Different low end torque, auto vs. manual trans?

[RichieRocket]

Anyone notice that the low end torque is different for the 1.4T depending on which trans it has?

From gmpowertrain.com: Powertrain Products

1.4T with manual trans 148 ft-lbs starts at 2500 rpm

1.4T with auto trans 148 ft-lbs starts at 1850 rpm

I didn't know the manuals had a less low end torque?!?

First pic is manual, next is auto

 

[dvn]

I think they may have these backwards. Misprint? Everything I have seen prior to this has stated that the 1.4 MT had peak torque starting at 1850 rpm.

 

[ErikBEggs]

Try this for an interesting read.

 

[RichieRocket]

I think they may have these backwards. Misprint? Everything I have seen prior to this has stated that the 1.4 MT had peak torque starting at 1850 rpm.

dvn, I thought the same thing until I saw this. The Cruze 1.4T is the same way...manual trans gets max torque at 2500 rpm

Try this for an interesting read.

ErikBEggs, was this the right link? They noticed the difference in torque...then one guy guesses that it has to do with fuel economy? Then they talk about the sold in China 1.6T.
So do they know why the manual gets less torque?

 

[Sonny@bnr]

I guess the auto gets tq earlier cause it's heavier and the tranny takes forever to downshift and the tq converter

 

[dvn]

I guess the auto gets tq earlier cause it's heavier and the tranny takes forever to downshift and the tq converter

Just curious, what are the torque stats with the tune?

 

[LS1notFOUND]

its amazing how obvious with that flat of a curve how its the tune limiting the torque, you don't naturally hit a wall like that.

My guess is the auto has a pretty tight tq converter and for ease of starts/working the clutch, they moved the peak up slightly on the manual models.

Gearing might also be another reason.

 

[listlesssleeper]

difference

I think the only reason the vary at all is because the auto must have a tight converter for city economy. The highway doesn't matter on lockup converters. They allowed more low end torque for better performance. I don't see however any gain in the manual car to not have a low range number like that unless it's being sacrificed from the top which apparently it's not.

 

[LS1notFOUND]

obviously they noticed something in the drive-ability that needed to smooth the onset of torque on the manual cars, in and out of boost that low in first maybe was jerky? Your pretty much maneuvering parking lots and stop and go at those rpms anyway so keeping it boosted up and the added power might have hurt that aspect. Either way its not like 50 HP were talking about, its looks than 20 well below the power peak and the graph/curve is altogether smoother Small potatoes.

 

[listlesssleeper]

That makes a lot of sense if the turbo spooled in parking lots or in turns. The old grand nationals were always fun in a turn when the turbo would suddenly spool.