On 19/11/2023 6:15 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:

>>> 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.

<rubbish snipped>

> bump

I'm sorry Felix, but comments like this show that your mate has no idea
what he's talking about.

Lock up torque converters primarily exist to reduce the heat generated
by older non-locking converters that always operate with a slip of
9/10th's of crankshaft speed in any gear. The side effect of converter
locking is that it drops engine speed by a couple of hundred rpm which
will see a very *small* reduction in fuel consumption.

It's also common these days for converters to lock up in multiple gears,
and not just top gear as he erroneously claimed.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 19/11/2023 12:28 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

>> 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

For the reasons I mentioned in another post. Had it more gear ratios
your car would perform a whole lot better in this regard, but then there
is a reason why they're cheap.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 19/11/2023 12:36 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:

>>> 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

Right. So what he seems to be saying here is that had your car been
equipped with a 6 speed trans which would give it a better spread of
ratios to keep the engine in it's sweet spot, it would labour just as
badly as it does now with it's 4 speed trans?

I can only shake my head in disbelief and wonder how it was ever
possible for him to become a teacher :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Noddy wrote:
> 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.
>
>

yep, that all makes sense, and I didn't know modern cars had so many
transmission speeds. the Lancer of course had CVT, which overcomes the
multiple gearing.

--
Have a nice day!..

On Sunday, 19 November 2023 at 00:29:15 UTC+11, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> 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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since 4th is an overdrive, you would better off driving (in urban areas) in 3rd gear. (1 to1 ratio, same as top gear in a non-overdrive box) which should get rid of the probs. you`ve been having.
You could also drive it as a manual, and have complete control over what`s happening.

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!..

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

>> This is something you *can't* do with a 3 or 4 speed auto, which is
>> what you're discovering.
>
> yep, that all makes sense, and I didn't know modern cars had so many
> transmission speeds. the Lancer of course had CVT, which overcomes the
> multiple gearing.

That's right.

CVT's have one very distinct advantage over regular transmissions in
that they have a virtually infinite combination of ratios and can pick
the exact (to the best of the controlling computer's ability) ratio for
any given situation. That makes them especially well suited for smaller
engines or those that have very narrow torque bands.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 November 2023 at 00:29:15 UTC+11, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> 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.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Since 4th is an overdrive,

didn't know that. that explains why it's unresponsive at low revs.

> you would better off driving (in urban areas) in 3rd gear.

I can't since it's an auto

> (1 to1 ratio, same as top gear in a non-overdrive box) which should get rid of the probs. you`ve been having.

I haven't really been having any problems, just making observations
about driving it. it drives very differently to the Lancer. but I must
say it handles very well (cornering, etc.,), which surprised me (maybe
due to low profile wide tyres) and the turning circle is quite small,
which is good.

> You could also drive it as a manual, and have complete control over what`s happening.
>

I forgot I could, lol. handy to have that option.

>
>> 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!..

On Sunday, 19 November 2023 at 19:41:16 UTC+11, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 19 November 2023 at 00:29:15 UTC+11, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> >> 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.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Since 4th is an overdrive,
> didn't know that. that explains why it's unresponsive at low revs.
> > you would better off driving (in urban areas) in 3rd gear.
> I can't since it's an auto
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
Assuming its got P R N 4321 just run it in the 3rd position instead of D.. Then it will stay in third (1 2 3direct) and stay out of 4th. (overdrive!.)

> > (1 to1 ratio, same as top gear in a non-overdrive box) which should get rid of the probs. you`ve been having.
> I haven't really been having any problems, just making observations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
Operating in *direct* will help with drivability!.

> about driving it. it drives very differently to the Lancer. but I must
> say it handles very well (cornering, etc.,), which surprised me (maybe
> due to low profile wide tyres) and the turning circle is quite small,
> which is good.
> > You could also drive it as a manual, and have complete control over what`s happening.
> >
> I forgot I could, lol. handy to have that option.

> >
> >> 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!..

On 19/11/2023 1:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/11/2023 11:11 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>>> This is something you *can't* do with a 3 or 4 speed auto, which is
>>> what you're discovering.
>>
>> yep, that all makes sense, and I didn't know modern cars had so many
>> transmission speeds. the Lancer of course had CVT, which overcomes the
>> multiple gearing.
>
> That's right.
>
> CVT's have one very distinct advantage over regular transmissions in
> that they have a virtually infinite combination of ratios and can pick
> the exact (to the best of the controlling computer's ability) ratio for
> any given situation. That makes them especially well suited for smaller
> engines or those that have very narrow torque bands.

