On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 11:15 -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
> > Much of the North American automarket is
> > unfortunately automatics.
>
> You are rushing to judgement before considering all the angles.
What judgement am I making? Check the stats, most cars sold in NA are
automatic.
Are you referring to my "unfortunately automatics" statement? If so,
that's my opinion. I rushed to that opinion? What are you talking about?
> I reliably get at
> least 50 miles/gallon on the highway (this morning it was saying I got over
> 55 MPG over the last 500 miles, and it usually estimates the milage low), so
> it's rather hard to argue with whatever the computer is doing in there.
> This car doesn't come in with a manual transmission since it wouldn't make
> any sense.
You seem to think the primary reason I (or perhaps by extension all)
manual transmission drivers choose manuals is for the gas savings.
You are wrong.
I choose manual because I ENJOY driving, I like the feel of a manual.
I can't stand slushomatics, every time I have to drive one I cringe and
long for "the stick". There isn't much logic to it, there doesn't have
to be.
I don't see what this has to do with the thread though, so next time
please change the thread title before going off topic like that.
> I choose manual because I ENJOY driving, I like the feel of a manual.
> I can't stand slushomatics, every time I have to drive one I cringe and
> long for "the stick". There isn't much logic to it, there doesn't have
> to be.
I too.
I looked for a Mk1 MR2 Supercharger and expected to buy a manual.
I ended up with an automatic.
While I have long been an advocate of manual shift for performance
and/or fun, the MR2 auto is a joy.
Slushy it isn't and its performance is startling.
When new (long long ago) the auto version was THE fastest production
car on earth 0-30 mph. The Supercharger as opposed to turbo largely
accounts for that but the auto shifting is marvellous, leaving you to
hang on tight and make decisions.
The auto does things a manual shifting driver never would bother to do.
Rolling at say 30 kph in 2nd gear at light throttle. Car will start to
accelerate in 2nd, kick into 1st, stay therefor the briefest moment
and then shift back. You'd be tempted to think this may be a defect
but it seems to 'know' well enough when it can win by doing such. Some
autos actually work :-).
:: The auto does things a manual shifting driver never would bother
:: to do.
At one time Renault were waaaay ahead of the game in technology (though it
wasn't thought so at the time), they produced an automatic that had a
manual gear box which had a solenoid and motors to change the gears. The
control box was push button.
I think it was a Renault 12, my father had one - they had the engine in the
back, year second hand around 1975/76.
> At one time Renault were waaaay ahead of the game in technology (though it
> wasn't thought so at the time), they produced an automatic that had a
> manual gear box which had a solenoid and motors to change the gears. The
> control box was push button.
"Real" [tm] cars do that now. Ferrai for one, and no doubt others.
"Manual" gearbox controlled by 'automation'.
> I think it was a Renault 12, my father had one - they had the engine in the
> back, year second hand around 1975/76.
Further back the Renault Dauphine had a version with electrically
operated clutch. Apparently a very fussy and delicate to adjust clutch
- although why it should need to be so is unclear. Pressing on the
gear lever to start to do a gearchange could operate the clutch, so
you got pedal-less shifts.
www.newcarbuyingguide.com/index.php/news/main/5849/event=view
"Quite early there was a Ferlec semi-automatic transmission, basically
an electrically operated clutch. Touch the gearshift and the clutch
was electrically disengaged. You still had to select the gears
manually. A fully automatic transmission was offered in 1963.
Typically French, it was unique featuring a magnetic powder in place
of a fluid coupling. When an electric current energized the magnetic
field the powder solidified so the entire unit moved as one piece. The
Renault automatic used a push button gear selector mounted on the
dash.
> On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 11:15 -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> Herbert Graf wrote:
>> > Much of the North American automarket is
>> > unfortunately automatics.
>>
>> You are rushing to judgement before considering all the angles.
>
> What judgement am I making? Check the stats, most cars sold in NA are
> automatic.
>
> Are you referring to my "unfortunately automatics" statement? If so,
> that's my opinion. I rushed to that opinion? What are you talking about?
>
>> I reliably get at
>> least 50 miles/gallon on the highway (this morning it was saying I got over
>> 55 MPG over the last 500 miles, and it usually estimates the milage low), so
>> it's rather hard to argue with whatever the computer is doing in there.
>> This car doesn't come in with a manual transmission since it wouldn't make
>> any sense.
>
> You seem to think the primary reason I (or perhaps by extension all)
> manual transmission drivers choose manuals is for the gas savings.
>
> You are wrong.
>
> I choose manual because I ENJOY driving, I like the feel of a manual.
>
> I can't stand slushomatics, every time I have to drive one I cringe and
> long for "the stick". There isn't much logic to it, there doesn't have
> to be.
>
> I don't see what this has to do with the thread though, so next time
> please change the thread title before going off topic like that.
