Quote:
Originally Posted by b15
But then again arguing semantics is pointless. Everyone has their own viewpoints/opinions. Make all the comparisons/claims you want. If you enjoy it, who cares! At least our cars looks damn good!  |
I'm not looking to argue semantics or taxonomy. This is a matter of the role of logic, reason, and personal bias in making sense of things. Why dismiss it? It's not as if there isn't a lot of emotion, time, and energy invested in the subject of defining a "proper sports car." Accordingly, tarring and feathering usually follows a difference of opinion... sounds like its worth thinking about to me. Isn't that what the thread is about?
The Top Gear guys probably have no idea how either a torque converter or a DCT work -- those guys are notoriously ignorant (and happy to remain so) on the inner workings of cars. That name was inspired by having paddles to flap. It's irrelevant to the point -- change what I said to "higher performance AT's" instead.
Anyway, my point is: If an automated trans works well, it should be better liked, and if it works poorly, then irrespective of
how it works, it should be less liked.
In other words, if a driver's controlled inputs for shifts result in fast, precise gear changes, why does it matter how they're mechanically actuated?
This fine shade of gray regarding general approval or disapproval of AT's seems to be all based on a general distaste for anything involving a torque converter, regardless of how well it works. That doesn't make any sense to me.
On that note, I doubt the AT on the Maxima shifts as well as the Z as they are probably different units, with different gearing, and different tunes. On the other hand, the Maxima, the Z, the IS-F and the Jaguar F-type all have a "slushbox". Therefore the AT on all of these cars are equivalent and terrible?
