Soarer cont'd from page 20 (12+8)
05 March 2003, 11:26 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Cem,
Been playing with the 'mice' around here for a few days now, Pepper snuffed it a while back now... I miss him... there is always something endearing about idiots, don't you think?
In a sort of lame puppy-dog way... aaaaaahhhhh.
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/4/2003 2:37:05 AM]
Been playing with the 'mice' around here for a few days now, Pepper snuffed it a while back now... I miss him... there is always something endearing about idiots, don't you think?
In a sort of lame puppy-dog way... aaaaaahhhhh.
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/4/2003 2:37:05 AM]
05 March 2003, 11:58 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trollhunter.
I am also a big fan of Auto's I have owned four and had my first one 15 years ago when I was 18, the very early 3 speed vacuum box in a 2.3 V6 Cortina 
Since then I have had a four speed vacuum box, a four speed semi-electronic box (Scorpio 2.9 3rd, 4th and TC lock controlled by ECU) and a 5 Speed fully electronic auto.
I get to drive a variety at work and I borrow my wifes uncles big auto estate when I want to move stuff. He used to have a BMW 530d with the adaptive 5 speed box, didn't rate it to be honest. He now has a Merc 320cdi which has a lot better box.
I have owned 22 cars with 4 autos and 1 SMG
I agree you can catch a lot of manuals unaware as you kick down and fly by. It doesn't mean the car you are driving is faster than theirs though.
You can't alter the fact that a ***** out manual, hp for hp will be quicker than an auto with torque converter.
The Diablo comes in many forms RWD, 4WD, GT, SV, VT etc. and different power outputs from just short of 500bhp to nearly 580bhp. Weights range from around 1600 to 1750kg depending on spec.
Lee
[Edited by logiclee - 5/4/2003 12:05:07 AM]
i am a fan of the autobox WHEN modded in a performance fashion , you dont have to be on the ball all the time etc and it seems to work really well with the turbos , whats the weight of a diablo ????
Since then I have had a four speed vacuum box, a four speed semi-electronic box (Scorpio 2.9 3rd, 4th and TC lock controlled by ECU) and a 5 Speed fully electronic auto.I get to drive a variety at work and I borrow my wifes uncles big auto estate when I want to move stuff. He used to have a BMW 530d with the adaptive 5 speed box, didn't rate it to be honest. He now has a Merc 320cdi which has a lot better box.
I have owned 22 cars with 4 autos and 1 SMG
I agree you can catch a lot of manuals unaware as you kick down and fly by. It doesn't mean the car you are driving is faster than theirs though.
You can't alter the fact that a ***** out manual, hp for hp will be quicker than an auto with torque converter.
The Diablo comes in many forms RWD, 4WD, GT, SV, VT etc. and different power outputs from just short of 500bhp to nearly 580bhp. Weights range from around 1600 to 1750kg depending on spec.
Lee
[Edited by logiclee - 5/4/2003 12:05:07 AM]
04 April 2003, 11:00 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
###
The Diablo comes in many forms RWD, 4WD, GT, SV, VT etc. and different power outputs from just short of 500bhp to nearly 580bhp. Weights range from around 1600 to 1750kg depending on spec.
###
[Edited by Little Miss WRX - 5/4/2003 4:16:35 AM]
The Diablo comes in many forms RWD, 4WD, GT, SV, VT etc. and different power outputs from just short of 500bhp to nearly 580bhp. Weights range from around 1600 to 1750kg depending on spec.
###
[Edited by Little Miss WRX - 5/4/2003 4:16:35 AM]
04 April 2003, 11:50 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ooooh I missed this bit of wisdom, sorry.
Most WRC cars use 6 gears, the Peugeot 206 has mainly used only 5 ratios. At which point are they not as efficient as an auto? During the 75 to 100milliseconds it takes them to change gear I suppose? 
At least we do agree that a good set of manual ratio's keep the engine in its optimal power band and without any Torque Converter losses.
Lee
[Edited by logiclee - 5/4/2003 12:54:19 AM]
The object of a 7spd seq box is to try to make the box as efficient as possible, the revs are in the optimum band for as much time as possible and the change time is minimal... yet it is a fact that still at times these boxes are not as efficient as an auto'box.
