logiclee

Mycroft,

How old are you?

An autobox on a big heavy cruiser, I hope I'm getting my pension first. LOL

Lee

Mycroft

Bit personal ain't we...

37, if must know... been driving Auto's with Turbos' since late 80's... as I see it, to drive a manual one only needs a well co-ordinated monkey... to drive an Auto fast needs a bit of intelligence... you can be a dope and buy an Auto and sit there like an old fart or you can buy an Auto and think about what it does and how you can make use of that 'function', by doing that you elevate yourself from the status of a monkey to the level of a smart Human.

Mycroft

Of course... all the time you're a monkey... you can't see that... can you!

chrisp

Sorry I hate auto boxes , they are slow to react, change up when you dont want them to, have to force them to kick down. Guy I know in the states has a 4.0 litre SC400 and yes it went well enough but the auto box seem to really hold it back and get in the way. They should be outlawed in any performance car . Not to keen on those paddle shift jobbies either, give me a stick shift any day of the week and make me feel like I driving the car rather than it driving me .

logiclee

I tend to change my car every year and my current car isn't a manual with clutch so am I not a monkey then?

Its not an Auto either because I dont like slush boxes. Driven loads, liked very few.

I currently have one of those paddle shift manual sequential jobbies that everyone hates but I love, they need to be learnt as well, you'd never like one on a test drive. Market for everyone you see.

Lee

Mycroft

As I said.. the type of gearbox is 'self-selecting'...

Have you actually driven the thing you speak of?... you see the 'problems' you speak of are not inherent in the modern Auto'box and are really the fault of the driver.

Mycroft

Paddles do take some getting used to... I am not sure they are as 'good' as a standard Auto'box... but it also depends greatly on the ergonomics... the SMG box is a good case in point (I think you may have that sort of box) the ergonomics are very good on that car... my lasty drive in one of those dreadful M3s' was ruined by the leering hatred and general discourtesy shown by other drivers, driving a BMW is like being a blind leper who is unaware of his disease... people keep their distance... not out of respect but in disgust... a great shame that such a well thought out car is like excrement... attracts all the low things to buzz around it.

chrisp

How come that an auto boxed car is always slower than a manual ?

How does an auto affect drivetrain losses ?

Mycroft

Auto'boxes are tested usually with a simple foot to the floor test.. no 2 pedal trickery...

Auto's come as standard with a low stall speed... on my car as standard that is just 2200rpm... yet mid 6's are possible... now to make sense of that you try to get the best start you can by limiting your launch revs to 2200rpm... you will be as slow as fvck right?

So that is why...

In simple terms using single foot and flattening the throttle mean a mid six...
Add some power and 6 is easy.
Two pedal stuff and 5secs

Now up the stall to 3000rpm and the standard car will do a high 5!!
do all the rest as on mine and the car will leave the manual behind now matter how good the monkey driving it is... and I can do this all the time everytime...

Mycroft

Additionally the Auto'box is designed to slip... slip is a disaster on a rolling road... they always show badly... even when 'locked' as the idea is to divert power to the first band...

So if you have understood my previous post think on this... on a R/R the slower car with the stall rate of 2200rpm will show a better power graph than the much faster car with the 3000rpm stall rate...

I told you... Monkeys vs Humans... hahahaha

camk

I've got a C4 Tiptronic 996, its neither slushy or slow.... I can have it in manual mode where I do all the changes or in auto mode where it decides. It doesn't change up in corners as it detects the wheel position and its great round town. You can override the manual at anytime bu using the tip buttons on the wheel. It changes its gear changes depending on how your driving, a few minutes of fast driving through the bends and it lets the revs climb to 7k before changing up. I believe its also faster to 100 than the 6 speed manual but with lower top speed(however I have seen a C4 Tip indicating 294 KMPH (not mine)) so I'm not sure how much more you need . It take a abit of getting used to but honestly IMHO(based on true experience, not just dated opinion) its very very good.

Cammy

Mycroft

The problem is often that people only see a saloon car with an Auto, usually driven by an uncle with a gammy leg... they are great for that but put a good auto in a good car and the monkey is left behind... I have not driven a C4 Tip.. but only a C2... the C2 was much nicer to throw around as you have a real chance to set her up and locate her... x-country the Tip is the way better more fun car...

Mycroft

ALL standard Auto'boxes are sold with a low stall hydro-couple... it costs very little to change it... the effect is dramatic but you do need an additional oil cooler for the box...

The ford box is set for 1600rpm... that is awful... when the road test are done and they do a 0-60 the manual will be revved up to 4k+ to get a real charge off the line... imagine the time if you could only drop the clutch at 1600rpm max...

chrisp

Surely if you modify the stall then the car will stall if you dont give it enough revs. I prefer to be able to pull away at 1,200 revs in traffic or more if the mood takes me ie its upto me . If there is no cons why dont manufacturers set there stall at the redline or 5000rpm say and then you can choose what revs you want. There has to be a downside and I feel there is something not being said .