I love manuals too. I really don't automatics. No fun in driving.
Also, if some **** tries to race with you, or wont let you into his
lane on the road/highway, you can just shift down for that extra
torque, rev up the engine, and pass him. He wont have that kind of
control with an automatic.
> Rolling at say 30 kph in 2nd gear at light throttle. Car will start to
> accelerate in 2nd, kick into 1st, stay therefor the briefest moment
> and then shift back. You'd be tempted to think this may be a defect
> but it seems to 'know' well enough when it can win by doing such. Some
> autos actually work :-).
>
And that's why I hate so much on my old car. Driving on a country road and
when taking over a van I press the pedal -- instead of immediately adding
the power it waits 0.5 s to be able to shift back -- but why shifting back
in the first place? It is a diesel with 320nm torque, just let the engine
work and do not bother of spinning it more. My new car is a Mazda 6 with
'only' 226nm torque (also diesel, but manual this time). I just press the
pedal and the car flies, no need to shift back at all.
>> Rolling at say 30 kph in 2nd gear at light throttle. Car will start to
>> accelerate in 2nd, kick into 1st, stay therefor the briefest moment
>> and then shift back. You'd be tempted to think this may be a defect
>> but it seems to 'know' well enough when it can win by doing such. Some
>> autos actually work :-).
> And that's why I hate so much on my old car. Driving on a country road and
> when taking over a van I press the pedal -- instead of immediately adding
> the power it waits 0.5 s to be able to shift back -- but why shifting back
> in the first place?
Not the same as what I am talking about.
The supercharger is belt coupled to the engine and produces
instantaneous power.
And the 1989 vintage engine controller has about* zero delay.
The shifting down in this case is because it decides that that's
quickest - and in the case of a sportscar at full throttle quickest
is the aim.
Whereas the Mitsubishi Chariot turbo I mentioned stops to vote before
kicking in the turbo. Once boosting its extremely good for overtaking
- but you need about 2 seconds before it starts to pull and another
two to hit peak power. Ridiculous.
R
* Below normal awareness - MAY be noticeable if you thought very hard about it.
> Not the same as what I am talking about.
> The supercharger is belt coupled to the engine and produces
> instantaneous power.
>
Sure, however I have no problem with the engine power but the automatic
gearbox. So when giving a burst I do not necessarily mean to shifting down
first. I guess the automatic decision of how and when shifting down is
highly depending on the model and the make. That Opel Omega I referred to
had this BMW engine which was brilliant by that time, but had that problem
with the gearbox, so overall I could not really use the power of the engine
produced. As far as I know Mercedes' have much better gearboxes and for
shifting down you need to hit the 'kick off' button with the accelerator?
(all the way down to the floor, then press it 'even more') That sounds much
better approach to me.
The only thing I liked with that gearbox was it's smoothness. You could not
feel when it shifted, also it had a constant ratio changing in the first 3
gears, so when you accelerated the revs of the engine stayed almost the same
and the acceleration was done by the gearbox. That made it very smooth I
guess.
> so when you accelerated the revs of the engine stayed almost the same
> and the acceleration was done by the gearbox. That made it very smooth
I
> guess.
That sound like the torque converter doing its job. Most autos have one
of these instead of a fluid clutch, as it gives a continuously variable
ratio. Meant that they could get away with only 2 or 3 gear ratios in
the box.
I don't know what is used with modern 6 or 8 ratio boxes.
--
Scanned by iCritical.
> I love manuals too. I really don't automatics. No fun in driving.
> Also, if some **** tries to race with you, or wont let you into his
> lane on the road/highway, you can just shift down for that extra
> torque, rev up the engine, and pass him. He wont have that kind of
> control with an automatic.
"You obviously haven't met Jedi before" I think the quote went. Close
enough anyway.
It may be wise [tm] to allow that not every automatic may match your
stereotype - or that every 'Ricer' (as you once called them ) will as
of right succumb to Detroit inches on every occasion. There's no
substitute for inches, and a manual is fun and my preference in most
cases, but the MR2 gave me a fresh perspective (in an old car) of why
an auto might be useful.
>From an '89 'Ricer' MR2 'Supercharger'* perspective:
> you can just shift down for that extra
> torque, rev up the engine, ...
Why do that? You just floor it. If you are in the optimum gear it will
accelerate. If you aren't you will be instantaneously (or sooner) and
accelerating. I'll be at full boost and in the optimum gear before you
let the clutch out. Really.
> and pass him.
:-)
> He wont have that kind of control with an automatic.
No. Thankfully.
On a really winding sealed country road with gravel on the edges and
camber into roadside drains its really nice to be able to concentrate
on holding the wheel tightly with two hands as you plunge terrifed
into the next corner. As the car skitters over the uneven surfaces,
changes line and traction and asks if it may be allowed to break
away*, please, if is really nice to have all the hands available for
pointing it where you'd like it to go. If you aren't terrified, yet,
then there is more throttle waiting.
