5AT vs. 6MT handling
03-30-2004, 07:39 PM
#41
Advanced
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Biloxi, MS
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both the wife and I noticed a difference in throttle response and handling between the auto and 6 spd. I suspect if you upgrade the tires on an auto that you may find it's the best of both worlds, for someone who doesn't demand a manual.
I was ready to settle on the TSX, because the TL didn't handle as well as I'd hoped. Then one day I was at the dealer with my in-law, trying to sway him from the darkside, a Lexus ES330. (Those older guys need a better handling car to get them out of trouble. At least that was part of my pitch.)
Any ways, I saw they had a 6 spd with the HP tires. Took the wife back the next weekend, and we ragged out the car behind the New Orleans Airport. The car was significantly sharper handling to us. That changed our minds. We no longer lust for the TSX, it's the TL or nothing. Now if I can only find a dealer that will get off his high-horse and deal.
Jake
I was ready to settle on the TSX, because the TL didn't handle as well as I'd hoped. Then one day I was at the dealer with my in-law, trying to sway him from the darkside, a Lexus ES330. (Those older guys need a better handling car to get them out of trouble. At least that was part of my pitch.)
Any ways, I saw they had a 6 spd with the HP tires. Took the wife back the next weekend, and we ragged out the car behind the New Orleans Airport. The car was significantly sharper handling to us. That changed our minds. We no longer lust for the TSX, it's the TL or nothing. Now if I can only find a dealer that will get off his high-horse and deal.
Jake
03-30-2004, 08:48 PM
#42
Cruisin'
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Western Pa.
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
drove them both
I have a 6speed and was so unhappy with the tire vibration that I considered trading for an automatic. After driving the the auto I found the auto to be very loose and much less responsive to me. Night and day. If you like sprited driving I would go for the 6 speed. The brakes and bars do make a difference. BTW I have 8k on mine and just got back on a 1k mile trip, mileage was 33 mpg at 75 to 80 on hilly route.
03-30-2004, 09:29 PM
#43
Cruisin'
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bolton, CT
Age: 42
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree, i had a 5AT as a loner and found it slower, heavier and looser. I dont know if it was the loner car or a bias on my part...
Either way you go, so long as you are happy, you made a good choice
Either way you go, so long as you are happy, you made a good choice
03-30-2004, 10:11 PM
#44
Intermediate
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, I don't think LSD causes torque steer directly, but may do so indirectly. I think that with LSD's reduced tendency for wheel spin, the traction control/vsa does not kick in to reduce throttle. Result is greater acceleration reponse and greater tendency for torque steer. Just MHO though.
03-30-2004, 11:01 PM
#45
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the only logical thing to do is simply ignore harddrivin1LE.
His posts in this thread display the same insanity that clouds all of his posts.
Take a look at his posts quoting mine at the end of page 1.
He starts off by responding that one must multiply the ratio of the gear by the rear axle ratio, right after quoting a post where I did exactly that. Apparently my use of 'x' to signify multiplication was beyond his comprehension, which is rather odd given that he used that same nomenclature in his post.
At first he didn't have anything to criticize me about, but apparently he could not let that stand, so he went and found an article about drag racing and automatic transmissions with high-stall torque lockup converters, from which he took an isolated paragraph and used it to try to insinuate that I had somehow provided an incomplete answer.
The entire article is reprinted below, and does not make the conclusion that he has implied, which is that you need to multiply the effective gear ratio by a factor of 1.5 to 2.2 for an automatic transmission because of the effect of the torque converter. That is of course simply ridiculous and easily disproven by simply comparing the effective gear ratios of the TL 6MT and 5AT, which do not support a disparity on the order of 1.5 to 2.2 times.
The Article:
Auto trans consume more engine power than manual trans. They have a pump that pumps around a lot more fluid than circulates in a manual trans. The power consumption of an auto trans might be 20% of crank hp, whereas a manual trans might consume 10%. These estimates may include other frictional losses and accessory pull; it is the difference between the two that is important. Auto trans also usually weigh more than manual trans, but not dramatically more and the auto trans version of a flywheel, the flexplate, is lighter than a stock flywheel. To be fair, you would have to weigh the entire assemblies.
The torque converter in an auto trans is sort of like the clutch in a manual trans. However, it can do a pretty neat trick, which is to multiply torque. All geared trans, manual and automatic, multiply torque in the lower gears through gear multiplication (gearing is lower than direct drive of 1:1, which usually appears around 3rd in an auto if a 4 speed and 4th in a manual if a 5 speed). The torque converter multiplies torque by slipping. This is sort of like slipping a clutch on a manual, except that it occurs without damage to the clutch and flywheel. It is designed to slip. Torque converters usually have a multiplication rate in the 1.5 to 2.2 range. The multiplication depends on stall speed. Stall speed can be measured and rated in a lot of different ways that can be misleading. The only fair way to rate it is to see what rpm you get
when you put your foot on the brake and bring the vacuum up to zero; in other words, no boost.
What is happening is that the engine is loading up against the trans. This makes heat, which the auto trans absorbs. There is lots of fluid in there that gets circulated and usually gets routed through at least one cooler. The stall speed may be anywhere from 1200 rpm to 5000 rpm, but on street cars it is usually in the 1200 to 2500 rpm range. Again, this rpm would be what is achieved when the brake is held and vacuum is brought up to the zero boost point. Obviously, your engine makes more torque at 2000 rpm than it does at 1000 rpm. This is the advantage of the auto trans. Can it be achieved with a manual trans? Yes, but it is more difficult to modulate the desired rpm precisely and causes a lot of wear on the trans. So when you leave the line with the auto, you are not only taking advantage of the gear multiplication just as on a manual, but you are also using rpm to your advantage.
Some people who drag race put very high stall speed converters on their cars. They usually do this because they have a race motor that makes very little low end torque. The idea is to use the stall speed of the converter to get the motor into the beginning of its torque peak. 4000
rpm stall speed converters are not good for street driving. They make a lot of heat due to all the slipping. And on the highway, if you are going 60 mph and give the throttle a bit of gas to accelerate, the rpm will rise up to around the stall speed of 4000. So there will be a
noticeable fuel economy loss also. My car had a stock stall speed of about 1800 rpm. Unfortunately, my turbo was not coming into boost at 1800 rpm, so I was nowhere near my torque peak when the converter stopped slipping. The result was a bit of a bog and a bit of lag. I changed the converter to one with a rated stall speed of about 2600-2700 rpm. Using the zero boost method, the stall speed was really about 2400 rpm. This worked great, because even my larger turbo was making a pound or two of boost at this rpm. So when the converter stopped slipping, I was making boost and the boost just keeps coming. I still don't have V8 like torque coming off the line, but it is a lot closer to that feel than it used to be. With real small turbo cars, the effect is not as noticeable, since they make boost at much lower rpm.
Torque converters are very interesting. They are not constant. The stall speed depends on the amount of torque fed to it. Put your converter behind a V8 and it might have a stall speed of 5000 rpm, not 2000 rpm. Measure your stall speed during circumstances other than the
zero boost test, and it will vary. Measure it by the coming off the line test and it will usually be a few hundred rpm higher than the zero boost test. That is because the turbo is making some boost and that boost makes torque and that torque raises the stall speed. Remove the kickdown cable of the automatic and drive the car and you will get a different stall speed in the upper gears. For example, in 3rd or 4th, your stall speed might be 3500 rpm, not 2500 rpm. This is because the engine is much more loaded up and is producing more torque; it can make 15 psi of boost at 2500 rpm on the highway, but not at 2500 rpm in 1st gear coming off the line. There are charts and formulas that you can use for calculating your stall speed under all sorts of conditions, for sizing converters, and so forth.
