Car Forum / Mazda / Mazda Miata / February 2005
Automatic Miatas
|
|
Thread rating:  |
gixer - 19 Feb 2005 03:29 GMT Ok I have asked already about supercharged/Turbo's Auto Miatas, but it seems no one here has fitted any to an Auto.
So has anyone here actually got an Auto?
Chris D'Agnolo - 19 Feb 2005 17:52 GMT Oh boy, you had to go there didn't you...... Some will berate anyone using an automatic in these cars, some people don't mind the ranting and raving THEY WANT AN AUTOMATIC! Personally I feel you lose tons of fun and control with an automatic. The ability to push the car to it's limits has alot to do with knowing exactly how much power you are applying at any given second (mostly importantly on exiting corners), using every bit of grip you tires have. The thing I hate about auto's is you can never be sure which gear they will decide you are asking for at that critical moment. If you get a higher gear than you hoped / expected, you're dissappointed with a crappy finish to what might have been a great corner. If you get one lower than you planned, I hate to say you get too much power, but it tends to come on all at once, not smoothly like you'd want it to again, ruining an otherwise great corner. You're just much more involved, a more integral part, so to speak, of the driving experience. Besides that, Miata's are one of the easiest manuals to learn on and one of the most satisfying shifters you will ever experience, so you miss a great opportunity there.
Good luck, Chris 92BB&T
> Ok I have asked already about supercharged/Turbo's Auto Miatas, but it seems > no one here has fitted any to an Auto. > > So has anyone here actually got an Auto? Chief_Wiggum - 19 Feb 2005 18:15 GMT Color me as a stick bigot :)
Personally I think the only thing that would be worse than an autmatic Miata is if they made them with a non-removable hard top !
The car is SO FUN to drive / shift , I just feel like I'm in a go-kart all the time. My OTM is a Mustang GT, and IT has a slushbox in it. Although it has the horsepower to overcome the power loss, I still wish IT was a stick too.
Automatic's are for Cadillacs. REAL sports cars have a S T I C K ! ! ! ! *
*posted in good fun... don't feel the need to flame me
> Oh boy, you had to go there didn't you...... > Some will berate anyone using an automatic in these cars, some people don't [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > > So has anyone here actually got an Auto? The Millers - 20 Feb 2005 04:55 GMT Some 25 years ago, while working as a stock boy loading speakers and such into people's cars, a customer left his Maserati in front of the store for everyone to notice. Well, notice we did, because we all commented, "What kind of shmuck buys a Maserati with an automatic?"
I don't think he bought anything before he left...
> Color me as a stick bigot :) > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >> > >> > So has anyone here actually got an Auto? gixer - 20 Feb 2005 12:17 GMT Maybe it was a Maserati Quattroporte, not actually available as a stick shift.
Or I guess it could be the same type of guy that drives a Enzo Ferrari, Ferrari 360, AMG SL55 or near on all the AMG range for that, BMW M5 & M6, Audi RS6 None of which are actually available in stick shift or how about the start line of a 2004 F1 GP, again none of which have a stick shift.
Most of these cars have the paddle only shift because, either they do not have a manual box that can reliably handle the vast amount of torque produced by the engine (AMG), or they have no room for the box to be placed where a good shift position should be (Maserati), or they feel a good weight distribution is a must (M5, M6) or they just want to push their technology and get good balance (Enzo).
And that's not even mentioning The Ferrari 355, Porsche with it's tiptronic system, Alfa Romeo, Lamborghini Gallardo or a Murcielago, BMW M3, Audi TT, Audi RS etc etc all available with paddle shift.
I am not saying an automatic is better than a manual all the time, but if you drive the new TT with its DSG gearbox it is absolutely fantastic, the AMG box's aren't as sporty but still smooth as silk, Right now most of this technology is fairly new to the aftermarket sales, I think in a couple of years time we will see new ECU's for these paddle-shift box, enabling us to program them in any way we feel is best, shifting quicker than a human can, shifting at full throttle (Audi's DSG). Imagine having your gearbox linked to your GPS, you could tell you box to shift to a certain gear at a certain corner.
40 years ago, all car enthusiasts said that servo assisted brakes were not for sports cars, 30 years ago the same was said for power steering, 20 years ago to have AC fitted to an enthusiasts car was unimaginable, 10 years ago traction control was for wusses.
Things move on mate, Sequential gearbox's are the future as are paddle shifts, if we can have the performance and control of a manual box, but not have knacker our feet in traffic I can't see the problem with that.