Early on I found one trick that it wouldn't do :-(. On above roads I
am accustomed to dropping two wheels over the road camber into the
rough to get you as tucked in as well as possible on a corner (left
hand ones anyway - we drive on the left here). First time I did that
on the MR2 it sat on the floor pan on the ridge of the road edge.
Extremely exciting. Not to be repeated. Could easily have severed a
brake line etc or generally lost control. No harm done in the event.
I always wanted a red (they go faster) manual (they are more real) MR2
but ended up with a white auto. I thought it was a sad compromise -
but then I drove it. I've never since regretted it being auto
although, best of all world would be to have the manual selection
available on Ferraris et al.
Find somebody with an old auto supercharged MR2 (1989 or older) who is
silly enough to let you drive it. Point it at a winding country road
and your impressions of autos, and Ricers, may just change forever.
Report back.
* Nothing to do with the auto or supercharger - but the MR2, partially
due to roller skate lightness and low profile and being made by guys
with SOME idea of what they are doing, when pushed too hard [tm] on
seal lets you know when it wants to slide, gracefully transitions into
a drift and comes back beautifully when the overall dynamics and the
driver allow. No bad surprises, no sudden over or understeer - just
traction limit reached, time to let go, please. Beautiful. I've never
been prepared to push it to the limits of what it can achieve. On our
roads it will double posted 'advisory' speeds with ease and usually go
round corners at triple posted speed if you can convince yourself not
to back off. That's for suitably slow advisory speeds :-). eg it will
do a 30 kph advisory at 60 kph without blinking and at 90 kph with due
care. Irrelevant to being auto - except that being able to concentrate
on the skipping squealing bucking and sliding which may or may not
happen in such cases* is easier if you can let the car decide (very
ably) how to get best power on the road. And all legal - potentially
anyway :-) (Our open road speed limit is 100 kph fwiw).
Russell
* Tim (BCC) will relate to this after a certain ride we took :-)
> Also, if some **** tries to race with you, or wont let you into his
> lane on the road/highway, you can just shift down for that extra
> torque, rev up the engine, and pass him. He wont have that kind of
> control with an automatic.
I wouldn't bet on that with modern autos, especially if they have a
sport mode.
--
Scanned by iCritical.
>
> > Also, if some **** tries to race with you, or wont let you into his
> > lane on the road/highway, you can just shift down for that extra
> > torque, rev up the engine, and pass him. He wont have that kind of
> > control with an automatic.
>
> I wouldn't bet on that with modern autos, especially if they have a
> sport mode.
> --
Indeed - the 6 speed DSG Automatic gearboxes on the VW range preselect the
next gear you're going to be using and have a dual clutch system.
Try beating 8 milliseconds for a gearchange.
Match that up with 350 N-m torque and a small Golf (or Rabbit overseas) car
and its doesn't hang about.
While you're thinking about which gear to drop it into and reaching for the
clutch pedal, its already done the job and has hammered past you (still
averaging 60MPG lmao).
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:13 AM, RussellMc <@spam@apptechnzKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> Whereas the Mitsubishi Chariot turbo I mentioned stops to vote before
> kicking in the turbo. Once boosting its extremely good for overtaking
> - but you need about 2 seconds before it starts to pull and another
> two to hit peak power. Ridiculous.
>
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â R
>
Russell,
Unless you have a gasoline powered Chariot, it appears as though the
only turbo Mitsubishi Chariot is a diesel. If that is the case,
comparing your (however old) supercharged gas engine with your 19+
year old turbodiesel is a little disingenuous. Note that your
principles are correct, but exaggerated with your examples. A 20 year
old turbo diesel is never a good example of a high performance
turbocharged engine.
One benefit of having a turbocharger is that you can tune the
torque/HP response depending on the level of boost (via wastegate
control) and nozzle size. This is different from a supercharger where
basically your only control is changing the maximum level of boost at
the red-line engine speed.
Most folks, in general, achieve better fuel mileage with a turbo than
with a supercharger - you can dial down the level of boost and thus
burn less fuel.
--
Martin K.
2 Items:
1: Some vehicles have CVT (Constant variable transmissions. They are
basically a very wide V-belt between a pair of variable width pulleys.
The one pulley width between the tapered sides that the belt rides up
and down in is spring loaded to keep belt tension tight. The other
pulley width is adjusted with a servo (actuator) that would be computer
controlled. These type drives have been around for years ( maybe 70+) in
industrial applications like driving a conveyor where the speed needs to
be adjusted occasional. The actuator in that case is a hand wheel and
linkage. The drive (gear) ratio changes when the belt rides higher on
one pulley than the other. You will not feel any gear change, but there
likely will be a torque converter clutch that you feel.
