On Friday, 17 November 2023 at 23:08:53 UTC+11, Daryl wrote:
> On 17/11/2023 8:48 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 19:22:48 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
> >> On 15/11/2023 5:04 am, Noddy wrote:
> >>> On 15/11/2023 3:41 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/this-inside-out-design-solves-most-of-the-rotary-engines-problems/
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I stopped reading after the first sentence of "Rotary engines have an
> >>> aura of cool"
> >>>
> >>> No, they don't, and they never, ever did :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Something we agree on.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > So, to come to that conclusion, you guys have owned rotaries then?.
> Never owned on myself but my son recently bought an RX8, pretty rough
> example which he got very cheap as a project.
> One of the reasons it was so cheap was that it was difficult to start
> and wouldn't start at all when hot.
> Someone had told the person he bought it from that the starting problem
> was due to low compression and they are known for loosing compression
> with age.
> A bit of online research and he found that by replacing the OE starter
> with an updated version that spins the engine over much faster the
> starting problem was solved including hot starts.
> I drove it last Friday and it actually drives quite well.
> The plan is to get it roadworthy, registered and gradually restore it,
> if it proves too difficult to get RW it may become a track only car.
> One option is to replace the rotary with a Duratec, AFAIK it shares a
> lot of it underpinnings with an MX5 so it shouldn't be a difficult swap
> but that's a long way down the track and only if the rotary turns out to
> be too far gone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Try to keep the rotary!. ;)
>
>
>
> Daryl

Xeno wrote:
> Mighty Mouse <meow@pussie.com> wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 17/11/2023 11:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 17/11/2023 8:48 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>   So, to come to that conclusion, you guys have owned rotaries then?.
>>>>> Me personally? No. But I've known people who have, and that was
>>>>> enough to convince me that I never want to own one. I like my
>>>>> engines to make more torque than an analogue clock, and generally
>>>>> use less fuel than a German tank :)
>>>>>
>>>> LOL! speaking of torque.. I notice that that ZS has poor acceleration
>>>> when the revs are low.
>>> Which would be more to do with your transmission not changing to a
>>> more appropriate gear than a lack of torque.
>> once I finish the run in I will be able to give it more revs which
>> should make it drop down to the next lower gear
>>
>>> Remember when Clasener said you can't labour an engine driving an
>>> automatic transmission? :)
>> I think you can if you don't have enough revs up to cause it to change down
> Nope, the torque converter allows the engine to spin freely up to the
> current stall point. To labour an engine requires it to be locked in a high
> ratio in a solid link drivetrain under heavy load. Autos only achieve that
> under OD plus TCL

what's OD and TCL?

> and it only does that under no load. Apply throttle, TCL
> will drop off, then OD will drop out. Further throttle will trigger a
> downshift whilst WOT

wide open throttle?

> will trigger a kickdown.
>
> Load sensing, change down according to load versus throttle setting. Don’t
> give it throttle, it’s programmed to remain in a higher gear for fuel
> economy. That’s normal.

what's the definition of laboring an engine then? I thought if there's
vibration the engine is laboring

>>> I don't know what the torque spec of your engine is Felix, but I
>>> imagine it's not high and only having 4 forward gear ratios would be
>>> doing it no favours at all.
>>>
>>>
>> but it's not that long since cars only had three gears, so four should
>> be enough
>>
>>
> ____
> Xeno
>
>
>

--
Have a nice day!..

On 18/11/2023 1:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>> Mighty Mouse <meow@pussie.com> wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 17/11/2023 11:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/11/2023 8:48 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>    So, to come to that conclusion, you guys have owned rotaries
>>>>>>> then?.
>>>>>> Me personally? No. But I've known people who have, and that was
>>>>>> enough to convince me that I never want to own one. I like my
>>>>>> engines to make more torque than an analogue clock, and generally
>>>>>> use less fuel than a German tank :)
>>>>>>
>>>>> LOL! speaking of torque.. I notice that that ZS has poor acceleration
>>>>> when the revs are low.
>>>> Which would be more to do with your transmission not changing to a
>>>> more appropriate gear than a lack of torque.
>>> once I finish the run in I will be able to give it more revs which
>>> should make it drop down to the next lower gear
>>>
>>>> Remember when Clasener said you can't labour an engine driving an
>>>> automatic transmission? :)
>>> I think you can if you don't have enough revs up to cause it to
>>> change down
>> Nope, the torque converter allows the engine to spin freely up to the
>> current stall point. To labour an engine requires it to be locked in a
>> high
>> ratio in a solid link drivetrain under heavy load. Autos only achieve
>> that
>> under OD plus TCL
>
> what's OD and TCL?

OD = Overdrive (referring to ratio)
TCL = Torque Converter Lockup (only possible in OD)
>
>> and it only does that under no load. Apply throttle, TCL
>> will drop off, then OD will drop out. Further throttle will trigger a
>> downshift whilst WOT
>
> wide open throttle?
>
>>   will trigger a kickdown.
>>
>> Load sensing, change down according to load versus throttle setting.
>> Don’t
>> give it throttle, it’s programmed to remain in a higher gear for fuel
>> economy. That’s normal.
>
> what's the definition of laboring an engine then? I thought if there's
> vibration the engine is laboring