> Some 25 years ago, while working as a stock boy loading speakers and such > into people's cars, a customer left his Maserati in front of the store for [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >>> > >>> > So has anyone here actually got an Auto? pws - 20 Feb 2005 15:05 GMT > 40 years ago, all car enthusiasts said that servo assisted brakes were not > for sports cars, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > shifts, if we can have the performance and control of a manual box, but not > have knacker our feet in traffic I can't see the problem with that. My miata has a manual tranny, no power steering, no A/C and no traction control, other than my own efforts. The only one that I will miss will be the A/C, I wouldn't want traction control (even if it was available) or power steering on this car. I am not saying that all cars should stay in the dark ages, but with almost every "advance" for safety or comfort, there are additional costs for parts, extra weight for the vehicle, and an increased chance of breakdowns and recalls due to the additional parts and systems that can break and/or require maintenance.
Pat red '91
gixer - 20 Feb 2005 16:52 GMT Hi Pat,
As with most things it is mainly down to personal preference what we feel is needed or required in any type of car sports cars especially.
Which is how it should be, it is our hard earned money that is paying for these advances.
But I feel that most of the time the general sports car buying public has a very snobbish attitude towards advances in technology, take ABS for example, every report I read 10-15 years ago said ABS was not for performance cars, they rightly said that a non ABS car can stop quicker and is more controllable.
But look at the market now how many sports cars do not have ABS? The only 2 that come to my mind straight away are TVR and Caterham. And yes you can stop quicker on a track in good conditions when you prepared, but how about when that truck pulls out on you on a dark and wet night, are you really going to feather your brakes? I have raced cars and bikes for the last 20 years, I consider myself to be a fairly competitive driver at club level, yet in all the prangs I have had I only had the reactions and frame of mind to feather the brakes 70% of the time.
There are 2 things that we need to separate.
1/ Driver evolvement/enjoyment, This is down to personal opinions, for some they love the relaxed into D automatic, power steering, electric everything ABS traction control to the hilt. Others prefer the stripped out wind in your hair bugs in your teeth motoring, but which ever (or even in between) this cannot be measured as it is completely subjective
2/ Speed This is a measurable factor, 1/4 mile times, lap times are probably the most accurate depending on your flavour of m/sport, as you mention weight is an extremely important factor in that, but I am sure that a few extra Kilos for a good power steering and ABS system will outweigh the weight. look at most racers and you will see one or the other, or both if they are allowed, and ALL they care about is reliability and lap times.
So I believe that before we make a decision on what view we are going to take on "advances in car technology" I think we need to sit and think about what experience really want out of a car.
In my view I think we should have the option to spec our Miatas from everything to the luxury barge, to the bugs in ya teeth and anything in between, and if ya see a fellow Miataist, just wave and be happy he or she is not driving a S2000
;)
Cheers Mark.
>> 40 years ago, all car enthusiasts said that servo assisted brakes were >> not for sports cars, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Pat > red '91 Leon van Dommelen - 21 Feb 2005 00:49 GMT >But look at the market now how many sports cars do not have ABS? >The only 2 that come to my mind straight away are TVR and Caterham. Then there is the Miata that comes to my mind. Though it was formally listed for the M1.5, you would have to special order the car from Japan to actually get one.
>And yes you can stop quicker on a track in good conditions when you >prepared, but how about when that truck pulls out on you on a dark and wet >night, are you really going to feather your brakes? As far as I know, the data shows that ABS cars are not safer, probably since the drivers come to rely on the stopping distance they get with ABS.
>I have raced cars and bikes for the last 20 years, I consider myself to be a >fairly competitive driver at club level, yet in all the prangs I have had I [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >racers and you will see one or the other, or both if they are allowed, and >ALL they care about is reliability and lap times. It is absolute time that we replace human drivers with computers at such events. Only they can achieve the highest speed. To keep box office receipts, we can put an android resembling the announced driver in each car, while that driver is secretly in a remote-control boot for emergency computer override. Of course, drivers would be required to sign a statement to disappear from the sport if an accident "killed" them. Much safer and better for all involved.
Singers lip-syncing, presidents giving speeches decided by others and written by others, sports figures turned into steroid robots, etc, are all doing it all the time. Now that computers can do driving much better, let's get rid of the human idiot slowpokes at the wheel in competitive events, OK?
Of course, some of us like cars just for the fun of them...
Leon, and Bozo, no longer sporting power steering.
 Signature Leon van Dommelen :) Bozo, the White 96 Sebring Miata .) rammm@dommelen.net http://www.dommelen.net/miata EXIT THE INTERSTATES (Jamie Jensen)
gixer - 21 Feb 2005 11:14 GMT Most pre 94 Eunos do not have ABS mine included, as are a lot of European models, a none ABS NA1 is not so rare.
I have got no idea where your point of Robots driving cars is come from Leon maybe something was lost in the translation from English to American.