The torque converter slippage makes dyno runs more difficult. Usually the dyno wants 3rd gear for a consistent power curve. In an auto, it is hard to hold a gear. If you pull the kickdown cable, the stall speed will rise even further, making even less of a measurable power curve. Even if you measured off the line, you cannot generate a power curve for below the stall speed. If this is 2500 rpm, that is where your power curve will start. But since a good dyno reading requires a higher gear than 1st, the stall speed rises when 2nd is locked in, or when 3rd is locked in, making the power curve that is measurable start at even higher rpm.
Finally, some auto trans have lock up torque converters. Depending on certain inputs like rpm, throttle position, etc., the converter will lock up and stop slipping altogether. This promotes fuel efficiency. It can also be irritating on a small displacement motor with fairly low off
boost torque. As the turbo goes in and out of boost under some conditions, the converter locks and unlocks. Sort of like gear hunting on some autos on small motors. Normal slippage might be 5 to 10%. This is part of the reason why auto trans generate heat and have lower fuel
economy.
There are a couple of ways to make a higher stall speed converter. A stock one can be cut open and "loosened up" inside by trimming the vanes and then rewelded, or a new, smaller converter can be fitted. The first method should be used only for very modest increases in stall speed, like a few hundred rpm.
Auto trans are luxury items first. They are designed for soft shifts. Soft shifts are slower shifts. Performance automatics or automatics fitted with performance valve bodies have firmer shifts. Real firm shifts are pretty quick. The tires can even chirp. So non performance autos are almost always slower than manual trans. Performance autos, even though they usually have one less gear (autos are now going to 5 speeds, but manuals are going to 6 speeds), are sometimes as fast as manuals. Under extreme conditions, they are often as fast or even faster. Autos absorb drivetrain shock that comes from clutch dumping and tend to handle high power with fewer problems. Typically, drag racing autos are quicker than manuals in the quarter mile. The power consumption of the automatics, however, typically means that they have slightly lower trap speeds. These are generalizations; there may be some autos that lose nothing in trap speed just like there are a lot of autos that will not be quicker than a manual. A lot depends on how idealized the combinations of engine, power curve, final drive, trans gearing, and
torque converter is.
Philip B. Bradley ©2001
His posts in this thread display the same insanity that clouds all of his posts.
Take a look at his posts quoting mine at the end of page 1.
He starts off by responding that one must multiply the ratio of the gear by the rear axle ratio, right after quoting a post where I did exactly that. Apparently my use of 'x' to signify multiplication was beyond his comprehension, which is rather odd given that he used that same nomenclature in his post.
At first he didn't have anything to criticize me about, but apparently he could not let that stand, so he went and found an article about drag racing and automatic transmissions with high-stall torque lockup converters, from which he took an isolated paragraph and used it to try to insinuate that I had somehow provided an incomplete answer.
The entire article is reprinted below, and does not make the conclusion that he has implied, which is that you need to multiply the effective gear ratio by a factor of 1.5 to 2.2 for an automatic transmission because of the effect of the torque converter. That is of course simply ridiculous and easily disproven by simply comparing the effective gear ratios of the TL 6MT and 5AT, which do not support a disparity on the order of 1.5 to 2.2 times.
The Article:
Auto trans consume more engine power than manual trans. They have a pump that pumps around a lot more fluid than circulates in a manual trans. The power consumption of an auto trans might be 20% of crank hp, whereas a manual trans might consume 10%. These estimates may include other frictional losses and accessory pull; it is the difference between the two that is important. Auto trans also usually weigh more than manual trans, but not dramatically more and the auto trans version of a flywheel, the flexplate, is lighter than a stock flywheel. To be fair, you would have to weigh the entire assemblies.
The torque converter in an auto trans is sort of like the clutch in a manual trans. However, it can do a pretty neat trick, which is to multiply torque. All geared trans, manual and automatic, multiply torque in the lower gears through gear multiplication (gearing is lower than direct drive of 1:1, which usually appears around 3rd in an auto if a 4 speed and 4th in a manual if a 5 speed). The torque converter multiplies torque by slipping. This is sort of like slipping a clutch on a manual, except that it occurs without damage to the clutch and flywheel. It is designed to slip. Torque converters usually have a multiplication rate in the 1.5 to 2.2 range. The multiplication depends on stall speed. Stall speed can be measured and rated in a lot of different ways that can be misleading. The only fair way to rate it is to see what rpm you get
when you put your foot on the brake and bring the vacuum up to zero; in other words, no boost.
What is happening is that the engine is loading up against the trans. This makes heat, which the auto trans absorbs. There is lots of fluid in there that gets circulated and usually gets routed through at least one cooler. The stall speed may be anywhere from 1200 rpm to 5000 rpm, but on street cars it is usually in the 1200 to 2500 rpm range. Again, this rpm would be what is achieved when the brake is held and vacuum is brought up to the zero boost point. Obviously, your engine makes more torque at 2000 rpm than it does at 1000 rpm. This is the advantage of the auto trans. Can it be achieved with a manual trans? Yes, but it is more difficult to modulate the desired rpm precisely and causes a lot of wear on the trans. So when you leave the line with the auto, you are not only taking advantage of the gear multiplication just as on a manual, but you are also using rpm to your advantage.
Some people who drag race put very high stall speed converters on their cars. They usually do this because they have a race motor that makes very little low end torque. The idea is to use the stall speed of the converter to get the motor into the beginning of its torque peak. 4000
rpm stall speed converters are not good for street driving. They make a lot of heat due to all the slipping. And on the highway, if you are going 60 mph and give the throttle a bit of gas to accelerate, the rpm will rise up to around the stall speed of 4000. So there will be a
noticeable fuel economy loss also. My car had a stock stall speed of about 1800 rpm. Unfortunately, my turbo was not coming into boost at 1800 rpm, so I was nowhere near my torque peak when the converter stopped slipping. The result was a bit of a bog and a bit of lag. I changed the converter to one with a rated stall speed of about 2600-2700 rpm. Using the zero boost method, the stall speed was really about 2400 rpm. This worked great, because even my larger turbo was making a pound or two of boost at this rpm. So when the converter stopped slipping, I was making boost and the boost just keeps coming. I still don't have V8 like torque coming off the line, but it is a lot closer to that feel than it used to be. With real small turbo cars, the effect is not as noticeable, since they make boost at much lower rpm.
Torque converters are very interesting. They are not constant. The stall speed depends on the amount of torque fed to it. Put your converter behind a V8 and it might have a stall speed of 5000 rpm, not 2000 rpm. Measure your stall speed during circumstances other than the
zero boost test, and it will vary. Measure it by the coming off the line test and it will usually be a few hundred rpm higher than the zero boost test. That is because the turbo is making some boost and that boost makes torque and that torque raises the stall speed. Remove the kickdown cable of the automatic and drive the car and you will get a different stall speed in the upper gears. For example, in 3rd or 4th, your stall speed might be 3500 rpm, not 2500 rpm. This is because the engine is much more loaded up and is producing more torque; it can make 15 psi of boost at 2500 rpm on the highway, but not at 2500 rpm in 1st gear coming off the line. There are charts and formulas that you can use for calculating your stall speed under all sorts of conditions, for sizing converters, and so forth.
The torque converter slippage makes dyno runs more difficult. Usually the dyno wants 3rd gear for a consistent power curve. In an auto, it is hard to hold a gear. If you pull the kickdown cable, the stall speed will rise even further, making even less of a measurable power curve. Even if you measured off the line, you cannot generate a power curve for below the stall speed. If this is 2500 rpm, that is where your power curve will start. But since a good dyno reading requires a higher gear than 1st, the stall speed rises when 2nd is locked in, or when 3rd is locked in, making the power curve that is measurable start at even higher rpm.
Finally, some auto trans have lock up torque converters. Depending on certain inputs like rpm, throttle position, etc., the converter will lock up and stop slipping altogether. This promotes fuel efficiency. It can also be irritating on a small displacement motor with fairly low off
boost torque. As the turbo goes in and out of boost under some conditions, the converter locks and unlocks. Sort of like gear hunting on some autos on small motors. Normal slippage might be 5 to 10%. This is part of the reason why auto trans generate heat and have lower fuel
economy.
There are a couple of ways to make a higher stall speed converter. A stock one can be cut open and "loosened up" inside by trimming the vanes and then rewelded, or a new, smaller converter can be fitted. The first method should be used only for very modest increases in stall speed, like a few hundred rpm.
Auto trans are luxury items first. They are designed for soft shifts. Soft shifts are slower shifts. Performance automatics or automatics fitted with performance valve bodies have firmer shifts. Real firm shifts are pretty quick. The tires can even chirp. So non performance autos are almost always slower than manual trans. Performance autos, even though they usually have one less gear (autos are now going to 5 speeds, but manuals are going to 6 speeds), are sometimes as fast as manuals. Under extreme conditions, they are often as fast or even faster. Autos absorb drivetrain shock that comes from clutch dumping and tend to handle high power with fewer problems. Typically, drag racing autos are quicker than manuals in the quarter mile. The power consumption of the automatics, however, typically means that they have slightly lower trap speeds. These are generalizations; there may be some autos that lose nothing in trap speed just like there are a lot of autos that will not be quicker than a manual. A lot depends on how idealized the combinations of engine, power curve, final drive, trans gearing, and
torque converter is.
Philip B. Bradley ©2001
03-30-2004, 11:03 PM
#46
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
An auto TL with an empty gas tank it going to essentially weigh the same and have the same weight distribution as an manual TL with a full tank. :think:
Another waste of our time. Thanks.
03-31-2004, 06:05 AM
#47
Head a da Family
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Friggin Jerzy
Age: 69
Posts: 5,505
Received 561 Likes
on
393 Posts
I say drive 'em both and decide for yourself which one's better. I did, 1st the 5AT then the 6MT. Once I was behind the wheel of the 6MT for about a ½ a minute, that was it, there was no turning back. The 6MT is definitely faster off the line.
As for the Limited Slip Differential, I've read it's there to help minimize torque steer.
6MT
As for the Limited Slip Differential, I've read it's there to help minimize torque steer.
6MT
03-31-2004, 11:20 AM
#48
Cruisin'
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stabilizer Bar Differences
The Front Stabilizer bar is 35% stiffer on the manual.
The Rear Stabilizer bar is 91% stiffer on the manual.
Remember, the function of the stabilizer bar is to reduce body roll and also keep the inside wheel loaded down in a turn. This is how it helps prevent inside wheel spin during aggressive power on turns. I gave the automatic a chance, but after one hard turn w/ some power on, the inside wheel spun on drive pavement and that confirmed for me I wanted the LSD and tighter roll bars.
The Brembo brakes are very good with very good feel. They do create a lot of dust on the fronts and are much more expensive to replace. Pads are $140 vs $37, rotors are $132 vs $80 (per side) and calipers are $283 vs $132 (per side). These are wholesale prices from an internet parts dealer I have bought Honda parts from for several years. www.acuraautomotiveparts.org. They have linked sites for Honda parts too.
The LSD is important to me in the rain. I never liked spinning my tires on starts or in turns, and I thought the LSD would cure most of that for a car with this much power. For the most part, this has been true.
Gas mileage is slightly better.
In summary, for long term (10-15 years)ownership I concluded:
---re-building the clutch is much cheaper than rebuilding an automatic.
---replacing brakes will be much more expensive. Hopefully Brembo life is comparable to standard Acura.
The Rear Stabilizer bar is 91% stiffer on the manual.
Remember, the function of the stabilizer bar is to reduce body roll and also keep the inside wheel loaded down in a turn. This is how it helps prevent inside wheel spin during aggressive power on turns. I gave the automatic a chance, but after one hard turn w/ some power on, the inside wheel spun on drive pavement and that confirmed for me I wanted the LSD and tighter roll bars.
The Brembo brakes are very good with very good feel. They do create a lot of dust on the fronts and are much more expensive to replace. Pads are $140 vs $37, rotors are $132 vs $80 (per side) and calipers are $283 vs $132 (per side). These are wholesale prices from an internet parts dealer I have bought Honda parts from for several years. www.acuraautomotiveparts.org. They have linked sites for Honda parts too.
The LSD is important to me in the rain. I never liked spinning my tires on starts or in turns, and I thought the LSD would cure most of that for a car with this much power. For the most part, this has been true.
Gas mileage is slightly better.
In summary, for long term (10-15 years)ownership I concluded:
---re-building the clutch is much cheaper than rebuilding an automatic.
---replacing brakes will be much more expensive. Hopefully Brembo life is comparable to standard Acura.
03-31-2004, 11:36 AM
#49
Head a da Family
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Friggin Jerzy
Age: 69
Posts: 5,505
Received 561 Likes
on
393 Posts
Originally Posted by Red_Rocket
The Brembo brakes are very good with very good feel. They do create a lot of dust on the fronts and are much more expensive to replace. Pads are $140 vs $37, rotors are $132 vs $80 (per side) and calipers are $283 vs $132 (per side). These are wholesale prices from an internet parts dealer I have bought Honda parts from for several years. www.acuraautomotiveparts.org. They have linked sites for Honda parts too.
03-31-2004, 11:40 AM
#50
Drifting
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by brahtw8
I think that the only logical thing to do is simply ignore harddrivin1LE.
His posts in this thread display the same insanity that clouds all of his posts.
Take a look at his posts quoting mine at the end of page 1.
He starts off by responding that one must multiply the ratio of the gear by the rear axle ratio, right after quoting a post where I did exactly that. Apparently my use of 'x' to signify multiplication was beyond his comprehension, which is rather odd given that he used that same nomenclature in his post.
At first he didn't have anything to criticize me about, but apparently he could not let that stand, so he went and found an article about drag racing and automatic transmissions with high-stall torque lockup converters, from which he took an isolated paragraph and used it to try to insinuate that I had somehow provided an incomplete answer.
The entire article is reprinted below, and does not make the conclusion that he has implied, which is that you need to multiply the effective gear ratio by a factor of 1.5 to 2.2 for an automatic transmission because of the effect of the torque converter. That is of course simply ridiculous and easily disproven by simply comparing the effective gear ratios of the TL 6MT and 5AT, which do not support a disparity on the order of 1.5 to 2.2 times.
The Article:
Auto trans consume more engine power than manual trans. They have a pump that pumps around a lot more fluid than circulates in a manual trans. The power consumption of an auto trans might be 20% of crank hp, whereas a manual trans might consume 10%. These estimates may include other frictional losses and accessory pull; it is the difference between the two that is important. Auto trans also usually weigh more than manual trans, but not dramatically more and the auto trans version of a flywheel, the flexplate, is lighter than a stock flywheel. To be fair, you would have to weigh the entire assemblies.
