|
|
12-15-2007, 02:31 AM | #45 | |
First Lieutenant
26
Rep 359
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2007, 02:36 AM | #46 | |
First Lieutenant
26
Rep 359
Posts |
Quote:
Though BMWs are considered a premium product, they do produce some crap like the Z3. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2007, 04:12 AM | #47 |
Major General
427
Rep 6,968
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2007, 08:51 AM | #48 | |
Expert Road Racer
59
Rep 1,329
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2007, 10:58 AM | #49 | |
Second Lieutenant
14
Rep 271
Posts |
Quote:
Had the most awful experience in Marbella because of a break down. Try to explain that the car has broken down on the motorway when they don't speak English. I realize that these where rental cars, and may not have been treated very nicely, but it was a rather new car! Also, I'm gown up with BMW which makes me love them even more. That may be the reason why I never had a problem with the I-Drive, as so many people seem to have (especially during reviews (hint, Jeremy Clarkson)). |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2007, 11:00 AM | #50 | |
Second Lieutenant
14
Rep 271
Posts |
Quote:
EDIT: After watching that video I might have taken your inlined quote a little to hard, thought it was a direct insult on me. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2007, 11:02 AM | #51 |
Second Lieutenant
14
Rep 271
Posts |
It's not the badge. It's the quality of what the badge is place upon.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2007, 11:47 AM | #52 |
Expert Road Racer
59
Rep 1,329
Posts |
I've own a Nissan Frontier truck and owned 2 Infinitis, '03 FX35 and '06 M45 Sport. I've never had any bad issues, although I will say IMHO overall build "solidity" is not quite to BMW standards.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2007, 12:07 PM | #53 | |
Second Lieutenant
14
Rep 271
Posts |
Quote:
Therefore I really can't be asked to depends on a Nissan for my everyday use! I'm sure you all feel like this about a specific brand. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2007, 01:14 PM | #54 |
Reincarnated
249
Rep 4,227
Posts |
Placing your whole perception of a car company based on two rentals is extremely inaccurate.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2007, 01:26 PM | #55 | |
Second Lieutenant
14
Rep 271
Posts |
Quote:
And it's just one persons opinion, seems like you value mine quite a lot *feeling warm and fuzzy* |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2007, 03:11 PM | #57 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
OK, back to the drawing board. I fire Quarter, Jr. up, and plug in the numbers from the C & D 911 Turbo Tiptronic "Short Takes" test last year. They got an 11.6 @ 122, 0-60 in 3.4 seconds. Result: The simulation shows an 11.62 ET, crossing the finish line at 121.5 mph, with an 0-60 time of 3.39 seconds. Wow! Doing my sums, the Porsche may be underrated by (TA DA!) about six horsepower, as opposed to the 12 horsepower I calculated that those bastards at Nissan weren't telling us about. Swamp, this is all approximate stuff, and I'm not waxing poetic about Quarter, Jr. (it is in fact the cheapie loss leader from RSA, after all). The thing is, there are some items out there (as previously mentioned and as this lightweight testing seems to show), indicating that the GT-R may not be as "MASSIVELY under-rated" as you are saying. I know that once you take a stand, dynamite won't blow you off that perch, but I'm thinking that's a precarious perch indeed. As I said, the jury still seems to be out. Bruce PS - Once the GT-R is available in the U.S. with published numbers, I'm thinking that Nissan will have to be doing some very interesting things to fool the SAE guy who is hawkishky watching the dyno tests. Once the SAE observer signs off, then and only then does Nissan get to advertise the results. Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 12-15-2007 at 03:17 PM.. Reason: Added the PS |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2007, 04:02 PM | #58 | |
Second Lieutenant
14
Rep 271
Posts |
Quote:
What I've been saying all alone is that I'm not going to live with a car that my gut doesn't like because of two rental brake downs. What's so terrible with me leaving my own personal opinion about Nissans? I've had a couple of bad experiences with a specific brand, and I don't want to live with a car with that badge on it. That's all I've been saying all along. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2007, 11:47 PM | #59 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Back to the simulations. Getting fantastic agreement from a simulation vs. test results may happen but it may also be a case of getting it right for the wrong reasons. I'm fairly sure this is the case for your 911 Turbo results. If Q. Jr. can predict RWD times in a reasonably well validated fashion and it has absolutely no wasy to account for AWD, then it simply (almost by definition) can not also get AWD performance figures accurate for the right reasons. Doesn't this make fundamental sense? We all know and understand that AWD cars get a harder launch but then suffer much greater parasitic drivetrain losses which hurts the cars performance more at higher speeds. You can not just rely on a simulation tool blindly and rely on it as a black box to just turn the crank, get the answer and not question the results in any way. It appears that this is what you are doing here. "Responsible" and intelligent use of simulation DEMANDS contstant questioning of the model, the inputs and results. CarTest offers complete control of a huge number of input variables including FWD, RWD, AWD and a plethora of other user defined inputs (you can see some screen grabs of the amazing number of inputs possible in CarTest on other threads here on the forum). One reason I am a bit hesitant to use and post results for cars like the 911 and GT-R is that I have not had great luck simulating Turbo charged cars yet. I will probably work a bit more on the 335i and making sure I can get good results for known/justifiable reasons before relying on CarTest too much for such cases. In any case I think my preliminary runs with CarTest for the GT-R showed it required about 520 hp to get a 3.5s 0-60 and 11.7 1/4 mi. I did use very short 0.03 s shifts as we can expect from its dual clutch system and of course the AWD option. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2007, 03:28 AM | #61 | |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