You can only labour an engine if you apply full throttle to a vehicle
whilst it is in a high (manual) gear at low speed. In a manual, the
engine can not rev up freely whereas it can in an auto, limited only by
the stall speed of the torque converter. The engine's ability to rev up
is what prevents labouring in an auto, that plus the trans tendency to
downshift when the load and RPMs increase. The torque converter is the
*slippery link*. Did I mention that the torque converter can act as a
transmission on its own providing up to 2.5 times torque multiplication?
The problem with that kind of torque multiplication is that, through
slippage, it generates heat, lots of it. Heat and trans fluid are not
good bedfellows. That's why, if you decide to do towing with your car,
it is wise to add a trans cooler. The extra loading from towing creates
more slippage in the torque converter thus generating more heat. That
heat needs to be shed else it will literally *burn* the oil.
>
>>>> I don't know what the torque spec of your engine is Felix, but I
>>>> imagine it's not high and only having 4 forward gear ratios would be
>>>> doing it no favours at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> but it's not that long since cars only had three gears, so four should
>>> be enough
>>>
>>>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 18/11/2023 6:43 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 18/11/2023 9:22 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 17/11/2023 11:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 17/11/2023 8:48 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>   So, to come to that conclusion, you guys have owned rotaries then?.
>>>>
>>>> Me personally? No. But I've known people who have, and that was
>>>> enough to convince me that I never want to own one. I like my
>>>> engines to make more torque than an analogue clock, and generally
>>>> use less fuel than a German tank :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL! speaking of torque.. I notice that that ZS has poor acceleration
>>> when the revs are low.
>>
>> Which would be more to do with your transmission not changing to a
>> more appropriate gear than a lack of torque. Remember when Clasener
>> said you can't labour an engine driving an automatic transmission? :)
>>
>> I don't know what the torque spec of your engine is Felix, but I
>> imagine it's not high and only having 4 forward gear ratios would be
>> doing it no favours at all.
>>
>>
> A 4spd auto is rubbish in 2023, my 21 yr old MB has a 5spd auto and from
> around 2009 C Class went to 7spd.
> Must be some old cheap parts bin trans they found lying around somewhere.
>

Your old piles of scrap have zero relevance to the discussion.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 18/11/2023 10:05 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 17/11/2023 11:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 17/11/2023 8:48 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>   So, to come to that conclusion, you guys have owned rotaries then?.
>>>>
>>>> Me personally? No. But I've known people who have, and that was
>>>> enough to convince me that I never want to own one. I like my
>>>> engines to make more torque than an analogue clock, and generally
>>>> use less fuel than a German tank :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL! speaking of torque.. I notice that that ZS has poor acceleration
>>> when the revs are low.
>>
>> Which would be more to do with your transmission not changing to a
>> more appropriate gear than a lack of torque.
>
> once I finish the run in I will be able to give it more revs which
> should make it drop down to the next lower gear

If you stand on the throttle hard enough it will surely. The point being
that just because you have a vehicle with an automatic transmissions
doesn't mean it's incapable of being laboured.

As you've discovered for yourself....

>> Remember when Clasener said you can't labour an engine driving an
>> automatic transmission? :)
>
> I think you can if you don't have enough revs up to cause it to change down

It depends on the vehicle, and where it's parameters are set.

As I mentioned when this topic was being discussed a few weeks ago, my
old Rodeo used to labour in top gear something terrible when driving up
the last steep bit of the hill up here, and would only change down if
you stood on the throttle fairly hard. There was nothing wrong with it.
That's just how they were. It also had a "power/economy" switch on the
console, and if it was flicked over to "power" mode it would stay in
third gear going up the hill or change back to third the moment the rpm
dropped below a certain point. In "economy" mode however, it was very
reluctant to change out of top gear over a over a certain speed once it
was in it.

Interesting to note that that was *also* a 4 speed auto, with the ratio
drop between 3rd and 4th being fairly significant.
>>
>> I don't know what the torque spec of your engine is Felix, but I
>> imagine it's not high and only having 4 forward gear ratios would be
>> doing it no favours at all.
>
> but it's not that long since cars only had three gears, so four should
> be enough

It's been over 30 years since your average car came with a three speed
transmission at the very least Felix, and in some cases a lot longer
than that. The difference between then and now is that cars were a lot
lighter, and the emphasis on fuel economy wasn't anywhere near as
important as it is today.

Your car has a pretty small engine that doesn't make a lot of power, and
while that may be great in terms of fuel use, it's not so fantastic when
it comes to moving the vehicle along the road under a variety of
conditions. The more gear ratios you have the better able you are to
keep the rpm in a suitable range for the environment you're driving in.

This is why you find that your car labours a bit, while other competing
cars with a 6 speed trans would most likely not.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 18/11/2023 1:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:

>> Nope, the torque converter allows the engine to spin freely up to the
>> current stall point. To labour an engine requires it to be locked in a
>> high ratio in a solid link drivetrain under heavy load. Autos only achieve
>> that under OD plus TCL
>
> what's OD and TCL?

Overdrive and Torque Converter Lock Up, and this is a complete nonsense :)

>> and it only does that under no load. Apply throttle, TCL
>> will drop off, then OD will drop out. Further throttle will trigger a
>> downshift whilst WOT
>
> wide open throttle?

Yes, WOT stands for Wide Open Throttle, but what he's saying makes no
sense to anyone but him. An engine can be laboured in *any* gear, you do
*not* need to bury the accelerator pedal into the floor to force a gear
change.

The stuff this bloke comes up with is *so* far removed from reality I
have to seriously wonder if his role at "Tafe" had anything to do with
trade teaching at all :)

> what's the definition of laboring an engine then? I thought if there's
> vibration the engine is laboring

Not necessarily vibration.

