On 20/11/2023 10:22 am, Noddy wrote:
> 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.

Complexity? A CVT? Surely thee jest! CVTs are *simple*! As for CVT
unreliability, you must be thinking of Jatco CVTs as used in Nissans.
They are indeed horribly unreliable and equally horrible to drive. Now
if you had experience with Aisin (Toyota) CVTs, you would have had a
much different experience - as long as you service them correctly, they
are 100% reliable. Most importantly, they make for a pleasant driving
experience and they'll even *simulate* a step auto if you so desire.

--
Xeno

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

Daryl 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.
>
> 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.
>

I imagine electric cars are very smooth running

--
Have a nice day!..

Xeno wrote:
> 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,

https://www.carsales.com.au/mitsubishi/mirage/price/2019/es-510101/

>> 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!

LOL!

>>
>> 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 :)
>>
>>
>

--
Have a nice day!..

Xeno wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 10:22 am, Noddy wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Complexity? A CVT? Surely thee jest! CVTs are *simple*!

CVT transmissions are more simple that multiple speed autos, surely

> As for CVT unreliability, you must be thinking of Jatco CVTs as used
> in Nissans. They are indeed horribly unreliable and equally horrible
> to drive. Now if you had experience with Aisin (Toyota) CVTs, you
> would have had a much different experience - as long as you service
> them correctly, they are 100% reliable. Most importantly, they make
> for a pleasant driving experience and they'll even *simulate* a step
> auto if you so desire.
>

--
Have a nice day!..

On 20/11/2023 1:06 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Daryl wrote:

>> Impossible to beat the smoothness of a TQ trans in traffic.
>>
>
> I imagine electric cars are very smooth running

And very quiet.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 20/11/2023 1:14 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>> On 20/11/2023 10:22 am, Noddy wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Complexity? A CVT? Surely thee jest! CVTs are *simple*!
>
> CVT transmissions are more simple that multiple speed autos, surely

Way simpler. Multi speed (step) autos are way more complex. FFS, just
one compound planetary set is complex enough and your 4 speed will
likely have 2 of them and a simple planetary set. Don't even think about
Darren's 10 speed in his Fraud Truck - just watch this;

https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/diy/a1719606/peek-abyss-heres-inside-10-speed-automatic/

Now tell me that's simple!

Watch this CVT teardown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRMPMBVtmjk

Not hard to rebuild a Nissan CVT. Such a pity that you need to do it often.

Now tell me this is complex. Note, it is a *transaxle* so it has the
added complexity?? of the final drive (diff) included in the package.
Still much simpler with a much reduced component count than the Fraud 10
speed auto.

BTW, the CVT is a *Nissan* unit by its subsidiary, Jatco.

https://www.carparts.com/blog/why-the-nissan-cvt-is-quite-possibly-the-worst-transmission-ever-built/

Video clip on how the CVT works embedded in the linked site.

>
>> As for CVT unreliability, you must be thinking of Jatco CVTs as used
>> in Nissans. They are indeed horribly unreliable and equally horrible
>> to drive. Now if you had experience with Aisin (Toyota) CVTs, you
>> would have had a much different experience - as long as you service
>> them correctly, they are 100% reliable. Most importantly, they make
>> for a pleasant driving experience and they'll even *simulate* a step
>> auto if you so desire.
>>
>
>

--
Xeno

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

On 20/11/2023 1:31 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 1:06 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>
>>> Impossible to beat the smoothness of a TQ trans in traffic.
>>>
>>
>> I imagine electric cars are very smooth running
>
> And very quiet.
>
In cars, that's not such a good thing. Pedestrians don't hear them
coming so car makers are having to provide *added sound*.

--
Xeno

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

On 20/11/2023 1:14 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:

>> Complexity? A CVT? Surely thee jest! CVTs are *simple*!
>
> CVT transmissions are more simple that multiple speed autos, surely

They are complex in their own way. There is nothing critically complex
about conventional autos. The've been around for decades, and while
they've changed in regards to electronic controls and the number of
ratios they still function in much the same way.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 20/11/2023 1:46 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 1:14 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:
>
>>> Complexity? A CVT? Surely thee jest! CVTs are *simple*!
>>
>> CVT transmissions are more simple that multiple speed autos, surely
>
> They are complex in their own way.