It's notable that the VW T-Cross with a 1 litre 85Kw engine has either a
6 speed manual or 7 speed auto gearbox.

On 19/11/2023 8:29 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 19/11/2023 1:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 19/11/2023 11:11 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> This is something you *can't* do with a 3 or 4 speed auto, which is
>>>> what you're discovering.
>>>
>>> yep, that all makes sense, and I didn't know modern cars had so many
>>> transmission speeds. the Lancer of course had CVT, which overcomes
>>> the multiple gearing.
>>
>> That's right.
>>
>> CVT's have one very distinct advantage over regular transmissions in
>> that they have a virtually infinite combination of ratios and can pick
>> the exact (to the best of the controlling computer's ability) ratio
>> for any given situation. That makes them especially well suited for
>> smaller engines or those that have very narrow torque bands.
>
> It's notable that the VW T-Cross with a 1 litre 85Kw engine has either a
> 6 speed manual or 7 speed auto gearbox.

CVT's aren't everyone's cup of meat, and there's quite a few people who
don't like them. Me included. Still, they're not as bad as a DSG type,
which are pigs of things to drive in traffic.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 19/11/2023 7:41 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:

>>   Since 4th is an overdrive,
>
> didn't know that. that explains why it's unresponsive at low revs.

For sure!
>
>>   you would better off driving (in urban areas) in 3rd gear.
>
> I can't since it's an auto

Don't have an OD OFF control? Wife's Swift has an "OD OFF" button on the
stalk and, pressing that, puts the trans into 3rd gear. Corollas, when
they had 4 speeds, had the same thing but in a different arrangement.
Take it out of D, flip it to 3, that locked out OD (4th) and left you
with 1 thru 3 to play with, automatically or manually.
>
>>   (1 to1 ratio, same as top gear in a non-overdrive box) which should
>> get rid of the probs. you`ve been having.
>
> I haven't really been having any problems, just making observations
> about driving it. it drives very differently to the Lancer. but I must
> say it handles very well (cornering, etc.,), which surprised me (maybe
> due to low profile wide tyres) and the turning circle is quite small,
> which is good.
>
>
>>        You could also drive it as a manual, and have complete control
>> over what`s happening.
>>
>
> I forgot I could, lol. handy to have that option.
>
>>
>>>   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" :)

If those vibrations were *engine vibes*, the torque converter clutch
would have to be engaged. The torque converter acts as a massive
hydraulic *vibration damper*. The torque converter clutch (TCC), for
reasons of economy, locks the input and the output of the torque
converter making it act much like an *engaged* manual clutch. Now, think
what happens in a manual if you forget to change down - the engine speed
will drop as road speed drops - and will send vibrations through the car
as the engine runs at too low a speed - until it eventually stalls the
engine. To prevent that happening in an auto with the TCC in lockup, it
has to *disengage* the TCC and that typically happens about 60 kph and
below. The torque converter clutch should also disengage the moment you
press the throttle to accelerate or you encounter a hill and adjust
throttle to suit.

Back in 4 speed auto Corolla days, there was a hill here on the highway
that, at 100 kph, would be a bit much for OD lockup. As you started on
the gradient, if you attempted to maintain speed by adjusting the
throttle, the first to drop off was the TCC. You could see the revs
increase by about 200 rpm or so on the tacho. A little further along, as
the grade steepened, the trans would drop back to 3rd (direct) with a
commensurate 500ish rpm increase in engine revs. As soon as you hit the
top and levelled out, the trans would upshift to 4th, (down 500 rpm),
then the TCC would lock up again (down 200 rpm).

It would be interesting to put a pro scantool on your car and see at
what speeds the TCC engages and disengages. With the right scantool you
can graph the actions of the TCC solenoid, the throttle position, the
MAF sensor, MAP sensor, the road speed, and the engine speed and get a
fairly good idea if the TCC is operating to specifications. With the TCC
*disengaged*, as it should be *at low road speeds*, the torque converter
will dampen all engine vibrations hence you shouldn't experience this;

>>> I felt slight vibration and realized the engine was struggling,.

