So I can't get plates for my camaro because it has no emissions test and the previous owner already got the 30 day temporary extension. And I can't get an emissions test done because the car has no reverse gear. Epic fail.
Surely, there is some way to get it done, because there are camaros on the road today - also, I thought Camaros had reverse, is it really lacking a go-backwards-gear, or is the gearbox just shot to shit?
j/k, that sucks though. What the hell happened to the reverse gear?
or is the gearbox just shot to shit?
Yup, gearbox is teh fucked. I knew that when I bought it, but I was banking on having 30 days to fiddle with it to try and coax reverse into life.
I'm going to try for an emissions test tomorrow, if it climbs onto the dyno and passes I'll be good. I just really doubt it will do that. I'll be especially miffed if it gets on the dyno somehow and then fails the test.
Basically I'm just going to be parking it for a transmission swap before I do anything else. Which isn't bad, I just wanted to drive it around a bit and bask in Camaro ownership a bit before I had to park it for the swap from automatic to manual.
I still submit that, with modern cars, a standard transmission is archaic and generally useless. A manual sequential or a torque converter automatic are the only two options that really make sense these days.
I can't drive manual and I desperately want to. Do you know if driving courses offer manual programs?
Typically no, they only buy auto cars for the programs. You might be able to find a specific manual training school. I doubt it though, it's easy for an inexperienced driving to royally fuck a clutch so they'd end up replacing clutches constantly.
If you were near by I'd be more than happy to teach you. Your best bet is find a friend to teach you.
My Dad attempted to teach me on his manual, but I had to learn how to drive quickly and he was afraid for his car, so we opted to learn on my Mom's car rather than his (after a day of terrible noises as I attempted and failed to even get the car in motion).
I can't drive manual and I desperately want to. Do you know if driving courses offer manual programs?
It's the default here. You have to specifically go out and look for someone who offers driving lessons with an automatic.
I still submit that, with modern cars, a standard transmission is archaic and generally useless. A manual sequential or a torque converter automatic are the only two options that really make sense these days.
Ah, but this is a Camaro we're talking about. That thing should never have had an automatic transmission in the first place.
I still submit that, with modern cars, a standard transmission is archaic and generally useless. A manual sequential or a torque converter automatic are the only two options that really make sense these days.
Because Parasitic power loss, 5 to 15% reduction(depending on driving conditions) in fuel efficiency, Increased weight, more difficult maintenance, the complete lack of ability to push-start when required, reduced safety in some situations (ie, if your brakes fail), reduced towing load and inability to be able to use the available power of the engines at low to medium speeds is the way of the future.
Edit -
Sequential clutchless is the way of the future.
Which is a manual transmission, the difference being that the clutch and physical gear shifting is operated by the vehicle's computer, as opposed to the driver operating the clutch and doing the physical operation of changing the gear. They're better than an automatic, but still not as good as a manual.
I still submit that, with modern cars, a standard transmission is archaic and generally useless. A manual sequential or a torque converter automatic are the only two options that really make sense these days.
Except when it comes to driver enjoyment, then the manually operated clutch and stick shift is the best.
Also it's very easy to make such sweeping generalizations, but what is practical and feasible depends entirely on the car. For my 89 Camaro, there is not sequential manual, and even if there was it would be prohibitively expensive and for all out race applications ONLY. The automatic option is equally useless, there's simply no way to make the transmission stout enough to withstand the abuse I will throw at it. And this isn't a fancy, new auto with electonic controls and full torque converter lock-up in every gear, this is a 30 year old unit that's far from the most efficient. A manual clutch stick shift transmission is the most practical for the type of driving I will do. Strong enough to take the abuse I will throw at it, but because it has a manual clutch it can cruise around town easily enough and it'll be quiet with helical cut gears instead of all out race straight cut gears. It's also only a little more than a rebuild of my current automatic so it's not prohibitively expensive.
Except when it comes to driver enjoyment, then the manually operated clutch and stick shift is the best.
I don't find that, I much prefer driving a manual car to an Automatic or even a Semi-auto or tiptronic, as is the same with almost all of the people I know who drive.
I don't find that, I much prefer driving a manual car to an Automatic or even a Semi-auto or tiptronic, as is the same with almost all of the people I know who drive.
Why are you disagreeing with me and then agreeing with me?
I agree, But don't worry, One day Manual transmissions might become more common in the US.
I don't find that, I much prefer driving a manual car to an Automatic or even a Semi-auto or tiptronic, as is the same with almost all of the people I know who drive.