It is a fact that if technology is allowed into a discipline of motor sport most of the time they use it, Formula 1 cars use power steering drive by wire and sequential paddle shift gearbox's, as do most disciplines of touring cars.
I think we are many years off a computer being able to drive a complete car as efficiently and as fast as Leob dude, and although his car has a sequential gearbox, throttle by wire, power steering and even air-conditioning I would not call it slow or boring.
All of these technical advances obviously are reliable enough to finish a race (extremely difficult in a rally car) and all obviously make the respective cars go faster or else they would not use them. So if your measure of a sports car is its speed then it definitely needs ABS, power steering and a sequential or paddle shift type gearbox (Semi Auto),
If on the other hand your measure of a sports car is it's feel, then each of us can have what ever we choose in our cars, as feel is like art completely subjective, if we feel that an auto box has more sporty feel then that's how we feel, the same for power steering traction control etc, What we feel is faster is often in real world situations not faster, take a sports exhaust for example, because it sounds louder, often we make the judgement that it makes the car faster, whereas in real life on the Dyno often we only get 2% - 3% BHP extra, I think even Schumacher, with seat of his pants Dyno would have problems detecting that small gain.
What really gets me is the snobbish attitudes, all this cr*p about technology being boring or not a real sports car etc, You talk about computers driving cars Leon. tell what do you think controls your car mate? What makes millisecond decision so that your car can start first turn of the key? What monitors the engine, the air, throttle position and makes millisecond decisions to keep your car running whether you are up a mountain or at sea level, in the cold damp hill or a hot sunning beach? Should we go back to the days of side draught carbs that needed adjusting every time someone farted within 20m of the car?
This is my car, I have worked hard to save the money to buy my car, I have worked hard to pay for the modifications, if you do not want an Auto box, or a sports exhaust or anything else fine that's your choice, you can buy a pink fairy light for the front of your car if it makes you happy, If you think your car is faster then maybe it is, good on ya mate, but I think its not good to disrespect people because they drive an Auto, ABS, power steering, traction control'd car, especially when there is nothing to back up the claim that it's not a real sports car.
Cheers Mark.
>>But look at the market now how many sports cars do not have ABS? >>The only 2 that come to my mind straight away are TVR and Caterham. [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Leon, and Bozo, no longer sporting power steering. Leon van Dommelen - 21 Feb 2005 13:11 GMT >It is a fact that if technology is allowed into a discipline of motor sport >most of the time they use it, Formula 1 cars use power steering drive by >wire and sequential paddle shift gearbox's, as do most disciplines of >touring cars. The logical conclusion of replacing human skill with technology is to take out the useless human completely. As passenger planes in fact do.
>I think we are many years off a computer being able to drive a complete car >as efficiently and as fast as Leob dude, I think you are completely wrong. Cars on a given race track driven by computers are a relatively simple problem. And unlike humans, computers are exact, allowing the maximum speed to be driven.
>So if your measure of a sports car is its speed Sorry. From the discussion, it is however obvious that this is *your* measure. Which is sad.
> then it definitely needs >ABS, power steering and a sequential or paddle shift type gearbox (Semi >Auto), And robot operators, as logical conclusion.
>You talk about computers driving cars Leon. tell what do you think controls >your car mate? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >decisions to keep your car running whether you are up a mountain or at sea >level, in the cold damp hill or a hot sunning beach? Apparently in Greece you operated your carburetor manually every intake cycle in the past. I am impressed.
Leon
>Should we go back to the days of side draught carbs that needed adjusting >every time someone farted within 20m of the car?
 Signature Leon van Dommelen :) Bozo, the White 96 Sebring Miata .) rammm@dommelen.net http://www.dommelen.net/miata EXIT THE INTERSTATES (Jamie Jensen)
gixer - 21 Feb 2005 15:18 GMT Passenger planes have Pilots and co pilots Leon, they do have auto pilot which assists the pilot on long haul flights and this is extremely useful, as it can do more or less everything, but it still needs to pilot to input the correct coordinates and settings, and believe me if you knew how often problems occurred with these systems you would never fly again, plus there are many back systems to override the computer in case of failure, plus every calculation done by the onboard computer is double checked by the pilot and co pilot, The pilot is also monitoring everything manually, and has a analog back up of almost every single digital instrument. The aircraft is also monitored by various ground controls all the time it airborne. For each hour the plane spends airborne you are probably talking an investment of upwards of 100 man hours spent, not exactly computer controlled is it?