--
Xeno

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

On 19/11/2023 8:43 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/11/2023 8:29 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 19/11/2023 1:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 19/11/2023 11:11 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This is something you *can't* do with a 3 or 4 speed auto, which is
>>>>> what you're discovering.
>>>>
>>>> yep, that all makes sense, and I didn't know modern cars had so many
>>>> transmission speeds. the Lancer of course had CVT, which overcomes
>>>> the multiple gearing.
>>>
>>> That's right.
>>>
>>> CVT's have one very distinct advantage over regular transmissions in
>>> that they have a virtually infinite combination of ratios and can
>>> pick the exact (to the best of the controlling computer's ability)
>>> ratio for any given situation. That makes them especially well suited
>>> for smaller engines or those that have very narrow torque bands.
>>
>> It's notable that the VW T-Cross with a 1 litre 85Kw engine has either
>> a 6 speed manual or 7 speed auto gearbox.
>
> CVT's aren't everyone's cup of meat, and there's quite a few people who
> don't like them. Me included. Still, they're not as bad as a DSG type,
> which are pigs of things to drive in traffic.
>
>
I'd describe the 7spd DSG in our Golf as quirky, most of the time its
excellent, shifts very quickly and most of the time its selects the
correct gear.
Where it gets into trouble is if there is a sudden change in what the
driver wants to do such as when you are approaching a roundabout and are
preparing to stop then you notice that there is no traffic so you
accelerate instead of stopping and it can momentarily get confused.
Putting it into sport mode improves that problem but doesn't get rid of
it altogether.
In slow stop start traffic it works okay, not as smooth as a TQ auto but
its not that bad, where it excels is fuel economy and performance,
economy is exceptional, 700km out of a 50lt tank from normal running
around and even better on a long trip.
Its only has a 110kw 1.4turbo but it feels like its got a lot more power.

--
Daryl

jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 November 2023 at 19:41:16 UTC+11, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 19 November 2023 at 00:29:15 UTC+11, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> Since 4th is an overdrive,
>> didn't know that. that explains why it's unresponsive at low revs.
>>> you would better off driving (in urban areas) in 3rd gear.
>> I can't since it's an auto
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
> Assuming its got P R N 4321 just run it in the 3rd position instead of D.. Then it will stay in third (1 2 3direct) and stay out of 4th. (overdrive!.)

yeah I'll have a play with it

>
>>> (1 to1 ratio, same as top gear in a non-overdrive box) which should get rid of the probs. you`ve been having.
>> I haven't really been having any problems, just making observations
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
> Operating in *direct* will help with drivability!.
>
>> about driving it. it drives very differently to the Lancer. but I must
>> say it handles very well (cornering, etc.,), which surprised me (maybe
>> due to low profile wide tyres) and the turning circle is quite small,
>> which is good.
>>> You could also drive it as a manual, and have complete control over what`s happening.
>>>
>> I forgot I could, lol. handy to have that option.
>>
>>>> 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!..

On 18/11/2023 10:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> 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,

Yeah so Daryl's scrap has zero relevance to the discussion, as I said.

but you apparently are
> determined to be a wanker.
>

Nyuk...

3/10

--
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 19/11/2023 6:51 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.
>

I'm just a beginner... still about 100,000 posts behind you.

--
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 19/11/2023 10:07 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 19/11/2023 8:43 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> CVT's aren't everyone's cup of meat, and there's quite a few people
>> who don't like them. Me included. Still, they're not as bad as a DSG
>> type, which are pigs of things to drive in traffic.
>>
>>
> I'd describe the 7spd DSG in our Golf as quirky, most of the time its
> excellent, shifts very quickly and most of the time its selects the
> correct gear.
> Where it gets into trouble is if there is a sudden change in what the
> driver wants to do such as when you are approaching a roundabout and are
> preparing to stop then you notice that there is no traffic so you
> accelerate instead of stopping and it can momentarily get confused.

Yep, they suck at stuff like that.

> Putting it into sport mode improves that problem but doesn't get rid of
> it altogether.
> In slow stop start traffic it works okay, not as smooth as a TQ auto but
> its not that bad, where it excels is fuel economy and performance,
> economy is exceptional, 700km out of a 50lt tank from normal running
> around and even better on a long trip.
> Its only has a 110kw 1.4turbo but it feels like its got a lot more power.

Yeah, that sort of economy is excellent.

Sounds like the DSG operation is one of the better ones. The biggest
complaint most people seem to make about them is how jerky and
indecisive they are in traffic. I get that they shift pretty quick in a
performance oriented car where you'd be willing to put up with the
foibles for the performance aspect, but for mainstream stuff I think
there's better options.

