Clocky wrote:
> 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.

yes

>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Have a nice day!..

On 21/11/2023 7:57 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.
>
> 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.
>

Biggest problem with CVT's has been created by the manufacturers
marketing depts, in an effort to appeal to customers they have
dramatically increased or eliminated service intervals.
In many cases they are saying CVT's are sealed for life but many CVT's
especially Nissans are failing when the failures could have been
prevented with more frequent oil and filter changes.
I've seen a few videos of CVT's being serviced at much lower km than
recommended and the shit that comes out of them looks pretty bad, keep
them fed with nice clean oil and their life span improves dramatically.
Increased service intervals are fine for the first owners who buy new
cars then trade them every 3-5yrs but are a very bad idea if you want
the car to last many many years.

--
Daryl

On 21/11/2023 12:23 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 7:57 am, Noddy wrote:

>> 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.
>>
>
> Biggest problem with CVT's has been created by the manufacturers
> marketing depts, in an effort to appeal to customers they have
> dramatically increased or eliminated service intervals.
> In many cases they are saying CVT's are sealed for life but many CVT's
> especially Nissans are failing when the failures could have been
> prevented with more frequent oil and filter changes.

Better quality parts would help, which seems to be one of the bigger
issues affecting Jatco CVT's.

> I've seen a few videos of CVT's being serviced at much lower km than
> recommended and the shit that comes out of them looks pretty bad, keep
> them fed with nice clean oil and their life span improves dramatically.
> Increased service intervals are fine for the first owners who buy new
> cars then trade them every 3-5yrs but are a very bad idea if you want
> the car to last many many years.

Extended service intervals are a bit of a double edged sword.

At face value they're a great marketing idea in that it reduces the
annual servicing costs and makes for a lower total cost of ownership
over the lifespan of the initial buyer's ownership, but to the used car
buyer/owner it's a bit of a different story. Programmed obsolescence has
been a deliberate strategy in the automotive field for some time now
with the life expectency of the average new car now being around ten
years, and this combined with extended servicing intervals is why we see
ten year old cars today in such poor shape, or why I'm rebuilding the
engine on a 10 year old Hyundai Elantra that's only done 75k km/s from new.

I don't think that manufacturers have it down to a *precise* art form
where they can pick the day and month where a given car will suddenly
come to the end of it's road in terms of being a useful device, but
they're not far away :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 21/11/2023 12:10 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> jonz@ nothere.com wrote:

>>
>>   *Basically* the same as *back then*. Just a lot more of it!.
>
> and more complex than CVT's

The transmission in your car probably isn't :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 21/11/2023 7:57 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? :)

Well, no, it's not *busy* at all. And, as usual, you have been
disingenuous again because the pic, being that of a transaxle, contains
the entire final drive assembly. If you think that's *busy*, then
delving into a 6 speed step AT is going to blow your mind. How about
this one;

https://www.wittrans.com/parts?type=6L80

Now *that* is a lot of parts. What's even more complex is the power
flow through the 6 speed trans - lots of gears, clutches and brakes to
navigate. That complexity really starts to bite you when you need to
diagnose faults.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0073/9940/7729/files/6l80_35675864-30d3-467e-be46-169c5b12d85c_480x480.png

In order to diagnose, you really need to have an in-depth understanding
of what's going on inside the device and, in the case of a step AT, the
control side. The above is a solenoid/switch operation chart from the
6L80e trans. You pretty much need to memorise that chart in order to
visualise the transmission power flowpath so that you knew which
clutches or brakes were applied or released in any given gear.

>  > 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

Your nemesis - complicated valve trains where you don't understand the
high speed *dynamics* and put Les' engine into an early date with the
scrap metal merchant. I'm betting you've done that a lot over your life!

> of having more parts, but it's not *complicated* which seems to be where
> your confusion lies.

Err, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the English language.
Complex and complicated refer to the same thing, complex = complicated.

On the other hand, the *power flow* through a CVT is extremely *simple*,
a belt connecting two variable pulleys or *variators*. It doesn't get
much simpler than that!
>
> Something with more parts isn't automatically less reliable. CVT's have

From here;
https://nextgendiesel.com/blogs/transmissions-101/general-motors-6l80-transmission-problems-solutions

As with nearly all 6 speed transmissions, the 6L80-E
transmissions are almost exclusively solenoid controlled.
This means that there is an electronic switch or solenoid
responsible for nearly all functions of the transmission.
Units with this structure are highly controllable, but
due suffer from additional failure points due to the
increase in electronics and moving parts.