2: Since probably the early 1990's, there have been torque converter
clutches. These fluid couplings help multiply torque at lower speeds,
but at higher speeds slip and cause extra friction with reduced fuel
mileage. The clutch locks the converter input/output together. At
lockup you may feel the "gear change", plus the tach will show a
significant drop in RPM's. This generally will be the highest speed
"gear change". Say if your vehicle has a 4 speed automatic transmission,
there will be one more "gear change" 1 - 2, 2- 3 (probably D [Direct]),
D - OD (overdrive), and then the TC clutch. Our Bronco (full size SUV),
highway speeds, without OD and TC clutch 13 MPG, with OD and TC clutch
18 MPG. And yes, there were some other changes that affected mileage,
like SEFI (Sequential fuel injection) instead of constant spraying that
was maybe 1 MPG. This is with a 5.8L. 351 C.I.D. 5300 lb. vehicle.
>> so when you accelerated the revs of the engine stayed almost the same
>> and the acceleration was done by the gearbox. That made it very smooth
>>
> I
>
>> guess.
>>
> That sound like the torque converter doing its job. Most autos have one
> of these instead of a fluid clutch, as it gives a continuously variable
> ratio. Meant that they could get away with only 2 or 3 gear ratios in
> the box.
>
> I don't know what is used with modern 6 or 8 ratio boxes.
>
A good design powertrain (engine/transmission) automatic will pick the
correct gear ratio for the situation quickly and automatically, while
getting fuel economy very close to a manual. This enables the driver to
concentrate on driving, including turning on wipers, turn signals, etc.
As is said in the aviation area, First job is fly the airplane! If you
don't control the airplane, nothing else matters. And my driving
experience includes Trucks with 4 speed no synchronizers (double clutch
all shifts) and 13 speed road rangers, Porsche 356.Recently while
helping granddaughter looking for a car, drove a stick Focus, first
stick in 5 years. Didn't stall it once. Just like swimming (and dare I
say S..) once you have done it, it's always there. Stick or automatic is
a personal choice, I don't have issues with stick.
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Herbert Graf<RemoveMEhkgrafTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 11:15 -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote:
>>
>>> Herbert Graf wrote:
>>>
>>>> Much of the North American automarket is
>>>> unfortunately automatics.
>>>>
>>> You are rushing to judgement before considering all the angles.
>>>
>> What judgement am I making? Check the stats, most cars sold in NA are
>> automatic.
>>
>> Are you referring to my "unfortunately automatics" statement? If so,
>> that's my opinion. I rushed to that opinion? What are you talking about?
>>
>>
>>> I reliably get at
>>> least 50 miles/gallon on the highway (this morning it was saying I got over
>>> 55 MPG over the last 500 miles, and it usually estimates the milage low), so
>>> it's rather hard to argue with whatever the computer is doing in there.
>>> This car doesn't come in with a manual transmission since it wouldn't make
>>> any sense.
>>>
>> You seem to think the primary reason I (or perhaps by extension all)
>> manual transmission drivers choose manuals is for the gas savings.
>>
>> You are wrong.
>>
>> I choose manual because I ENJOY driving, I like the feel of a manual.
>>
>> I can't stand slushomatics, every time I have to drive one I cringe and
>> long for "the stick". There isn't much logic to it, there doesn't have
>> to be.
>>
>> I don't see what this has to do with the thread though, so next time
>> please change the thread title before going off topic like that.
>>
> I love manuals too. I really don't automatics. No fun in driving.
>
> Also, if some **** tries to race with you, or wont let you into his
> lane on the road/highway, you can just shift down for that extra
> torque, rev up the engine, and pass him. He wont have that kind of
> control with an automatic.
>
>
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:42:59 -0400, "Carl Denk" said:
> 2 Items:
> 1: Some vehicles have CVT (Constant variable transmissions. They are
> 2: Since probably the early 1990's, there have been torque converter
> clutches.
Also there are SMG type automatic transmissions which are
electro-hydraulically controlled manual transmissions with dry or wet
clutch(es). The newest ones have two clutches and two gearsets - almost
like two complete transmissions in parallel - one for the odd-numbered
gears and one for the even-numbered gears. The computer anticipates the
next gear, either higher or lower, selects it, and when the shift is
made, controls the disengagement of one clutch and the engagement of the
other.
If the driver shifts to a non-anticipated gear, there is a short delay
as the computer finds the desired gear (and slaps the driver for
choosing the wrong gear) :)
These dual-SMG transmissions are used in new BMW M5 and Mercedes AMG,
probably others.
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:42:59 -0400, "Carl Denk" said:
>
>> 2 Items:
>> 1: Some vehicles have CVT (Constant variable transmissions. They are
>>
>
>> 2: Since probably the early 1990's, there have been torque converter
>> clutches.