At least we do agree that a good set of manual ratio's keep the engine in its optimal power band and without any Torque Converter losses.
Lee
[Edited by logiclee - 5/4/2003 12:54:19 AM]
05 April 2003, 08:12 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sodding Chipbury
Posts: 2,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look what happens when I'm away! 
MyCroft I take it you're unwilling to divulge your (complete) power and torque figures/spread?
These may help my naive,stupid - whatever - mind come somewhere close to believing a 30-70mph time of 3.1secs although it is so impressive that seeing it with my own eyes would be the only way to convince me for sure. Guess I'll stay a non-believer then, not in an aggresive way, just an uncomprehending one!
BTW, can you produce the above 30-70 acceleration time, and then continue on to hit a 170+mph top speed without making any changes, without stopping etc?
Claudius, you mean the world isn't a disc?
[Edited by MooseRacer - 5/4/2003 9:13:55 AM]
MyCroft I take it you're unwilling to divulge your (complete) power and torque figures/spread?
These may help my naive,stupid - whatever - mind come somewhere close to believing a 30-70mph time of 3.1secs although it is so impressive that seeing it with my own eyes would be the only way to convince me for sure. Guess I'll stay a non-believer then, not in an aggresive way, just an uncomprehending one!
BTW, can you produce the above 30-70 acceleration time, and then continue on to hit a 170+mph top speed without making any changes, without stopping etc?
Claudius, you mean the world isn't a disc?
[Edited by MooseRacer - 5/4/2003 9:13:55 AM]
05 April 2003, 09:42 AM
#36
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found this on HowStuffWorks - I know its pretty basic, but its at my level:
Is that right then - do seq. boxes actually shift quicker than autos?
[Edited by Pepper - 5/4/2003 10:44:12 AM]
Nearly all race transmissions use the sequential shift approach.
Because of the advantages of the sequential approach, this type of transmission is starting to appear on cars in the high-end tuner market. A sequential manual transmission is not to be confused with a "tiptronic" sort of automatic transmission. The tiptronic system may duplicate the shift lever motion of a sequential gearbox. However, because a tiptronic transmission is an automatic transmission at its core, it still has the torque converter and usually does not shift as quickly
[Edited by Pepper - 5/4/2003 10:44:12 AM]
05 April 2003, 11:53 AM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHOA... BIG SWERVE...
We are dicussing MY car vs Lambo, which you said can't do the things I have proven here 'cos Auto'boxes can't compete...
-----------------
###
Thankyou......
its finally sunk in.
###
That is only thing you have got 'right' is that bit and I TOLD YOU FFS
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/4/2003 12:55:19 PM]
We are dicussing MY car vs Lambo, which you said can't do the things I have proven here 'cos Auto'boxes can't compete...
-----------------
###
Thankyou......
its finally sunk in.
###
That is only thing you have got 'right' is that bit and I TOLD YOU FFS
[Edited by Mycroft - 5/4/2003 12:55:19 PM]
05 April 2003, 11:59 AM
#38
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...the things I have proven here...
So Mycroft, why DO race teams favour sequential/manual systems...?
[Edited by Pepper - 5/4/2003 1:00:24 PM]
02 May 2003, 12:06 AM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is why it is called a 'Torque convertor' it allows you to use revs as a torque multiplier... just like stepping down a gear on a bike... but you do it with fluid and the limit is usually about 1.6:1
It isn't that hard to grasp really... but I am crap at explaining to non-engineers [as I am constantly told] so it would better all round if I keep out of this now...
It isn't that hard to grasp really... but I am crap at explaining to non-engineers [as I am constantly told] so it would better all round if I keep out of this now...
02 May 2003, 12:38 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mycroft, - I can't be bothered to argue about technical things with you
Got that link to the "MEF" forum or whatever it is?
[Edited by Little Miss WRX - 5/2/2003 10:00:14 AM]
Got that link to the "MEF" forum or whatever it is?
[Edited by Little Miss WRX - 5/2/2003 10:00:14 AM]
02 May 2003, 12:52 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is why it is called a 'Torque convertor' it allows you to use revs as a torque multiplier...
just like stepping down a gear on a bike... but you do it with fluid and the limit is usually about 1.6:1
It isn't that hard to grasp really... but I am crap at explaining to non-engineers
... and I'm thick
Could you give me a URL to a popularised explanation?