Increase in complexity, ie. you make the device more complicated, you
*reduce* the reliability.

> less mechanical components than your average conventional auto, but they
> have a far more sketchier reputation for reliability.
>
Only if they are made by Nissan/Jatco. Then they are truly shit.

--
Xeno

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

On 21/11/2023 10:07 am, Noddy wrote:

I'm rebuilding the
> engine on a 10 year old Hyundai Elantra that's only done 75k km/s from new.

That has nothing to do with planned obsolescence and everything with the
way it was maintained and/or treated.

It's not in any way shape or form normal for any relatively modern
engine to fail at 75,000km if serviced and maintained properly. Even the
dud Nissan YD25 sometimes managed about double that before tapping out.

Good luck with the rebuild, and good luck with the next one due after
three laps of the wastelands :-)

--
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 10:05 am, Clocky wrote:
> 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.

Lack of mechanical complexity does not automatically ensure increased
reliability. You have to hope that the software in your CVT is capable
of maintaining exactly the correct belt tension under all circumstances.

> 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*.
>
>
>

On 21/11/2023 3:48 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 10:05 am, Clocky wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Lack of mechanical complexity does not automatically ensure increased
> reliability. You have to hope that the software in your CVT is capable
> of maintaining exactly the correct belt tension under all circumstances.

As I have said, Jatco trans are *unreliable*. On the score of
maintenance of variator (belt) pressure, Jatco also gets that wrong. On
the Mitsubishi SUV I rented a while back, which uses Nissan/Jatco CVTs,
it was clearly evident that the variators were *losing pressure* but not
whilst driving (as far as I could tell). When I went from park to
reverse, the driveline went clunk as if a heap of backlash suddenly
appeared in it. Shifted to drive, another clunk. Tried shifting from D
to R and back again a few more times and it eventually stopped doing it.
And that with only 20k kilometres up. I'd have to assume it was a
software issue because there's not a whole lot of complexity in the
hydraulic side of those Jatco CVTs. Sticky valve? Possibly, but in a
near new vehicle?

https://www.sonnax.com/tech_resources/568-jatco-nissan-jf011e-re0f10a-valve-body-layout

Item 4 under Shift/Engagement concerns is a possibility. The link above
details all the fixes required to fix the listed issues, and there's a
heap of them.

The only way that much backlash could appear and disappear in the CVT
was if those variators are completely losing pressure. That's bad!

Definitely this website speaks the truth;

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

Who in their right mind would own a Nissan?

>
>> 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*.
>>
>>
>>
>

--
Xeno

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

On 21/11/2023 3:48 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 10:05 am, Clocky wrote:

> Lack of mechanical complexity does not automatically ensure increased
> reliability. You have to hope that the software in your CVT is capable
> of maintaining exactly the correct belt tension under all circumstances.

Did you see this here?

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

There is enough "complexity" there to keep anyone happy :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 21/11/2023 5:16 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 3:48 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 21/11/2023 10:05 am, Clocky wrote:
>
>> Lack of mechanical complexity does not automatically ensure increased
>> reliability. You have to hope that the software in your CVT is capable
>> of maintaining exactly the correct belt tension under all circumstances.
>
> Did you see this here?
>
>> https://webshop.ganzeboom.net/jf010e
>
> There is enough "complexity" there to keep anyone happy :)
>
Err, Darren, if you piss the final drive unit out of the equation,
you;re left with 2 clutch packs with associated servos (Forward &
Reverse), one simple planetary gearset, two variators and a push belt.
*Where* is the *complexity*? I'm not seeing it.

So, it's becoming clearer than ever that your *claim* to have overhauled
heaps of *conventional autos* is just more of your *usual* self
aggrandising *bullshit*. You just can't help yourself, can you?

