shift (because redline is reached ) into thrid before 60 MPH, the auto may have shifted slower but it only shifted once. And it will beat the Manual to 60. That same scenerio plays out on the street ever day. Every race is not to 60 or 1/4 mile. But the times being argued are 0-60, and an auto certainly could be faster to that point !!! That is only one example. And as they say only one example that proves an absolute statemant wrong,proves the statemant false. However,
I'll add a couple more.
The clutchless Ferrari's are really nothing more than mechanical "autos". They are repeatably faster than the best manual shifters with a "leg operated clutch".
I have over the years run one vehicle against another of the same type and exact same engine far too many times to count ( part of the job ). Many times even the best test drivers have trouble repeating the perfect manual shifting to beat the auto consistantly. And no matter how many folks think they are the next "Donny Garlitts", very few humans are able to actully shift at the exact same maximum torque point shift after shift. An auto properly set up will shift at the exact same rpm nearly ever time. If that auto is properly set up, it can beat most of the "Ricky racers" in a street race. There is simply more variablity run to run with a manual than an auto. 

If the absoulte difference between the two ( AUOT vs. Manual) is only .1 sec. in favour of a manual, I'll bet on the auto every time. And most of the time the auto would win, with the average Joe slammin' gears in the manual.


----------



## Groucho (Sep 11, 2004)

I really wouldn't disagree with lamebert, man. 

Now, I know you have "facts" and "figures," but if you post something that lamebert doesn't like...boy, he may call you a boogerhead or question your sexual orientation or something equally witty.

Just warning you guys...he's one smart feller.


----------



## madx2 (Dec 9, 2004)

I'll agree too. I've seen quite a few manual c5's in the rear view of my auto '99 z28 because the drivers of the vettes thought they were hot [email protected] driving a manual.


----------



## jontyrees (Dec 21, 2004)

...don't forget the power loss in an automatic though. What is it at the wheels, 5-10% more loss auto vs MT? Not as much of a factor in a powerful car where other issues arise, (tire traction, etc), but definitely important with a small engine.


----------



## C5ORGTO (Dec 30, 2004)

Rhino74 said:


> The 2005 specs are the same as the 2004 specs, so I suspect they have not updated some of them. That being said, I never really believed the auto would beat out the 6-speed if driven properly. The 05 is lighter and has more torque and hhorsepower, meaning that it should beat the 04's 5.3 0-60 time.


93-97 Camaro's automatics were quicker than 6-speed cars. Car and Driver tested the theory. Not true in all cars, I'm just saying that on some its quicker. I have a 6-speed, they are more fun.


----------



## LYNMUP (Nov 26, 2005)

My brochure stated the auto was 4.6sec 0-60 and 13sec 1/4 mile and the six speed was 4.7 sec 0-60 and 13.1 sec 1/4 mile.


----------



## ModBoss2 (Nov 13, 2005)

WOWHUH said:


> My brochure stated the auto was 4.6sec 0-60 and 13sec 1/4 mile and the six speed was 4.7 sec 0-60 and 13.1 sec 1/4 mile.


4.7 - 13.1

Sweet!


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2005)

How DARE you guys have an auto discussion and not invite me!! Time to set the record straight.

An auto is *quicker* but a manual is *faster*. As an example, we will use a C4 corvette with 300hp at the motor. Lets give it a 3.45 gear and a T56 transmission on stock tires. You run a best all day pass of 13.5 @ 105. OK, pretty good time! Now, take the manual trans out, put in a 4L60E automatic, stock converter, no shift kit, and run it. You will get a 13.3 @ 100. Notice the ET dropped but so did the MPH. Why? The auto does not put as much power down as the manual, so its slower. BUT, it is able to apply full throttle on the launch and utilize all available traction from the get go. No riding a clutch, no modulation, just floor and go!

From a roll though, the auto will lose to a manual, no doubt about it. But as you guys state, this is a debate on whether an auto is *quicker* than a manual and yes, it is. Not to mention, it can do it all day, every day, and never whimper.

Now contemplate this. Put a new clutch and slicks in your manual, any clutch you want, and hell, launch it on the rev limiter. You get maybe a 1.8 short time? OK, now take the auto, put in a shift kit and a 4400 Thruster Pro converter and your pulling a 1.6 short time. SAME MOTOR, SAME REAR GEAR, SAME 300HP!!!! For those that want to dispute how a converter works, I can type all day to explain that one. But for now, its a PROVEN fact that in V8 street cars (cuz somebody will bring up Pro Stocks), a manual is NOT and CAN NOT be *quicker* than an auto.


----------



## Steve A (Oct 28, 2005)

Ronny Sox used to do pretty well in the Mopars with a 4-Speed.

With a really good run, the manual will probably win, but it is very hard to duplicate it run after run like an automatic will.


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

Steve A said:


> Ronny Sox used to do pretty well in the Mopars with a 4-Speed.
> 
> With a really good run, the manual will probably win, but it is very hard to duplicate it run after run like an automatic will.


 :agree


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2005)

Steve A said:


> Ronny Sox used to do pretty well in the Mopars with a 4-Speed.
> 
> With a really good run, the manual will probably win, but it is very hard to duplicate it run after run like an automatic will.


and without running the risk of severe breakage!


----------



## Steve A (Oct 28, 2005)

Any time you race you are risking "severe breakage" !!! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2005)

not with an auto your not.


----------