Labouring an engine is generally defined as operating it at a low enough
RPM that is unsuitable for the task at hand. For example, if a gradual
climb up a hill at low rpm where the application of a reasonable amount
of throttle makes no change to the performance, then it would be
considered "labouring".

It doesn't need to be at "full throttle" :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 18/11/2023 1:08 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Friday, 17 November 2023 at 22:06:04 UTC+11, Noddy wrote:

>> Me personally? No. But I've known people who have, and that was enough
>> to convince me that I never want to own one.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> I`ve mentioned it before, the RX4, 13B, 5 speed manual (conversion) that my ex owned was a rocket ship.! Every gear change on the buzzer (on the open rd) A bit thirsty (shrug) but the performance was worth it. (Wasn`t a concern back then anyhoo)

Oh yeah, they could go. I've mentioned it before but a mate of mine who
was a total fruit loop had a turbo'd 13B in a Toyota Lite Ace of all
things, and it used to scare the crap out of people.

Still, the sound was about the worst thing you could ever experience. As
far as I'm aware, rotaries are the only engines at any drag meet that
are required to run mufflers.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 15:49:22 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
> On 18/11/2023 1:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> > Xeno wrote:
> >> Mighty Mouse <me...@pussie.com> wrote:
> >>> Noddy wrote:
> >>>> On 17/11/2023 11:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> >>>>> Noddy wrote:
> >>>>>> On 17/11/2023 8:48 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>> So, to come to that conclusion, you guys have owned rotaries
> >>>>>>> then?.
> >>>>>> Me personally? No. But I've known people who have, and that was
> >>>>>> enough to convince me that I never want to own one. I like my
> >>>>>> engines to make more torque than an analogue clock, and generally
> >>>>>> use less fuel than a German tank :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> LOL! speaking of torque.. I notice that that ZS has poor acceleration
> >>>>> when the revs are low.
> >>>> Which would be more to do with your transmission not changing to a
> >>>> more appropriate gear than a lack of torque.
> >>> once I finish the run in I will be able to give it more revs which
> >>> should make it drop down to the next lower gear
> >>>
> >>>> Remember when Clasener said you can't labour an engine driving an
> >>>> automatic transmission? :)
> >>> I think you can if you don't have enough revs up to cause it to
> >>> change down
> >> Nope, the torque converter allows the engine to spin freely up to the
> >> current stall point. To labour an engine requires it to be locked in a
> >> high
> >> ratio in a solid link drivetrain under heavy load. Autos only achieve
> >> that
> >> under OD plus TCL
> >
> > what's OD and TCL?
> OD = Overdrive (referring to ratio)
> TCL = Torque Converter Lockup (only possible in OD)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Really?? *Only possible in O/D*... You sure about that??.

> >
> >> and it only does that under no load. Apply throttle, TCL
> >> will drop off, then OD will drop out. Further throttle will trigger a
> >> downshift whilst WOT
> >
> > wide open throttle?
> >
> >> will trigger a kickdown.
> >>
> >> Load sensing, change down according to load versus throttle setting.
> >> Don’t
> >> give it throttle, it’s programmed to remain in a higher gear for fuel
> >> economy. That’s normal.
> >
> > what's the definition of laboring an engine then? I thought if there's
> > vibration the engine is laboring
> You can only labour an engine if you apply full throttle to a vehicle
> whilst it is in a high (manual) gear at low speed. In a manual, the
> engine can not rev up freely whereas it can in an auto, limited only by
> the stall speed of the torque converter. The engine's ability to rev up
> is what prevents labouring in an auto, that plus the trans tendency to
> downshift when the load and RPMs increase. The torque converter is the
> *slippery link*. Did I mention that the torque converter can act as a
> transmission on its own providing up to 2.5 times torque multiplication?
> The problem with that kind of torque multiplication is that, through
> slippage, it generates heat, lots of it. Heat and trans fluid are not
> good bedfellows. That's why, if you decide to do towing with your car,
> it is wise to add a trans cooler. The extra loading from towing creates
> more slippage in the torque converter thus generating more heat. That
> heat needs to be shed else it will literally *burn* the oil.
> >
> >>>> I don't know what the torque spec of your engine is Felix, but I
> >>>> imagine it's not high and only having 4 forward gear ratios would be
> >>>> doing it no favours at all.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> but it's not that long since cars only had three gears, so four should
> >>> be enough
> >>>
> >>>
> --
> Xeno
>
>
> Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
> (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 18/11/2023 6:03 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/11/2023 1:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:
>
>>> Nope, the torque converter allows the engine to spin freely up to the
>>> current stall point. To labour an engine requires it to be locked in
>>> a high ratio in a solid link drivetrain under heavy load. Autos only
>>> achieve that under OD plus TCL
>>
>> what's OD and TCL?
>
> Overdrive and Torque Converter Lock Up, and this is a complete nonsense :)
>
>>> and it only does that under no load. Apply throttle, TCL
>>> will drop off, then OD will drop out. Further throttle will trigger a
>>> downshift whilst WOT
>>
>> wide open throttle?
>
> Yes, WOT stands for Wide Open Throttle, but what he's saying makes no
> sense to anyone but him. An engine can be laboured in *any* gear, you do
> *not* need to bury the accelerator pedal into the floor to force a gear
> change.

Darren, he's only lightly pressing on the throttle. The *normal*
reaction for a trans in that situation is to either stay in the same
gear or *upshift*.
>
> The stuff this bloke comes up with is *so* far removed from reality I
> have to seriously wonder if his role at "Tafe" had anything to do with
> trade teaching at all :)
>
>> what's the definition of laboring an engine then? I thought if there's
>> vibration the engine is laboring
>
> Not necessarily vibration.

