Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 03/01/07 08:30, Mitja Podreka wrote:
>> Steve Lamb wrote:
>>> Mitja Podreka wrote:
>>>
> [snip]
>>>
>>> Speed is not nearly as dangerous as the *difference of speed*.
>> What I meant is: "why do you need a car which can go 250km/h if your
>> country doesn't allow you to go faster than 130km/h."
>> Saying that I must say that driving 130km/h with Yugo or same speed in
>> BMW is completely different thing.
>
> "Top speed" *usually* relates to acceleration (specifically, the
> ability to merge into 130km/h traffic) and always relates to engine
> power (ability to power a fully loaded vehicle up a large hill at
> cruising speed).
>
> That's why "people" buy excess engine capacity: for those times when
> they need it (many points in time during the a day, and some weekends).
>
> A transmission that would let an engine run at almost idle while
> cruising at 100 km/h while pulling a lightly loaded vehicle would
> help.
Continuously variable transmission. Motor scooters have been using them for
decades but it's only starting to catch on in the auto sector. Never
understood why: CVT's a good technology that works well, and it's easier
to use than automatic transmission today. You don't have a gearshift so
much as a reverser like from a train (Forward/Neutral/Reverse).
> (Are you only enough to remember when 4-speed automatic
> transmissions were new and great?)
I've yet to see any automatic that was great. I've yet to drive an
automatic that didn't consistently pick the wrong gear when accelerating
hard or kill the gas mileage compared to the stick shift version of the
same vehicle.
> Variable cylinder usage would also be useful. (Our minivan doesn't
> always need all 6 cylinders banging away.)
Reply to: