China to build British cars in US

theacoustician said:
While I see your point, I simply don't get why more cars aren't CVT. Actual gear ratios seems so ... old school and ineffecient.
Click to expand...


Dunno. Guess theres something manly about grabbing a big black stick and jammin' it back and forth.
 
theacoustician said:
While I see your point, I simply don't get why more cars aren't CVT. Actual gear ratios seems so ... old school and ineffecient.
Click to expand...


cvt hasn't fared too well in high hp applications thus far
 
why_ask_why said:
cvt hasn't fared too well in high hp applications thus far
Click to expand...
If it doesn't get used more, then how can it be developed for high performance apps? I mean, its good enough for heavy duty machinery, Audi uses it in some of their vehicles, and I believe I heard the next NSX will have it. You'd think with some tinkering, it could be made to work in about any app.
 
theacoustician said:
If it doesn't get used more, then how can it be developed for high performance apps? I mean, its good enough for heavy duty machinery, Audi uses it in some of their vehicles, and I believe I heard the next NSX will have it. You'd think with some tinkering, it could be made to work in about any app.
Click to expand...


valid point but until the bugs are ironed out it wont make it into sports cars because the manufacturers aren't going to soak up the cost of them getting torn apart every 5 miles
 
why_ask_why said:
valid point but until the bugs are ironed out it wont make it into sports cars because the manufacturers aren't going to soak up the cost of them getting torn apart every 5 miles
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. I get how you can't release it for sale till it has decent reliability. I would think that the boost in milage it would afford would have manufacturers looking at it more seriously. I mean, imagine a car like yours with 40 mpg. People would eat that shit up.
 
SpyderGST said:
British cars built in britian were already of low-enough quality, but to build them in the US couldn't help the matter.
Click to expand...

I heard about them bringing back the MG the other day. I don't know a lot about cars at all, but I think it's a silly idea. People seem to make fun of this car as much as people make fun of the Pinto. I suppose the MG is at least a better looking vehicle and not quite a death trap, but who would really want to own something like this? I want to know that my car is going to get me from A to B rather than think it might get me where I need to go.

As for manual cars, I'd never own one cause it seems like a lot of work, but I've been able to work out how to drive one when necessary. I think that's enough.
 
theacoustician said:
While I see your point, I simply don't get why more cars aren't CVT. Actual gear ratios seems so ... old school and ineffecient.
Click to expand...
I can only IMAGINE the costs to work on one of those though...
 
ceiling fly said:
I can only IMAGINE the costs to work on one of those though...
Click to expand...
Actually, it costs less to work on them than standard automatics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission

Compared to hydraulic automatic transmissions:

CVTs can smoothly compensate for changing vehicle speeds, allowing the engine speed to remain at its level of peak efficiency. They may also avoid torque converter losses. This improves both fuel economy and exhaust emissions. However, some units (eg. Jetco Extroid) also employ a torque converter. Fuel efficiency advantages as high as 20% over 4 speed automatics can be obtained.

CVTs have much smoother operation. This can give a perception of low power, because many drivers expect a jerk when they begin to move the vehicle. The satisfying jerk of a non-CVT transmission can be emulated by CVT control software though, eliminating this marketing problem.

Since the CVT keeps the engine turning at constant RPMs over a wide range of vehicle speeds, pressing on the accelerator pedal will make the car move faster but doesn't change the sound coming from the engine as much as a conventional automatic transmission gear-shift. This confuses some drivers and again, leads to a mistaken impression of a lack of power.

CVTs are simpler to build and repair.

CVT torque handling capability is limited by the strength of their belt or chain, and by their ability to withstand friction wear between torque source and transmission medium for friction-driven CVTs. CVTs in production prior to 2005 are predominantly belt or chain driven and therefore typically limited to low powered cars and other light duty applications. More advanced IVT units using advanced lubricants, however, have been proven to support any amount of torque in production vehicles, including that used for buses, heavy trucks, and earth moving equipment.
Click to expand...
 
theacoustician said:
Well, yeah. I get how you can't release it for sale till it has decent reliability. I would think that the boost in milage it would afford would have manufacturers looking at it more seriously. I mean, imagine a car like yours with 40 mpg. People would eat that shit up.
Click to expand...

it has come a very long way in a short time...iirc, the first car with cvt was the ~'87 subaru justy packing a whopping 65hp :lol:
so yes, they are making it stronger but it just can't happen overnight
subaru_justy_09.jpg
 
why_ask_why said:
it has come a very long way in a short time...iirc, the first car with cvt was the ~'87 subaru justy packing a whopping 65hp :lol:
so yes, they are making it stronger but it just can't happen overnight
subaru_justy_09.jpg
Click to expand...
See, this is what I don't get. The first patent was filed in something like 1899. They've been used in aircraft since the 50's. What's holding back the auto industry? Cost? I seriously just don't get it.
 
theacoustician said:
See, this is what I don't get. The first patent was filed in something like 1899. They've been used in aircraft since the 50's. What's holding back the auto industry? Cost? I seriously just don't get it.
Click to expand...


guessing cost and keeping it within a viable size while still maintaining any semblance of strength
 
Oh, and it was first patented in 1866, not 1899. Apparently Da Vinci had conceptualized it in his notes in 1490. So ... yeah.
 
theacoustician said:
If you live in the city and commute, what's the point for of having a standard transmission? So you can shift every 5 seconds as you stop and go? Screw that. I understand having one in a secondary car you drive for fun, but everyday up and down GA400 in one? I'd shoot myself.
Click to expand...
that's just it, that's the common mentality of Americans - hence I don't think MG's will sell as well as you think. Not like in Europe anyway, where everyone drives stick and it's not an issue
 
elpmis said:
that's just it, that's the common mentality of Americans - hence I don't think MG's will sell as well as you think. Not like in Europe anyway, where everyone drives stick and it's not an issue
Click to expand...

hahahah...you called theac common

*kicks back to watch the show* :D
 
And I like the concept behind CVT's, I just don't like driving cars with 'em personally :fly: too boring

I find manuals easier to deal with in stop 'n go than autos, holding the brake down on an automatic aggravates my knee far more than operating a light clutch. And of course, on the bike it's even easier - I can crawl along way slower than walking pace and even stop momentarily without having to put a foot down. On an automatic scooter, it's not that easy to do...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back