>>
> Also there are SMG type automatic transmissions which are
> electro-hydraulically controlled manual transmissions with dry or wet
> clutch(es). The newest ones have two clutches and two gearsets - almost
> like two complete transmissions in parallel - one for the odd-numbered
> gears and one for the even-numbered gears. The computer anticipates the
> next gear, either higher or lower, selects it, and when the shift is
> made, controls the disengagement of one clutch and the engagement of the
> other.
>
> If the driver shifts to a non-anticipated gear, there is a short delay
> as the computer finds the desired gear (and slaps the driver for
> choosing the wrong gear) :)
>
> These dual-SMG transmissions are used in new BMW M5 and Mercedes AMG,
> probably others.
>
> Cheerful regards,
>
> Bob
>
>
>> I choose manual because I ENJOY driving, I like the feel of a manual.
>>
>
>> I can't stand slushomatics, every time I have to drive one I cringe and
>> long for "the stick". There isn't much logic to it, there doesn't have
>> to be.
>>
> I too.
> I looked for a Mk1 MR2 Supercharger and expected to buy a manual.
> I ended up with an automatic.
> While I have long been an advocate of manual shift for performance
> and/or fun, the MR2 auto is a joy.
> Slushy it isn't and its performance is startling.
> When new (long long ago) the auto version was THE fastest production
> car on earth 0-30 mph. The Supercharger as opposed to turbo largely
> accounts for that but the auto shifting is marvellous, leaving you to
> hang on tight and make decisions.
> The auto does things a manual shifting driver never would bother to do.
> Rolling at say 30 kph in 2nd gear at light throttle. Car will start to
> accelerate in 2nd, kick into 1st, stay therefor the briefest moment
> and then shift back. You'd be tempted to think this may be a defect
> but it seems to 'know' well enough when it can win by doing such. Some
> autos actually work :-).
>
>
>
> Russell
>
I think your comparing a "sports" auto with the average family car.
My father has a new ford 4wd thing. As soon as you think about
accelerating it changes down 3 gears and rev's the ass out of the engine.
Which is pointless because you just wanted to go up a slight hill.
However if you want to overtake and floor it, it still changes down 3
gears (eventually), revs the ass out of the engine and then when it gets
its act together the car actually starts moving.
That's your standard auto.
A great auto will beat a manual in some things, there aren't many great
automatics however.
I like CVT auto, it can do things you can't do with a manual.
What I really hate about automatics is how they keep pushing when you
are trying to slow to a stop. I'd rather when the brakes are applied and
I'm under 20km/h the car popped itself into neutral. I hear that there
have been problems with pure electric cars in America because they lack
the "push" of the automatic engine and will roll backwards down a hill.
> On 16/07/10 03:27, RussellMc wrote:
>>> I choose manual because I ENJOY driving, I like the feel of a manual.
>>>
>>
>>> I can't stand slushomatics, every time I have to drive one I cringe and
>>> long for "the stick". There isn't much logic to it, there doesn't have
>>> to be.
>>>
>> I too.
>> I looked for a Mk1 MR2 Supercharger and expected to buy a manual.
>> I ended up with an automatic.
>> While I have long been an advocate of manual shift for performance
>> and/or fun, the MR2 auto is a joy.
>> Slushy it isn't and its performance is startling.
>> When new (long long ago) the auto version was THE fastest production
>> car on earth 0-30 mph. The Supercharger as opposed to turbo largely
>> accounts for that but the auto shifting is marvellous, leaving you to
>> hang on tight and make decisions.
>> The auto does things a manual shifting driver never would bother to do.
>> Rolling at say 30 kph in 2nd gear at light throttle. Car will start to
>> accelerate in 2nd, kick into 1st, stay therefor the briefest moment
>> and then shift back. You'd be tempted to think this may be a defect
>> but it seems to 'know' well enough when it can win by doing such. Some
>> autos actually work :-).
>>
>>
>>
>> Russell
>>
> I think your comparing a "sports" auto with the average family car.
> My father has a new ford 4wd thing. As soon as you think about
> accelerating it changes down 3 gears and rev's the ass out of the engine.
> Which is pointless because you just wanted to go up a slight hill.
>
> However if you want to overtake and floor it, it still changes down 3
> gears (eventually), revs the ass out of the engine and then when it gets
> its act together the car actually starts moving.
>
> That's your standard auto.
>
> A great auto will beat a manual in some things, there aren't many great
> automatics however.
> I like CVT auto, it can do things you can't do with a manual.
>
> What I really hate about automatics is how they keep pushing when you
> are trying to slow to a stop. I'd rather when the brakes are applied and
> I'm under 20km/h the car popped itself into neutral. I hear that there
> have been problems with pure electric cars in America because they lack
> the "push" of the automatic engine and will roll backwards down a hill.
> --
My daughter has a '93 Subaru Justy with CVT transmission. And, despite
the low power I find it quite fun to drive.