A plane is a relatively easy vehicle to control via computer as the 3 dimensional area around which a plane travels is pretty much consistent, defined by the laws of physics, the amount of variables are mainly weather and height which affects the density of the air on which the plane rides. Once a plane has reached its designated cruising altitude if it drifts up, down, left or right by 10m there is no problem, as long as it knows it has drifted and makes allowances. This is far more consistent than the surface a car drives upon which can and does change considerably, if a car drifts off the track by even 2m someone is probably dead, obstacles like stalled cars on the start line, oil spillage from blown turbos, varying amount of rubber left off the racing line. A tracks adhesion will change dramatically throughout the course of an hour, braking points and turn in points will change.
I have heard there was a car that was developed by an American university that drove across America, which was a fantastic achievement, but it is not motorsport, if you look at a good racer he is not only processing an monumental amount of information extremely quickly, he is also pre-empting the car, the track and the other drivers, he also using emotion. If you look at Donnington 1993 with Senna, Hill and Prost battling it out, those guys were driving beyond the limit of the car near on every turn, it is that emotion and passion, forgetting the cold calculations of physics, and saying sod this I am going to win, that makes great racing drivers.
In my opinion it will not be in our lifetime that we will see solely computer driven cars beating human drivers, it is that lack of exactness that makes senna, Prost Schumacher etc that good, these guys do not drive at maximum speed, it is a clich? but they drive at 102% not 100%.
I do not measure my MX-5 sport car ability by speed while its on the road, I care more about how I feel driving it, On the track I care more about lap times and speed than the overall feel, although feeling what the car is doing and feeling comfortable with the car close to its limit are a major thing, I cannot see what is sad about wanting to get lower lap times Leon, I will enjoy myself if I do a 2 minute lap or a 1.50 lap, but its nice to know you are making advances.
I did not adjust my carbs per intake cycle Leon, that would be crazy, there is no way you can make adjustments fast enough, or monitor all the connected components quick enough, Whoops sorry yes there is its called fuel injection controlled by a ECU.
Just for the record though, the old type carburettors were always a compromise, the parameters in which a carburettor can run as efficiently as possible are fairly small, A carburettor can only be set to run optimally within a certain band of humidity and temperature, if the ambient is outside these settings then, ideally the carbonator will need tuning again, in most cases the gains or losses were comparatively low, so we did not notice, (did you ever notice how the air filter intake was commonly connected to the exhaust manifold?) but in a race situation, you get any free of charge power increase you can. On my 2 stroke race bikes I would do a plug chop and if needed rejet the bike every time out of the pits.
Cheers Mark.
>>It is a fact that if technology is allowed into a discipline of motor >>sport [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >>Should we go back to the days of side draught carbs that needed adjusting >>every time someone farted within 20m of the car? lumpen_proletariat@yahoo.com - 22 Feb 2005 00:45 GMT >rbonator will need tuning again, in most cases the gains or >losses were comparatively low, so we did not notice, (did you ever notice >how the air filter intake was commonly connected to the exhaust manifold?) >but in a race situation, you get Carbs are very tunable. The way to get most power out of 1960's muscle cars was (is) to keep a selection of needles to tweak your carburaton as needed, and the performance change of the vehicle is noticeable.
Some 1950's cars allowed you to manually set the spark advance so that you could optimize engine performance as the track coditions changed. This was particuarly advantageous during lond distance racing.
More recently, at least one NHRA tean hooked up a GPS receiver to their a data acquistion setup in a Funny Car. This was quickly banned as this is the type of racing that is most ammenable to driving replacement.
Ferrari also has done GPS work to feed their stabiltiy control and braking setups in their car. F1 is the closest that has come to eliminating the driver and their races are boring. Anyone who witnessed the Daytona 500 can attest to the fact that obsolete technoloty (carburators, no abs, no stability control) can and does make for very extiing racing.
As far as self driving vehicles are concerned, they are still a long ways off. Last year, the US Army conducted a cross country competition for autonomous (not remotely guided) vehicles. They took all comers, a One million prize, for a vehicle to comple an off-road cours in the Nevada desert. Car and Driver magazine had an article on it, and the results were hilarious.
Leon van Dommelen - 22 Feb 2005 01:32 GMT > but it still needs to pilot to input >the correct coordinates and settings, Does not need a pilot.
>For each hour the plane spends airborne you are probably talking an >investment of upwards of 100 man hours spent, not exactly computer >controlled is it? There has been at least one documented case that everyone in the cockpit was asleep. One woke up just before the landing.
>I have heard there was a car that was developed by an American university >that drove across America, which was a fantastic achievement, but it is not >motorsport, if you look at a good racer he is not only processing an >monumental amount of information extremely quickly, he is also pre-empting >the car, the track and the other drivers, he also using emotion. You got it all backwards. *Speed* is not a problem for a computer, unpredictability is. The problems on a given track is *much* easier to programs, including oil slicks, other cars, etc, than a trip around an unknown block with unpredictable vehicles and pedestrians. And a computer can *compute* the temperature and condition of the tire thread, it does not have to guess.