But after reading is review in EVO they said that it's shifts were much more noticeable than VAG's DSG box so chances are it is higher than the 0.03s you used as you estimate. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2007, 03:29 AM | #62 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Well maybe the same to you, not to me. 1. One issue concerns one specification for one car, the other is a brash statement about ALL cars placing one above all others. This type of absolutist statement will surely be subject to great scrutiny and debate. Seems so obvious to me. It is like saying XXX is the best athelte of all time, or YYY was the worst president ever. 2. There is ample evidence that the GT-R is under-rated and evidence as well that it is massively under-rated. As well I directly provided evidence for this statement in my post. In comparison you made the statement, provided no evidence and struggled when questioned/callled out. 3. I am always willing to withdraw/revise/update/change my opinion as new facts come to light. Are you? back at you! |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2007, 03:43 AM | #63 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
The key thing as far as the simulation goes is that CarTest uses a std. shift time of .5s for a MT, not counting clutching time which is counted separately. I use .2-.3 for my std. MT simulations with .05-.1 for clutch operations. The key here is that any DCT should shift about 10 times faster than this. Get it anywhere in that ball park and you are good to go. So the lesson here is why fuss about the milliseconds when you are shooting for and expecting simulation accuracy of tenths of seconds? Last but not least a more "noticeable" shift is not synonymous with a slow shift. They are related but there are other factors involved as well. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2007, 04:15 AM | #64 | |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
Sorry swamp to disagree with that one, if it's shift time is close to the DSG then you are completely and totally wrong with your opinion that it's being noticeable is not to do with shift time, to understand the reason why Audi's DSG box isn't noticeable is because that is no drop off in power the shift from one gear to another is seamless, as one gear is driving the car the other is spooled up and spilling at the exact speed ready to take over. For one reason or another Nissan has chose to give a gap that is a bit more noticeable, probably to help protect the transmission from the power but even that is not a logical answer because the Veyron uses a version of Audi's DSG and even with it's conservative 1000hp to shift are done without notice. We will probably never know why it's the case but it's most definitely to do with shift time and the clutches involved. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2007, 01:38 PM | #65 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
VW/Audi DSG: Shift times are probably .03 s yet also seem to offer fantastic smoothness. If shorter shifts mean rougher shifts then DSG is the direct proof against that. Granted a dual clutch system is not quite the same as a traditional clutch system. Ferarri/BMW: Their old sequential (non dual clutch, automated manual, say in the F360) had reasonably quick shifts, I'm not sure the time off hand but faster than a human for sure. This system was also known for being quite rough/jerky. SMG II on the E46 M3 especially in the more aggresive manual shift modes only shifted in about .2-.25 seconds (total shift time, counting both clutching operarations). This time is not so fast it is more known imply for its amazing consistentcy. Despite the time not being so fast it is also quite a rough shifting system. Again WOT shifts, at redline, in an aggresive shift mode reall is a "neck snapper". Again going back to the new sequential in the Scuderia we incredibly fast shifts, certainly faster then the F360 system yet at the same time is is smoother! Back to the non emperical, engineering type of evidence. There are many reasons for a shift being smooth or rough. Part of the issue with a SMG or a MT system is that is has to fully cut engine power (I'm sure it does this by simply cutting engine spark rather than letting up the power by throttle control), then perform clutch dis-engage, then shift, then clutch engage, then bring the power back on. This process gives you the large deceleration followed by the large acceleration, hence the jolt. With Ferarri it appears they have outsmarted the jolt in some way through a clever sequencing and control of the above events. DCT is a whole different beast. It obtains smoothness by keeping the power to the wheels almost continuosly through simultaneous clutch disengage and engagment on the other clutch. As engima pointed out any system system still has to accomodate the absorption of energy that goes along with a large change in rmp of the engine and transmission components and the flywheel weight is an important factor here as well. We also know that various flavors of DCT systems, VW/Audi vs. Mitsubishi vs. Nissan offer varying levels of smoothness. It is fairly obvious that a small, low hp engine can obtain a smoother shift than the high performance/high power vehicle. So again, based on an understanding of the systems themselves, as well as what various manufacturers have actually obtained with the various systems I think it is reasonable to claim the shift time does NOT directly correlate with shift smoothness. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2007, 02:07 PM | #66 |
Major General
382
Rep 8,033
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|