Turbochargers/Superchargers and Automatic Transmissions?

starfox07 said:
I'll take a full sequential. More simple and more reliable. Although I dont understand how you rev-match on a sequential either. Somebody care to explain if they know?
Click to expand...

You still have a clutch pedal on the sequentials, they just don't need it to be used on up-shifts.
 
thedguy said:
You still have a clutch pedal on the sequentials, they just don't need it to be used on up-shifts.
Click to expand...

Thats what I thought. I guess you don't HAVE to use it on downshifts either, but you'll break the rear end loose like no tommorow.
 
IIRC on downshifts it's pretty much required, not just because of downshifts though... I am far from an expert on them though.
 
I thought being able to "flat change" (i.e. no clutch pedal actuation) was a function of using a dog box rather than a sequential (which can have synchros).

If I were to get a dog box I'd probably try and get a sequential conversion, though.
 
scathing said:
I thought being able to "flat change" (i.e. no clutch pedal actuation) was a function of using a dog box rather than a sequential (which can have synchros).

If I were to get a dog box I'd probably try and get a sequential conversion, though.
Click to expand...

Sequential trannies usually have dog rings in them as well, so a bit of a mute point.
 
scathing said:
I thought being able to "flat change" (i.e. no clutch pedal actuation) was a function of using a dog box rather than a sequential (which can have synchros).

If I were to get a dog box I'd probably try and get a sequential conversion, though.
Click to expand...

WRONG!

Automatic Transmissions are clearly voodoo based. Engine speed and jesus go in, Wheel rotation comes out. End of story.
 
Last edited:
Lupin_IV said:
I'm willing to bet it wouldn't have if Clarkson said it.
Click to expand...

You mean like when Clarkson thinks its funny because he feels explaining something as simple as a turbocharger is witchcraft?

Regardless, I still have no idea WTF matt was even on about with that statement. He might as well have said "my cats breathe smells like cat food."
 
Yeah, what will really confuse you is autos with manual valve bodies! I've got a friend a hot rodded V8 in it, a 4000 RPM stall and a full manual valvebody etc... that car is ridiculous, but oh so cool.

But the advantages of those quick, perfect shifts and the nature of the torque converter makes for launches that you just cant emulate with a manual. A full manual valve body gives you those quick shifts and the almost traction control-esque properties of the torque converter without the danger/inconsistencies of trying to launch and shift a car with a manual transmission. Torque converters even soften the shock on the rear end gears and the rest of hte drivetrain, and it's actaully EASIER on them than with a manual, even though they're faster.

Personally, though, I always wanted a manual, and I've got a T56 going into my car since the 700r4's (same thing as the 4l60, 4l60e just has electronically-controlled instead of cable-controlled shift points.) are notoriously weak. A 4l60e built to the max can handle around 700 hp, over that and you're playing dice with Murphy. A slushbox is always going to be a hindrance at a real circuit, though, their advantages come through mostly at the launch.
 
thedguy said:
You mean like when Clarkson thinks its funny because he feels explaining something as simple as a turbocharger is witchcraft?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was watching Season 8 last night with the girlfriend, when he takes the P2 out.

He can't explain anti-lag or the DCCD, even though they're the easiest things in the universe to sum up, and of course (like a lot of people) he mistakes wastegate chatter for air reversion through the compressor.

Its a bit annoying that, as a "car guy", he just trivialises things that are actually quite cool to an enthusiast....but its entertaining at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top