The torque converter in an auto trans is sort of like the clutch in a manual trans. However, it can do a pretty neat trick, which is to multiply torque. All geared trans, manual and automatic, multiply torque in the lower gears through gear multiplication (gearing is lower than direct drive of 1:1, which usually appears around 3rd in an auto if a 4 speed and 4th in a manual if a 5 speed). The torque converter multiplies torque by slipping. This is sort of like slipping a clutch on a manual, except that it occurs without damage to the clutch and flywheel. It is designed to slip. Torque converters usually have a multiplication rate in the 1.5 to 2.2 range. The multiplication depends on stall speed. Stall speed can be measured and rated in a lot of different ways that can be misleading. The only fair way to rate it is to see what rpm you get
when you put your foot on the brake and bring the vacuum up to zero; in other words, no boost.
What is happening is that the engine is loading up against the trans. This makes heat, which the auto trans absorbs. There is lots of fluid in there that gets circulated and usually gets routed through at least one cooler. The stall speed may be anywhere from 1200 rpm to 5000 rpm, but on street cars it is usually in the 1200 to 2500 rpm range. Again, this rpm would be what is achieved when the brake is held and vacuum is brought up to the zero boost point. Obviously, your engine makes more torque at 2000 rpm than it does at 1000 rpm. This is the advantage of the auto trans. Can it be achieved with a manual trans? Yes, but it is more difficult to modulate the desired rpm precisely and causes a lot of wear on the trans. So when you leave the line with the auto, you are not only taking advantage of the gear multiplication just as on a manual, but you are also using rpm to your advantage.
Some people who drag race put very high stall speed converters on their cars. They usually do this because they have a race motor that makes very little low end torque. The idea is to use the stall speed of the converter to get the motor into the beginning of its torque peak. 4000
rpm stall speed converters are not good for street driving. They make a lot of heat due to all the slipping. And on the highway, if you are going 60 mph and give the throttle a bit of gas to accelerate, the rpm will rise up to around the stall speed of 4000. So there will be a
noticeable fuel economy loss also. My car had a stock stall speed of about 1800 rpm. Unfortunately, my turbo was not coming into boost at 1800 rpm, so I was nowhere near my torque peak when the converter stopped slipping. The result was a bit of a bog and a bit of lag. I changed the converter to one with a rated stall speed of about 2600-2700 rpm. Using the zero boost method, the stall speed was really about 2400 rpm. This worked great, because even my larger turbo was making a pound or two of boost at this rpm. So when the converter stopped slipping, I was making boost and the boost just keeps coming. I still don't have V8 like torque coming off the line, but it is a lot closer to that feel than it used to be. With real small turbo cars, the effect is not as noticeable, since they make boost at much lower rpm.
Torque converters are very interesting. They are not constant. The stall speed depends on the amount of torque fed to it. Put your converter behind a V8 and it might have a stall speed of 5000 rpm, not 2000 rpm. Measure your stall speed during circumstances other than the
zero boost test, and it will vary. Measure it by the coming off the line test and it will usually be a few hundred rpm higher than the zero boost test. That is because the turbo is making some boost and that boost makes torque and that torque raises the stall speed. Remove the kickdown cable of the automatic and drive the car and you will get a different stall speed in the upper gears. For example, in 3rd or 4th, your stall speed might be 3500 rpm, not 2500 rpm. This is because the engine is much more loaded up and is producing more torque; it can make 15 psi of boost at 2500 rpm on the highway, but not at 2500 rpm in 1st gear coming off the line. There are charts and formulas that you can use for calculating your stall speed under all sorts of conditions, for sizing converters, and so forth.
The torque converter slippage makes dyno runs more difficult. Usually the dyno wants 3rd gear for a consistent power curve. In an auto, it is hard to hold a gear. If you pull the kickdown cable, the stall speed will rise even further, making even less of a measurable power curve. Even if you measured off the line, you cannot generate a power curve for below the stall speed. If this is 2500 rpm, that is where your power curve will start. But since a good dyno reading requires a higher gear than 1st, the stall speed rises when 2nd is locked in, or when 3rd is locked in, making the power curve that is measurable start at even higher rpm.
Finally, some auto trans have lock up torque converters. Depending on certain inputs like rpm, throttle position, etc., the converter will lock up and stop slipping altogether. This promotes fuel efficiency. It can also be irritating on a small displacement motor with fairly low off
boost torque. As the turbo goes in and out of boost under some conditions, the converter locks and unlocks. Sort of like gear hunting on some autos on small motors. Normal slippage might be 5 to 10%. This is part of the reason why auto trans generate heat and have lower fuel
economy.
There are a couple of ways to make a higher stall speed converter. A stock one can be cut open and "loosened up" inside by trimming the vanes and then rewelded, or a new, smaller converter can be fitted. The first method should be used only for very modest increases in stall speed, like a few hundred rpm.
Auto trans are luxury items first. They are designed for soft shifts. Soft shifts are slower shifts. Performance automatics or automatics fitted with performance valve bodies have firmer shifts. Real firm shifts are pretty quick. The tires can even chirp. So non performance autos are almost always slower than manual trans. Performance autos, even though they usually have one less gear (autos are now going to 5 speeds, but manuals are going to 6 speeds), are sometimes as fast as manuals. Under extreme conditions, they are often as fast or even faster. Autos absorb drivetrain shock that comes from clutch dumping and tend to handle high power with fewer problems. Typically, drag racing autos are quicker than manuals in the quarter mile. The power consumption of the automatics, however, typically means that they have slightly lower trap speeds. These are generalizations; there may be some autos that lose nothing in trap speed just like there are a lot of autos that will not be quicker than a manual. A lot depends on how idealized the combinations of engine, power curve, final drive, trans gearing, and
torque converter is.
Philip B. Bradley ©2001
His posts in this thread display the same insanity that clouds all of his posts.
Take a look at his posts quoting mine at the end of page 1.
He starts off by responding that one must multiply the ratio of the gear by the rear axle ratio, right after quoting a post where I did exactly that. Apparently my use of 'x' to signify multiplication was beyond his comprehension, which is rather odd given that he used that same nomenclature in his post.
At first he didn't have anything to criticize me about, but apparently he could not let that stand, so he went and found an article about drag racing and automatic transmissions with high-stall torque lockup converters, from which he took an isolated paragraph and used it to try to insinuate that I had somehow provided an incomplete answer.
The entire article is reprinted below, and does not make the conclusion that he has implied, which is that you need to multiply the effective gear ratio by a factor of 1.5 to 2.2 for an automatic transmission because of the effect of the torque converter. That is of course simply ridiculous and easily disproven by simply comparing the effective gear ratios of the TL 6MT and 5AT, which do not support a disparity on the order of 1.5 to 2.2 times.
The Article:
Auto trans consume more engine power than manual trans. They have a pump that pumps around a lot more fluid than circulates in a manual trans. The power consumption of an auto trans might be 20% of crank hp, whereas a manual trans might consume 10%. These estimates may include other frictional losses and accessory pull; it is the difference between the two that is important. Auto trans also usually weigh more than manual trans, but not dramatically more and the auto trans version of a flywheel, the flexplate, is lighter than a stock flywheel. To be fair, you would have to weigh the entire assemblies.
The torque converter in an auto trans is sort of like the clutch in a manual trans. However, it can do a pretty neat trick, which is to multiply torque. All geared trans, manual and automatic, multiply torque in the lower gears through gear multiplication (gearing is lower than direct drive of 1:1, which usually appears around 3rd in an auto if a 4 speed and 4th in a manual if a 5 speed). The torque converter multiplies torque by slipping. This is sort of like slipping a clutch on a manual, except that it occurs without damage to the clutch and flywheel. It is designed to slip. Torque converters usually have a multiplication rate in the 1.5 to 2.2 range. The multiplication depends on stall speed. Stall speed can be measured and rated in a lot of different ways that can be misleading. The only fair way to rate it is to see what rpm you get
when you put your foot on the brake and bring the vacuum up to zero; in other words, no boost.