Why are you disagreeing with me and then agreeing with me?
I'm not Disagreeing and then Agreeing - I'm Just saying that in my experience, I don't find that manuals are less pleasant to drive. In order of driving pleasure, in my experience : Automatic < Tiptronic < Sequential Clutchless < Manual transmission
Other than that, Manuals are far superior to automatics, and other systems such as tiptronic or Sequential clutchless are a step in the right direction, but are not there yet - though I recognize that Autos and Semi-autos have their applications, that does not make them even a scratch on Manual Transmissions.
I don't find that, I much prefer driving a manual car to an Automatic or even a Semi-auto or tiptronic, as is the same with almost all of the people I know who drive.
Why are you disagreeing with me and then agreeing with me?
Your comma made your sentence a bit clunky. It's all good though.
I completely agree with both of you. A full manual adds so much more direct interaction as well as technical benefits to a car (anyone who has had to push-start or get a trans serviced knows) that it's difficult to pass up. Manual is the Linux of transmissions.
I'm not Disagreeing and then Agreeing - I'm Just saying that in my experience, I don't find that manuals are less pleasant to drive. In order of driving pleasure, in my experience : Automatic < Tiptronic < Sequential Clutchless < Manual transmission
But I said manuals were the best, that's why I'm confused.
5 to 15% reduction(depending on driving conditions)
Cite me a statistic for that on cars made in the last two years. Also, I note that previous studies only considered perfectly optimal shifting on the part of the driver, which is unreasonable for the majority of drivers.
Which is a manual transmission
No, they're actually fundamentally different. F1 cars use sequential transmissions, not standard manuals. The standard manual gearbox and linkage is far too inefficient for that sort of driving.
Except when it comes to driver enjoyment, then the manually operated clutch and stick shift is the best.
Only if you're into that sort of thing. A sequential gives you the same if not better control than the old H, and obviates the manual clutch. I'm only ragging on the shitty old Hs.
If you say you want to use an archaic clutch thingie, and you enjoy doing so, and you admit that the only real benefit over modern automatics or modern sequentials is your own personal, subjective enjoyment, then that's fine.
other systems such as tiptronic or Sequential clutchless are a step in the right direction...
Triptonic is just an automatic transmission with an inefficient additional interface. They're useless and reduce efficiency. Sequentials, however, outperform standard manuals. How is a standard H manual gearbox better than a modern sequential?
this is a 30 year old unit that's far from the most efficient.
Old automatics were shitty, and people had good reason to eschew them. The problem is that a large number of people have an ingrained mistrust that is not in pace with the modern state of automatic transmissions.
Which is a manual transmission, the difference being that the clutch and physical gear shifting is operated by the vehicle's computer, as opposed to the driver operating the clutch and doing the physical operation of changing the gear. They're better than an automatic, but still not as good as a manual.
The "clutch" is a different mechanism altogether. They shift faster and more accurately with less loss or synchro time. How are they not as good?
No computer has the programming necessary to go "oh, I'm cornering at X velocity, but if I downshift and accelerate immediately I might get over/understeer. However, I'm losing so much speed that by the time the turn is complete I won't be able to accelerate back up if I stay in this gear. Therefore the best choice is to keep the clutch engaged until Y criteria are met, and then to shift into Z gear." At points where slow shifting is necessary, semi-auto is lacking. Unless there is some hidden "manual clutch engage" paddle I'm unaware of, which would pretty much defeat the point.
I thought the reason American cars had mostly automatic transmissions was due to the kind of distances you have to drive in the US. Wouldn't driving manually be a big pain in the tuckus? [Omnu attempts to use American euphamisms with the intent to sound quaint.. Ob: 3 Roll: B3]
No, they're actually fundamentally different. F1 cars use sequential transmissions,notstandard manuals. The standard manual gearbox and linkage is far too inefficient for that sort of driving.
No they aren't. They have a clutch, input shaft, gears of varying ratio, and an output shaft. What they have are dog engagement straight cut gears instead of the normal synchromesh engagement helical cut gears. What makes them special in the case of an F1 car is that the clutch, throttle, and gear shifter are automated by a computer. The computer automatically blips the throttle for the up shifts and changes gear and automates the clutch on the down changes and matches engine revs automaticly. The straight cut gears are also stronger than helical cut gears, but they're hideously loud. Also, dog engagement is nothing new or special, the first H-pattern gearboxes were of this type. The problem is that dog engagement requires a very fast, positive throw of the gear lever or it will grind. Synchromess is much kinder and works best with easy, slow motions that's more common of the typical driver.