So summary, lets ask a couple of easy questions :

By increasing the stall to say 4000rpm what affect does it have on the drivability of the car, in traffic and a fast launch?

What impact on the gearbox life/transmission would increasing the stall to 4000rpm ?


[Edited by chrisp - 4/5/2003 6:46:41 PM]

logiclee

Does it mean the car won't move until there is 4000rpm dialed in?

MooseRacer

So, are you a troll, or just a ****?

MooseRacer

Mycroft - I've found your comments offensive throughout this thread as you seem unable to put across your point of view without resorting to insults.

I don't like Soarers, but I didn't feel the need to generalise their owners as fat, middle aged wasters who can't afford a decent car.

So I'll leave it at that because that was humourous, no offence like.

Mycroft

Moosey baby.., anyone who reads the whole thread will see that you started throwing the insults which culminated in you calling me a ****... a cvnt by another name... that is far more offensive than the mild re-buffs from me... I would ban anyone for first use of **** on any forum because of its meaning... but I suppose calling someone a **** is less offensive than being called an idiot... to you.

Could be right though... because I am not a **** but you sir are an idiot. So perhaps in this case idiot is more offensive because it is true.


[Edited by Mycroft - 4/6/2003 8:22:32 PM]

MooseRacer

Funny - I remember asking you to explain your points without recourse to childish insults back on page 2, but you didn't take any notice of that then, so I suppose I can hardly expect you to remember it now.

I find it a shame that you seemed unable to articulate your point without recourse to cheap, inaccurate sarcasm directed towards those with different views to your own.

Perhaps you would rather I had responded in the same vein - calling your choice of car a 'toy', or a 'novelty' but I see no need for those sort of childish posts.

I call a spade a spade, and when you continued posting in the same vein I felt there could only be 2 possible reasons behind such needlessly inflamatory posts.

If that makes be an idiot in your eyes then I guess I'll live with it. Maybe you are a troll after all.

Mycroft

ME ###VTEC is a great 'novelty' and needed to get through the emissions controls#

YOU###Whats that about emissions? Apart from complete rubbish? ###

ME###Emissions... you know a lot about noxious emissions I'm sure###

YOU###Without resorting to rather childish half insults###

ME###I'll cut you a deal little man... I will if you will....

YOU###tempted to say whats all this little man you ****** , but ok then.###

So all was fine then.. for over a page... mild re-buff and truce called... nothing... then on PAGE4

YOU###So, are you a troll, or just a ****?###

ME###Neither... I am humourous... lost on you though..., and I'm not politically correct... but I (and many others) do find '****' and words like that very offensive indeed... so were even aren't we... you spout un-intelligent insults and I will insult your intelligence. (or what 'passes' for it)

Idiot!

YOU###Mycroft - I've found your comments offensive throughout this thread as you seem unable to put across your point of view without resorting to insults.

I don't like Soarers, but I didn't feel the need to generalise their owners as fat, middle aged wasters who can't afford a decent car.

ME###as above...

Now on 2 occasions you have tried to have a pop...

Mycroft

How about you telling me another reason to spend millions developing such a system other than for purposes of legislation... cars are a business...


My omission of this:-
###'a good car for the Missus to go shopping in... their reluctance to rev it into the hot band makes it safe for the little dears... the same goes for the hairdresser/mime artist/feng-shue consultant/yoga coach/starfish-reamers that normally drive them... '
-:was so as NOT to highlight your lack of a sense of humour... but let's add that to the list as well then!...

You are a rude, HUMOURLESS, trouble maker with a crap memory... got it all now I think!





[Edited by Mycroft - 4/6/2003 10:10:38 PM]

Dracoro

'How about you telling me another reason to spend millions developing such a system other than for purposes of legislation'

What are you on about? Many manufacturers spend loads developing technology that has nothing to do with legislation. They only have to fit in with legislation at the time (and ALL manufacturers have to spend money do this).

You are correct in saying that they are a business however.

Honda have a reputation of building very durable, strong, efficient, economical and high performance engines without going for the 'easy/lazy' option of forced induction or raising capacity. It's this reputation that marks them out and gives them a market space. If they just did what everyone else did then they'd be just like everyone else and that would result in less sales (thus less money). Honda's reputation for engines is legendary and this means high sales + more money. The legislation issue is merely a fortunate by-product of the engine development, which they will no doubt capitalise and build on now that such legislation is in place (as all the manufacturers are having to do!).

Mycroft

All developement from a major manufacturer is geared to comply with upcoming legislation... altruism is not there... like it or not... there are hard nosed bean counters behind each and every decision... Hondas' VTEC started life as a way to gain efficiency for upcoming legislation regarding fuel and emissions... no other reason... the research is a direct offshoot of their work with Yamaha to develope a lean burn motor... they were in competition with Mitsubishi/Ford... Mitsu went for Direct injection and Honda went for VV technology... as a way of developing a stratified charge design... using different valves and tracts for injecting the fuel is an excellent way to get that stratified charge...

