Rep Power: 319

Auto's can shift better if done properly. Case in point, drive an auto accord versus the same engine with a manual, they are both about the same in acceleration.

As for intake systems, deends who you talk to. I have a V2 and I think it gave me more topend with any sacrifice to low end torque. All I can say is stay away from short ram air intakes, hot air is bad.

 
Rep Power: 0

sounds good, what i want to know is if there are v2's for an automatic civic 04, and did u install ur intake towards the front fender...post some pics if u can@!!!

 
Rep Power: 0

manual all the way

 
Rep Power: 512

i dont know if i posted in here yeyt, but i did vote. i got manual

 
Rep Power: 319

That's a good question. My answer would be to call them and see if they make one for autos.

Advanced Engine Management
Engine Management System
(310) 484-2322
www.aempower.com

Then come back here and post what you find out so I can see if I can get one for my '04 auto. If not I believe the injen CIA fits the auto. But I won't buy that becasue it sucks air from under the car which is better for performance, but it can also suck water into the intake, which is bad. The V2 pulls air behind the battery, very little water gets there.

 
Rep Power: 0

FUnny thing is i can REALLY relate to this POST, I bought a 7th gen auto in December could not live without wanting to grab a stick, manually feel myself changing the gear/gears so i went to the Honda dealer with this 1 month old Civic and told them NOW i want a manual!! they were like OmG LoL! So a month later I owned my 2nd 7th gen Civic in a 2 month time period. I lost alot of money out of my pocket on downpayments but i HAD TO HAVE MANuaL. with a Civic and imports manual just seems correct. In a sense were suppose to be living out the life of TunerS like in 'Fast and the Furious'

 
Rep Power: 0

actually, autos shift faster than manuals, there isnt a person in the world that could make a manual shift faster than an auto; simply because your always dealing with synchromesh, and depending on how the gear teeth line up when your shifting, the synchromesh takes extra time to act correctly. While all this is happening, and automatic would have already shifted. If the civics had 5 speed autos, then depending on gearing, its possible that the 0-60 would be the same, possibly quicker if the gearing was right. Ive actually been quite impressed with the hill ascending and descending system (Grade logic controll) on the autos, its very intuitive, and once you get used to it, it really helps out on steep grades where other trannies would be fumbling for the right gear.

All in all, it depends on what you want; that little extra speed (like someons mentioned, auto and manual civics are both slow) or easy of street-driving, personally, for my daily driver, I would take an auto anyday, but for a fun weekend car, a manual would be nescessary.

 
Rep Power: 319

^^^^ you must be thinking of that new Audi auto tranny that has the split spline or something becasue auto take time to sync too, although you are right the manuals need more robust sycro because people are not perfect. But whifting is not the problem, it's that slushy torque converter that causes so the fall of the automatics. Even with a tight one, it still takes a moment for it to engage where as a manual would be already fully engaged and gone.

 
Rep Power: 283

I went to honda yesterday and talked to one of the mechanics in the garage and he told me it's pointless to mod an auto civic.He also told me that manuals aren't that great either.He said,"Man, You ain't gon get nothin' out of that 1.7."Their both slow so I really don't care much now.I'll just go buy my friends 1995 GS-T or a Celica.

 
Rep Power: 319

Not true... check some of turbo guys on here and tell me it's point less to mod it. I don't believe any of the mechanics any more unless they are a certified master mechanic, even then though, they don't know that much about moding unless they are doing it themselves. But I have had so many mechanics tell this is wrong with my car and that is wrong with it, then they go ahead and change that part and I still have the problem. I've spent thousdands on stupid mechanics, I can't stand them, and no I'm not being taken or anything, half the time it's a warrentied part. If I can't fix, it's not going to get fixed.

 
Rep Power: 0

true, i read about a civic in a car mag which throws out around 500 whp...it all depends how much u wana put into the car....

 
Rep Power: 0

not really. A fully build powergilde that will rip your retinas out with the shift will shift faster, but you see that BMW went to a clutch system (SMG) when they wanted a FAST auto. Mario Andretti could shift his F1 cars in under .25 seconds. Ever watch NASCAR? those are all 4 speed manuals. Listen to them shift, its FAST. They are just better than you and I, thats why they are so rich. GM's in house race boy powershifted a STOCk zo6 on street tires to a 12.00 1/4 mile, thats around .6s faster than average.

 
Rep Power: 283

I can't afford all that turbo stuff.
I am talking about N/A modifications.
You see what I mean now.If forced induction is was
"affordable"...everyone on this site would have one.
Then we'd have no reason to complain about the d17.