02 May 2003, 12:55 AM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just like Liecroft does to everyone else!
In fact, the only person that is pïssed off with him is you, for some reason I ignore and dont want to know. Your every reply is the same: liecroft, BS, wt@t etc. It's enough now! We got your point. We really did. Give up!
02 May 2003, 01:05 AM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This caught my eye...
###
In addition to the very important job of allowing your car come to a complete stop without stalling the engine, the torque converter actually gives your car more torque when you accelerate out of a stop. Modern torque converters can multiply the torque of the engine by two to three times. This effect only happens when the engine is turning much faster than the transmission.
###
###
In addition to the very important job of allowing your car come to a complete stop without stalling the engine, the torque converter actually gives your car more torque when you accelerate out of a stop. Modern torque converters can multiply the torque of the engine by two to three times. This effect only happens when the engine is turning much faster than the transmission.
###
02 May 2003, 01:10 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Claudius... this is a good start...
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/torque-converter3.htm
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/torque-converter3.htm
LOL
02 May 2003, 04:36 AM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is 100% my last post.
Yes they do but thats from tickover in relation to the torque produced when revs increase. Torque at tickover is very low, by increasing the revs in relation to the gearbox at standstill you increase the torque vastly. In a manual if you rev to 2500rpm then drop the clutch you have multilplied torque just the same.
Example.....
Engine "A" produces a 150lbft of torque between 2500 and 5500rpm. At tickover 850rpm it only produces 50lbft. It the torque convertor increases the revs to 2500rpm when pulling off it has "Multiplied" the tickover torque by a factor of 3. Its doing the job that a driver of a manual would do with the clutch when pulling away. It has not suddenly made the engine into 450lbft monster.
Higher up the rev range it doesn't matter, revving at 4500 instead of 3000rpm will hardly make any difference and on most engines none at all as we have proven earlier.
Whats all this about pushbikes. You are not altering the gear ratio, the gearbox is in the same gear simple. All the torque convertor is doing is increasing revs in relation to the input shaft of the gearbox. As we have shown that makes little to no difference to available torque and then we consider losses of the torque convertor......
Anyway I'm off to work. Must let all my staff know not to listen to me as I haven't a clue about such things.
Lee
Edited to add example.
[Edited by logiclee - 5/2/2003 5:39:25 AM]
the torque converter actually gives your car more torque when you accelerate out of a stop. Modern torque converters can multiply the torque of the engine by two to three times
Example.....
Engine "A" produces a 150lbft of torque between 2500 and 5500rpm. At tickover 850rpm it only produces 50lbft. It the torque convertor increases the revs to 2500rpm when pulling off it has "Multiplied" the tickover torque by a factor of 3. Its doing the job that a driver of a manual would do with the clutch when pulling away. It has not suddenly made the engine into 450lbft monster.
Higher up the rev range it doesn't matter, revving at 4500 instead of 3000rpm will hardly make any difference and on most engines none at all as we have proven earlier.
Whats all this about pushbikes. You are not altering the gear ratio, the gearbox is in the same gear simple. All the torque convertor is doing is increasing revs in relation to the input shaft of the gearbox. As we have shown that makes little to no difference to available torque and then we consider losses of the torque convertor......
Anyway I'm off to work. Must let all my staff know not to listen to me as I haven't a clue about such things.
Lee
Edited to add example.
[Edited by logiclee - 5/2/2003 5:39:25 AM]
02 May 2003, 07:59 AM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lee - there's no point mate.
Mycroft ~ please feel free to read THIS to understand the relationship of torque / power / gearing.
As Lee has pointed out, unless you are changing the gearing (like you would if the box actually kicked down) there's no multiplication of torque ~ you're simply moving the engine to a point in the rev range where torque is maximised (which isn't at high rpm in a TT car by the way )
If you were correct, everyone would slip the clutch in their manual cars to get increased performance. They don't.
Mycroft ~ please feel free to read THIS to understand the relationship of torque / power / gearing.