I can get dog engagement gears for my regular manual if I want, and that gives me 90% of the magic of a F1 gearbox. Did you know that F1 cars used to have H-pattern gearboxes and that they could handle the power just fine. They switched to sequentials because they shaved a second or two off a lap and that is the difference between winning and losing in F1.
Also you keep saying how much better the sequential manual is, and technically it is, but do you know why it is? Because they're absurdly expensive. It's estimated one F1 gearbox costs 125,000 euros. The gearboxes I'm looking at are around $2,000.
The "clutch" is a different mechanism altogether. They shift faster and more accurately with less loss or synchro time. How are they not as good?
Again, wrong. Same basic clutch as a regular manual, just more compact, a heavier spring, and automated by the computer. They don't have less loss than a regular clutch, a standard clutch has nearly no power loss as is.
I thought the reason American cars had mostly automatic transmissions was due to the kind of distances you have to drive in the US. Wouldn't driving manually be a big pain in the tuckus? [Omnu attempts to use American euphamisms with the intent to sound quaint.. Ob: 3 Roll: B3]
Long distances favours neither manual nor automatic. An automatic has a plus when the driver comes across a lot of stopping and low velocity driving, like in a city.
The problem is that a large number of people have an ingrained mistrust that is not in pace with the modern state of automatic transmissions.
But I said manuals were the best, that's why I'm confused.
I misread. My mistake, I'm sorry.
Cite me a statistic for that on cars made in the last two years. Also, I note that previous studies only considered perfectly optimal shifting on the part of the driver, which is unreasonable for the majority of drivers.
I'll get back to you on that, as I don't have them immediately available, and all of my dead-tree reference is back in Australia - however, I do know that within those reference materials that there are many instances of cars built within the last two years in which a manual has greater fuel efficiency than an automatic.
However, for now, use your head. An automatic is heavier, causes parasitic power loss via the hydraulic pump and the pumps in the cooling system required for an automatic gearbox, are unable to use the vehicle's power band as efficiently or effectively as a manual transmission, and are terrible at properly utilizing the power of the engine at medium to low speeds, and there is yet another loss of power at the torque converter (though this has been somewhat mitigated by locking torque converters in some modern cars), and thanks to the freewheeling clutch in automatic transmissions, the engine doesn't slow down like a manual does when the driver takes their foot off the throttle. Lastly, In situations where a downshift is required, say, on an uphill road, an automatic of any sort will force a downshift at full throttle to maintain speed thanks to the throttle kickdown switch, whereas a manual is able to maintain a constant speed, without the driver being required to downshift at full throttle.
No, they're actually fundamentally different. F1 cars use sequential transmissions,notstandard manuals. The standard manual gearbox and linkage is far too inefficient for that sort of driving.
Allow me to rephrase what I was clumsily attempting to say - a Clutchless sequential has more in common with a Manual Transmission than an Automatic.
And if a standard manual is too inefficient for that sort of driving, then please feel free to explain why the V8 Supercars all use either H pattern manual or sequential manual transmissions - they attain similar speeds, and often run on the same tracks, over comparable(and often longer) distances.
A sequential gives you the same if not better control than the old H
Incorrect. With a sequential, it isn't possible to skip gears up or down, you have to shift through the entire range of gears in between where you are and where you want to be.
If you say you want to use an archaic clutch thingie, and you enjoy doing so,andyou admit that the only real benefit over modern automatics or modern sequentials is your own personal, subjective enjoyment, then that's fine.
Emphasis mine - In that case, why have you not addressed any of the points presented other than your Perfectly reasonable request that I cite statistics for that regarding cars in the last two years?
Triptonic is just an automatic transmission with an inefficient additional interface. They're useless and reduce efficiency. Sequentials, however, outperform standard manuals. How is a standard H manual gearbox better than a modern sequential?
I agree. Tiptronic, while providing marginally better control than an automatic, is a pile of shit. I will stop at this point for a moment - Am I correct in assuming that by "Sequential" and "Modern Sequential" you are referring to a Sequential Clutchless? I ask, because a Sequential transmission and a Sequential Clutchless transmission are two very different things.
As for how a Standard Manual transmission is better than a Clutchless Sequential, a Manual transmission is a more efficient system - while a Clutchless sequential is better than your bog-standard automatic, there is still power loss due to the Hydraulic and cooling pumps required, And if you lose engine power, any control you had whatsoever over the transmission goes with it. Also, In the case of a brake failure, a modern sequential will not allow you to utilize engine braking, as the system will either entirely prevent the required downshifting at speed to protect the engine and transmission, or as soon as you downshift, it will take over and shift up again, again, to prevent engine damage.