I like :-
1. The absence of creep you usually get with a typical auto due to the
torque converter. (It has an elector-magnetic clutch)
2. It doesn't hunt around the gears on hills, just adjusts to the best
ratio and stays there. I typically get abused in auto cars when
climbing hills as I naturally give it a bit more, the auto then
changes down, revs the sn... out of the engine & then changes up
again.
3. It is smooth, no pauses as you take off down the road, just an even
increase in speed.
The vehicle is underpowered, and as soon as it shifts out of overdrive,
the gas mileage goes to poor. Lot's of vehicles today come with some
sort of 4wd, you don't say which one and which powertrain
(engine/transmission). One of the fallacies is that big engines don't
get good gas mileage. The big engine will stay loafing at low RPM in
overdrive up and down the hills where it can get excellent mileage. A
plus is the performance is be able to get around those low powered
vehicles going up the hills when they are well below the speed limit,
and there is a short passing zone. The Bronco with a 351 C.I.D. (5.8L)
SEFI V-8 which cruises at 65 mph @ 1700 RPM, weighs 5300 lbs. empty
normally gets 18 mpg @ 75- 80 mph, and has seen 24 mpg on a 700 mile
trip. This is a vehicle that will do 0 -60 in 9 seconds, and the
computer limits it to 106 mph, but it gets there quickly. The Cougar
with a Cleveland 2.5L Duratec 24V DOHC is a high revving (6500 rpm
redline) engine, but with it's power also, rarely near that rpm. It
gets 30+ mpg in the 75 -80 mph range. It also is around 0- 60 9 second,
and we don't know what top is, it's been several times to 110 mph easily. {Quote hidden}
> I think your comparing a "sports" auto with the average family car.
> My father has a new ford 4wd thing. As soon as you think about
> accelerating it changes down 3 gears and rev's the ass out of the engine.
> Which is pointless because you just wanted to go up a slight hill.
>
> However if you want to overtake and floor it, it still changes down 3
> gears (eventually), revs the ass out of the engine and then when it gets
> its act together the car actually starts moving.
>
>
>
> > Whereas the Mitsubishi Chariot turbo I mentioned stops to vote before
> > kicking in the turbo. Once boosting its extremely good for overtaking
> > - but you need about 2 seconds before it starts to pull and another
> > two to hit peak power. Ridiculous.
> Russell,
> Unless you have a gasoline powered Chariot, it appears as though the
> only turbo Mitsubishi Chariot is a diesel.
So THATS why it ran so rough!!! :-)
But, no, it's petrol powered by design.
Here's a slew of 1996 ones - several petrol and a diesel or few.
> If that is the case,
> comparing your (however old) supercharged gas engine with your 19+
> year old turbodiesel is a little disingenuous. Note that your
> principles are correct, but exaggerated with your examples. A 20 year
> old turbo diesel is never a good example of a high performance
> turbocharged engine.
I'll ignore "a little disingenuous" on this occasion, pilgrim.
Especially as I didn't say what the quoting system may have made it appear.
I think posts from two + people have become severely mixed
I talked only about acceleration, gear change performance and turbo
lag. I did not discuss or mention 'gas economy' and have never owned a
diesel* vehicle (diesel posts were by someone else). My (dead) 1999 2
litre Mitsubishi Chariot turbo is indeed gasoline powered.
> One benefit of having a turbocharger is that you can tune the
> torque/HP response depending on the level of boost (via wastegate
> control) and nozzle size. This is different from a supercharger where
> basically your only control is changing the maximum level of boost at
> the red-line engine speed.
A turbo may indeed be more tunable than a supercharger system - but my
MR2 seemed to go well enough as is. Power is well down on modern
petrol turbo vehicles (MR2 is "only" 1600cc and under 150 HP standard)
but the very low weight and superb handling make it a great toy.
Whereas the Chariot's turbo lag of 2 seconds noticeable and 4 second
to full boost should never happen.
Russell
* Apart from a marvellous Peugeot 307SW (SW = Sky Wagon = glass roof
over whole passenger compartment - superb viewing uro tourer) which I
legally notionally owned but effectively hired in Europe as part of
the French government's manufacturer encouraging Eurocar system which
allows non EU citizens (only) to buy and sell a brand car for a few
weeks for holiday purposes at rates superior to those offered by car
hire companies. We chose the smallest diesel manual they had. Would
happily sit at 70+ mph on Autobahns (4 passengers and MUCH luggage)
and went to 100 mph a few times 'just to see'.
On the then hottest European Summer on record the air condtioned
glovebox alone (filled always with softdrink (bottled :-) ) , cheese,
butter ...) made the car a good choice.