Vibration (through the drivetrain) can be, and usually is, a *symptom*
of labouring the engine. Won't happen with an auto, the torque converter
stator will lock, *slippage* will occur between the impeller and turbine
and the converter will increase torque.
>
> Labouring an engine is generally defined as operating it at a low enough
> RPM that is unsuitable for the task at hand. For example, if a gradual
> climb up a hill at low rpm where the application of a reasonable amount
> of throttle makes no change to the performance, then it would be
> considered "labouring".
>
> It doesn't need to be at "full throttle" :)

And autos will *automatically downshift* if the load increase or
throttle increase at the requisite road speed requires it. Never seen an
auto work any other way.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 18/11/2023 5:51 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/11/2023 10:05 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 17/11/2023 11:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 17/11/2023 8:48 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>   So, to come to that conclusion, you guys have owned rotaries then?.
>>>>>
>>>>> Me personally? No. But I've known people who have, and that was
>>>>> enough to convince me that I never want to own one. I like my
>>>>> engines to make more torque than an analogue clock, and generally
>>>>> use less fuel than a German tank :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL! speaking of torque.. I notice that that ZS has poor
>>>> acceleration when the revs are low.
>>>
>>> Which would be more to do with your transmission not changing to a
>>> more appropriate gear than a lack of torque.
>>
>> once I finish the run in I will be able to give it more revs which
>> should make it drop down to the next lower gear
>
> If you stand on the throttle hard enough it will surely. The point being
> that just because you have a vehicle with an automatic transmissions
> doesn't mean it's incapable of being laboured.
>
> As you've discovered for yourself....
>
>>> Remember when Clasener said you can't labour an engine driving an
>>> automatic transmission? :)
>>
>> I think you can if you don't have enough revs up to cause it to change
>> down
>
> It depends on the vehicle, and where it's parameters are set.
>
> As I mentioned when this topic was being discussed a few weeks ago, my
> old Rodeo used to labour in top gear something terrible when driving up
> the last steep bit of the hill up here, and would only change down if
> you stood on the throttle fairly hard. There was nothing wrong with it.
> That's just how they were. It also had a "power/economy" switch on the
> console, and if it was flicked over to "power" mode it would stay in
> third gear going up the hill or change back to third the moment the rpm
> dropped below a certain point. In "economy" mode however, it was very
> reluctant to change out of top gear over a over a certain speed once it
> was in it.
>
> Interesting to note that that was *also* a 4 speed auto, with the ratio
> drop between 3rd and 4th being fairly significant.

It was *faulty*. You couldn't diagnose it! LOL
>>>
>>> I don't know what the torque spec of your engine is Felix, but I
>>> imagine it's not high and only having 4 forward gear ratios would be
>>> doing it no favours at all.
>>
>> but it's not that long since cars only had three gears, so four should
>> be enough
>
> It's been over 30 years since your average car came with a three speed
> transmission at the very least Felix, and in some cases a lot longer
> than that. The difference between then and now is that cars were a lot
> lighter, and the emphasis on fuel economy wasn't anywhere near as
> important as it is today.
>
> Your car has a pretty small engine that doesn't make a lot of power, and
> while that may be great in terms of fuel use, it's not so fantastic when
> it comes to moving the vehicle along the road under a variety of
> conditions. The more gear ratios you have the better able you are to
> keep the rpm in a suitable range for the environment you're driving in.
>
> This is why you find that your car labours a bit, while other competing
> cars with a 6 speed trans would most likely not.

What a load of old cobblers! The trans will select an appropriate gear
to suit the road speed, throttle opening and *load*. I can tell you have
never done proper road tests with autos. How unsurprising.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 18/11/2023 6:26 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 15:49:22 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:

>>>> Nope, the torque converter allows the engine to spin freely up to the
>>>> current stall point. To labour an engine requires it to be locked in a
>>>> high ratio in a solid link drivetrain under heavy load. Autos only achieve
>>>> that under OD plus TCL
>>>
>>> what's OD and TCL?

>> OD = Overdrive (referring to ratio)
>> TCL = Torque Converter Lockup (only possible in OD)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Really?? *Only possible in O/D*... You sure about that??.

No, I don't think he is at all, but it won't stop him making shit up to
suit himself :)

His knowledge base is *antiquated*, but you have to expect that from
someone who by his own admission last worked on a car for a living in
the 1970's. Vehicles that use automatic transmissions that feature a
torque converter that locked up in multiple gears have existed for some
time. He's just not seen any :)

--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 18/11/2023 1:09 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Friday, 17 November 2023 at 23:08:53 UTC+11, Daryl wrote:
>> On 17/11/2023 8:48 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 19:22:48 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 15/11/2023 5:04 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 15/11/2023 3:41 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/this-inside-out-design-solves-most-of-the-rotary-engines-problems/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I stopped reading after the first sentence of "Rotary engines have an
>>>>> aura of cool"
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they don't, and they never, ever did :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Something we agree on.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> So, to come to that conclusion, you guys have owned rotaries then?.
>> Never owned on myself but my son recently bought an RX8, pretty rough
>> example which he got very cheap as a project.
>> One of the reasons it was so cheap was that it was difficult to start
>> and wouldn't start at all when hot.
>> Someone had told the person he bought it from that the starting problem
>> was due to low compression and they are known for loosing compression
>> with age.
>> A bit of online research and he found that by replacing the OE starter
>> with an updated version that spins the engine over much faster the
>> starting problem was solved including hot starts.
>> I drove it last Friday and it actually drives quite well.
>> The plan is to get it roadworthy, registered and gradually restore it,
>> if it proves too difficult to get RW it may become a track only car.
>> One option is to replace the rotary with a Duratec, AFAIK it shares a
>> lot of it underpinnings with an MX5 so it shouldn't be a difficult swap
>> but that's a long way down the track and only if the rotary turns out to
>> be too far gone.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Try to keep the rotary!. ;)

Its up to him what he does with it, for the moment the rotary will remain.

