[OFFICIAL] Manual v. Automatic Thread

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by cofo11

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.

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" ).

Originally Posted by cofo11

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.

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

Originally Posted by cofo11

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by cofo11

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.

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, would one prefer the original 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...

Originally Posted by cofo11

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.

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 of awfulness? 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...

Originally Posted by cofo11

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.

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.

Originally Posted by cofo11

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.

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?

Originally Posted by cofo11

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.

Okay. One point for you. Well done. That's 1 out of 6, or just under 17% accuracy.

Fine work

Originally Posted by cofo11

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.

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

[cofo11]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

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...

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.


Now let's go down this road since you opened the door. What does the sentence or are we defining tiers or awful even mean? Perhaps that was tiers of awful? How do you explain your numerous incorrect punctuations and run on sentences in this world of autocorrect, spell check and grammar checking technologies. 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.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by cofo11

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.

Ok, then.

Pissing contests... okay, as you wish.

Originally Posted by cofo11

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

Typographical error. I edited a few that I caught, and I must have missed that one.

Along with deft shifting of a standard trans, proof-reading is another special skill that is losing its value. Get it in while you can, I say

Originally Posted by cofo11

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

A colorful choice of words; like an "eye assault" from my gibberish.

I meant that you might be making a fine distinction between different degrees of terrible design.

As another example, so far, I find you to be less terrible than small pox, but still kind of unpleasant

Originally Posted by cofo11

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

I prefer to "handcraft" my posts, mostly free-style rather than rely too much on automated, advanced technology; its not as fast or accurate, but I find it to be more personally engaging and rewarding

Originally Posted by cofo11

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.

Huh?

I was worried you had suffered a stroke or something? This was all genuine concern for your health and well-being

[cofo11]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

Ok, then.

Pissing contests... okay, as you wish.

Typographical error. I edited a few that I caught, and I must have missed that one.

Along with deft shifting of a standard trans, proof-reading is another special skill that is losing its value. Get it in while you can, I say


A colorful choice of words; like an "eye assault" from my gibberish.

I meant that you might be making a fine distinction between different degrees of terrible design.

As another example, so far, I find you to be less terrible than small pox, but still kind of unpleasant


I prefer to "handcraft" my posts, mostly free-style rather than rely too much on automated, advanced technology; its not as fast or accurate, but I find it to be more personally engaging and rewarding


Huh?

I was worried you had suffered a stroke or something? This was all genuine concern for your health and well-being

[LinPark]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

... its not as fast or accurate, but I find it to be more personally engaging and rewarding

Here you are talking about how you word something as you type in a thread dedicated to MT vs AT and yet these words basically sum up what I feel is exactly the reason why I chose MT.