>In my opinion it will not be in our lifetime that we will see solely >computer driven cars beating human drivers, Speak for yourself. I am not that old. I see myself as a young man on the threshold of life.
> it is that lack of exactness >that makes senna, Prost Schumacher etc that good, these guys do not drive at >maximum speed, it is a cliché but they drive at 102% not 100%. Incorrect. I have a graph showing performance achieved by actual race car drivers versus friction circle. There are within 20% of it, but *not* over it. A computer could do it better.
Of course, if you believed the issue is the demonstration of skill, like I do, so what? But you have told us that for you the issue is *speed*, using any technical means to achieve it. You might want to face reality about the power of the technical means available to achieve your objective.
>close to its limit are a major thing, I cannot see what is sad about wanting >to get lower lap times Leon,
>I did not adjust my carbs per intake cycle Leon, that would be crazy, Well, your earlier statements implied you did. You now back off from that claim, huh?
Leon
 Signature Leon van Dommelen :) Bozo, the White 96 Sebring Miata .) rammm@dommelen.net http://www.dommelen.net/miata EXIT THE INTERSTATES (Jamie Jensen)
gixer - 22 Feb 2005 13:37 GMT I am not too sure what your point is Leon,
FACT: Pilots do fly planes, there is not 1 fully automated passenger plane in the world that operates. FACT: The pilot will do a visual and physical check of the plane before anything else, the pilot will then run through a check list, before even moving from the dock, the ATC (air traffic controller) gives a plane a designated take off spot and position, the Pilots Taxi the plane to that position, the pilot then takes off, they throttle back to cruising speed, the pilot then programs the auto pilot, they SHOULD monitor the instruments during the whole flight, and they talk with various ATC stations as they continue on their flight path, the pilot then lands, the pilot then taxis to his designated parking spot. FACT: There are many devices that ASSIST pilots during their flight, but they are set by a humans, they are monitored by a human, and then there are analogue back ups for everything. If you have a documented case of a irresponsible flight crew, that are hopefully now unemployed then great, but even if they were all asleep, they twirled the dials and switches with their human hands, to a flight path designated and chosen by the human sitting in the ATC station, before nodding off.
But back to the initial point of technology in cars, FACT: Cars cannot (at this time) drive completely by themselves, if speed is a problem, or not, is not really relevant, as human interaction is needed throughout the journey. FACT: Even with all our computers, electronics and resources we still cannot automate something which most drivers feel is a fairly simple task. DRIVING. My view and hope is, we will never have a fully automated car on the public roads, assistance is always helpful but not total control, electronics and software are never going to be that reliable for me to trust the whole driving operation to them. I do not believe that we will see a fully automated car challenge and beat a top racing driver on a track within the next 60 years if that, helps work out the age equation,
FYI.
I never said speed was a problem for computers. my statement was: "if you look at a good racer he is not only processing an monumental amount of information extremely quickly, he is also pre-empting the car, the track and the other drivers"
There is driving around a track, and there is racing around a track, this discussion was with regard to racing, not driving around a track, In which case I would say it is actually more difficult to get a car to race at a competitive pace with other cars on the track than it is drive on the road.
I would be extremely cautious about the friction circle data, how was the 100% point goal calculated and arrived at? Since we are talking of only driver inputs here, how did they differentiate between driver error and mechanical, dynamic errors, wear and tear, slippage? If 100% was the complete limit of the mechanics and dynamics of the car, then I would say 20% is extremely low, maybe the driver was having a bad day. If a computer can do better then why hasn't it? (because it cannot).
I asked.
>>Should we go back to the days of side draught carbs that needed adjusting >>every time someone farted within 20m of the car? You said
> Apparently in Greece you operated your carburetor manually every > intake cycle in the past. I am impressed. Again maybe its the translation, but its a pretty big jump from the statement above, to implying I adjust my carbs per intake cycle, for a start I did mention the words INTAKE or CYCLE. I did not even mention Greece as I was living in the UK then, so maybe you have the word implying mixed up with imaginative reading?
As I have said before I am very much for technological advances in automotive design, what I am against is snobbish and ill informed attitudes, and I am not having a go at anyone here, I mean mostly the various forms of international media. Its like statements in magazines that say, "this car are not for enthusiasts as it has an automatic gearbox" etc that get my goat. We are all individuals who make our own choices, gives us the information, and we will eagerly take it in, but spare the judgements.
Cheers Mark.