Which ways?

<snip irrelevant>

--
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."

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 1:14 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:
>
>>> Complexity? A CVT? Surely thee jest! CVTs are *simple*!
>>
>> CVT transmissions are more simple that multiple speed autos, surely
>
> They are complex in their own way. There is nothing critically complex
> about conventional autos. The've been around for decades, and while
> they've changed in regards to electronic controls and the number of
> ratios they still function in much the same way.
>
What rot! A CVT has two variators, a push belt, a torque converter, a
simple planetary gearset and a high pressure hydraulic system. If it’s a
transaxle, toss in a final drive and a diff. Operation is simple -
according to road speed, load and throttle opening, adjust variators, one
open, the other closed, according to demand. No step change at all so no
shift timing issues and apply pressure issues. It doesn’t get much simpler
than that.

A step auto, on the other hand, has a number of compound planetary
gearsets, a simple planetary gearset, a number of multi plate clutches and
brakes, and complex multiple flowpaths depending on ratio selection. As
well as having complex hydraulic circuits, the valve body will have complex
shift timing, damping and softening mechanisms, absolutely essential for
preventing shift flaring or graunching (2 ratios selected at once). All
this and in thousand of separate components. Hell, just one clutch pack can
consist of 30 or more separate bits

You would have no hope rebuilding a relatively simple BW35, don’t even
think about diagnosis - you can’t even work out why a valve head dropped
off.

____
Xeno

Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 1:46 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 20/11/2023 1:14 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Xeno wrote:
>>
>>>> Complexity? A CVT? Surely thee jest! CVTs are *simple*!
>>>
>>> CVT transmissions are more simple that multiple speed autos, surely
>>
>> They are complex in their own way.
>
> Which ways?
>
> <snip irrelevant>
>
>
Darren wouldn’t have a clue, auto trans are way beyond his ken.

____
Xeno

Noddy wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 1:14 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:
>
>>> Complexity? A CVT? Surely thee jest! CVTs are *simple*!
>>
>> CVT transmissions are more simple that multiple speed autos, surely
>
> They are complex in their own way. There is nothing critically complex
> about conventional autos. The've been around for decades, and while
> they've changed in regards to electronic controls and the number of
> ratios they still function in much the same way.
>
>
>

but CVT's are a simpler form of transmission

--
Have a nice day!..

Noddy wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 1:14 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:
>
>>> Complexity? A CVT? Surely thee jest! CVTs are *simple*!
>>
>>
>
> They are complex in their own way. There is nothing critically complex
> about conventional autos. The've been around for decades, and while
> they've changed in regards to electronic controls and the number of
> ratios they still function in much the same way.
>
>
>

What rot! A CVT has two variators, a push belt, a torque converter, a
simple planetary gearset and a high pressure hydraulic system. If it’s a
transaxle, toss in a final drive and a diff. Operation is simple -
according to road speed, load and throttle opening, adjust variators, one
open, the other closed, according to demand. No step change at all so no
shift timing issues and apply pressure issues. It doesn’t get much simpler
than that.

A step auto, on the other hand, has a number of compound planetary
gearsets, a simple planetary gearset, a number of multi plate clutches and
brakes, and complex multiple flowpaths depending on ratio selection. As
well as having complex hydraulic circuits, the valve body will have complex
shift timing, damping and softening mechanisms, absolutely essential for
preventing shift flaring or graunching (2 ratios selected at once). All
this and in thousand of separate components. Hell, just one clutch pack can
consist of 30 or more separate bits

You would have no hope rebuilding a relatively simple BW35, don’t even
think about diagnosis - you can’t even work out why a valve head dropped
off.

____
Xeno

CVT transmissions are more simple that multiple speed autos, surely

Way simpler. Multi speed (step) autos are way more complex. FFS, just
one compound planetary set is complex enough and your 4 speed will
likely have 2 of them and a simple planetary set. Don't even think about
Darren's 10 speed in his Fraud Truck - just watch this;

https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/diy/a1719606/peek-abyss-heres-inside-10-speed-automatic/

Now tell me that's simple!

Watch this CVT teardown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRMPMBVtmjk

Not hard to rebuild a Nissan CVT. Such a pity that you need to do it often.