--
Daryl

On 18/11/2023 7:50 pm, Noddy wrote:

>
> No, I don't think he is at all, but it won't stop him making shit up to
> suit himself :)

A lot of the new trans can do lockup on more gears, usually OD gears and
direct. The 10 speed in Range Rovers (and Jeeps) have 4 overdrive gears
and they could use TCL on all of them and 5th. On a modern electronic
transmission, it would only require reprogramming the TCM because lockup
is controlled by a single solenoid in the trans. The issue with TCL is
that it is usually a *single faced* small diameter clutch with limited
torque capability hence not needed nor wanted in lower ratios. Slip it,
you rip it! I was, in the main referring to Felix's MG with its 4 speed.
It may even apply lockup on 3rd but the Aisin 4 speed in the wife's
Swift only locks up on OD (4th). Touch the throttle, it drops lockup.
Lock it into third (OD off) and it never gets into lockup.
>
> His knowledge base is *antiquated*, but you have to expect that from

Better than being you with an *invented* knowledge base made up of lies
and false claims.

> someone who by his own admission last worked on a car for a living in
> the 1970's. Vehicles that use automatic transmissions that feature a
> torque converter that locked up in multiple gears have existed for some
> time. He's just not seen any :)
>
TCL is for fuel economy so it makes no sense to use it on ratios lower
than direct. That's primarily because it wont be locked up long - you're
in those lower ratios because you're on the throttle! It is primarily
intended for fuel savings along with heat reduction in the torque
converter. It will only be operational on light loading cruise
conditions. Touch the throttle and it will drop out of lockup no matter
how many gears it operates on. And, as I said above, these days it's a
simple matter to make it operate on any and all gears - it's just their
torque limitations that makes it less practical on underdrive ratios

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 19:51:06 UTC+11, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/11/2023 6:26 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 15:49:22 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
>
> >>>> Nope, the torque converter allows the engine to spin freely up to the
> >>>> current stall point. To labour an engine requires it to be locked in a
> >>>> high ratio in a solid link drivetrain under heavy load. Autos only achieve
> >>>> that under OD plus TCL
> >>>
> >>> what's OD and TCL?
>
> >> OD = Overdrive (referring to ratio)
> >> TCL = Torque Converter Lockup (only possible in OD)
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Really?? *Only possible in O/D*... You sure about that??.
> No, I don't think he is at all, but it won't stop him making shit up to
> suit himself :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The AW4 in my Jeep locks in 3RD and 4TH...Depending on shifter position, and power/comfort setting...You can also install a manual lock-up for all ratios. (Why I dunno.)
>
> His knowledge base is *antiquated*, but you have to expect that from
> someone who by his own admission last worked on a car for a living in
> the 1970's. Vehicles that use automatic transmissions that feature a
> torque converter that locked up in multiple gears have existed for some
> time. He's just not seen any :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
AW4 has been around since the '80`s, Also used by Toyota as the A340....(Including Supra`s A340E) Nothing new, he`s just been left behind!.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.

On 18/11/2023 10:26 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 19:51:06 UTC+11, Noddy wrote:

>> His knowledge base is *antiquated*, but you have to expect that from
>> someone who by his own admission last worked on a car for a living in
>> the 1970's. Vehicles that use automatic transmissions that feature a
>> torque converter that locked up in multiple gears have existed for some
>> time. He's just not seen any :)

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
> AW4 has been around since the '80`s, Also used by Toyota as the A340....(Including Supra`s A340E) Nothing new, he`s just been left behind!.

Assuming for the sake of the argument that he was ever "there" in the
first place. Anyone who believes that the only difference between a
power assisted and non assisted braking system is the presence of a
booster is someone who has no idea what they're talking about and should
stay away from cars.

Oh, that's right. He has done for the last 25 years. Good job, too :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Noddy wrote:
> On 18/11/2023 10:05 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 17/11/2023 11:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 17/11/2023 8:48 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>   So, to come to that conclusion, you guys have owned rotaries
>>>>>> then?.
>>>>>
>>>>> Me personally? No. But I've known people who have, and that was
>>>>> enough to convince me that I never want to own one. I like my
>>>>> engines to make more torque than an analogue clock, and generally
>>>>> use less fuel than a German tank :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL! speaking of torque.. I notice that that ZS has poor
>>>> acceleration when the revs are low.
>>>
>>> Which would be more to do with your transmission not changing to a
>>> more appropriate gear than a lack of torque.
>>
>> once I finish the run in I will be able to give it more revs which
>> should make it drop down to the next lower gear
>
> If you stand on the throttle hard enough it will surely. The point
> being that just because you have a vehicle with an automatic
> transmissions doesn't mean it's incapable of being laboured.
>
> As you've discovered for yourself....
>
>>> Remember when Clasener said you can't labour an engine driving an
>>> automatic transmission? :)
>>
>> I think you can if you don't have enough revs up to cause it to
>> change down
>
> It depends on the vehicle, and where it's parameters are set.
>
> As I mentioned when this topic was being discussed a few weeks ago, my
> old Rodeo used to labour in top gear something terrible when driving
> up the last steep bit of the hill up here, and would only change down
> if you stood on the throttle fairly hard. There was nothing wrong with
> it. That's just how they were. It also had a "power/economy" switch on
> the console, and if it was flicked over to "power" mode it would stay
> in third gear going up the hill or change back to third the moment the
> rpm dropped below a certain point. In "economy" mode however, it was
> very reluctant to change out of top gear over a over a certain speed
> once it was in it.
>
> Interesting to note that that was *also* a 4 speed auto, with the
> ratio drop between 3rd and 4th being fairly significant.