>> but it still needs to pilot to input >>the correct coordinates and settings, [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Leon Leon van Dommelen - 23 Feb 2005 03:49 GMT >I am not too sure what your point is Leon, [mega crapola snip]
http://dommelen.net/tmp1.jpg
Leon
 Signature Leon van Dommelen :) Bozo, the White 96 Sebring Miata .) rammm@dommelen.net http://www.dommelen.net/miata EXIT THE INTERSTATES (Jamie Jensen)
Grant Edwards - 23 Feb 2005 04:15 GMT > FACT: Pilots do fly planes, [179 lines of crap elided]
JOKE: (Told to be by somebody from Rockwell/Collins)
Why is there a dog in the cockpit?
To bite the pilot if he tries to shut off the auto-pilot.
Why is there a pilot in the cockpit?
Somebody's got to feed the dog.
 Signature Grant Edwards grante Yow! In Newark the at laundromats are open 24 visi.com hours a day!
pws - 21 Feb 2005 02:13 GMT > Hi Pat, > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Cheers Mark. I have mixed feelings about ABS. My last car had it, and I only felt it engage a few times during the 5 years that I drove the car. I hit a deer on a dark road with that car and never had a chance to hit the brake pedal, much less feather it. People have been arguing for a long time about whether they can stop faster with or without ABS, but the thing that a good ABS and/or traction control system will do is to apply different braking rates to the different wheels depending on wheel speed, which is very helpful for correcting the common driver error of stomping on the brakes no matter what when an emergency arises, such as losing control of the rear end. Since at least 9 out of 10 people that I have asked don't even know what is going on with weight transfer during braking and accelerating, this is probably a good feature for the average driver.
The miata is my favorite, but where I live with roadways full of vehicles that weigh over 5000 pounds, the sight of any roadster is a nice thing. :-)
Pat
gixer - 21 Feb 2005 11:43 GMT I recon the best advantage with ABS is the fact that you can turn while braking,
But I have had some really bad experiences with bad ABS systems, I was driving a 1990 911 that just refused to stop on the approach to a corner, the brake pedal was to the floor and juddering like Lil Kim's vibrator with new batteries but it would no stop, luckily with a little downshifting sideways slipping hand flailing I managed to get round the corner, I was a few years before I bought a car with ABS after that though.
Its impossible to say how many accidents ABS has helped reduce, But there is no doubt ABS is great for the most types of emergency stops, that is or course if the guy behind you has it as well!!!!
Cheers Mark.
>> Hi Pat, >> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > Pat Dana H. Myers - 21 Feb 2005 17:56 GMT > I have mixed feelings about ABS. My last car had it, and I only felt it > engage a few times during the 5 years that I drove the car. I hit a deer > on a dark road with that car and never had a chance to hit the brake > pedal, much less feather it. ABS doesn't keep you from hitting things - ABS helps you maintain control while stopping. So if you'd attempted to steer around that deer while braking, you might have had a chance.
> People have been arguing for a long time about whether they can stop > faster with or without ABS, Which is really silly, because ABS - "anti-lock braking system" - isn't intended to decrease stopping distance. It's distressing how many people I've met that think they can follow more closely on the freeway because they have ABS.
> but the thing that a good ABS and/or > traction control system will do is to apply different braking rates to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is going on with weight transfer during braking and accelerating, this > is probably a good feature for the average driver. Precisely. Keeping the car from spinning or the front-end from pushing... that's what ABS does.
Cheers, Dana
pws - 21 Feb 2005 19:42 GMT > ABS doesn't keep you from hitting things - ABS helps you maintain > control while stopping. So if you'd attempted to steer around that > deer while braking, you might have had a chance. I understand about ABS, but unfortunately there was also no steering avoidance possible with this accident. I was going approximately 55 to 60 mph, saw a flash of brown in front of me and felt the impact at the same time. There was no time to turn the steering wheel and my foot hadn't even lifted off of the accelerator until immediately after the impact. I wasn't even positive that it was a deer until I saw it dead on the road. We have a lot of deer in my area and I am used to watching out for them, but this one made that perfect leap at just the wrong time.
In this case, the results probably would have been the same even if I had no brakes at all, I would have just rolled further down the road after hitting the animal.
Pat
Dana H. Myers - 21 Feb 2005 19:58 GMT >> ABS doesn't keep you from hitting things - ABS helps you maintain >> control while stopping. So if you'd attempted to steer around that >> deer while braking, you might have had a chance. > > I understand about ABS, but unfortunately there was also no steering > avoidance possible with this accident. Right - that's what I thought. It sure sounded like an "out of nowhere" incident. There's not a lot of defensive driving you can do to avoid something like that...