--
Xeno

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

On Tuesday, 21 November 2023 at 15:16:06 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 7:57 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? :)
> Well, no, it's not *busy* at all. And, as usual, you have been
> disingenuous
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
You better check the definition of disingenuous..
again because the pic, being that of a transaxle, contains
> the entire final drive assembly. If you think that's *busy*, then
> delving into a 6 speed step AT is going to blow your mind. How about
> this one;
>
> https://www.wittrans.com/parts?type=6L80
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Now *that* is a lot of parts. What's even more complex is the power
> flow through the 6 speed trans - lots of gears, clutches and brakes to
> navigate. That complexity really starts to bite you when you need to
> diagnose faults.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really? this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^from a bloke that only a couple of days ago was regaling the cat with your **fact** that *Torque converters only lock up in overdrive*....
Yer a fraudulent theory boi!....
>
> https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0073/9940/7729/files/6l80_35675864-30d3-467e-be46-169c5b12d85c_480x480.png
>
> In order to diagnose, you really need to have an in-depth understanding
> of what's going on inside the device and, in the case of a step AT, the
> control side. The above is a solenoid/switch operation chart from the
> 6L80e trans. You pretty much need to memorise that chart in order to
> visualise the transmission power flowpath so that you knew which
> clutches or brakes were applied or released in any given gear.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nothing new there!. <shrug> Yer trying to make it sound like rocket surgery...... :)))


> > > 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
> Your nemesis - complicated valve trains where you don't understand the
> high speed *dynamics* and put Les' engine into an early date with the
> scrap metal merchant. I'm betting you've done that a lot over your life!
> > of having more parts, but it's not *complicated* which seems to be where
> > your confusion lies.
> Err, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the English language.
> Complex and complicated refer to the same thing, complex = complicated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nope, It aint necessarily so!. tho *concrete thinkers* (to coin a phrase) such as yer odious self might think so....
>
> On the other hand, the *power flow* through a CVT is extremely *simple*,
> a belt connecting two variable pulleys or *variators*. It doesn't get
> much simpler than that!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dunno 'bout that, you`d *still* struggle.
> >
> > Something with more parts isn't automatically less reliable. CVT's have
> From here;
> https://nextgendiesel.com/blogs/transmissions-101/general-motors-6l80-transmission-problems-solutions
>
> As with nearly all 6 speed transmissions, the 6L80-E
> transmissions are almost exclusively solenoid controlled.
> This means that there is an electronic switch or solenoid
> responsible for nearly all functions of the transmission.
> Units with this structure are highly controllable, but
> due suffer from additional failure points due to the
> increase in electronics and moving parts.
>
> Increase in complexity, ie. you make the device more complicated, you
> *reduce* the reliability.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No shit? As I mentioned 'tother day, the AW4 box is *electronically controlled*.....It is also *uber reliable,* does sterling service in hard driven 4WD`s, and hard driven Supra`s and other Toyota vehicles..

Hoist by yer own petard *Again*.... Hahaha

Wondering how you`d go with a Sturmey Archer three speed.. <G>

> > less mechanical components than your average conventional auto, but they
> > have a far more sketchier reputation for reliability.
> >
> Only if they are made by Nissan/Jatco. Then they are truly shit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
Just can`t help yerself eh. :)))
>
>
> --
> Xeno
>
>
> Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
> (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Tuesday, 21 November 2023 at 17:34:09 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 5:16 pm, Noddy wrote:
> > On 21/11/2023 3:48 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> >> On 21/11/2023 10:05 am, Clocky wrote:
> >
> >> Lack of mechanical complexity does not automatically ensure increased
> >> reliability. You have to hope that the software in your CVT is capable
> >> of maintaining exactly the correct belt tension under all circumstances.
> >
> > Did you see this here?
> >
> >> https://webshop.ganzeboom.net/jf010e
> >
> > There is enough "complexity" there to keep anyone happy :)
> >
> Err, Darren, if you piss the final drive unit out of the equation,
> you;re left with 2 clutch packs with associated servos (Forward &
> Reverse), one simple planetary gearset, two variators and a push belt.
> *Where* is the *complexity*? I'm not seeing it.
>
> So, it's becoming clearer than ever that your *claim* to have overhauled
> heaps of *conventional autos* is just more of your *usual* self
> aggrandising *bullshit*. You just can't help yourself, can you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

*YOU* said *T/C's only lock up in O/D*........Just can`t help yerself can you?

Yer usual bullshit artist *bluster* is just making *you* look even sillier!!.

Whatever point yer trying to make with the above waffle has failed.

How can you put those two para`s in the same basket????.

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

On 21/11/2023 6:31 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 November 2023 at 17:34:09 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:

>>
>> So, it's becoming clearer than ever that your *claim* to have overhauled
>> heaps of *conventional autos* is just more of your *usual* self
>> aggrandising *bullshit*. You just can't help yourself, can you?

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
>
> *YOU* said *T/C's only lock up in O/D*........Just can`t help yerself can you?