As Lee has pointed out, unless you are changing the gearing (like you would if the box actually kicked down) there's no multiplication of torque ~ you're simply moving the engine to a point in the rev range where torque is maximised (which isn't at high rpm in a TT car by the way
)If you were correct, everyone would slip the clutch in their manual cars to get increased performance. They don't.
02 May 2003, 08:14 AM
#56
Scooby Regular
Keep the conversation going people, i have to say that it's one of the most informative threads even in SN.
I am an automotive engineering student(3rd year) and i have found this thread very nice to read.
Pepper, go play with your Playstation.....
I am an automotive engineering student(3rd year) and i have found this thread very nice to read.
Pepper, go play with your Playstation.....
02 May 2003, 08:41 AM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Logiclee
I suggest you read your 'nightschool' notes again... you are wrong in almost every aspect of your post... again
Your 'example' is wrong and is shockingly ill-thought out, I will return to this later today, and show how wrong you really are...
Fluid couples don't just work at take off, they work all the time and the increased revs do mean that gearing occurs across the Foettinger...
Mik
###
As Lee has pointed out, unless you are changing the gearing (like you would if the box actually kicked down) there's no multiplication of torque
###
The Foettinger does precisely that, it is form of gearing using fluid and vanes to change the ratio...
Come on guys this is basic stuff... fluid dynamics at its lowest level almost...
###
If you were correct, everyone would slip the clutch in their manual cars to get increased performance. They don't.
###
Not necessarily... wear is a factor... so that is wrong headed... but torque multiplication does occur across the clatch faces... simple mechanical principles again... it is however far less efficient at this than a Foettinger.
I think I will try to find some of the simple fluid dynamics calcs that Foettinger himself used to show what I have described you have failed to grasp...
This it seems will be far from my last post on this...
I suggest you read your 'nightschool' notes again... you are wrong in almost every aspect of your post... again
Your 'example' is wrong and is shockingly ill-thought out, I will return to this later today, and show how wrong you really are...
Fluid couples don't just work at take off, they work all the time and the increased revs do mean that gearing occurs across the Foettinger...
Mik
###
As Lee has pointed out, unless you are changing the gearing (like you would if the box actually kicked down) there's no multiplication of torque
###
The Foettinger does precisely that, it is form of gearing using fluid and vanes to change the ratio...
Come on guys this is basic stuff... fluid dynamics at its lowest level almost...
###
If you were correct, everyone would slip the clutch in their manual cars to get increased performance. They don't.
###
Not necessarily... wear is a factor... so that is wrong headed... but torque multiplication does occur across the clatch faces... simple mechanical principles again... it is however far less efficient at this than a Foettinger.
I think I will try to find some of the simple fluid dynamics calcs that Foettinger himself used to show what I have described you have failed to grasp...
This it seems will be far from my last post on this...
02 May 2003, 08:51 AM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So this (your torque convertor) is basically a gearing modifier? Like a CVT box?
In which case it's multiplying your torque in the same way that kickdown would. Or changing down in a manual box.
Which means you're still restricted by torque / power / gearing..... you don't have a magice torque multiplier, you're just changing down a ratio.
In which case it's multiplying your torque in the same way that kickdown would. Or changing down in a manual box.
Which means you're still restricted by torque / power / gearing..... you don't have a magice torque multiplier, you're just changing down a ratio.
02 May 2003, 09:20 AM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, no, no, no,no!!!!!
The torque convertor alters the ratio between the engine and the input shaft of the gearbox .
It does not alter the gear ratio of torque delivery to the wheels. Only the gearbox can do that be it manual auto or cvt.
The same torque will still be transmitted to the wheels whatever the engine to input shaft ratio is as long as engine torque is near constant (As it is on most modern engines at speeds above about 3000rpm).
6 years at Uni mate not night school.
Lee
The torque convertor alters the ratio between the engine and the input shaft of the gearbox .
It does not alter the gear ratio of torque delivery to the wheels. Only the gearbox can do that be it manual auto or cvt.
The same torque will still be transmitted to the wheels whatever the engine to input shaft ratio is as long as engine torque is near constant (As it is on most modern engines at speeds above about 3000rpm).
6 years at Uni mate not night school.
Lee