Now tell me this is complex. Note, it is a *transaxle* so it has the
added complexity?? of the final drive (diff) included in the package.
Still much simpler with a much reduced component count than the Fraud 10
speed auto.

BTW, the CVT is a *Nissan* unit by its subsidiary, Jatco.

https://www.carparts.com/blog/why-the-nissan-cvt-is-quite-possibly-the-worst-transmission-ever-built/

Video clip on how the CVT works embedded in the linked site.

____
Xeno

pretty sure noddys lost this argument!..

--
Have a nice day!..

On Monday, 20 November 2023 at 17:55:51 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
> Clocky <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
> > On 20/11/2023 1:46 pm, Noddy wrote:
> >> On 20/11/2023 1:14 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> >>> Xeno wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Complexity? A CVT? Surely thee jest! CVTs are *simple*!
> >>>
> >>> CVT transmissions are more simple that multiple speed autos, surely
> >>

> Darren wouldn’t have a clue, auto trans are way beyond his ken.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sez the bloke that stated (unequivocally) just a couple of days ago!.

*Auto`s only lock the converter in O/D!*

viz:
Xeno
18 Nov 2023, 15:49:22 (2 days ago)

to
OD = Overdrive (referring to ratio)
TCL = Torque Converter Lockup (only possible in OD)

Two days later, we get this:

Xeno
unread,
17:55 (14 minutes ago)
to
Clocky <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 1:46 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 20/11/2023 1:14 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Xeno wrote:

*Darren wouldn’t have a clue, auto trans are way beyond his ken.*

After saying what you did!. Yer a charlatan. (With a fucked memory)
~~~~~~~~~~

Not to forget *this* gem. :)

*You would have no hope rebuilding a relatively simple BW35, don’t even
think about diagnosis - you can’t even work out why a valve head dropped*

REALLY???????.. :)))

____
Xeno

....
>
> ____
> Xeno

Xeno wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 1:14 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:
>>> On 20/11/2023 10:22 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Complexity? A CVT? Surely thee jest! CVTs are *simple*!
>>
>> CVT transmissions are more simple that multiple speed autos, surely
>
> Way simpler. Multi speed (step) autos are way more complex. FFS, just
> one compound planetary set is complex enough and your 4 speed will
> likely have 2 of them and a simple planetary set. Don't even think
> about Darren's 10 speed in his Fraud Truck - just watch this;
>
> https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/diy/a1719606/peek-abyss-heres-inside-10-speed-automatic/
>
>
> Now tell me that's simple!

err.. no.. I don't think I will. being an auto mechanic today is a much
more technical job than when we worked on Morris Minors!  :)

>
> Watch this CVT teardown
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRMPMBVtmjk
>
> Not hard to rebuild a Nissan CVT. Such a pity that you need to do it
> often.

their poor design and dishonesty cost them $277 million

>
> Now tell me this is complex.

much simpler

> Note, it is a *transaxle* so it has the added complexity?? of the
> final drive (diff) included in the package. Still much simpler with a
> much reduced component count than the Fraud 10 speed auto.
>
> BTW, the CVT is a *Nissan* unit by its subsidiary, Jatco.
>
> https://www.carparts.com/blog/why-the-nissan-cvt-is-quite-possibly-the-worst-transmission-ever-built/
>
>
> Video clip on how the CVT works embedded in the linked site.
>
>>
>>> As for CVT unreliability, you must be thinking of Jatco CVTs as used
>>> in Nissans. They are indeed horribly unreliable and equally horrible
>>> to drive. Now if you had experience with Aisin (Toyota) CVTs, you
>>> would have had a much different experience - as long as you service
>>> them correctly, they are 100% reliable. Most importantly, they make
>>> for a pleasant driving experience and they'll even *simulate* a step
>>> auto if you so desire.
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Have a nice day!..

On 20/11/2023 6:32 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

>> They are complex in their own way. There is nothing critically complex
>> about conventional autos. The've been around for decades, and while
>> they've changed in regards to electronic controls and the number of
>> ratios they still function in much the same way.
>>
>>
>>
>
> but CVT's are a simpler form of transmission

They're a *different* transmission, Felix.

There's nothing "complex" about a conventional planetary type auto
trans. As I said in another post, they've been around a long time, and
while they have more smarts these days and more ratios, they're not that
far removed from the stuff of 50 years ago. There just tends to be more
in the case, and that doesn't make things "complex" in and of itself.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 20/11/2023 6:33 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

> pretty sure noddys lost this argument!..

Be as sure as you like Felix, but to me this seems to be about nothing
more than what *you* consider to be "complex", and given that you've
never worked on either style of transmission I'm not sure how you've
know either way.

Not criticising. Just stating a fact.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, I've rebuild plenty of conventional
autos but have never worked on a CVT.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 6:33 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>> pretty sure noddys lost this argument!..
>
> Be as sure as you like Felix, but to me this seems to be about nothing
> more than what *you* consider to be "complex", and given that you've
> never worked on either style of transmission I'm not sure how you've
> know either way.

Hey Darren, you’ve never worked on either type of transmission, 100%
guaranteed. You definitely wouldn’t be able to work out the hydraulics in
the valve body. There’s complexity you can see, and complexity you can’t
even imagine.
>
> Not criticising. Just stating a fact.

You wouldn’t know a fact if one bit you on your arse! Lies however, you’re
definitely full bottle on them.
>
> Oh, and in case you're wondering, I've rebuild plenty of conventional
> autos but have never worked on a CVT.
>
What a load of bollocks. R&R trans is the best you could manage.

--
Xeno

On 20/11/2023 5:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 6:33 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>> pretty sure noddys lost this argument!..
>
> Be as sure as you like Felix, but to me this seems to be about nothing
> more than what *you* consider to be "complex", and given that you've
> never worked on either style of transmission I'm not sure how you've
> know either way.
>
> Not criticising. Just stating a fact.
>
> Oh, and in case you're wondering, I've rebuild plenty of conventional
> autos but have never worked on a CVT.
>
>

What a pack of lies! You're a part swapper at best Mr. "All Imperial"
Jeep :-)

--
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."

Noddy wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 6:33 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>> pretty sure noddys lost this argument!..
>
> Be as sure as you like Felix, but to me this seems to be about nothing
> more than what *you* consider to be "complex", and given that you've
> never worked on either style of transmission I'm not sure how you've
> know either way.

by watching the videos Xeno posted that you've snipped. even the guys
disassembling the transmissions commented on how complex they are nowdays.

>
> Not criticising. Just stating a fact.
>
> Oh, and in case you're wondering, I've rebuild plenty of conventional
> autos but have never worked on a CVT.
>
>

--
Have a nice day!..

On 21/11/2023 12:28 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 20/11/2023 6:33 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>
>>> pretty sure noddys lost this argument!..
>>
>> Be as sure as you like Felix, but to me this seems to be about nothing
>> more than what *you* consider to be "complex", and given that you've
>> never worked on either style of transmission I'm not sure how you've
>> know either way.
>
> by watching the videos Xeno posted that you've snipped.

Oh, right :)

In case you haven't worked it out by now Felix I snip most of what he