... and ABS sure didn't come into play :-(
pws - 22 Feb 2005 02:58 GMT > Right - that's what I thought. It sure sounded like an > "out of nowhere" incident. There's not a lot of defensive > driving you can do to avoid something like that... > > ... and ABS sure didn't come into play :-( Yeah, I'm not sure that even a computer/robot driver could have avoided that one. :-) The deer was the first thing larger than a small bird that I have ever hit at high speed. It sucks, but at least there were no injuries other than the deceased deer. Most of the impact was on the passenger side and I had my child in the car, so I was especially thankful that it didn't come through the windshield.
Pat
pltrgyst - 20 Feb 2005 15:52 GMT >30 years ago the same was said for power steering, >20 years ago to have AC fitted to an enthusiasts car was unimaginable, On these two, they were (and are) right.
-- Larry ('95 R)
Alex Rodriguez - 22 Feb 2005 20:00 GMT >>30 years ago the same was said for power steering, >>20 years ago to have AC fitted to an enthusiasts car was unimaginable, > >On these two, they were (and are) right. > >-- Larry ('95 R) The 95 R I had had AC. My wife would not have let me buy the car if it had not had AC. During the really hot summer months when I was stuck in slow moving traffic I was glad I had it. All other times it was just dead weight. ---------------- Alex
The Millers - 20 Feb 2005 18:02 GMT It was 25+ years ago, and I was a kid -- we thought all exotics were "supposed" to have sticks.
{ FYI: I poked around on http://maseratinet.com/default.asp and if my memory serves me correctly, the car in question was a Khamsin -- I seem to recall an odd rear back-light that later appeared on the Honda CRX. }
As you point out, though, we learn things as we go along. Today, if I was considering turbo charging or super charging, I might actually prefer an automatic for that application. IMHO, they work better with turbos (once had a Volvo 760 Turbo) and am guessing the same would be true for SCs.
This thread appears to have offered some useful info (unlike me), so keep us all posted, I'm interested in how things turn out with your car.
Good luck.
> Maybe it was a Maserati Quattroporte, not actually available as a stick > shift. [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] >>>> > >>>> > So has anyone here actually got an Auto? gixer - 20 Feb 2005 20:06 GMT Hi,
The Maser I was thinking about was the new Quattroporte (4 door) at http://www.maserati.com/jsp/introSottosezione.jsp?category=%2Fmaserati%2Fcars%2F quattroporte&menuKey=m50&BV_SessionID=@@@@0655853952.1108927788@@@@&BV_EngineID= ccccadddlhjgllmcefeceegdgimdfmf.0 As it is not available in manual gearbox form at all, but most of the 4 door Masers were available in Auto, the thing is in my mind since Ferrari have owned Maserati they have turned into GT car anyways, which not having an Auto in this class of cars is commercial suicide, so to call someone a Schmuk for buying a Grand Tourer in Auto format seems a bit daft to me, I wonder if they would say the same thing to a guy in a Enzo?
I don't know much at all about Volvos mate, I am guessing they will run similar boost (8 psi) to the only turbo I would consider purchasing (Flyin Miata), but a guesstimate is that the spool is smaller giving less performance gains, but giving less turbo lag as the spin up time would be reduced. The other thing is that Volvo designed the gearbox ratios, the computer controlling the gear changes and turbo to work together, which would not be the case on my Eunos, who's Auto box is not exactly good even with the engine in standard trim.
The ideal of course would be the Lancia Deltas method, a supercharger feeding a turbo, Mmmmmm
Cheers Mark.
> It was 25+ years ago, and I was a kid -- we thought all exotics were > "supposed" to have sticks. [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] >>>>> > >>>>> > So has anyone here actually got an Auto? gixer - 20 Feb 2005 11:03 GMT Its still fun with a auto box mate, you just have to learn not to brake on corners ;) and I have to agree with you on the hard top
> Color me as a stick bigot :) > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >> > >> > So has anyone here actually got an Auto? gixer - 19 Feb 2005 18:50 GMT Hi Chris,
As I've mentioned before I totally agree with you Auto's are crap, no engine braking, no real control. Unfortunately due to a disability I have no choice in the matter an auto it has to be. The problem is what with the Auto box sapping all that power out of the system, I am getting to the point where I am getting really bored of little Corse's 106's leaving me on the straights, on the corners there's no competition the MX-5 just leaves them, but it gets a little frustrating having to fight your way through just to have them overtake on every straight bit of road. The Auto MX-5 is very rare in Europe, the only way I could find one was as a Japanese import (Eunos), so the Automatic gearbox spares are like rocking horse sh*t, I don't want to spend time and money tuning my car only to be dogged by Auto box reliability problems, as any gearbox problems are going to mean my car is out of action till I can import a replacement, as I use it daily any downtime is going to be a major problem. So I am asking if anyone else here has an auto Miata, MX-5 or Eunos and what have they experienced in the way of reliability and tuning. That is unless anyone knows of a nice paddle shift system available for the Miata.