Anything with a torque converter usually :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 19/11/2023 11:54 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/11/2023 10:07 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 19/11/2023 8:43 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> CVT's aren't everyone's cup of meat, and there's quite a few people
>>> who don't like them. Me included. Still, they're not as bad as a DSG
>>> type, which are pigs of things to drive in traffic.
>>>
>>>
>> I'd describe the 7spd DSG in our Golf as quirky, most of the time its
>> excellent, shifts very quickly and most of the time its selects the
>> correct gear.
>> Where it gets into trouble is if there is a sudden change in what the
>> driver wants to do such as when you are approaching a roundabout and
>> are preparing to stop then you notice that there is no traffic so you
>> accelerate instead of stopping and it can momentarily get confused.
>
> Yep, they suck at stuff like that.
>
>> Putting it into sport mode improves that problem but doesn't get rid
>> of it altogether.
>> In slow stop start traffic it works okay, not as smooth as a TQ auto
>> but its not that bad, where it excels is fuel economy and performance,
>> economy is exceptional, 700km out of a 50lt tank from normal running
>> around and even better on a long trip.
>> Its only has a 110kw 1.4turbo but it feels like its got a lot more power.
>
> Yeah, that sort of economy is excellent.
>
> Sounds like the DSG operation is one of the better ones. The biggest
> complaint most people seem to make about them is how jerky and
> indecisive they are in traffic. I get that they shift pretty quick in a
> performance oriented car where you'd be willing to put up with the
> foibles for the performance aspect, but for mainstream stuff I think
> there's better options.
>
> Anything with a torque converter usually :)
>
So you like CVTs then! They have torque converters too!

--
Xeno

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

Xeno wrote:
> On 19/11/2023 11:54 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 19/11/2023 10:07 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 19/11/2023 8:43 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> CVT's aren't everyone's cup of meat, and there's quite a few people
>>>> who don't like them. Me included. Still, they're not as bad as a
>>>> DSG type, which are pigs of things to drive in traffic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'd describe the 7spd DSG in our Golf as quirky, most of the time
>>> its excellent, shifts very quickly and most of the time its selects
>>> the correct gear.
>>> Where it gets into trouble is if there is a sudden change in what
>>> the driver wants to do such as when you are approaching a roundabout
>>> and are preparing to stop then you notice that there is no traffic
>>> so you accelerate instead of stopping and it can momentarily get
>>> confused.
>>
>> Yep, they suck at stuff like that.
>>
>>> Putting it into sport mode improves that problem but doesn't get rid
>>> of it altogether.
>>> In slow stop start traffic it works okay, not as smooth as a TQ auto
>>> but its not that bad, where it excels is fuel economy and
>>> performance, economy is exceptional, 700km out of a 50lt tank from
>>> normal running around and even better on a long trip.
>>> Its only has a 110kw 1.4turbo but it feels like its got a lot more
>>> power.
>>
>> Yeah, that sort of economy is excellent.
>>
>> Sounds like the DSG operation is one of the better ones. The biggest
>> complaint most people seem to make about them is how jerky and
>> indecisive they are in traffic. I get that they shift pretty quick in
>> a performance oriented car where you'd be willing to put up with the
>> foibles for the performance aspect, but for mainstream stuff I think
>> there's better options.
>>
>> Anything with a torque converter usually :)
>>
> So you like CVTs then! They have torque converters too!
>

I really didn't notice any difference driving a CVT to an auto transmission.

--
Have a nice day!..

On 20/11/2023 1:03 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:

> I really didn't notice any difference driving a CVT to an auto
> transmission.

Some people don't. To some they're just like driving any other car.
Other people, myself included, can't stand the constant "droning" of the
engine while the transmission holds it at a particular rpm.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 19/11/2023 11:54 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/11/2023 10:07 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 19/11/2023 8:43 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> CVT's aren't everyone's cup of meat, and there's quite a few people
>>> who don't like them. Me included. Still, they're not as bad as a DSG
>>> type, which are pigs of things to drive in traffic.
>>>
>>>
>> I'd describe the 7spd DSG in our Golf as quirky, most of the time its
>> excellent, shifts very quickly and most of the time its selects the
>> correct gear.
>> Where it gets into trouble is if there is a sudden change in what the
>> driver wants to do such as when you are approaching a roundabout and
>> are preparing to stop then you notice that there is no traffic so you
>> accelerate instead of stopping and it can momentarily get confused.
>
> Yep, they suck at stuff like that.
>
>> Putting it into sport mode improves that problem but doesn't get rid
>> of it altogether.
>> In slow stop start traffic it works okay, not as smooth as a TQ auto
>> but its not that bad, where it excels is fuel economy and performance,
>> economy is exceptional, 700km out of a 50lt tank from normal running
>> around and even better on a long trip.
>> Its only has a 110kw 1.4turbo but it feels like its got a lot more power.
>
> Yeah, that sort of economy is excellent.
>
> Sounds like the DSG operation is one of the better ones.

