Originally Posted by D.Stillwell (Post 3475516)

Why so serious? Lol yes that is true..

Just having some fun here, bit of sarcasm here n there

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by FPenvy (Post 3475518)

well its hard to take anyone serious who think the MT is better........

Originally Posted by FPenvy (Post 3475476)

I've tried it on both cars and feels pretty much the exact same in both.

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3475571)

Which transmission do you feel operates at a higher running temperature?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3475571)

Which transmission do you feel operates at a higher running temperature?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by FPenvy (Post 3475573)

not sure but I assume they would run around the same temps.

I think typical operating temps are 190-210 F

Originally Posted by Ghostvette (Post 3475574)

I'm going to SWAG this and say that the AT probably has a higher temp. That's based on how finicky an AT can be when it gets warm. Heat seems to be the biggest thing that kills an AT, so that's my SWAG... :tiphat:

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3475575)

AT will be hotter because it has more moving parts with more surface area in contact with each other. Not going down the route of what kills each one though. Anyone care to take a guess as to what that excess heat means in regards to power in power out efficiencies?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3475119)

The fact that you came so close to hitting the nail on the head despite your derision and changing from boutique cars to a mass produced econo box to attempt to justify your failed premise is comical.

The part that your Z does not have is a clutch. The part that the cars you listed do not have is a torque converter. Many, like myself, do not mind paddles when they are mated to a properly clutched transmission. A torque converter is not a clutch. That in itself makes it laughable when the "well the GTR has paddle shifters" argument is made. It shows ignorance as to what each car's transmission is comprised of.

I have no issue with ATs other than I dislike the feel and drawbacks of a torque converter. If that's what you want to drive then that's your perogative and that's great. Just quit making factually incorrect justifications as to why you do.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Jordo! (Post 3476563)

Okay... so your problem is the presence or absence of a torque converter.

Fine.

Question: Given the following two options, would you prefer a clunky or slow-shifting non-torque converter equipped car or a fast-shifting torque converter equipped car? (we'll leave the shifter and 3rd pedal out of this).

Your answer will address my point that this is all about perceived "manual-ness", not performance, not design.

And here's the thing -- you and I (and I guess FERRARI), at least, are NOT debating preference, but rather pretending to do so.

You and he are telling us -- maybe very seriously, maybe not -- that a TRUE, PURE, PROPER sports car will not have a torque converter involved in the mix in any way, shape, or form.

This raises some questions about, say, V8 Jaguar F-types (I think they introduced a standard for the latest V6's that have gotten mixed reviews...).

Anyway, unless I'm missing your point, you are saying that the presence or absence of a torque converter trumps all other design and performance issues in terms of a car's pure sportiness.

If someone feels that way, then essentially that person is saying preference is irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is how does one define a sports car.

Look at this way: There's many, many different sects of various religions -- say, for, example the many different Christian faiths.

A Unitarian or agnostic approach might involve seeing equal merit (or lack thereof) in any given form of spirituality, taking the position that no one knows which religious secular view (or even if any faith) is "right".

However, you are nailing the 95 Thesis to my torque converter. You are telling Pope torque converter you want an annulment. You are telling me that a torque converter is wrong.

You are telling people "chocolate is better than vanilla" -- period, end of story, not "to each their own".

Simply saying, "sure, everyone is entitled to their perceptions on this issue" is very different from saying "everyone's perceptions on this issue are of defensibly equal value and accuracy".

In short, if you feel strongly that there is a "correct" and "incorrect" answer to the question of "What constitutes a proper sports car's transmission", then at best you are agreeing to disagree.

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3476568)

First and foremost, you need to work on your reading comprehension (this might also allow you to formulate a sensical rebuttal rather than the jibberish you just assaulted our eyes with). I never claimed that one was better than the other just my personal preference.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Maddog (Post 3476572)

Sensical isn't a word and its spelt "gibberish" HTH

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3476568)

In the absence of a valid argument one must turn to jibberish to formulate a counter point, as you have just proven, but I will do my best to make some semblance of sense out of your completely nonsensical response.

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3476568)

First and foremost, you need to work on your reading comprehension (this might also allow you to formulate a sensical rebuttal rather than the jibberish you just assaulted our eyes with). I never claimed that one was better than the other just my personal preference.

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3471945)

Yes but those cars are still manuals. They have something a 370z automatic does not, and are missing something that a 370z automatic does have. That makes all the difference.

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3475119)

The part that your Z does not have is a clutch. The part that the cars you listed do not have is a torque converter. Many, like myself, do not mind paddles when they are mated to a properly clutched transmission. A torque converter is not a clutch.

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3475119)

Second, your entire rant about slow shifting versus fast shifting is the classical non-sequitor fallacy, ie it does not follow, as I would not prefer either.

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3475119)

Third, you continually go back to "perceived manualness as if it is some unique thing to a certain transmission type. Hint, my 89 AT Bronco can be selectively shifted so I'm not sure what your point is here.

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3475119)

Fourth, out of all of the mentioned transmissions, leaving CVTs out of it, the torque converter transmission is the most parasitic and in many cases a high performance iteration will not hold the same power levels as its clutched siblings.

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3475119)

Fifth, the fact that a TC has to perform a physical lockup to simulate a solid link can be felt and in certain instances will cause a delay in responsiveness despite how well it performs 98% of the time.

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3475119)

Sixth, as far as responsiveness goes a properly designed DCT will trump all do the very nature of its designed. That said a properly designed DCT is not cheap.

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3475119)

As said before I'm not arguing preferences. If you like your AT more power to you, and it's great. I do not like the feel of a TC and as such do not drive vehicles that have them if at all avoidable. My only issue is with the blatant falsehoods and logical, (illogical is perhaps a better word here), leaps you make to justify your choice. Just own your choice don't make up fantasies and fallacies as to why you are correct.

Originally Posted by Jordo! (Post 3476634)

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" :icon17:).



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 :tup:





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 http://www.the370z.com/3471945-post1721.html 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... :shakes head:


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 :icon18:


Dude, your invective is not proportionate to my potential lack of reasoning. I hope you don't get riled this easily in real life...

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3476644)

You're reading comprehension has yet again failed you. Your entire diatribe is centered around the premise that I claimed one transmission is better than the other. I have not, did not, and will not.

That said, you continue to make references and claims that are not based in fact. I, myself, just me, do not like TC transmissions because of the drawbacks of that system, drawbacks you attempt to gloss over with comparisons to cars with exceptionally well executed DCT and AM transmissions.

A TC transmission does in fact have all of the drawbacks I listed. The others have theirs as well. Rough shifting AM, human error MT, slower shifting DCT, bit of a misnomer there though as in this case power is still being applied during the shift, and many more. I, personally, can live with the drawbacks of the others more than I can on a TC transmission.

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3476644)

Now let's go down this road since you opened the door, what exactly is a hypotheses? Perhaps you meant hypothesis?

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3476644)

What does the sentence or are we defining tiers or awful even mean?

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3476644)

How do you explain your numerous incorrect punctuations and run on sentences in this world of autocorrect, spell check and grammar checking technologies.

Originally Posted by cofo11 (Post 3476644)

Some advice, don't call out someone's grammar when making numerous, easily preventable mistakes on your own. Also, don't attempt to redefine someone's argument, bordering on a strawman fallacy. It makes you look foolish and carries the connotation you did not understand it originally.