What is happening is that the engine is loading up against the trans. This makes heat, which the auto trans absorbs. There is lots of fluid in there that gets circulated and usually gets routed through at least one cooler. The stall speed may be anywhere from 1200 rpm to 5000 rpm, but on street cars it is usually in the 1200 to 2500 rpm range. Again, this rpm would be what is achieved when the brake is held and vacuum is brought up to the zero boost point. Obviously, your engine makes more torque at 2000 rpm than it does at 1000 rpm. This is the advantage of the auto trans. Can it be achieved with a manual trans? Yes, but it is more difficult to modulate the desired rpm precisely and causes a lot of wear on the trans. So when you leave the line with the auto, you are not only taking advantage of the gear multiplication just as on a manual, but you are also using rpm to your advantage.
Some people who drag race put very high stall speed converters on their cars. They usually do this because they have a race motor that makes very little low end torque. The idea is to use the stall speed of the converter to get the motor into the beginning of its torque peak. 4000
rpm stall speed converters are not good for street driving. They make a lot of heat due to all the slipping. And on the highway, if you are going 60 mph and give the throttle a bit of gas to accelerate, the rpm will rise up to around the stall speed of 4000. So there will be a
noticeable fuel economy loss also. My car had a stock stall speed of about 1800 rpm. Unfortunately, my turbo was not coming into boost at 1800 rpm, so I was nowhere near my torque peak when the converter stopped slipping. The result was a bit of a bog and a bit of lag. I changed the converter to one with a rated stall speed of about 2600-2700 rpm. Using the zero boost method, the stall speed was really about 2400 rpm. This worked great, because even my larger turbo was making a pound or two of boost at this rpm. So when the converter stopped slipping, I was making boost and the boost just keeps coming. I still don't have V8 like torque coming off the line, but it is a lot closer to that feel than it used to be. With real small turbo cars, the effect is not as noticeable, since they make boost at much lower rpm.
Torque converters are very interesting. They are not constant. The stall speed depends on the amount of torque fed to it. Put your converter behind a V8 and it might have a stall speed of 5000 rpm, not 2000 rpm. Measure your stall speed during circumstances other than the
zero boost test, and it will vary. Measure it by the coming off the line test and it will usually be a few hundred rpm higher than the zero boost test. That is because the turbo is making some boost and that boost makes torque and that torque raises the stall speed. Remove the kickdown cable of the automatic and drive the car and you will get a different stall speed in the upper gears. For example, in 3rd or 4th, your stall speed might be 3500 rpm, not 2500 rpm. This is because the engine is much more loaded up and is producing more torque; it can make 15 psi of boost at 2500 rpm on the highway, but not at 2500 rpm in 1st gear coming off the line. There are charts and formulas that you can use for calculating your stall speed under all sorts of conditions, for sizing converters, and so forth.
The torque converter slippage makes dyno runs more difficult. Usually the dyno wants 3rd gear for a consistent power curve. In an auto, it is hard to hold a gear. If you pull the kickdown cable, the stall speed will rise even further, making even less of a measurable power curve. Even if you measured off the line, you cannot generate a power curve for below the stall speed. If this is 2500 rpm, that is where your power curve will start. But since a good dyno reading requires a higher gear than 1st, the stall speed rises when 2nd is locked in, or when 3rd is locked in, making the power curve that is measurable start at even higher rpm.
Finally, some auto trans have lock up torque converters. Depending on certain inputs like rpm, throttle position, etc., the converter will lock up and stop slipping altogether. This promotes fuel efficiency. It can also be irritating on a small displacement motor with fairly low off
boost torque. As the turbo goes in and out of boost under some conditions, the converter locks and unlocks. Sort of like gear hunting on some autos on small motors. Normal slippage might be 5 to 10%. This is part of the reason why auto trans generate heat and have lower fuel
economy.
There are a couple of ways to make a higher stall speed converter. A stock one can be cut open and "loosened up" inside by trimming the vanes and then rewelded, or a new, smaller converter can be fitted. The first method should be used only for very modest increases in stall speed, like a few hundred rpm.
Auto trans are luxury items first. They are designed for soft shifts. Soft shifts are slower shifts. Performance automatics or automatics fitted with performance valve bodies have firmer shifts. Real firm shifts are pretty quick. The tires can even chirp. So non performance autos are almost always slower than manual trans. Performance autos, even though they usually have one less gear (autos are now going to 5 speeds, but manuals are going to 6 speeds), are sometimes as fast as manuals. Under extreme conditions, they are often as fast or even faster. Autos absorb drivetrain shock that comes from clutch dumping and tend to handle high power with fewer problems. Typically, drag racing autos are quicker than manuals in the quarter mile. The power consumption of the automatics, however, typically means that they have slightly lower trap speeds. These are generalizations; there may be some autos that lose nothing in trap speed just like there are a lot of autos that will not be quicker than a manual. A lot depends on how idealized the combinations of engine, power curve, final drive, trans gearing, and
torque converter is.
Philip B. Bradley ©2001
If you don't "believe" that then it sounds like you need to do some reading.
The auto car is a little slower than the manual car because:
A) It is 93 pounds heavier
B) Automatic transmissions are less efficient than manuals (require more engine power to operate)
03-31-2004, 11:56 AM
#51
Drifting
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=brahtw8]I think that the only logical thing to do is simply ignore harddrivin1LE.
His posts in this thread display the same insanity that clouds all of his posts.
EVERY torque converter acts as a TORQUE MULTIPLIER @ lower engine speeds!!!!! But the net effect ISN'T EVIDENT when simply comparing gear ratios alone.
http://www.islandnet.com/~victrans/Multiplication.html
"By torque multiplication, we mean that there is more torque on the turbine shaft than the engine is putting out because the vortex fluid is accelerated more than once. Torque multiplication is obtained at the sacrifice of turbine rotation. Actually, it's no different from the mechanical advantage which your get from gearing down. You gain torque by sacrificing motion.
Torque multiplication takes place anytime the turbine is turning at less than 9/10 impeller speed. At full stall, the stock AOD converter produces about 1.85-to-1 torque multiplication. As the turbine speed increases in relation to the impeller, torque multiplication decreases."
His posts in this thread display the same insanity that clouds all of his posts.
Originally Posted by brahtw8
I think that the only logical thing to do is simply ignore harddrivin1LE.
His posts in this thread display the same insanity that clouds all of his posts.
Take a look at his posts quoting mine at the end of page 1.
He starts off by responding that one must multiply the ratio of the gear by the rear axle ratio, right after quoting a post where I did exactly that. Apparently my use of 'x' to signify multiplication was beyond his comprehension, which is rather odd given that he used that same nomenclature in his post.
At first he didn't have anything to criticize me about, but apparently he could not let that stand, so he went and found an article about drag racing and automatic transmissions with high-stall torque lockup converters, from which he took an isolated paragraph and used it to try to insinuate that I had somehow provided an incomplete answer.
The entire article is reprinted below, and does not make the conclusion that he has implied, which is that you need to multiply the effective gear ratio by a factor of 1.5 to 2.2 for an automatic transmission because of the effect of the torque converter. That is of course simply ridiculous and easily disproven by simply comparing the effective gear ratios of the TL 6MT and 5AT, which do not support a disparity on the order of 1.5 to 2.2 times.