Honda/Yamaha have for a long time been World leaders in Engine design.

The 1966 Honda F1 car had the superb Yamaha induction and exhaust system that was the originator of the modern racing car... but even that was a hardheaded decision...

MooseRacer

So, with the greatest of respect Mycroft, it's purely your opinion?

Dracoro

I think we have illustrated the various techniques of power delivery and how they are different for driving. As you say logiclee, hopefully Deep Singh questions have been answered.

Which you prefer is down to personal preference. Personally, at the moment, I like the racecar for the road feel which the S2000 gives me. I'll will probably go for a big torque monster in 5/10 years time. I like to try different things (as long as it's fast & fun )

[Edited by Dracoro - 4/5/2003 12:37:07 PM]

logiclee

I tend to drive using a mixture of steering wheel shifting and the joystick shift (In place of normal gear lever) om my Sequential manual gearbox.

I've been driving it that long it has become natural so I dont have to "think" anymore how and when to change.

I had a 530d for a few days a couple of months back, the thing is supposed to have an intelligent 5 speed Auto. It wound me up something rotten. If I took it steady then wanted a play the thing would slur itself through the gears and buy the time it had "Adapted" to a more sporty program I wanted to take things easier and the box was hanging onto gears.
Not as bad as the Old 3 and 4 speed vacuum change boxes of Ford Granada school but still not good enough for me to want one.

Also had a drive in the new Ford 5 speed Mondeo Auto (Jaguar sourced) at their launch. Its only fitted to the 2.5V6 and TDCi at the moment. The V6 you would buy for the power but the Auto robs 2 seconds of the 0-60, the TDCi you would buy for the economy but the Auto robs 10mpg from the combined figure. Ford also want £1500 extra. But there must be a market.

Lee

[Edited by logiclee - 4/5/2003 6:11:31 PM]

Mycroft

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For me it is a great track toy (mostly 'cos it is more comfy than an elise etc) and a good car for the Missus to go shopping in... their reluctance to rev it into the hot band makes it safe for the little dears... the same goes for the hairdresser/mime artist/feng-shue consultant/yoga coach/starfish-reamers that normally drive them... (no offence like)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, are you a troll, or just a ****?


Neither... I am humourous... lost on you though..., and I'm not politically correct... but I (and many others) do find '****' and words like that very offensive indeed... so were even aren't we... you spout un-intelligent insults and I will insult your intelligence. (or what 'passes' for it)

Idiot!

Chris, a lot of questions... I'll cover them 'loosley' then if you need more I'll give a bit more detail...

###Surely if you modify the stall then the car will stall if you dont give it enough revs. I prefer to be able to pull away at 1,200 revs in traffic or more if the mood takes me ie its upto me.###
No, you can't stall an Auto... stall in this sense is to do with the operation of the fluid-couple and it relates to the amount of power the fluid couple takes before setting off... you can take off in an Auto at any speed upto that dictated by the stall rate.


###If there is no cons why dont manufacturers set there stall at the redline or 5000rpm say and then you can choose what revs you want. There has to be a downside and I feel there is something not being said.###
Huge problems with upping the stall too much... the Auto'box Supras and Soarer dragsters that hit quarters in 8+secs use boxes with a 4000rpm stall... the problem is the torque doubling facility of the fluid couple.. so if you peak torque at 4000rpm and have (say) 400ft/lbs with a fluid couple you would with a 4000rpm stall rate get 800ft/lbs immediately and only just prior to the change up would you return to 400ft/lb... on the change up then again you would get 800ft/lbs again.

###What impact on the gearbox life/transmission would increasing the stall to 4000rpm ?###

Heat... and a damned lot of it... and drive ability... a 4000rpm stall 'box is not at all nice to drive on the road, it is like having full tilt starts at every take off... very fierce... you need a highish stall rate with a slightly larger diameter fluid-couple to get the best out of the 'box...






[Edited by Mycroft - 4/6/2003 8:28:39 AM]

Mycroft

Shall we call another 'truce' for you to ignore or do you want me to humiliate you further?

Personally I would prefer to return to the Torque debate as it is more interesting...

Over to you...

[Edited by Mycroft - 4/6/2003 8:50:04 PM]

MooseRacer

I'm almost too humiliated to reply

Ok, can you provide me with some evidence to backup your claim that VTEC was developed to comply with emissions standards introduced over 10 years later?


Oh, and in your really accurate catalogue of events you forgot to put the bit in where you said 'a good car for the Missus to go shopping in... their reluctance to rev it into the hot band makes it safe for the little dears... the same goes for the hairdresser/mime artist/feng-shue consultant/yoga coach/starfish-reamers that normally drive them... '

[Edited by MooseRacer - 4/6/2003 9:42:49 PM]