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.:D


[Edited by Mycroft - 5/4/2003 2:37:05 AM]

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 balls 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]

###
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.
###
:D

[Edited by Little Miss WRX - 5/4/2003 4:16:35 AM]

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? :rolleyes:

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]

Look what happens when I'm away! :eek:

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]

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]

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 :D

[Edited by Mycroft - 5/4/2003 12:55:19 PM]

I don't see any "proof"...?



So Mycroft, why DO race teams favour sequential/manual systems...?

[Edited by Pepper - 5/4/2003 1:00:24 PM]

Moose, stop talking to the deceased... do you see dead people?...hahaha:D

[Edited by Mycroft - 5/4/2003 1:13:19 PM]

Mycroft,

I didnt get that torque converter thing making more than what's available :confused: How is that?

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...

:D

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]

Then why dont you get the fück out of here?! You're starting to pïss me off now with your constant BS!

Bloody hell can’t you two just ignore each others posts for god sake.

Yeah, but the logic guy said that even 1000 rpms higher you either have the same torque or less, assuming you are already above peak torque. :confused:

So are you saying it shifts down?

Yeah :D

... and I'm thick :D

Could you give me a URL to a popularised explanation?

No, he doesnt pïss everybody off; if you go back to the other threads, you will see people showing interest in his car and asking questions about it.

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!

I think you'll find that I'm not the only one who thinks/says all of those things....

Claudius... this is a good start...

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/torque-converter3.htm

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.
###

You wont believe it, but I almost added "dont point me to howstuffwork.com", I'm thick, but not THAT thick! :D :D LOL

Whoops:)... I'll have scout around tomorrow, I'll E-mail you... I really have no desire to be on Scooby-net any more... there is no point in posting here.

Do you have a lockup clutch?

I agree about posting here, a shame really :(

Later

Claudius

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]

Pepper, enough is enough! Please post only constructive, relevant replies to topic titles and deal with your personal gripe elsewhere and not on ScoobyNet!

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.

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.....:rolleyes:

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... :D

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... :D
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.

:D

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... :D

This it seems will be far from my last post on this... :D

Please excuse my naivity / stupidity, but would CVT be better than an auto in terms of performance?

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. :confused:

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