posts as it's usually irrelevant waffling rubbish like this very subjecy
here for example, but if you go back and watch those videos again you'll
see that one shows a Ford 10 speed auto being completely dismantled in a
professional transmission shop while the other shows a guy in his home
garage only *partially* dismantling a CVT to get to a particular fault.

This exploded diagram here shows all the components found in a Nissan CVT:

> https://webshop.ganzeboom.net/jf010e

Quite busy for something that doesn't have a planetary gearset, huh? :)
> even the guys disassembling the transmissions commented on how
complex they are nowdays.

*Everything* is considered "complex" these days compared to what they
used to be. For example, take an old flathead 4 cylinder engine and
compare it to a modern overhead cam engine with a multi valve cylinder
head and variable valve timing. One is certainly more "Complex" in terms
of having more parts, but it's not *complicated* which seems to be where
your confusion lies.

Something with more parts isn't automatically less reliable. CVT's have
less mechanical components than your average conventional auto, but they
have a far more sketchier reputation for reliability.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 20/11/2023 5:53 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 6:32 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>>> They are complex in their own way. There is nothing critically
>>> complex about conventional autos. The've been around for decades, and
>>> while they've changed in regards to electronic controls and the
>>> number of ratios they still function in much the same way.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> but CVT's are a simpler form of transmission
>
> They're a *different* transmission, Felix.
>

....and simpler.

> There's nothing "complex" about a conventional planetary type auto
> trans.

That's irrelevant, the fact remains that CVT's are *less* complex.

As I said in another post, they've been around a long time, and
> while they have more smarts these days and more ratios, they're not that
> far removed from the stuff of 50 years ago. There just tends to be more
> in the case, and that doesn't make things "complex" in and of itself.
>
>

Thanks for that irrelevant waffle but CVT's are still less complex.

--
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 21/11/2023 4:57 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 12:28 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 20/11/2023 6:33 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>> pretty sure noddys lost this argument!..
>>>
>>> Be as sure as you like Felix, but to me this seems to be about
>>> nothing more than what *you* consider to be "complex", and given that
>>> you've never worked on either style of transmission I'm not sure how
>>> you've know either way.
>>
>> by watching the videos Xeno posted that you've snipped.
>
> Oh, right :)
>
> In case you haven't worked it out by now Felix I snip most of what he
> posts as it's usually irrelevant waffling rubbish like this very subjecy
> here for example, but if you go back and watch those videos again you'll
> see that one shows a Ford 10 speed auto being completely dismantled in a
> professional transmission shop while the other shows a guy in his home
> garage only *partially* dismantling a CVT to get to a particular fault.
>
> This exploded diagram here shows all the components found in a Nissan CVT:
>
>> https://webshop.ganzeboom.net/jf010e
>
> Quite busy for something that doesn't have a planetary gearset, huh? :)
>  > even the guys disassembling the transmissions commented on how
> complex they are nowdays.
>
> *Everything* is considered "complex" these days compared to what they
> used to be. For example, take an old flathead 4 cylinder engine and
> compare it to a modern overhead cam engine with a multi valve cylinder
> head and variable valve timing. One is certainly more "Complex" in terms
> of having more parts, but it's not *complicated* which seems to be where
> your confusion lies.
>

Nobody mentioned 'complicated', people were comparing the complexity
between CVT's and comventional modern auto's and CVT's are clearly less
complex.

Not that you would have a fucking clue either way since not long ago you
clearly had absolutely NFI about how CVT's operated and now you're
carrying on as if you're an expert.

> Something with more parts isn't automatically less reliable. CVT's have
> less mechanical components than your average conventional auto, but they
> have a far more sketchier reputation for reliability.
>

So now you accept they're less complex but change the argument to
reliability which has nothing to do with the point that CVT's are less
complex.

Nice try blowhard but you're not fooling anyone and you're still *wrong*.

--
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 Tuesday, 21 November 2023 at 00:28:36 UTC+11, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
> > On 20/11/2023 6:33 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> >> Noddy wrote:
> >
> >> pretty sure noddys lost this argument!..
> >
> > Be as sure as you like Felix, but to me this seems to be about nothing
> > more than what *you* consider to be "complex", and given that you've
> > never worked on either style of transmission I'm not sure how you've
> > know either way.
> by watching the videos Xeno posted that you've snipped. even the guys
> disassembling the transmissions commented on how complex they are nowdays.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Basically* the same as *back then*. Just a lot more of it!.
> >
> > Not criticising. Just stating a fact.
> >
> > Oh, and in case you're wondering, I've rebuild plenty of conventional
> > autos but have never worked on a CVT.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Have a nice day!..

jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 November 2023 at 00:28:36 UTC+11, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 20/11/2023 6:33 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>> pretty sure noddys lost this argument!..
>>> Be as sure as you like Felix, but to me this seems to be about nothing
>>> more than what *you* consider to be "complex", and given that you've
>>> never worked on either style of transmission I'm not sure how you've
>>> know either way.
>> by watching the videos Xeno posted that you've snipped. even the guys
>> disassembling the transmissions commented on how complex they are nowdays.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> *Basically* the same as *back then*. Just a lot more of it!.

and more complex than CVT's

>>> Not criticising. Just stating a fact.
>>>
>>> Oh, and in case you're wondering, I've rebuild plenty of conventional
>>> autos but have never worked on a CVT.
>>>

--
Have a nice day!..