His posts in this thread display the same insanity that clouds all of his posts.
Take a look at his posts quoting mine at the end of page 1.
He starts off by responding that one must multiply the ratio of the gear by the rear axle ratio, right after quoting a post where I did exactly that. Apparently my use of 'x' to signify multiplication was beyond his comprehension, which is rather odd given that he used that same nomenclature in his post.
At first he didn't have anything to criticize me about, but apparently he could not let that stand, so he went and found an article about drag racing and automatic transmissions with high-stall torque lockup converters, from which he took an isolated paragraph and used it to try to insinuate that I had somehow provided an incomplete answer.
The entire article is reprinted below, and does not make the conclusion that he has implied, which is that you need to multiply the effective gear ratio by a factor of 1.5 to 2.2 for an automatic transmission because of the effect of the torque converter. That is of course simply ridiculous and easily disproven by simply comparing the effective gear ratios of the TL 6MT and 5AT, which do not support a disparity on the order of 1.5 to 2.2 times.
EVERY torque converter acts as a TORQUE MULTIPLIER @ lower engine speeds!!!!! But the net effect ISN'T EVIDENT when simply comparing gear ratios alone.
http://www.islandnet.com/~victrans/Multiplication.html
"By torque multiplication, we mean that there is more torque on the turbine shaft than the engine is putting out because the vortex fluid is accelerated more than once. Torque multiplication is obtained at the sacrifice of turbine rotation. Actually, it's no different from the mechanical advantage which your get from gearing down. You gain torque by sacrificing motion.
Torque multiplication takes place anytime the turbine is turning at less than 9/10 impeller speed. At full stall, the stock AOD converter produces about 1.85-to-1 torque multiplication. As the turbine speed increases in relation to the impeller, torque multiplication decreases."
03-31-2004, 01:34 PM
#52
Drifting
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/exhibits/...ch/tq_conv.htm
"A torque converter is fluid coupling which transfers drive torque from the engine into the transmission. A fluid coupling is the preferred choice for this application as the rotational forces are transmitted through a fluid, rather than a fixed mechanical link. This enables some slip in the coupling so that harsh engine vibrations and shocks are not transmitted down the driveline. A further effect is that, while the coupling is slipping, the transmitted torque is multiplied - hence the name of this component. This effect is useful in the situation of accelerating a vehicle from stationary (launch feel)."
"A torque converter is fluid coupling which transfers drive torque from the engine into the transmission. A fluid coupling is the preferred choice for this application as the rotational forces are transmitted through a fluid, rather than a fixed mechanical link. This enables some slip in the coupling so that harsh engine vibrations and shocks are not transmitted down the driveline. A further effect is that, while the coupling is slipping, the transmitted torque is multiplied - hence the name of this component. This effect is useful in the situation of accelerating a vehicle from stationary (launch feel)."
03-31-2004, 02:33 PM
#53
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 60
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The auto car would be virtually indistinguishable from the manual car in terms of overall handling - IF both cars were fitted with the same tires and the same anti-roll bars.
03-31-2004, 02:37 PM
#54
Drifting
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Norse396
I guess if grandma was driving this would be true. However it's easier to power out of an apex in a manual car than it is in an automatic car.
Rear wheel torque in either car (manual or auto TL) is essentially going to be the same @ any given vehicle speed, assuming the optimal ratio has been selected. Hence, they will both "power out" of an apex in a similar manner.
03-31-2004, 02:38 PM
#55
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: IL
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*** Warning ***
Thread hijack alert. Hardrivin1le has entered the thread. Stand by for repetitive posts and irrelevant URLs ad nauseum, probable loss of topic, and as many petty arguments and feuds as he can possibly ignite for the remaining life of this now DOA thread.
*** Warning ***
Thread hijack alert. Hardrivin1le has entered the thread. Stand by for repetitive posts and irrelevant URLs ad nauseum, probable loss of topic, and as many petty arguments and feuds as he can possibly ignite for the remaining life of this now DOA thread.
*** Warning ***
03-31-2004, 02:51 PM
#56
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 56
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by UminChu
*** Warning ***
Thread hijack alert. Hardrivin1le has entered the thread. Stand by for repetitive posts and irrelevant URLs ad nauseum, probable loss of topic, and as many petty arguments and feuds as he can possibly ignite for the remaining life of this now DOA thread.
*** Warning ***
Thread hijack alert. Hardrivin1le has entered the thread. Stand by for repetitive posts and irrelevant URLs ad nauseum, probable loss of topic, and as many petty arguments and feuds as he can possibly ignite for the remaining life of this now DOA thread.
*** Warning ***
03-31-2004, 03:19 PM
#57
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 60
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it isn't, at least assuming that the auto car has already been shifted into the proper gear to avoid mid-corner "lurching" that would accompany an unexpected downshift.
Rear wheel torque in either car (manual or auto TL) is essentially going to be the same @ any given vehicle speed, assuming the optimal ratio has been selected. Hence, they will both "power out" of an apex in a similar manner.
Rear wheel torque in either car (manual or auto TL) is essentially going to be the same @ any given vehicle speed, assuming the optimal ratio has been selected. Hence, they will both "power out" of an apex in a similar manner.
This doesn't need to be another "It has to be this way or no way" thread, everybody has their own preference...
03-31-2004, 03:41 PM
#58
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 60
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are you guys player hatin Hardriven. Because he uses facts to get his point across rather than speculation and name calling?
We post opinions, 1le disputs anything and everything no matter what stand you take on it... for most this is obvious, for others..... well here you are. As for name calling, a brief read through various threads will clear that up...
Welcome to the forum.
03-31-2004, 03:46 PM
#59
Senior Moderator
There is a different feel...
I have driven both the At and MT. There is more of a hooked-up feeling with the MT. The weight is different. Someone said 13 gals. I believe it's more like a full tank since gas weighs 6 pounds per gallon (about 15.5 gals). The balance is different. The sway bars are tighter. Tire pressure in the front of the MT is 35 vs. 32 in the AT. I think I remember that the ride height of the MT is about an inch lower than the AT. Whatever. The sum of it all is that the MT feels a little tighter at 9/10ths. But who (besides me) drives like that?
03-31-2004, 03:50 PM
#61
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
No it isn't, at least assuming that the auto car has already been shifted into the proper gear to avoid mid-corner "lurching" that would accompany an unexpected downshift.
Rear wheel torque in either car (manual or auto TL) is essentially going to be the same @ any given vehicle speed, assuming the optimal ratio has been selected. Hence, they will both "power out" of an apex in a similar manner.
Rear wheel torque in either car (manual or auto TL) is essentially going to be the same @ any given vehicle speed, assuming the optimal ratio has been selected. Hence, they will both "power out" of an apex in a similar manner.
03-31-2004, 03:50 PM
#62
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: IL
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by shodog
Why are you guys player hatin Hardriven. Because he uses facts to get his point across rather than speculation and name calling?
Look at the direction nearly every thread has taken almost immediately after his participation takes hold. Start with this thread. Another recent example: Try the TL vs. Chrysler 300 thread. Numerous threads have taken the same pathetic turn, and the common demoninator to each and every of them has been HD's entry into the thread. Once he arrives, kiss the original topic goodbye, and any quality exchange of dialog along with it.
You mentioned name calling. I didn't check carefully, has he called anyone an assclown in this thread yet? If he hasn't give him time, he will (probably to me, as a result of this post).