Old automatics were shitty, and people had good reason to eschew them. The problem is that a large number of people have an ingrained mistrust that is not in pace with the modern state of automatic transmissions.
Old autos were supremely shitty, and yes, people were right to enshew them. However, it isn't an ingrained mistrust thanks to old automatics being shitty that causes me to prefer Manual transmissions, it's mechanical knowledge.
The "clutch" is a different mechanism altogether.
Thank you, Rym, but already knew that, and unless you were intentionally misreading my statement, as should be obvious from how I speak the clutch and the Shifting of gears as separate operations, though admittedly with slightly dodgy grammar - There should have been a "The" after the "and" and before "Physical gear shifting". I've taken apart and put together more Clutches and transmissions than you've driven cars - as I've mentioned previously, I spent a pretty fair amount of time working as a mechanic, and I grew up being taught about and working on cars with my father. I've known that a clutch and a gearbox are separate things since I was eight.
They shift faster and more accurately with less loss or synchro time. How are they not as good?
Most Modern cars use a Syncromesh gearbox, also referred to as a "Constant mesh" gearbox or a Synchronized gearbox, because the gears are always all in mesh, with the action of changing gears bringing the desired gear into sync as it's engaged, meaning zero effective synchro time or power loss.
Following on from my previous post about my ISP. The fact that it now redirects to it's own search means that Firefox's "Type in an I'm feeling lucky" search feature is now broken! I use that so much!
Following on from my previous post about my ISP. The fact that it now redirects to it's own search means that Firefox's "Type in an I'm feeling lucky" search feature is now broken! I use that so much!
Virgin media did the same thing to me, but they have an option to turn it off.
Automatics are great! I especially liked how mine kept shifting between 3rd and 4th at highway cruising speed! Why would anyone every want to choose gears themselves we they can have all this fun! -_-
So I can't get plates for my camaro because it has no emissions test and the previous owner already got the 30 day temporary extension. And I can't get an emissions test done because the car has no reverse gear. Epic fail.
Start at around the 2:00 mark. All for you, gedavis.
Automatics are great! I especially liked how mine kept shifting between 3rd and 4th at highway cruising speed! Why would anyone every want to choose gears themselves we they can have all this fun! -_-
I've never had problems with my automatic, I admit there is some power loss there but I still find my car fun to drive.
Comments
I'm going to try for an emissions test tomorrow, if it climbs onto the dyno and passes I'll be good. I just really doubt it will do that. I'll be especially miffed if it gets on the dyno somehow and then fails the test.
Basically I'm just going to be parking it for a transmission swap before I do anything else. Which isn't bad, I just wanted to drive it around a bit and bask in Camaro ownership a bit before I had to park it for the swap from automatic to manual.
If you were near by I'd be more than happy to teach you. Your best bet is find a friend to teach you.
Edit - Which is a manual transmission, the difference being that the clutch and physical gear shifting is operated by the vehicle's computer, as opposed to the driver operating the clutch and doing the physical operation of changing the gear. They're better than an automatic, but still not as good as a manual.
Also it's very easy to make such sweeping generalizations, but what is practical and feasible depends entirely on the car. For my 89 Camaro, there is not sequential manual, and even if there was it would be prohibitively expensive and for all out race applications ONLY. The automatic option is equally useless, there's simply no way to make the transmission stout enough to withstand the abuse I will throw at it. And this isn't a fancy, new auto with electonic controls and full torque converter lock-up in every gear, this is a 30 year old unit that's far from the most efficient. A manual clutch stick shift transmission is the most practical for the type of driving I will do. Strong enough to take the abuse I will throw at it, but because it has a manual clutch it can cruise around town easily enough and it'll be quiet with helical cut gears instead of all out race straight cut gears. It's also only a little more than a rebuild of my current automatic so it's not prohibitively expensive.
Other than that, Manuals are far superior to automatics, and other systems such as tiptronic or Sequential clutchless are a step in the right direction, but are not there yet - though I recognize that Autos and Semi-autos have their applications, that does not make them even a scratch on Manual Transmissions.
I completely agree with both of you. A full manual adds so much more direct interaction as well as technical benefits to a car (anyone who has had to push-start or get a trans serviced knows) that it's difficult to pass up. Manual is the Linux of transmissions.
