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.