Cheers.
> Oh boy, you had to go there didn't you...... > Some will berate anyone using an automatic in these cars, some people [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> >> So has anyone here actually got an Auto? Chris D'Agnolo - 20 Feb 2005 05:21 GMT Cool, ya a paddle shift set up would be awesome for you. Keep asking the question on this newsgroup and at some point you'll find someone that has done FI on an automatic. For what it's worth, a SC'r generally works pretty well w/ an automatic. Have you tried searches on forums at miata.net? Or google searches with miata automatic supercharge, something like that?
Good luck and keep us posted on your quest.
Chris 92BB&T
> Hi Chris, > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > >> > >> So has anyone here actually got an Auto? Larry Gadbois - 20 Feb 2005 08:37 GMT There have been many postings regarding the Miata automatics down through the years on this newsgroup and at the www.miataforum.com . Try doing a search.
I have driven and enjoyed both types of transmissions over the last 47 years. My 1995 M Edition and my current 1999 LA are both automatics. The button on the automatic shifter works as a downshift of one gear on the pre 1998 models in all positions. The button downshifts to third and locks out overdrive on the 1999 and newer automatics. The transmissions are very durable and can be manually shifted. When held in gear the Miata will do 40 mph in 1st and over 80 mph in second. Because the manual second to third shift occurs at approximately 59 mph, the automatic has some advantages around 60 mph. Caution must be used in running at maximum speed in any gear for an extended period of time. The gears may overheat and transmission damage can occur.
The autos will handle 250 horsepower without a problem. Flyin' Miata has installed the FM II turbo on at least three Miatas. You can order a kit for your car that will turn your automatic into a very impressive performance car. If necessary, a tranmission shop can modify your transmission to give harder shifting or a change in the torque converter stall speed.
The automatics are not equipped with a Limited Slip Diff from the factory. You may want to upgrade the diff on your car with a Torsen to improve cornering. The stock auto rear end ratio on the 1999 automatic is 4.10 while the Torsen is a 4.30. The torque increase with the Torsen will be very apparent if you change out the differential.
Enjoy!
> Ok I have asked already about supercharged/Turbo's Auto Miatas, but it > seems no one here has fitted any to an Auto. > > So has anyone here actually got an Auto? gixer - 20 Feb 2005 11:01 GMT Thanks for the Advice Larry,
I have tried shifting manually but it just gets so frustrating, the up shift are not a problem, as she shifts at a reasonably high revs anyways, the problem I find is the lack of engine braking approaching a corner, having only driven manuals all my life even after 2 years of Autos it still does not feel right. Mine is a 1994 V-Spec I had to get a jap Import as Autos are rarer than honest politicians here.
The FMII Turbo is definitely no good for a 94-97 model as it swaps out the cars ECU with their Link ECU, as the cars ECU handles the shifting this is no good, on the 90-93 and the later 99-04 models the Link ECU piggy backs the cars ECU so no problem.
I also have reservation about a fairly high boost turbo on an automatic, I do not think it is a good combination, when you kick down a gear there is a second or so delay where the car will increase it's revs before engaging the gear, the increase in revs would be just enough to spool up the turbo before engaging the gear, in my opinion the car would be all over the road even on the straight, if you were to get that mid corner, adios amigo.
So my opinion is due to the smoother power characteristics and better low down torque it has to be a supercharger without a doubt.
I have been trying to find a LSD for a while now, all the units I have found are either for the 1.6 or they are in the states (im in Greece), the same with finding a good shop to modify/service my Auto transmission, there just are not any in Greece, they a few in the UK, that are happy servicing these units but not modifying them, but it seems the states is the only country that knows what they are talking about when it comes to modifying auto transmissions, and really don't fancy shipping a auto box the states and back again.
Hey hold on though there was some bloke bringing his car the Switzerland, maybe if we put an auto box in the boot and tell customs its a mid engine sports car?
Cheers.
> There have been many postings regarding the Miata automatics down through > the years on this newsgroup and at the www.miataforum.com . Try doing a [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >> So has anyone here actually got an Auto? chuckk - 20 Feb 2005 15:19 GMT I'd be willing to bet that the FMII can be made to work with the automatic NA's. A supercharger seems (by instinct) to be a better choice. In any event, the Link is not the only solution to provide fuel control and advance/retard management. I'd also suspect that the link piggy could be used, or some of the other aftermarket controllers.
One of the things I'd likely prefer is the ability to have a controller (or whatever) due something during the actual shift to reduce the stress on the automatic. (Ignition cut, BOV blip, or other momentary change.)
> Thanks for the Advice Larry, > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >>> >>> So has anyone here actually got an Auto?
|
|
|