:: On the then hottest European Summer on record the air condtioned
:: glovebox alone (filled always with softdrink (bottled :-) ) ,
:: cheese,
:: butter ...) made the car a good choice
My last car was a 307 hatch - how the heck did you manage to hide so many
comestibles in the glove box bit, I found a cheese sandwich more than
filled it up and on my current 207 - a tube of Rowntrees pastles would be
testing the space to the limit, though I suppose removing the piddly first
aid box might make some room.
> :: On the then hottest European Summer on record the air conditioned
> :: glovebox alone (filled always with softdrink (bottled :-) ) ,
> :: cheese,
> :: butter ...) made the car a good choice
> My last car was a 307 hatch - how the heck did you manage to hide so many
> comestibles in the glove box bit, I found a cheese sandwich more than
> filled it up and on my current 207 - a tube of Rowntrees pastles would be
> testing the space to the limit, though I suppose removing the piddly first
> aid box might make some room.
Mayhaps they enlarged the size when they airconditioned it.
Maybe the SW has an outsized glovebox.
The wagon tail makes it overall longer than the car version.
Don't know.
BUT memory says that it was generously sizied and we were extremely
gald of the discovery. Probably took a day or so to discover it after
pick up from Paris.
"My, this glovebox is e4xtremely cold, it's almost like a freezer.!. Aha !!."
Ftom then on it was full.
That was 2003 - the year that AFAIR they said that 30,000 people more
than usual died because of the heat.
My recollection, matched by my wife's, is that the glovebox held 2 =x
1.5l bottles of softdrink plus a working quantity of cheeses, butter
or margarine, salami and then anything ele you could cram into the
interestices. Margarine left to its own devices would turn into 2
layers of liquid.
The 307SW (specifically the SW*) left a good enough impression that
when they get down into our normal buying range (we prefer to let most
people exponentially depreciate our cars' values first) we may buy
one. Almost there :-).
* Glass roof with electric blind. Passenger seats raised for viewing
over front seat passenger shoulders. Removeable individual seats
throughout (like eg Renault Espace etc). Glass roof is superb both for
country mountain scenery and for city viewing. We hadn't expected the
latter.
Manual diesel was very economical to run and while not a power machine
by any measure, was crisp and capable with 4 passengers.
> 2: Since probably the early 1990's, there have been torque converter
> clutches.
Oh, they go back a lot further than that. They were very well
established when my father got the manual for his 1958 Wolseley 6/90,
which described the Borg Warner automatic gearbox and torque converter
that was available for that model. They would have been used since
automatic gearboxes became available on UK manufactured vehicles.
--
Scanned by iCritical.
> A great auto will beat a manual in some things, there aren't many
great
> automatics however.
Maybe the American manufacturing system is slipping then ... ;)))
It doesn't take a great auto to keep up with a manual.
Back when the Mk 2 Jaguar was a standard production car still in
production, a car magazine in the UK did a test with a racing driver who
track raced a Mk2 Jag for a living, and a blonde bombshell model (I
think she was the Miss UK of the time) who could be regarded as the sort
of person least able to drive a car in a performance manner. In a
standing start drag race using two otherwise identical Mk2 Jags, the
manual with the racing driver did win, by a bare car length over the
auto shift where the ditzy chick 'just floored the throttle and kept it
straight' ... Unfortunately I cannot remember the distance involved, but
it was probably a 1/4 mile or a disused airport runway (we had a lot of
those in the UK about then for some strange reason ... many of them are
the racetracks of today).
--
Scanned by iCritical.
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:11:45 +0100, alan.b.pearce said:
> > 2: Since probably the early 1990's, there have been torque converter
> > clutches.
>
> Oh, they go back a lot further than that. They were very well
> established when my father got the manual for his 1958 Wolseley 6/90,
> which described the Borg Warner automatic gearbox and torque converter
> that was available for that model. They would have been used since
> automatic gearboxes became available on UK manufactured vehicles.
I don't think you are both talking about the same thing. A torque
converter clutch is a friction clutch inside the torque converter that
locks the input and output together in order to defeat the torque
converter and get a direct drive.
> > > 2: Since probably the early 1990's, there have been torque
converter
> > > clutches.
> >
> > Oh, they go back a lot further than that. They were very well
> > established when my father got the manual for his 1958 Wolseley
6/90,
> > which described the Borg Warner automatic gearbox and torque
converter
> > that was available for that model. They would have been used since
> > automatic gearboxes became available on UK manufactured vehicles.
>
> I don't think you are both talking about the same thing. A torque
> converter clutch is a friction clutch inside the torque converter that
> locks the input and output together in order to defeat the torque
> converter and get a direct drive.
>
> Cheerful regards,
The 1958 Wolseley had exactly that, and it only engaged when in top
gear, giving direct drive from the gearbox input shaft to the gearbox
output shaft. It was a three speed plus reverse box. AFAIK this was
standard on all Borg Warner auto boxes. The only ones not using a torque
converter back then AFAIK was Mercedes Benz, who used a fluid clutch
with a four speed box, but I had no knowledge of American mechanicals
back then.