Apparently VW made big improvements on the 7spd, previous models were a
lot worse.

The biggest
> complaint most people seem to make about them is how jerky and
> indecisive they are in traffic. I get that they shift pretty quick in a
> performance oriented car where you'd be willing to put up with the
> foibles for the performance aspect, but for mainstream stuff I think
> there's better options.
>
> Anything with a torque converter usually :)
>

Impossible to beat the smoothness of a TQ trans in traffic.

--
Daryl

On 20/11/2023 7:36 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 1:03 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
>> I really didn't notice any difference driving a CVT to an auto
>> transmission.
>
> Some people don't. To some they're just like driving any other car.
> Other people, myself included, can't stand the constant "droning" of the
> engine while the transmission holds it at a particular rpm.
>

I found that Subaru CVT's are very good, the CVT in the rented Swift we
had recently was just OK.
Worst one I drove was a Nissan Xtrail that a friend had rented several
years ago, bloody awful to drive, it also sounded weird.

--
Daryl

On 20/11/2023 10:02 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 7:36 am, Noddy wrote:

>> Some people don't. To some they're just like driving any other car.
>> Other people, myself included, can't stand the constant "droning" of
>> the engine while the transmission holds it at a particular rpm.
>>
>
> I found that Subaru CVT's are very good, the CVT in the rented Swift we
> had recently was just OK.
> Worst one I drove was a Nissan Xtrail that a friend had rented several
> years ago, bloody awful to drive, it also sounded weird.

Same deal in my Mother-In-Law's Mitsubishi thing. Can't remember what it
was called. A Colt? Had a little 3 cylinder engine and a CVT, and it was
terrible. Admittedly it was a cheap-arsed little car, but it was
horrible to drive. It made a monotonous drone that vibrated through the
whole car and was stupidly annoying.

Must have been bad, as the woman who is in her 80's and couldn't care
less about cars traded it on a new Hyundai i30 when it was only 2 years
old and had done less than 10k km's :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 20/11/2023 9:55 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 19/11/2023 11:54 pm, Noddy wrote:

> Impossible to beat the smoothness of a TQ trans in traffic.

It is.

I know the world is chasing every last poofteenth of use out of every
last drop of fuel, but conventional autos have come a hell of a long way
and the small benefits out of things like CVT's and DSG's are far
outweighed by their complexity and unreliability in my opinion.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 20/11/2023 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 7:36 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 20/11/2023 1:03 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>
>>> I really didn't notice any difference driving a CVT to an auto
>>> transmission.
>>
>> Some people don't. To some they're just like driving any other car.
>> Other people, myself included, can't stand the constant "droning" of
>> the engine while the transmission holds it at a particular rpm.
>>
>
> I found that Subaru CVT's are very good

Not in terms of reliability.

--
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 20/11/2023 10:19 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 10:02 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 20/11/2023 7:36 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Some people don't. To some they're just like driving any other car.
>>> Other people, myself included, can't stand the constant "droning" of
>>> the engine while the transmission holds it at a particular rpm.
>>>
>>
>> I found that Subaru CVT's are very good, the CVT in the rented Swift
>> we had recently was just OK.
>> Worst one I drove was a Nissan Xtrail that a friend had rented several
>> years ago, bloody awful to drive, it also sounded weird.
>
> Same deal in my Mother-In-Law's Mitsubishi thing. Can't remember what it
> was called. A Colt? Had a little 3 cylinder engine and a CVT, and it was
> terrible. Admittedly it was a cheap-arsed little car, but it was
> horrible to drive. It made a monotonous drone that vibrated through the
> whole car and was stupidly annoying.

Matches the monotonous drone of your lying. They vibrate through the
whole newsgroup and are stupidly annoying too!
>
> Must have been bad, as the woman who is in her 80's and couldn't care
> less about cars traded it on a new Hyundai i30 when it was only 2 years
> old and had done less than 10k km's :)
>
>

--
Xeno

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