manual cars are the sh1t

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I agree, for most people, for their daily driver its best to have an auto.

 

[manny1337 10+ year member]

more gas , less clutch. LOL.

if hes burning out less gas.

just sit in the car with it running with it in first gear with the clutch all the way down. let if off slowly till the car feels like it wants to start to stall. thats the spot where you clutch catches and practice it lol

 

[Linkz 10+ year member]

Manuals may be fun, but wait a year, you'll get tired of it. When your just driving home from a day of work, you just want to relax, and not worry bout shifting.

I never got tired of my 5 speed Jeep. Loved driving that thing. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Cot jones, you're a little off on your turbo argument. The thing about havving a turbo on the car is that it is never on the same stock engine. To accommodate the extra pressure a turbo has, the compression is lowered in a turbo vehicle which means the engine actually has less power.
For example my old 300zx had a 3 liter engine with a compression ratio of 10:1 from what i remember, however the turbo model's engine has a ratio of 7.8:1. Without the turbo, which includes lag below 3000, that engine has less power.

I know what you are trying to get at but you are off base. First off all let me begin by saying his car's compression ratio is 9.3 which is fairly standard.

Second, the whole reason to lower the compression ratio is purely for compensation. If his i5 wasn't turbocharged it would have the higher compression ratio from factory, but the turbo also raises the effective compression ratio.

Meaning in a nutshell, your argument doesn't make sense. My point is that his turbo makes his car faster from 0-60, and without it mine would be faster. Well the same i5, without turbo, either with or without a compensated compression ratio would have less low end power than with turbo.

Your un-turboed 300zx had a lower compression ratio because it was designed to compensate. It's not made to run at 7.8:1 without turbo. obviously, it's made to run at 10:1.

 

[Suicide Bobb 5,000+ posts]

I know what you are trying to get at but you are off base. First off all let me begin by saying his car's compression ratio is 9.3 which is fairly standard. Second, the whole reason to lower the compression ratio is purely for compensation. If his i5 wasn't turbocharged it would have the higher compression ratio from factory, but the turbo also raises the effective compression ratio.

Meaning in a nutshell, your argument doesn't make sense. My point is that his turbo makes his car faster from 0-60, and without it mine would be faster. Well the same i5, without turbo, either with or without a compensated compression ratio would have less low end power than with turbo.

Your un-turboed 300zx had a lower compression ratio because it was designed to compensate. It's not made to run at 7.8:1 without turbo. obviously, it's made to run at 10:1.

So if I threw a large turbo on my car that induced a ton of lag, it would have better low end than the stock car? Nice try.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

So if I threw a large turbo on my car that induced a ton of lag, it would have better low end than the stock car? Nice try.

The lag would only be a big factor if your initial compression ratio wasn't lowered. But the addition of a turbo should accompany a lowered compression ratio minimizing lag. So your argument is irrelevant.

You seem to have the delusion that Lag is a HUGE problem with turbos, and really it should only be a problem if you don't know what your doing.

First of all you said turbo's don't benefit untill 3000rpms. This is crap. Most turbos reach full boost by 3000 rpm in any gear. Just because you aren't at full boost doesn't mean you aren't benefiting from boost period.

That said every system is different and finely specific. You may go from 0-to full boost in 2 seconds in 2nd gear and 1 second in 1st gear at the same rpm. and see the opposite in a different model, it depends on how its tuned, so like I said, it depends on if you know what you are doing. And i'm pretty sure the audi factory does.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

read what i typed. i did not say "same as" i said "form of" the only difference between the system on my lincoln and esc is that esc aids while steering. they are very similar.trust me, i know more about automobiles than you could dream of knowing.

You know crap.

Traction control only keeps the wheel from spinning when accelerating by decreasing power to the wheel.

ABS only keeps the wheel from locking while braking, which increases friction because the resistive friction of the brake pads is higher than the static friction of the tires. As a side bonus, the car becomes easier to control cause steering is useless while the wheels are sliding.

ESC is COMPLETELY different.

It continuously monitors the steering wheel position, vs the orientation of the car and lowers engine power and applies brakes independently to specific tires as necessary to correct the cars orientation. It's a system twice as effective as ABS alone (statistically, in regards to reducing fatal accidents) and 10x more advanced. It's considered one of the big milestones in accident prevention.

And its not a matter of only ****** women drivers need it, it's a matter of smart drivers need it. It doesn't matter how good of a driver you are, you can't help a dog running out in front of you or another car cutting you off. Thats the reason most performance oriented cars (like mine) have the option to turn it off, because there are circumstances when you have more control over the variables.

If you knew even half of what you pretend to know you'd know that.

 

[BlactimusCrime 10+ year member]

Ill just pick one example of you being wrong...

Traction control only keeps the wheel from spinning when accelerating by decreasing power to the wheel.

False, because this is an incomplete answer. Traction Control applies the breaks when spinning, it is used in conjunction with the ABS system(such as on my car). In other vehicles with more sophisticated systems use timing retarding, reducing fuel, or boost control changes on turbocharged or supercharged application. Get your info straight //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[BlactimusCrime 10+ year member]

it depends on how its tuned

Actually it depends A LOT on the size of your turbo.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Ill just pick one example of you being wrong...
False, because this is an incomplete answer. Traction Control applies the breaks when spinning, it is used in conjunction with the ABS system(such as on my car). In other vehicles with more sophisticated systems use timing retarding, reducing fuel, or boost control changes on turbocharged or supercharged application. Get your info straight //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Hey shitdick, get your brain straight. Every function you just mentioned is synonymous with "reducing the power to the wheel."

So, in no way was my statement false, you follow troll logic shitforbrains

And the only way the 2 systems could be said to work "in conjunction" is that they both share the same brake actuators and sensors, this obviously, is so because why would you install 2 of the same part when they do the same thing, when you can have 2 systems share the same part for different but similar purposes (increasing traction)?

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Actually it depends A LOT on the size of your turbo.

AGAIN!! who cares? we are talking about a specific application, its sad that you morons would rather play stupid and argue in circles then just admit when you are wrong.

Although i don't blame you i guess. The stigma I've been given would naturally make it difficult to respect my knowledge despite its extensiveness.

 

[BlactimusCrime 10+ year member]

Hey shitdick, get your brain straight. Every function you just mentioned is synonymous with "reducing the power to the wheel."
So, in no way was my statement false, you follow troll logic shitforbrains

And the only way the 2 systems could be said to work "in conjunction" is that they both share the same brake actuators and sensors, this obviously, is so because why would you install 2 of the same part when they do the same thing, when you can have 2 systems share the same part for different but similar purposes (increasing traction)?

youre a jack@ss. i was referring to the braking not "reducing power" to the wheel. sorry I didnt throw the rest of the info in a new paragraph so you could understand it was a separate thought.

and in reference to abs and tc going hand in hand, i shared that info bc i didnt figure you were intelligent enough to realize the fact.

and they actually do install 2 different parts that have similar purposes, the master cylinder and the hydraulic brake actuator. they both force fluid to the calipers or wheel cylinders, just at different times.

 

[BlactimusCrime 10+ year member]

AGAIN!! who cares? we are talking about a specific application, its sad that you morons would rather play stupid and argue in circles then just admit when you are wrong.
Although i don't blame you i guess. The stigma I've been given would naturally make it difficult to respect my knowledge despite its extensiveness.

it does matter. because the bigger a turbo on any application determines the minimal amount of lag you will end up with no matter the tuning.

 

[plugitin 5,000+ posts]

why is this thread so long...its dumb. And why would you buy a 85 camaro?? Should of bought it and done the world a favor and brought her to the junkyard...

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

youre a jack@ss. i was referring to the braking not "reducing power" to the wheel. sorry I didnt throw the rest of the info in a new paragraph so you could understand it was a separate thought.and in reference to abs and tc going hand in hand, i shared that info bc i didnt figure you were intelligent enough to realize the fact.

and they actually do install 2 different parts that have similar purposes, the master cylinder and the hydraulic brake actuator. they both force fluid to the calipers or wheel cylinders, just at different times.

So explain to me how braking or increasing the friction on a turning wheel isn't "reducing the wheel's turning power." moron.

No they have similar but distinctly different purposes. Such as electronically applying variable rates of brake actuation. The ABS and traction control sensors and brake actuators (when used) however serve exactly the same purpose in 2 different systems. Thus they are integrated because there is no reason to add a redundant set when they both do the same thing. Other than that, they are not working "in conjunction."