--
Scanned by iCritical.
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:37:29 +0100, alan.b.pearce said:
> The 1958 Wolseley had exactly that, and it only engaged when in top
> gear, giving direct drive from the gearbox input shaft to the gearbox
> output shaft. It was a three speed plus reverse box. AFAIK this was
> standard on all Borg Warner auto boxes. The only ones not using a torque
> converter back then AFAIK was Mercedes Benz, who used a fluid clutch
> with a four speed box, but I had no knowledge of American mechanicals
> back then.
Cool! I stand corrected. No, I don't know of any older American cars
with that feature, and "back in the day" I rebuilt a few automatics, and
they all copied each other.
On 17/07/10 22:38, Carl Denk wrote:
> The vehicle is underpowered, and as soon as it shifts out of overdrive,
> the gas mileage goes to poor. Lot's of vehicles today come with some
> sort of 4wd, you don't say which one and which powertrain
>
Actually it has more than enough power, the engine is fine, the problem
is the gearbox.
Its a ford escape,109kw and 200Nm. Up the same hill in my 1985 telstar
which had nominally 77Hp when new (and now substantially less), a single
downshift is sufficient to make it up the same hill without too much
difficulty.
I spose if you tweaked its shift on engine power set points it'd be ok,
such that you could give it more than half throttle without it downshifting.
Part of the problem is the delay it has when causes you to give it more
to keep the speed up, leading to an overreaction.
> (engine/transmission). One of the fallacies is that big engines don't
> get good gas mileage. The big engine will stay loafing at low RPM in
> overdrive up and down the hills where it can get excellent mileage. A
> plus is the performance is be able to get around those low powered
> vehicles going up the hills when they are well below the speed limit,
>
This quite happily sits above the "advised" speed limit going up hills,
once it gets its act togther.
> and there is a short passing zone. The Bronco with a 351 C.I.D. (5.8L)
> SEFI V-8 which cruises at 65 mph @ 1700 RPM, weighs 5300 lbs. empty
> normally gets 18 mpg @ 75- 80 mph, and has seen 24 mpg on a 700 mile
> trip. This is a vehicle that will do 0 -60 in 9 seconds, and the
> computer limits it to 106 mph, but it gets there quickly. The Cougar
> with a Cleveland 2.5L Duratec 24V DOHC is a high revving (6500 rpm
> redline) engine, but with it's power also, rarely near that rpm. It
> gets 30+ mpg in the 75 -80 mph range. It also is around 0- 60 9 second,
> and we don't know what top is, it's been several times to 110 mph easily.
>
I drive a 4L straight 6 (manual), It goes up the same hill in top gear
without breaking a sweat.
If we do get stuck behind traffic I have do downshift because the engine
drops out the bottom of the powerband.
It gets ~10L to the 100km, and that seems about the same as all the
newer large cars newer models seem to get around 7.
A festiva with a 1.6L engine and 88Kw gets 3.2L /100km.
So there is something to be said for the smaller engine cars.
larger engines will always suffer on pumping losses.
>> A great auto will beat a manual in some things, there aren't many
>>
> great
>
>> automatics however.
>>
> Maybe the American manufacturing system is slipping then ... ;)))
>
> It doesn't take a great auto to keep up with a manual.
>
> Back when the Mk 2 Jaguar was a standard production car still in
> production, a car magazine in the UK did a test with a racing driver who
> track raced a Mk2 Jag for a living, and a blonde bombshell model (I
> think she was the Miss UK of the time) who could be regarded as the sort
> of person least able to drive a car in a performance manner. In a
> standing start drag race using two otherwise identical Mk2 Jags, the
> manual with the racing driver did win, by a bare car length over the
> auto shift where the ditzy chick 'just floored the throttle and kept it
> straight' ... Unfortunately I cannot remember the distance involved, but
> it was probably a 1/4 mile or a disused airport runway (we had a lot of
> those in the UK about then for some strange reason ... many of them are
> the racetracks of today).
>
A straight drag is pretty much the best case for an auto, they know how
to behave in that situation, foot on floor = shift on redline.
Its the car starting to go up a hill downshift, wait as a result of that
downshift we are now going slower, shiFT AGAIN!, OH CRAP REDLINE!! SHIFT
AGAIN AAAHHHHHH!.
ahem
Replace "hill" with, your choice of "grade" "learner driver overtake"
"tidal force of the moon".
I've had the same problem in automatic models of the car I usually
drive, I spose its the inability to double downshift when you floor it
(5th to 3rd on the highway say), and a lack of willingness to run at
over half throttle without downshifting that throws me off and stops me
from seeing its benefits in stop start traffic, although sometimes in my
manual I really do wish for the auto (well my left knee does anyway).
btech-online.co.uk on 16/07/2010
