Well, I began by comparing a DCT that performs poorly (Velocter) to a lock-up type TC that functions very well (370Z). You countered by telling me point blank that I am ignorant of the differences between the two... (NB: this is kind of the tack you are taking here as well, to dismiss my commentary as gibberish, or, as some people call it, "jibberish"
).
Got it. I've got poor reading comprehension and, even worse, I've assaulted everyone's eyes with my commentary. Sorry about that. I'll try a different font or something. Glad to hear I didn't cause any disruptive activity in your cerebrum.
Or maybe I did?
That would explain the completely unwarranted verbal attacks, poor spelling in a world of auto-correct and spellcheck technology, and your confusing choice of metaphors.
You may want to speak with a neurologist or something. Just trying to help
By your own words, the torque converter's presence
is the problem. In response to this counter, I then deliberately compared a DCT to a TC'd transmission, suggesting that I
might know the difference.
Also, in your comment regarding my response to FERRARI, here
[OFFICIAL] Manual v. Automatic Thread you tacitly made the same case he did regarding the superiority of any form of (apparently) MT vs any form of AT
BTW, Unless I'm mistaken, the V8 Jaguar F-types also have torque converters... into the junkyard with that garbage, I guess.
These different examples were specifically selected to draw a distinction in their mechanical design that you either ignored or missed.
That's okay.
Any difficulty with handwriting, co-ordination or speech slurring? Keep me posted.
Lets keep going.
I once posed a thought experiment, where I asked if a new form of fluid coupling TC was developed for the GT-R (or any other similarly designed car) that performed equally well to the current transmission, that was less prone to failure and also more affordable was offered, would one prefer the version instead -- if so, why?
I am making a point here where beliefs and attitudes about the world are being treated as empirical facts. We might describe this as an "improper" use of purely subjective views in lieu of objective data.
Notice we both made reference to something as being "proper" or not? Is the implication very different (i.e., "correct" vs. "incorrect")? Doesn't seem that way to me, despite my problems with reading comprehension.
You seem like a bright, thoughtful person, so let me offer this nugget of wisdom to you, which I think you'll appreciate, and maybe reflect on later: Frequently people commit so strongly to an attitude, they find it difficult (if not impossible) to accept -- rather than merely publicly tolerate, but privately reject -- an alternate view.
Put in that situation, it is also not uncommon for people to respond with a great deal of rancor, rather than actually try to understand the alternate view, which is, in the end, not easy to do. If it was, everybody would get along a whole lot better.
That said, I'm sure you're a very reasonable person otherwise...
Okay, then why would a high performance AT be viewed as equally unacceptable by you as a poorly designed MT? You did say that right? Or are we defining tiers or awful? You'll have to be more specific, I have poor reading comprehension, as you know.
Or... maybe you aren't as reasonable as I thought...
Ah. Now we have a quantifiable variable to consider.
Yes, fair enough. Of course I will concede this point -- HOWEVER, I have yet to see any evidence that the Z's AT has greater parasitic losses as compared to the MT.
I've amassed an awful lot of data on the MT and AT, with and without tuning, various mods, etc., and the 7AT seems to rob no more power than the 6MT. I'm certainly open to reviewing evidence to the contrary.
In the absence of any evidence of differences in power output, essentially, the "parasitic loss" criticism may be applied elsewhere, but, at least to the best of my knowledge, not on the Z34.
That's ignoring the facts that even if there is evidence yet to be found that confirms your critique, we also have data in other forms (e.g., road race tests, drag strip data) that clearly demonstrate that the 7AT -- despite all the laws of thermal dynamics -- outperforms the 6MT.
I have no problem with arguments about efficiency or performance -- those all point to falsifiable hypotheses rather than pure speculation. Unfortunately, this one is something you are unlikely to find supporting data (although, I'd welcome it if you had it; it's more important to me to be accurate than "right").
Maybe you could win the efficiency argument based on MPG? I may have to concede that one. I've got zero problems with admitting when I'm wrong. That's how you learn.
I'm having fun with this. Let's continue.
We'll have to evaluate road racer data on this one, but at least one poster in this thread does actually race his Z, and he seems very happy with the responsiveness characteristics and track performance.
So, your idea has merit, but it is not being defended by those with actual relevant experience, so... get back to me on that one?
Okay. One point for you. Well done. That 1 out of 6, or just under 17% accuracy.
Fine work
Dude, your invective is not proportionate to my potential lack of reasoning. I hope you don't get riled this easily in real life...