03-31-2004, 03:54 PM
#63
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Age: 44
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by shodog
Why are you guys player hatin Hardriven. Because he uses facts to get his point across rather than speculation and name calling?
Player hatin...... yeah ok then
03-31-2004, 03:57 PM
#64
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Age: 44
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by UminChu
I personally do not hate him at all. I dislike that nearly any thread he either initiates or enters into rapidly deteriorates into numerous pages of petty, off-topic diatribes, arguements and feuds. He is the self-proclaimed oracle and guru of all things automotive, ready and willing to take on all comers, argue to the death, never give an inch, ignoring any and all support or reasoning to any point of view contrary to his own. No matter how articulately and/or authoritatively supported, he instead ignores any dissenting viewpoint entirely, and all too often resorts to rerouting the debate into a meaningless feud.
Look at the direction nearly every thread has taken almost immediately after his participation takes hold. Start with this thread. Another recent example: Try the TL vs. Chrysler 300 thread. Numerous threads have taken the same pathetic turn, and the common demoninator to each and every of them has been HD's entry into the thread. Once he arrives, kiss the original topic goodbye, and any quality exchange of dialog along with it.
You mentioned name calling. I didn't check carefully, has he called anyone an assclown in this thread yet? If he hasn't give him time, he will (probably to me, as a result of this post).
Look at the direction nearly every thread has taken almost immediately after his participation takes hold. Start with this thread. Another recent example: Try the TL vs. Chrysler 300 thread. Numerous threads have taken the same pathetic turn, and the common demoninator to each and every of them has been HD's entry into the thread. Once he arrives, kiss the original topic goodbye, and any quality exchange of dialog along with it.
You mentioned name calling. I didn't check carefully, has he called anyone an assclown in this thread yet? If he hasn't give him time, he will (probably to me, as a result of this post).
03-31-2004, 04:03 PM
#65
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by Norse396
Had I had the chance to do over I'd probably have gone with the 6MT, ahhh well.
When all is considered, I'll stick with my gut decision. The 6 MT would be glorious about 5% of my driving time. The other 95%, it would be boring in-town driving; stop and go.
I live in Florida where there are no curves or mountain roads <sigh>. So, I must remember that this is a four door family sedan albeit one of the best and most sporting around. It has all the bells and whistles to make my short hops interesting and comfortable with a dash of excitement. It is dream-like on a road trip where the tranny is insignificant.
I saved enough money over a BMW 530i similarly equipped to buy a Honda VTX1800 motorcycle. I get my speed nut on that when I have adrenaline cravings. :diablotin
03-31-2004, 04:15 PM
#67
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: IL
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear what you're saying. I live in the midwest, where traffic sucks and the roads are straight and flat. I got mine with the stick; feel free to call me biased, I won't argue, but I still think 6MT was the right way to go (at least for me). Between accelerating, braking and cornering, there really is a big difference in the way the 2 cars drive and feel. We all value it differently, but I'd urge you to try to get an extended 6MT test drive. You may change your mind.
03-31-2004, 04:15 PM
#68
Drifting
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by xpditor42
You are precisely correct, Harddriven. The rear wheel torque is exactly equal at any given speed. It's zero. The cars under discussion are FWD.
I keep confusing the TL with an ACTUAL PERFORMANCE CAR! And we all know that ACTUAL PERFORMANCE CARS are rear wheel drive.
03-31-2004, 04:16 PM
#69
Drifting
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by apwalsh
I also think that he changes stances on topics frequently. Either that or he contradicts himself.
The actual problem is your inability/lack of desire to comprehend difficult subject matter.
You might be amazed what you can learn when you actually TRY.
03-31-2004, 04:33 PM
#70
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Age: 44
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
The actual problem is your inability/lack of desire to comprehend difficult subject matter.
You might be amazed what you can learn when you actually TRY.
I don't really want to waste any more time but I CAN quote your posts where you contradict yourself. Think before you speak, child.
03-31-2004, 04:37 PM
#71
Drifting
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by apwalsh
Please give references supporting your statement above.
I don't really want to waste any more time but I CAN quote your posts where you contradict yourself. Think before you speak, child.
I don't really want to waste any more time but I CAN quote your posts where you contradict yourself. Think before you speak, child.
Quote them (within the ENTIRE POST in which they appear so as to not take the quotes out of context).
03-31-2004, 04:48 PM
#72
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: IL
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by shodog
Why are you guys player hatin Hardriven. Because he uses facts to get his point across rather than speculation and name calling?
The actual problem is your inability/lack of desire to comprehend difficult subject matter.
You might be amazed what you can learn when you actually TRY.
You might be amazed what you can learn when you actually TRY.
I keep confusing the TL with an ACTUAL PERFORMANCE CAR! And we all know that ACTUAL PERFORMANCE CARS are rear wheel drive.
03-31-2004, 04:55 PM
#73
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Age: 44
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
Go ahead...
Quote them (within the ENTIRE POST in which they appear so as to not take the quotes out of context).
Quote them (within the ENTIRE POST in which they appear so as to not take the quotes out of context).
Moderators: When is enough enough?
03-31-2004, 05:52 PM
#74
Drifting
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by UminChu
Need more proof shodog? His very next two posts ignore the thread subject entirely, and instead either deliberately insults someone
r goes entirely off topic (in a thread discussing 5AT vs. 6MT):See the feud erupting? Now think about when and how it started. Examine his other threads and his posts within those threads. Notice how each of those threads goes straight off of a cliff once HD becomes involved in the discussion. See the pattern? It's happening again, right here in this thread, right before your eyes.
r goes entirely off topic (in a thread discussing 5AT vs. 6MT):See the feud erupting? Now think about when and how it started. Examine his other threads and his posts within those threads. Notice how each of those threads goes straight off of a cliff once HD becomes involved in the discussion. See the pattern? It's happening again, right here in this thread, right before your eyes.So lets go back to ACTUAL TOPICS.
This guy claims that torque converters don't effectively FURTHER MULTIPLY the gear reduction in automatic transmissions. I say that it does and here is one of a host of authorities who back my claim:
Quote:
Originally Posted by brahtw8
I think that the only logical thing to do is simply ignore harddrivin1LE.
His posts in this thread display the same insanity that clouds all of his posts.
[QUOTE=brahtw8]I think that the only logical thing to do is simply ignore harddrivin1LE.
His posts in this thread display the same insanity that clouds all of his posts.
Take a look at his posts quoting mine at the end of page 1.
He starts off by responding that one must multiply the ratio of the gear by the rear axle ratio, right after quoting a post where I did exactly that. Apparently my use of 'x' to signify multiplication was beyond his comprehension, which is rather odd given that he used that same nomenclature in his post.
At first he didn't have anything to criticize me about, but apparently he could not let that stand, so he went and found an article about drag racing and automatic transmissions with high-stall torque lockup converters, from which he took an isolated paragraph and used it to try to insinuate that I had somehow provided an incomplete answer.
The entire article is reprinted below, and does not make the conclusion that he has implied, which is that you need to multiply the effective gear ratio by a factor of 1.5 to 2.2 for an automatic transmission because of the effect of the torque converter. That is of course simply ridiculous and easily disproven by simply comparing the effective gear ratios of the TL 6MT and 5AT, which do not support a disparity on the order of 1.5 to 2.2 times.
EVERY torque converter acts as a TORQUE MULTIPLIER @ lower engine speeds!!!!! But the net effect ISN'T EVIDENT when simply comparing gear ratios alone.
http://www.islandnet.com/~victrans/Multiplication.html
"By torque multiplication, we mean that there is more torque on the turbine shaft than the engine is putting out because the vortex fluid is accelerated more than once. Torque multiplication is obtained at the sacrifice of turbine rotation. Actually, it's no different from the mechanical advantage which your get from gearing down. You gain torque by sacrificing motion.
