New version of the Wankel

[Keithr0]

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

[Noddy]

On 15/11/2023 3:41 am, Keithr0 wrote:

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

I stopped reading after the first sentence of "Rotary engines have an
aura of cool"

No, they don't, and they never, ever did :)


--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Xeno]

On 15/11/2023 3:41 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/this-inside-out-design-solves-most-of-the-rotary-engines-problems/

It doesn't solve the problem that dogged the rotary engine until the end
- emissions. They are using them in emissions *unregulated* spaces. As
well, it has to be an *oil burner* - how else do you lubricate the rotor
tip seals except with oil-loss lubrication mechanisms - just like the
Wankel engine. All they did was move the rotor tip seals to the
epichotroid chamber - lubrication issues still apply. One thing they did
improve on will be cooling. Wankel engines suffered a lot from
differential expansion due, in part, to the location of exhaust ports
relative to intake ports. This engine has tripled the number of exhaust
port locations spreading the heat loading more evenly. One of the
distinct disadvantages of the Wankel engine was that it was rotor
ported. No flexibility in intake and exhaust flow timings, unlike a
conventional engine where cam timing on the fly makes a huge difference
to performance, economy and smoothness.

It's compact, but so was the Wankel engine, and look at where that is now.

--
Xeno


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

[Mighty Mouse]

sounds like it should have been called the 'wanker' not the 'wankel'

--
Have a nice day!..

[Xeno]

Well, it looks like all the hype around it is purely because they are
trying to suc... interest investors.

[Mighty Mouse]

Xeno wrote:
> On 15/11/2023 11:22 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:
>>> On 15/11/2023 3:41 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/this-inside-out-design-solves-most-of-the-rotary-engines-problems/
>>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't solve the problem that dogged the rotary engine until the
>>> end - emissions. They are using them in emissions *unregulated*
>>> spaces. As well, it has to be an *oil burner* - how else do you
>>> lubricate the rotor tip seals except with oil-loss lubrication
>>> mechanisms - just like the Wankel engine. All they did was move the
>>> rotor tip seals to the epichotroid chamber - lubrication issues
>>> still apply. One thing they did improve on will be cooling. Wankel
>>> engines suffered a lot from differential expansion due, in part, to
>>> the location of exhaust ports relative to intake ports. This engine
>>> has tripled the number of exhaust port locations spreading the heat
>>> loading more evenly. One of the distinct disadvantages of the Wankel
>>> engine was that it was rotor ported. No flexibility in intake and
>>> exhaust flow timings, unlike a conventional engine where cam timing
>>> on the fly makes a huge difference to performance, economy and
>>> smoothness.

how is valve timing on the fly done?

[Xeno]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_valve_timing



A good video that covers the whole gamut - timing *and* lift.

https://youtu.be/I5dy2Vnf95w

[Mighty Mouse]

Thanks. that explains it. modern engines are now so sophisticated. I
knew the timing would be computer controlled, but I didn't know how it
would work mechanically, because back in the day when I worked on cars
the relationship between the camshaft and the valves was fixed and
unchangeable of course, being controlled by pushrods. I remember doing
tappet adjustments when they became noisy, and the only way to alter
valve timing was by a camshaft gind or replacing it with one with
different lobes. then later overhead cams became the norm.

[Clocky]

Something we agree on.

--
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."

[jonz@ nothere.com]

On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 19:22:48 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
> On 15/11/2023 5:04 am, Noddy wrote:
> > On 15/11/2023 3:41 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> >
> >> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/this-inside-out-design-solves-most-of-the-rotary-engines-problems/
> >>
> >
> > I stopped reading after the first sentence of "Rotary engines have an
> > aura of cool"
> >
> > No, they don't, and they never, ever did :)
> >
> >
> Something we agree on.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, to come to that conclusion, you guys have owned rotaries then?.