I feel the ZS is the same. in 1,2, or 3, I don't notice any drama, only
in top do I find I'm without enough revs to provide enough power for the
situation

>>>
>>> I don't know what the torque spec of your engine is Felix, but I
>>> imagine it's not high and only having 4 forward gear ratios would be
>>> doing it no favours at all.
>>
>> but it's not that long since cars only had three gears, so four
>> should be enough
>
> It's been over 30 years since your average car came with a three speed
> transmission at the very least Felix, and in some cases a lot longer
> than that. The difference between then and now is that cars were a lot
> lighter, and the emphasis on fuel economy wasn't anywhere near as
> important as it is today.
>
> Your car has a pretty small engine that doesn't make a lot of power,
> and while that may be great in terms of fuel use, it's not so
> fantastic when it comes to moving the vehicle along the road under a
> variety of conditions. The more gear ratios you have the better able
> you are to keep the rpm in a suitable range for the environment you're
> driving in.
>
> This is why you find that your car labours a bit, while other
> competing cars with a 6 speed trans would most likely not.
>
>

makes sense to me

--
Have a nice day!..

Noddy wrote:
> On 18/11/2023 1:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:
>
>>> Nope, the torque converter allows the engine to spin freely up to the
>>> current stall point. To labour an engine requires it to be locked in
>>> a high ratio in a solid link drivetrain under heavy load. Autos only
>>> achieve that under OD plus TCL
>>
>> what's OD and TCL?
>
> Overdrive and Torque Converter Lock Up, and this is a complete
> nonsense :)
>
>>> and it only does that under no load. Apply throttle, TCL
>>> will drop off, then OD will drop out. Further throttle will trigger a
>>> downshift whilst WOT
>>
>> wide open throttle?
>
> Yes, WOT stands for Wide Open Throttle, but what he's saying makes no
> sense to anyone but him. An engine can be laboured in *any* gear, you
> do *not* need to bury the accelerator pedal into the floor to force a
> gear change.
>
> The stuff this bloke comes up with is *so* far removed from reality I
> have to seriously wonder if his role at "Tafe" had anything to do with
> trade teaching at all :)
>
>> what's the definition of laboring an engine then? I thought if
>> there's vibration the engine is laboring
>
> Not necessarily vibration.
>
> Labouring an engine is generally defined as operating it at a low
> enough RPM that is unsuitable for the task at hand. For example, if a
> gradual climb up a hill at low rpm where the application of a
> reasonable amount of throttle makes no change to the performance, then
> it would be considered "labouring".

that's what i thought, and it's exactly what happened tonight. I had
just taken off long enough to reach top gear and started to climb an
overpass without accelerating. I felt slight vibration and realized the
engine was struggling, looked at the tacho and the revs were only 1200

>
> It doesn't need to be at "full throttle" :)
>
>

--
Have a nice day!..

Xeno wrote:
> On 18/11/2023 6:03 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 18/11/2023 1:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Xeno wrote:
>>
>>>> Nope, the torque converter allows the engine to spin freely up to the
>>>> current stall point. To labour an engine requires it to be locked
>>>> in a high ratio in a solid link drivetrain under heavy load. Autos
>>>> only achieve that under OD plus TCL
>>>
>>> what's OD and TCL?
>>
>> Overdrive and Torque Converter Lock Up, and this is a complete
>> nonsense :)
>>
>>>> and it only does that under no load. Apply throttle, TCL
>>>> will drop off, then OD will drop out. Further throttle will trigger a
>>>> downshift whilst WOT
>>>
>>> wide open throttle?
>>
>> Yes, WOT stands for Wide Open Throttle, but what he's saying makes no
>> sense to anyone but him. An engine can be laboured in *any* gear, you
>> do *not* need to bury the accelerator pedal into the floor to force a
>> gear change.
>
> Darren, he's only lightly pressing on the throttle.

yes

> The *normal* reaction for a trans in that situation is to either stay
> in the same gear or *upshift*.

can't upshit from top gear

>>
>> The stuff this bloke comes up with is *so* far removed from reality I
>> have to seriously wonder if his role at "Tafe" had anything to do
>> with trade teaching at all :)
>>
>>> what's the definition of laboring an engine then? I thought if
>>> there's vibration the engine is laboring
>>
>> Not necessarily vibration.
>
> Vibration (through the drivetrain) can be, and usually is, a *symptom*
> of labouring the engine.

that's what i think too

> Won't happen with an auto, the torque converter stator will lock,
> *slippage* will occur between the impeller and turbine and the
> converter will increase torque.

nope. happens in the ZS but I've only noticed it in top gear

>>
>> Labouring an engine is generally defined as operating it at a low
>> enough RPM that is unsuitable for the task at hand. For example, if a
>> gradual climb up a hill at low rpm where the application of a
>> reasonable amount of throttle makes no change to the performance,
>> then it would be considered "labouring".
>>
>> It doesn't need to be at "full throttle" :)
>
> And autos will *automatically downshift* if the load increase or
> throttle increase at the requisite road speed requires it. Never seen
> an auto work any other way.
>

yes, I agree with that

--
Have a nice day!..