Torque multiplication takes place anytime the turbine is turning at less than 9/10 impeller speed. At full stall, the stock AOD converter produces about 1.85-to-1 torque multiplication. As the turbine speed increases in relation to the impeller, torque multiplication decreases."
03-31-2004, 05:59 PM
#75
Drifting
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by brahtw8
I think that the only logical thing to do is simply ignore harddrivin1LE.
His posts in this thread display the same insanity that clouds all of his posts.
Take a look at his posts quoting mine at the end of page 1.
He starts off by responding that one must multiply the ratio of the gear by the rear axle ratio, right after quoting a post where I did exactly that. Apparently my use of 'x' to signify multiplication was beyond his comprehension, which is rather odd given that he used that same nomenclature in his post.
At first he didn't have anything to criticize me about, but apparently he could not let that stand, so he went and found an article about drag racing and automatic transmissions with high-stall torque lockup converters, from which he took an isolated paragraph and used it to try to insinuate that I had somehow provided an incomplete answer.
The entire article is reprinted below, and does not make the conclusion that he has implied, which is that you need to multiply the effective gear ratio by a factor of 1.5 to 2.2 for an automatic transmission because of the effect of the torque converter. That is of course simply ridiculous and easily disproven by simply comparing the effective gear ratios of the TL 6MT and 5AT, which do not support a disparity on the order of 1.5 to 2.2 times.
His posts in this thread display the same insanity that clouds all of his posts.
Take a look at his posts quoting mine at the end of page 1.
He starts off by responding that one must multiply the ratio of the gear by the rear axle ratio, right after quoting a post where I did exactly that. Apparently my use of 'x' to signify multiplication was beyond his comprehension, which is rather odd given that he used that same nomenclature in his post.
At first he didn't have anything to criticize me about, but apparently he could not let that stand, so he went and found an article about drag racing and automatic transmissions with high-stall torque lockup converters, from which he took an isolated paragraph and used it to try to insinuate that I had somehow provided an incomplete answer.
The entire article is reprinted below, and does not make the conclusion that he has implied, which is that you need to multiply the effective gear ratio by a factor of 1.5 to 2.2 for an automatic transmission because of the effect of the torque converter. That is of course simply ridiculous and easily disproven by simply comparing the effective gear ratios of the TL 6MT and 5AT, which do not support a disparity on the order of 1.5 to 2.2 times.
http://www.islandnet.com/~victrans/Multiplication.html
"By torque multiplication, we mean that there is more torque on the turbine shaft than the engine is putting out because the vortex fluid is accelerated more than once. Torque multiplication is obtained at the sacrifice of turbine rotation. Actually, it's no different from the mechanical advantage which your get from gearing down. You gain torque by sacrificing motion.
Torque multiplication takes place anytime the turbine is turning at less than 9/10 impeller speed. At full stall, the stock AOD converter produces about 1.85-to-1 torque multiplication. As the turbine speed increases in relation to the impeller, torque multiplication decreases."
AND:
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/exhibits/...ch/tq_conv.htm
"A torque converter is fluid coupling which transfers drive torque from the engine into the transmission. A fluid coupling is the preferred choice for this application as the rotational forces are transmitted through a fluid, rather than a fixed mechanical link. This enables some slip in the coupling so that harsh engine vibrations and shocks are not transmitted down the driveline. A further effect is that, while the coupling is slipping, the transmitted torque is multiplied - hence the name of this component. This effect is useful in the situation of accelerating a vehicle from stationary (launch feel)."
"A torque converter is fluid coupling which transfers drive torque from the engine into the transmission. A fluid coupling is the preferred choice for this application as the rotational forces are transmitted through a fluid, rather than a fixed mechanical link. This enables some slip in the coupling so that harsh engine vibrations and shocks are not transmitted down the driveline. A further effect is that, while the coupling is slipping, the transmitted torque is multiplied - hence the name of this component. This effect is useful in the situation of accelerating a vehicle from stationary (launch feel)."
03-31-2004, 06:17 PM
#76
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
The pattern...of a few people who would rather type crap like that instead of discuss ACTUAL TOPICS. :smackhead
So lets go back to ACTUAL TOPICS.
This guy claims that torque converters don't effectively FURTHER MULTIPLY the gear reduction in automatic transmissions. I say that it does and here is one of a host of authorities who back my claim:
So lets go back to ACTUAL TOPICS.
This guy claims that torque converters don't effectively FURTHER MULTIPLY the gear reduction in automatic transmissions. I say that it does and here is one of a host of authorities who back my claim:
I simply questioned the relevance of your incomplete quote and pointed out that a simple multiplication of the gear ratio by 1.5-2.2 times is not an accurate way to compare the gearing of an automatic and manual transmission, and in any event is not what your own articles are saying. The effect of the torque converter is variable, depending on the host of factors discussed in the many articles you have posted:
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
Torque multiplication takes place anytime the turbine is turning at less than 9/10 impeller speed. At full stall, the stock AOD converter produces about 1.85-to-1 torque multiplication. As the turbine speed increases in relation to the impeller, torque multiplication decreases."
03-31-2004, 06:23 PM
#77
Drifting
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by brahtw8
I never claimed that torque converters don't further multiply the gear reduction in automatic transmissions. You can't find a post where I even said anything remotely close to that.
I simply questioned the relevance of your incomplete quote and pointed out that a simple multiplication of the gear ratio by 1.5-2.2 times is not an accurate way to compare the gearing of an automatic and manual transmission, and in any event is not what your own articles are saying. The effect of the torque converter is variable, depending on the host of factors discussed in the many articles you have posted:
Your problem is that you look for arguments and create them where none exist. You also believe that a snippet from an article you tracked down in your never-ending quest to have the last word is the definitive answer to a subject that is usually far more complex. I don't claim to know everything in the automotive realm. I will admit my mistakes, but you haven't pointed one out in this thread.
I simply questioned the relevance of your incomplete quote and pointed out that a simple multiplication of the gear ratio by 1.5-2.2 times is not an accurate way to compare the gearing of an automatic and manual transmission, and in any event is not what your own articles are saying. The effect of the torque converter is variable, depending on the host of factors discussed in the many articles you have posted:
Your problem is that you look for arguments and create them where none exist. You also believe that a snippet from an article you tracked down in your never-ending quest to have the last word is the definitive answer to a subject that is usually far more complex. I don't claim to know everything in the automotive realm. I will admit my mistakes, but you haven't pointed one out in this thread.
That's faulty logic.
The torque converter FURTHER MULTIPLIES torque reduction in the automatic car - above and beyond that of what's implied by the gear reduction alone.
The manual car is quicker because:
A) A manual is more efficient (requires less engine power to operate).
B) The manual car is 93 pounds lighter.
03-31-2004, 06:27 PM
#78
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
But you DID claim that the manual had an advantage over the automatic in terms of gearing and thereby suggested that's why the manual was the quicker of the two.
That's faulty logic.
That's faulty logic.
You can't find it because it doesn't exist.
Do you see how you create arguments that aren't there?
03-31-2004, 06:29 PM
#79
Drifting
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by brahtw8
Go to the beginning of this thread, and find the post I where I made that claim. Go ahead. I'll wait.
You can't find it because it doesn't exist.
Do you see how you create arguments that aren't there?
You can't find it because it doesn't exist.
Do you see how you create arguments that aren't there?