[Noddy]

On 17/11/2023 8:48 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 19:22:48 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
>> On 15/11/2023 5:04 am, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 15/11/2023 3:41 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/this-inside-out-design-solves-most-of-the-rotary-engines-problems/
>>>>
>>>
>>> I stopped reading after the first sentence of "Rotary engines have an
>>> aura of cool"
>>>
>>> No, they don't, and they never, ever did :)
>>>
>>>
>> Something we agree on.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> So, to come to that conclusion, you guys have owned rotaries then?.

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 :)

[Daryl]

On 17/11/2023 8:48 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 19:22:48 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
>> On 15/11/2023 5:04 am, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 15/11/2023 3:41 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/this-inside-out-design-solves-most-of-the-rotary-engines-problems/
>>>>
>>>
>>> I stopped reading after the first sentence of "Rotary engines have an
>>> aura of cool"
>>>
>>> No, they don't, and they never, ever did :)
>>>
>>>
>> Something we agree on.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> So, to come to that conclusion, you guys have owned rotaries then?.

Never owned on myself but my son recently bought an RX8, pretty rough
example which he got very cheap as a project.
One of the reasons it was so cheap was that it was difficult to start
and wouldn't start at all when hot.
Someone had told the person he bought it from that the starting problem
was due to low compression and they are known for loosing compression
with age.
A bit of online research and he found that by replacing the OE starter
with an updated version that spins the engine over much faster the
starting problem was solved including hot starts.
I drove it last Friday and it actually drives quite well.
The plan is to get it roadworthy, registered and gradually restore it,
if it proves too difficult to get RW it may become a track only car.
One option is to replace the rotary with a Duratec, AFAIK it shares a
lot of it underpinnings with an MX5 so it shouldn't be a difficult swap
but that's a long way down the track and only if the rotary turns out to
be too far gone.



Daryl

[Mighty Mouse]

LOL! speaking of torque.. I notice that that ZS has poor acceleration
when the revs are low.

[Xeno]

You will find, if you look at a torque chart for that engine, that the
torque comes in at fairly high revs. A turbo will fix it.

[Clocky]

Yep, it's gutless so you need to give it some - once it's run in.

[Keithr0]

sounds like the rotor seals, the main weakness of the Wankel. The new
engine has the seals on the stator where it's easier to lubricate them.

[Mighty Mouse]

Clocky wrote:
> On 17/11/2023 8:15 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 17/11/2023 8:48 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 19:22:48 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 15/11/2023 5:04 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 15/11/2023 3:41 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/this-inside-out-design-solves-most-of-the-rotary-engines-problems/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I stopped reading after the first sentence of "Rotary engines
>>>>>> have an
>>>>>> aura of cool"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they don't, and they never, ever did :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Something we agree on.
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>   So, to come to that conclusion, you guys have owned rotaries then?.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Yep, it's gutless so you need to give it some

I only really notice it if I'm in top gear at it's low end, and want to
move quickly.

> - once it's run in.
>

 the manual says not to rev beyond 3,000 rpm until 1,500 Klms are up. I
may have done once or twice but no more. I have 1,250 up already, and I
will finish the run in this coming week sometime. :)

[Noddy]

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.

[Daryl]

Very likely worn seals but it doesn't appear to be that bad at the moment.
I saw how the redesigned rotary flipped the way the seals work.
I can imagine it being an option for small engines but can't imagine it
going into a car.

--
Daryl

[Daryl]

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.

--
Daryl

[Mighty Mouse]

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

once I finish the run in I will be able to give it more revs which
should make it drop down to the next lower gear

> Remember when Clasener said you can't labour an engine driving an
> automatic transmission? :)

I think you can if you don't have enough revs up to cause it to change down

>
> I don't know what the torque spec of your engine is Felix, but I
> imagine it's not high and only having 4 forward gear ratios would be
> doing it no favours at all.
>
>

but it's not that long since cars only had three gears, so four should
be enough

[Keithr0]

One of the coolest engines that I have seen was at a boat show a few
years ago. It was a supercharged wankel designed for jet skis and such.
The whole thing including the supercharger and gearbox was a cylinder
about 50cm diameter and less than a metre long.