 
Rep Power: 0

well, F1 cars have been sequential dog boxes for a while, but thats a completely different system than synchros, and the reason dog boxes work so fast is because they have teeth in them that have alot ofplay in them to manage to just slam into each oher and start going the same speed. GMs in house race guy is probably pretty good, but powershifting is not exactly shifting the car faster, its just not letting it rev down at all while you shift. All automatics have a system of clutches in them, but they are part of a hydralic system in autos, and with the system in automatics vs a synchroed system in manual street cars, its not possible for a manual designed for street use will be faster than a computer controlled auto (one running in good condition), just becasue the auto is comuter controlled, and can exicute a shift all in one action. Manuals are given lots of features now so we all dont have to rev-match when we shift, but that stuff all takes time to do its job right.

As far as SMGs go, ive heard some pretty bad stuff about the BMW one, the few made for cars on the street are actually pretty lame until you get into ferraris and such. The 6-speed in the MRS is about as good of a design as you will see on anything short of a ferrari in terms of mechanical operation.

 
Rep Power: 583

when youre choosing between auto and manual its not about which shifts faster, because both systems are equally as good (or can be equally as good) as the other when it comes to speed.

for me it was about having control of the car. being more connected with how it all works together. ive owned an auto before my civic and i didnt feel like it was a driving experience. shifting the gears just makes it more of an experience, makes it more fun. thats why i got a manual.

 
Rep Power: 0

<---------auto, regret everyday of it. i find myself drivin it like a stick all the time. i screw around in 2 all the time and redline it into d3 and pop it into 2 from higher speeds. i know its bad but its a lease. honda shall take care of the damage...

 
Rep Power: 335

I like BOTH. I can't vote.
I've owned both and know the ups and downs of both.

 
Rep Power: 319

I own both auto and manual right now, both are 7thgens too. For the CIVIC's, not BMW or a Lambo or something like that, manuals are faster. Although I've seen lightly moded auto that keep up with my manual, so the difference is not that huge. But I like to have more control over my car, so I drive the manual and gave the auto to my g/f. I think the manual feels like you're going faster becasue you have something to do while you're driving.

And sure if I could afford a 30grand dog box, well it sure as crap would be for my civic.

The only auto I've heard of that can out shift any and every manual is the the Audi one that is suppose to come out next year. The one with a split pline and six gears that is already in the next gear before it realises the current gear, but that's gonna be some money. But gaer changes are supposedly around the .05 to .1 second mark, that's fast.

As for turbos and that stuff, well if you really wanted a fast car, should have gotten an SRT-4. But personally I wanted a car I didn't have to black out the windows so that no one knew I drove a car that looks like that.

 
Rep Power: 0

on supras auto is better than manual....

1. you save money (when you first buy your car)
2. have more fun with manuals i.e. burnouts, chirping 1 to 2, downshifting.
3. downside- you might have to pay for more clutches

if i repeated somebody im sorry, but theres no way i could read all the posts

 
Rep Power: 319

I agree an auto in a supra would be better for speed, but if you have 300 hp with a manual I would hope you can hit more than 2 nd gear. And downshifting a twin turbo is bad idea

However, if you want handling, no auto will beat a manual. The auto's torque converter will take time to tighten before the power is laid to the ground, so when you go to accelerate through the apex of the turn, you can't accelerate at the exact time you want it to.

 
Rep Power: 0

This is true, however some driving does just come down to knowing your cars driving dynamics.

 
Rep Power: 0

stick is better cuz if u dont know how to drive stick then you can learn. auto.. everyone knows how to drive auto..

 
Rep Power: 319

This is very true also, that's why a good driver with an auto will beat a bad driver with a stick on a road course.

 
Rep Power: 0

come to think of it: "just be happy with what u have",.....that should wrap this controversial issue up!!!

 
Rep Power: 0

A manual is great for when you are low on gas though. You can realy streach out those last few gallons if needed.

 
Rep Power: 0

damn guys autos arent THAT bad! mine is not to bad. i before i put a ex motor in my lx - i smoked a ex with a manual. it is all how you drive it.

 
Rep Power: 283

I would like to take this time to congratulate Carbonfly for making this thread.Eveyone who has posted on this thread seems to be repeating what was said a few post before them.It just seems to never die.I'm not surprised it hasn't been locked...yet.

BOTH Manual and Auto civs are SLOW.....end of discussion.

Clank*Clank*.Lock it up

 
Rep Power: 319

If this one get locked, I'll make anouther.... ...lol

Then I'll copy and paste all my posts from here to there

 
Rep Power: 0

I didn't really get a choice between the two so i ended up with an auto because someone else payed for it and I am not going to argue with that but after driving some of my friends manuals I definately will make my car (if not this car) a manual.

 
Rep Power: 0

Both manual and auto civics are slow compared to the millions of other cars. now i know there faster than some but......

the auto civic is alot slower. i work at a local honda dealership. i should know. any manual is faster if you have a couple of months of driving experience. and as far as shifting goes. you can shift a manual quicker than an auto. it might not be as good for the car but you can do it. auto syncros break faster than manual syncros. so the quicker shifts in an automatic will only really work on a new car.