He claims *lots* of things. Like when he posted here as "Krypsis", who
by some bizarre coincidence was *also* a Tafe Teacher:

> On 13/11/12 10:20 PM, Krypsis wrote:
>
>> Well, I have a Bachelor of Education so I am qualified to teach and have
>> run day and evening classes at TAFE Colleges in fields relevant to my
>> experience.

I wonder how Krypsis is doing these days? We don't hear much from him.
Except when Xeno posts, that is :)

> Yer usual bullshit artist *bluster* is just making *you* look even sillier!!.

Indeed it is. Of course, you can't expect a bloke who hasn't held any
kind of job in the last 25 years to have any first hand experience
relating to any of this. He'll be googling his head off trying his level
best to pass whatever info he can find online off as his own personal
knowledge.

> Whatever point yer trying to make with the above waffle has failed.

As usual. Remember when he tried to explain the difference between
assisted and non assisted brake systems and made a total *cunt* out of
himself over something *so* ridiculously basic that even a first year
apprentice could grasp it?

I know he's complained about his "skill set" going down the toilet, but
*Jesus* :)

> How can you put those two para`s in the same basket????.

He can do whatever he likes, because he's a delusional mental case where
any rubbish he spurts out makes sense to him.

And *only* him.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 21/11/2023 5:16 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 3:48 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 21/11/2023 10:05 am, Clocky wrote:
>
>> Lack of mechanical complexity does not automatically ensure increased
>> reliability. You have to hope that the software in your CVT is capable
>> of maintaining exactly the correct belt tension under all circumstances.
>
> Did you see this here?
>
>> https://webshop.ganzeboom.net/jf010e
>
> There is enough "complexity" there to keep anyone happy :)
>
Did you see this here?

https://forum.efilive.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16484&d=1394164179

GM 6L89-E transmission, 6 clutches, 6 solenoids

and this;

https://forum.efilive.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16427&d=1393033964

https://forum.efilive.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16428&d=1393034073

And this is just a 6 speed step auto. The hydraulics have been
simplified quite a lot;

https://forum.efilive.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16430&d=1393034451

but the complexity has merely moved into the TCM programming. All those
functions such as shift smoothing, shift timing and shift damping now
reside in them TCM ROM as zeroes and ones.

Now, here's a little exercise in complexity for you. The 6L80-E is a
fairly old trans now. Just imagine if we decided to use a start/stop
engine up front. You know, where the engine cuts out when you're
stationary in traffic. Have a squizz at this;

https://forum.efilive.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16433&d=1393034982

A simple little range reference chart. Note the section near the bottom
- the expected operating condition if a component in the numbered
columns is inoperative. Ignore column 6 for the moment, that's a one way
sprag, not relevant for this scenario, just focus on columns 1 thru 5.
If any of the clutches are inoperative, you are going to lose one or
more forward gears and/or reverse. Now, imagine, with a start/stop
system, you pull up to the lights, the engine cuts out. How many gears
do you now have? The answer is - none, no forward, no reverse, nothing!
That's because the hydraulic pump is driven by the *engine*. Engine
stops, pressure drops, clutches 1 - 5 release, it's that simple.

So, when you press the go pedal, for a brief moment in time, there'll be
no pressure to apply any clutches until the engine starts up and the
pump kicks in and fully builds up pressure. Then you'll have a sudden
uncontrolled, undamped mass apply of clutches as the pressure builds up.
That's going to lead to a rather ragged and rough take off from the
lights. How will we deal with this? Easy, prevent the pressure from
dropping off. But how? A pump on the output shaft of the trans, like the
old days, won't work because the car isn't moving. It's stopped at the
lights, remember? Can't use an *accumulator*, the time at the lights, or
stopped in traffic, is rather indeterminate.

Darren's Ranger has start/stop, how do they deal with this when they
have a multispeed step auto coupled with a start/stop engine?

https://www.therangerstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ford_10r80_10-speed_automatic_transmission-1.png

The engine driven pump, highlighted in red, is at the lower left of the
picture. Take a look at the lower right, you will see an *electric*
pump. The *E-Pump* is turned on before an engine stop event in order to
maintain line pressure. This allows the transmission to stay engaged
during the stop event and permits a quick response on engine restart
because the transmission is already *in gear*. It's an *extra*
complication in autos brought about by the fuel saving drive. As if the
transmission, a 10 speed, isn't complicated enough as it is.

CVTs, because they also have an engine driven fluid pump, will need this
when coupled to a stop/start enabled engine.