[Xeno]

Noddy <m...@home.com> 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? :)

And you still can’t. Felix has mentioned the lack of power, not labouring
the engine. The engine is simply not a powerhouse.

>
> 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.

You really don’t understand autos, do you? Especially you haven’t a clue
about torque converters.

____
Xeno

[Xeno]

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

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

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

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

____
Xeno

[jonz@ nothere.com]

On Friday, 17 November 2023 at 22:06:04 UTC+11, Noddy wrote:
> On 17/11/2023 8:48 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 19:22:48 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
> >> On 15/11/2023 5:04 am, Noddy wrote:
> >>> On 15/11/2023 3:41 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/this-inside-out-design-solves-most-of-the-rotary-engines-problems/
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I stopped reading after the first sentence of "Rotary engines have an
> >>> aura of cool"
> >>>
> >>> No, they don't, and they never, ever did :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Something we agree on.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > So, to come to that conclusion, you guys have owned rotaries then?.

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

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

I like my engines to make
> more torque than an analogue clock, and generally use less fuel than a
> German tank :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Torque? not really a concern The gear lever is there to use (which is why the P/O converted it) keeping the revs up is key!.
Maintenance of the ignition system was the big deal, (two sets of points, leading/trailing plugs) The rest pretty well looked after itself...All in all, a fuckin' top car!
This was a four door, we were always going to get an RX7 but never eventuated.. Ah well. Actually,

On thinking about it, fuel consumption was on a par with my Jeep!.

[jonz@ nothere.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Try to keep the rotary!. ;)
>
>
>
> Daryl

[Mighty Mouse]

what's OD and TCL?

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

wide open throttle?

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

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

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

[Xeno]

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

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

You can only labour an engine if you apply full throttle to a vehicle
whilst it is in a high (manual) gear at low speed. In a manual, the
engine can not rev up freely whereas it can in an auto, limited only by
the stall speed of the torque converter. The engine's ability to rev up
is what prevents labouring in an auto, that plus the trans tendency to
downshift when the load and RPMs increase. The torque converter is the
*slippery link*. Did I mention that the torque converter can act as a
transmission on its own providing up to 2.5 times torque multiplication?
The problem with that kind of torque multiplication is that, through
slippage, it generates heat, lots of it. Heat and trans fluid are not
good bedfellows. That's why, if you decide to do towing with your car,
it is wise to add a trans cooler. The extra loading from towing creates
more slippage in the torque converter thus generating more heat. That
heat needs to be shed else it will literally *burn* the oil.

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

[Clocky]

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

[Noddy]

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

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

As you've discovered for yourself....

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

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

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

Interesting to note that that was *also* a 4 speed auto, with the ratio
drop between 3rd and 4th being fairly significant.

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

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

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

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

[Noddy]

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

> Xeno wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not necessarily vibration.

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

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

[Noddy]

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

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

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

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

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

[jonz@ nothere.com]

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

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

[Xeno]

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

Darren, he's only lightly pressing on the throttle. The *normal*
reaction for a trans in that situation is to either stay in the same
gear or *upshift*.

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

Vibration (through the drivetrain) can be, and usually is, a *symptom*
of labouring the engine. Won't happen with an auto, the torque converter
stator will lock, *slippage* will occur between the impeller and turbine
and the converter will increase torque.