Xeno wrote:
> On 18/11/2023 5:51 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 18/11/2023 10:05 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 17/11/2023 11:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/11/2023 8:48 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>   So, to come to that conclusion, you guys have owned rotaries
>>>>>>> then?.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Me personally? No. But I've known people who have, and that was
>>>>>> enough to convince me that I never want to own one. I like my
>>>>>> engines to make more torque than an analogue clock, and generally
>>>>>> use less fuel than a German tank :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL! speaking of torque.. I notice that that ZS has poor
>>>>> acceleration when the revs are low.
>>>>
>>>> Which would be more to do with your transmission not changing to a
>>>> more appropriate gear than a lack of torque.
>>>
>>> once I finish the run in I will be able to give it more revs which
>>> should make it drop down to the next lower gear
>>
>> If you stand on the throttle hard enough it will surely. The point
>> being that just because you have a vehicle with an automatic
>> transmissions doesn't mean it's incapable of being laboured.
>>
>> As you've discovered for yourself....
>>
>>>> Remember when Clasener said you can't labour an engine driving an
>>>> automatic transmission? :)
>>>
>>> I think you can if you don't have enough revs up to cause it to
>>> change down
>>
>> It depends on the vehicle, and where it's parameters are set.
>>
>> As I mentioned when this topic was being discussed a few weeks ago,
>> my old Rodeo used to labour in top gear something terrible when
>> driving up the last steep bit of the hill up here, and would only
>> change down if you stood on the throttle fairly hard. There was
>> nothing wrong with it. That's just how they were. It also had a
>> "power/economy" switch on the console, and if it was flicked over to
>> "power" mode it would stay in third gear going up the hill or change
>> back to third the moment the rpm dropped below a certain point. In
>> "economy" mode however, it was very reluctant to change out of top
>> gear over a over a certain speed once it was in it.
>>
>> Interesting to note that that was *also* a 4 speed auto, with the
>> ratio drop between 3rd and 4th being fairly significant.
>
> It was *faulty*. You couldn't diagnose it!  LOL
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what the torque spec of your engine is Felix, but I
>>>> imagine it's not high and only having 4 forward gear ratios would
>>>> be doing it no favours at all.
>>>
>>> but it's not that long since cars only had three gears, so four
>>> should be enough
>>
>> It's been over 30 years since your average car came with a three
>> speed transmission at the very least Felix, and in some cases a lot
>> longer than that. The difference between then and now is that cars
>> were a lot lighter, and the emphasis on fuel economy wasn't anywhere
>> near as important as it is today.
>>
>> Your car has a pretty small engine that doesn't make a lot of power,
>> and while that may be great in terms of fuel use, it's not so
>> fantastic when it comes to moving the vehicle along the road under a
>> variety of conditions. The more gear ratios you have the better able
>> you are to keep the rpm in a suitable range for the environment
>> you're driving in.
>>
>> This is why you find that your car labours a bit, while other
>> competing cars with a 6 speed trans would most likely not.
>
> What a load of old cobblers! The trans will select an appropriate gear
> to suit the road speed, throttle opening and *load*. I can tell you
> have never done proper road tests with autos. How unsurprising.
>

bump

--
Have a nice day!..

On 18/11/2023 3:54 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 18/11/2023 6:43 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 18/11/2023 9:22 am, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 17/11/2023 11:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 17/11/2023 8:48 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>   So, to come to that conclusion, you guys have owned rotaries then?.
>>>>>
>>>>> Me personally? No. But I've known people who have, and that was
>>>>> enough to convince me that I never want to own one. I like my
>>>>> engines to make more torque than an analogue clock, and generally
>>>>> use less fuel than a German tank :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL! speaking of torque.. I notice that that ZS has poor
>>>> acceleration when the revs are low.
>>>
>>> Which would be more to do with your transmission not changing to a
>>> more appropriate gear than a lack of torque. Remember when Clasener
>>> said you can't labour an engine driving an automatic transmission? :)
>>>
>>> I don't know what the torque spec of your engine is Felix, but I
>>> imagine it's not high and only having 4 forward gear ratios would be
>>> doing it no favours at all.
>>>
>>>
>> A 4spd auto is rubbish in 2023, my 21 yr old MB has a 5spd auto and
>> from around 2009 C Class went to 7spd.
>> Must be some old cheap parts bin trans they found lying around somewhere.
>>
>
> Your old piles of scrap have zero relevance to the discussion.

The subject of the discussion is the wankel, but you apparently are
determined to be a wanker.