So, the venerable 6L80-E transmission won't fare too well with a
start/stop engine unless mods are made to it to maintain hydraulic
pressure when the engine is stopped, and an electric motor driven pump
makes the most sense. GM appears not to have done that with the 6L80-E
even though it is still a current transmission.

--
Xeno

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

Mighty Mouse wrote:
> 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!.)

good advice, thanks

>
> yeah I'll have a play with it

I did, and it's fun to drive that way, and gear changes are very smooth!
also no prob with OD now that I can put the foot down a bit, either it
changes down or accelerates away.

>
>>
>>>> (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!.

it's driving more smoothly now that I have quite a few k's on it (1,600)

--
Have a nice day!..

Xeno wrote:
> 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.

I think if I do that I can only change manually. auto shifting doesn't
work anymore

>>
>>>   (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.
>

yep

> 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;
>

OK

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

--
Have a nice day!..

Keithr0 wrote:
> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/this-inside-out-design-solves-most-of-the-rotary-engines-problems/
>

when I saw the title of this I thread misread it as a "New version of
the Wanker" and thought it was about Keefy  :)

--
Have a nice day!..

On 22/11/2023 8:01 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Keithr0 wrote:
>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/this-inside-out-design-solves-most-of-the-rotary-engines-problems/
>>
>
> when I saw the title of this I thread misread it as a "New version of
> the Wanker" and thought it was about Keefy  :)
>

Nah he's still the same old wanker he's always been.

--
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 22/11/2023 10:01 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Keithr0 wrote:
>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/this-inside-out-design-solves-most-of-the-rotary-engines-problems/
>
> when I saw the title of this I thread misread it as a "New version of
> the Wanker" and thought it was about Keefy  :)
>
Jeeze, it's taken you over a day to come up with that piss weak
"Comment", a real quick thinker you aren't.

On 22/11/2023 10:16 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 22/11/2023 8:01 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/this-inside-out-design-solves-most-of-the-rotary-engines-problems/
>>
>> when I saw the title of this I thread misread it as a "New version of
>> the Wanker" and thought it was about Keefy  :)
>>
>
>
> Nah he's still the same old wanker he's always been.
>
Says the one licenced by the the WA gov to wank.

On Wednesday, 22 November 2023 at 10:55:12 UTC+11, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Mighty Mouse wrote:
> > 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!.)
>
> good advice, thanks
>
> >
> > yeah I'll have a play with it
>
> I did, and it's fun to drive that way, and gear changes are very smooth!
> also no prob with OD now that I can put the foot down a bit, either it
> changes down or accelerates away.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Good stuff. ;) Thought it would help.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>> (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!.
>
> it's driving more smoothly now that I have quite a few k's on it (1,600)
> --
> Have a nice day!..

On 22/11/2023 10:55 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> 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!.)
>
> good advice, thanks
>
>>
>> yeah I'll have a play with it
>
> I did, and it's fun to drive that way, and gear changes are very smooth!
> also no prob with OD now that I can put the foot down a bit, either it
> changes down or accelerates away.
>
As I said it should. The downshift is throttle/road speed/load dependent.
>>
>>>
>>>>> (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!.
>
> it's driving more smoothly now that I have quite a few k's on it (1,600)

As it should. A lot of cars these days have a running in program in the
ECM. Once you have a certain amount of kilometres up, it switches to a
different mode. Klugers used to do that at about 10,000 kilometres and
would literally *drink the fuel* until then, and were much more
economical afterwards.

--
Xeno

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

On 22/11/2023 11:01 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Keithr0 wrote:
>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/this-inside-out-design-solves-most-of-the-rotary-engines-problems/
>
> when I saw the title of this I thread misread it as a "New version of
> the Wanker" and thought it was about Keefy  :)

Given that you've commented in this thread a number of times over the
last few days, one can only assume you've made *this* post because
you're bored and have nothing better to do.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 22/11/2023 11:00 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:

>> 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.
>
> I think if I do that I can only change manually. auto shifting doesn't
> work anymore

Only for overdrive. Not for all other gears.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Keithr0 wrote:
> On 22/11/2023 10:01 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/this-inside-out-design-solves-most-of-the-rotary-engines-problems/
>>>
>>
>> when I saw the title of this I thread misread it as a "New version of
>> the Wanker" and thought it was about Keefy  :)
>>
> Jeeze, it's taken you over a day to come up with that piss weak
> "Comment", a real quick thinker you aren't.

actually I thought it when I saw it just didn't say it until now that
posting has gone quiet

--
Have a nice day!..