>
> Labouring an engine is generally defined as operating it at a low enough
> RPM that is unsuitable for the task at hand. For example, if a gradual
> climb up a hill at low rpm where the application of a reasonable amount
> of throttle makes no change to the performance, then it would be
> considered "labouring".
>
> It doesn't need to be at "full throttle" :)

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

[Xeno]

It was *faulty*. You couldn't diagnose it! LOL

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

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

[Noddy]

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

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

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

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

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







--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Daryl]

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

--
Daryl

[Xeno]

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

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

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

>
> His knowledge base is *antiquated*, but you have to expect that from

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

> someone who by his own admission last worked on a car for a living in
> the 1970's. Vehicles that use automatic transmissions that feature a
> torque converter that locked up in multiple gears have existed for some
> time. He's just not seen any :)
>

TCL is for fuel economy so it makes no sense to use it on ratios lower
than direct. That's primarily because it wont be locked up long - you're
in those lower ratios because you're on the throttle! It is primarily
intended for fuel savings along with heat reduction in the torque
converter. It will only be operational on light loading cruise
conditions. Touch the throttle and it will drop out of lockup no matter
how many gears it operates on. And, as I said above, these days it's a
simple matter to make it operate on any and all gears - it's just their
torque limitations that makes it less practical on underdrive ratios

[jonz@ nothere.com]

On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 19:51:06 UTC+11, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/11/2023 6:26 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 15:49:22 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
>
> >>>> Nope, the torque converter allows the engine to spin freely up to the
> >>>> current stall point. To labour an engine requires it to be locked in a
> >>>> high ratio in a solid link drivetrain under heavy load. Autos only achieve
> >>>> that under OD plus TCL
> >>>
> >>> what's OD and TCL?
>
> >> OD = Overdrive (referring to ratio)
> >> TCL = Torque Converter Lockup (only possible in OD)
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Really?? *Only possible in O/D*... You sure about that??.
> No, I don't think he is at all, but it won't stop him making shit up to
> suit himself :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The AW4 in my Jeep locks in 3RD and 4TH...Depending on shifter position, and power/comfort setting...You can also install a manual lock-up for all ratios. (Why I dunno.)

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

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

[Noddy]

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

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

[Mighty Mouse]

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

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

makes sense to me

[Mighty Mouse]

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

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


--

Have a nice day!..

[Mighty Mouse]

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

yes

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

can't upshit from top gear

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

that's what i think too

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

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

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

yes, I agree with that

[Mighty Mouse]

bump

[Keithr0]

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

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

[Mighty Mouse]

bump

[Noddy]

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.

[Noddy]

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

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

That'd be it.

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

How does that a difference you ask?

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

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

[Xeno]

Well, you exist in this group for no other reason than self aggrandisement!

[Noddy]

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.

[Noddy]

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.

[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.

[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 :)

[Mighty Mouse]

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.

[jonz@ nothere.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

[Noddy]

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.

[Mighty Mouse]

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.

[jonz@ nothere.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
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!.

[Keithr0]

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.

[Noddy]

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.

[Xeno]

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,.

[Daryl]

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

[Mighty Mouse]

yeah I'll have a play with it

[Clocky]

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."

[Clocky]

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

[Noddy]

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 :)

[Xeno]

So you like CVTs then! They have torque converters too!

[Mighty Mouse]

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

[Noddy]

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.

[Daryl]

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

[Daryl]

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

[Noddy]

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 :)

[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.

[Clocky]

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.

[Xeno]

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]

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.

[Mighty Mouse]

I imagine electric cars are very smooth running

[Mighty Mouse]

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!..

[Mighty Mouse]

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!..

[Noddy]

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.

[Xeno]

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]

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*.

[Noddy]

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.

[Clocky]

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>

[Xeno]

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

[Xeno]

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
>>
>> 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

[Mighty Mouse]

but CVT's are a simpler form of transmission

[Mighty Mouse]

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!..

[jonz@ nothere.com]

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

[Mighty Mouse]

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!..

[Noddy]

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.

[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.

[Xeno]

Noddy <m...@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

[Clocky]

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

[Mighty Mouse]

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!..

[Noddy]

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.

[Clocky]

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."

[Clocky]

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."

[jonz@ nothere.com]

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!.

[Mighty Mouse]

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