Xeno wrote:
> On 18/11/2023 7:50 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>
>> No, I don't think he is at all, but it won't stop him making shit up
>> to suit himself :)
>
> A lot of the new trans can do lockup on more gears, usually OD gears
> and direct. The 10 speed in Range Rovers (and Jeeps) have 4 overdrive
> gears and they could use TCL on all of them and 5th. On a modern
> electronic transmission, it would only require reprogramming the TCM
> because lockup is controlled by a single solenoid in the trans. The
> issue with TCL is that it is usually a *single faced* small diameter
> clutch with limited torque capability hence not needed nor wanted in
> lower ratios. Slip it, you rip it! I was, in the main referring to
> Felix's MG with its 4 speed. It may even apply lockup on 3rd but the
> Aisin 4 speed in the wife's Swift only locks up on OD (4th). Touch the
> throttle, it drops lockup. Lock it into third (OD off) and it never
> gets into lockup.
>>
>> His knowledge base is *antiquated*, but you have to expect that from
>
> Better than being you with an *invented* knowledge base made up of
> lies and false claims.
>
>> someone who by his own admission last worked on a car for a living in
>> the 1970's. Vehicles that use automatic transmissions that feature a
>> torque converter that locked up in multiple gears have existed for
>> some time. He's just not seen any :)
>>
> TCL is for fuel economy so it makes no sense to use it on ratios lower
> than direct. That's primarily because it wont be locked up long -
> you're in those lower ratios because you're on the throttle! It is
> primarily intended for fuel savings along with heat reduction in the
> torque converter. It will only be operational on light loading cruise
> conditions. Touch the throttle and it will drop out of lockup no
> matter how many gears it operates on. And, as I said above, these days
> it's a simple matter to make it operate on any and all gears - it's
> just their torque limitations that makes it less practical on
> underdrive ratios
>
>

bump

--
Have a nice day!..

On 19/11/2023 1:15 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 18/11/2023 3:54 pm, Clocky wrote:

>> Your old piles of scrap have zero relevance to the discussion.
>
> The subject of the discussion is the wankel, but you apparently are
> determined to be a wanker.

You act surprised every time he does, which in itself is surprising.
Surely you're aware by now that he exists in this group for no reason
other than to be a ridiculous twat.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 19/11/2023 12:29 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

>>> what's the definition of laboring an engine then? I thought if
>>> there's vibration the engine is laboring
>>
>> Not necessarily vibration.
>>
>> Labouring an engine is generally defined as operating it at a low
>> enough RPM that is unsuitable for the task at hand. For example, if a
>> gradual climb up a hill at low rpm where the application of a
>> reasonable amount of throttle makes no change to the performance, then
>> it would be considered "labouring".
>
> that's what i thought, and it's exactly what happened tonight. I had
> just taken off long enough to reach top gear and started to climb an
> overpass without accelerating. I felt slight vibration and realized the
> engine was struggling, looked at the tacho and the revs were only 1200

That'd be it.

You mentioned cars equipped with three speed transmissions years ago and
how it wasn't a problem, well it actually was. Engines would labour in
top gear to a degree as changing down to second would generally make
them rev too high for the task at hand. One of the problems of only
having three forward gears. However despite that they weren't as bad as
some later cars as back then the transmission's shifting was controlled
by hydraulic pressure rather than electronically as they are today?

How does that a difference you ask?

It makes a difference as the computer controls the shifting more
precisely based on exactly what the engine is doing, but also it can be
programmed to perform a certain way such as keeping the rpm as low as
possible which is great for fuel economy but not necessarily the best
driving experience.

Generally speaking, the lower the number of gear ratios your
transmission has, the harder the engine will have to work to make up for
it which is why most cars have more than 4 speeds these days.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 19/11/2023 9:51 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/11/2023 1:15 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 18/11/2023 3:54 pm, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> Your old piles of scrap have zero relevance to the discussion.
>>
>> The subject of the discussion is the wankel, but you apparently are
>> determined to be a wanker.
>
> You act surprised every time he does, which in itself is surprising.
> Surely you're aware by now that he exists in this group for no reason
> other than to be a ridiculous twat.
>
Well, you exist in this group for no other reason than self aggrandisement!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 19/11/2023 12:34 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:

>> The *normal* reaction for a trans in that situation is to either stay
>> in the same gear or *upshift*.
>
> can't upshit from top gear

Lol :)

>> Won't happen with an auto, the torque converter stator will lock,
>> *slippage* will occur between the impeller and turbine and the
>> converter will increase torque.
>
> nope. happens in the ZS but I've only noticed it in top gear

Yep, it happens in many autos with only 3 or 4 speeds. Clasener has no
idea.

>> And autos will *automatically downshift* if the load increase or
>> throttle increase at the requisite road speed requires it. Never seen
>> an auto work any other way.
>
> yes, I agree with that

That's the whole point. They will *all* work like that. The difference
between them is that some do it a whole lot better than others which is
what you're experiencing with your car.

The reason why lots of gear ratios are common in automatic transmissions
these days is because it keeps engines in their "sweet spot" and stops
them from labouring like yours is. As I'm sure you're aware all engines
have a torque curve, and all engines have an RPM range where peak torque
comes into play. Given that torque not only dictates how well a car
accelerates in hear but also how well it's able to maintain a cruising
speed, the idea is to keep the engine within this range as much as
possible so the effect on performance is minimised.

This is why most cars now have 6 speed transmissions at the minimum, and
some have a lot more.

My old Navara was a 2012 model and it had a 7 speed auto which, combined
with the 3 litre V6 turbo diesel allowed it to perform very well and
still return excellent fuel economy for a ute that weighed well in
excess of 2 tonnes. Similarly, my Hyundai Santa Fe has an 8 speed auto
driven by a 2.2 litre TD and the Ranger has a 10 speed trans again
driven by a turbocharged 3 litre diesel engine.

These are all different vehicles made by different manufacturers, but
the one thing they all have in common was that their drive lines were
configured in such a way to exploit their respective engines perfectly,
with the rpm drop between gears being small enough to allow you to do
things like climb steep hills without letting the rpm fall out of the
useful work range.

This is something you *can't* do with a 3 or 4 speed auto, which is what
you're discovering.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.