If you say you want to use an archaic clutch thingie, and you enjoy doing so, and you admit that the only real benefit over modern automatics or modern sequentials is your own personal, subjective enjoyment, then that's fine. Triptonic is just an automatic transmission with an inefficient additional interface. They're useless and reduce efficiency. Sequentials, however, outperform standard manuals. How is a standard H manual gearbox better than a modern sequential? Old automatics were shitty, and people had good reason to eschew them. The problem is that a large number of people have an ingrained mistrust that is not in pace with the modern state of automatic transmissions. The "clutch" is a different mechanism altogether. They shift faster and more accurately with less loss or synchro time. How are they not as good?
I can get dog engagement gears for my regular manual if I want, and that gives me 90% of the magic of a F1 gearbox. Did you know that F1 cars used to have H-pattern gearboxes and that they could handle the power just fine. They switched to sequentials because they shaved a second or two off a lap and that is the difference between winning and losing in F1.
Also you keep saying how much better the sequential manual is, and technically it is, but do you know why it is? Because they're absurdly expensive. It's estimated one F1 gearbox costs 125,000 euros. The gearboxes I'm looking at are around $2,000. Again, wrong. Same basic clutch as a regular manual, just more compact, a heavier spring, and automated by the computer. They don't have less loss than a regular clutch, a standard clutch has nearly no power loss as is.
However, for now, use your head.
An automatic is heavier, causes parasitic power loss via the hydraulic pump and the pumps in the cooling system required for an automatic gearbox, are unable to use the vehicle's power band as efficiently or effectively as a manual transmission, and are terrible at properly utilizing the power of the engine at medium to low speeds, and there is yet another loss of power at the torque converter (though this has been somewhat mitigated by locking torque converters in some modern cars), and thanks to the freewheeling clutch in automatic transmissions, the engine doesn't slow down like a manual does when the driver takes their foot off the throttle.
Lastly, In situations where a downshift is required, say, on an uphill road, an automatic of any sort will force a downshift at full throttle to maintain speed thanks to the throttle kickdown switch, whereas a manual is able to maintain a constant speed, without the driver being required to downshift at full throttle. Allow me to rephrase what I was clumsily attempting to say - a Clutchless sequential has more in common with a Manual Transmission than an Automatic.
And if a standard manual is too inefficient for that sort of driving, then please feel free to explain why the V8 Supercars all use either H pattern manual or sequential manual transmissions - they attain similar speeds, and often run on the same tracks, over comparable(and often longer) distances. Incorrect. With a sequential, it isn't possible to skip gears up or down, you have to shift through the entire range of gears in between where you are and where you want to be. Emphasis mine - In that case, why have you not addressed any of the points presented other than your Perfectly reasonable request that I cite statistics for that regarding cars in the last two years? I agree. Tiptronic, while providing marginally better control than an automatic, is a pile of shit.
I will stop at this point for a moment - Am I correct in assuming that by "Sequential" and "Modern Sequential" you are referring to a Sequential Clutchless? I ask, because a Sequential transmission and a Sequential Clutchless transmission are two very different things.
As for how a Standard Manual transmission is better than a Clutchless Sequential, a Manual transmission is a more efficient system - while a Clutchless sequential is better than your bog-standard automatic, there is still power loss due to the Hydraulic and cooling pumps required, And if you lose engine power, any control you had whatsoever over the transmission goes with it.
Also, In the case of a brake failure, a modern sequential will not allow you to utilize engine braking, as the system will either entirely prevent the required downshifting at speed to protect the engine and transmission, or as soon as you downshift, it will take over and shift up again, again, to prevent engine damage. Old autos were supremely shitty, and yes, people were right to enshew them. However, it isn't an ingrained mistrust thanks to old automatics being shitty that causes me to prefer Manual transmissions, it's mechanical knowledge. Thank you, Rym, but already knew that, and unless you were intentionally misreading my statement, as should be obvious from how I speak the clutch and the Shifting of gears as separate operations, though admittedly with slightly dodgy grammar - There should have been a "The" after the "and" and before "Physical gear shifting".
I've taken apart and put together more Clutches and transmissions than you've driven cars - as I've mentioned previously, I spent a pretty fair amount of time working as a mechanic, and I grew up being taught about and working on cars with my father. I've known that a clutch and a gearbox are separate things since I was eight. Most Modern cars use a Syncromesh gearbox, also referred to as a "Constant mesh" gearbox or a Synchronized gearbox, because the gears are always all in mesh, with the action of changing gears bringing the desired gear into sync as it's engaged, meaning zero effective synchro time or power loss.
Start at around the 2:00 mark. All for you, gedavis.