I got a Fiat with CVT. It doesn't change gear ever, it just alters the ration constantly. In the UK, we don't generally drive auto's. Petrol (GAS) is a lot more expensive here than in the US, so we're more careful with it. Autos are unnecessarily 'lavish'. Anyway, back to my car. Nobody likes CVT's. They sound wrong, they feel wrong, they react wrong. Because my car is a CVT auto, and not a normal coggy one, my insurance is actually a lot cheaper than a manual. I love it. It is easier to drive than a manual, does more MPG, despite the official figures, accelerates faster, despite the official figures, and is so smooth to drive. There's none of this jerking you get with a normal auto. This car is similar to it's manual version, except for the CVT. Yet the manual version was quite popular. Initial reactions from all those who have driven it has been 'YUK', and initial reactions usually dominate.
Fiat are soon to bring out a turbo diesel CVT model capable of 100mph and 100 mpg. That may persuade a few, if it doesn't look like a potato. I'm also trying to work out how feasable it would be to use a gas turbine with a CVT instead of a piston engine. Jay?

I have been to the moon. I went on one of NASA's rockets just like Armstrong, Aldrin etc.

johnwitts: I'm also trying to work out how feasible it would be to use a gas turbine with a CVT instead of a piston engine.

John, Chrysler experimented with a commercial turbine engine for automobiles 38 years ago. Check this out:

http://www.autospeed.com/A_0764/P_1/article.html

The cost was quite high - although probably mainly because of the limited production. In the end, the turbine engine had two problems - it couldn't meet evolving emission control standards and it wasn't capable of getting good fuel mileage. It could burn almost any hydrocarbon, though which may have compensated for that.
The engine was coupled to a normal three speed automatic transmission after a reduction gear train. I drove one briefly and found it quite responsive for a big car with a relatively small (130 HP) engine. The sound was a fairly quiet whine - which didn't appeal to my teenage desire to hear a big throbbing V8 when I stomped the pedal.
My Dad's friend at the Chrysler dealership drove the car for a few months and loved it.
No CVT though. Not sure the turbine engine would fit in a "Fiat Uno".

My Uno has only half that power, so the engine would only need to be small. Not bad for 38 years ago. Imagine what it would be like now with 38 years worth of development. One of the advantages of this system over conventional autos and manuals is the smoothness of the acceleration. I get this with my CVT, a constant smooth acceleration with none of the bumps and lurches you get with an auto, or the pauses in acceleration you get with a manual. The engine is held at the revs required for maximum power, instead of the revs moving up and down in and out of the powerband. It's always in the right gear for the conditions. It's a joy to drive. My next car will certainly contain a CVT, probably one of the newer electronically controlled jobbies, with the manual steps, should I ever feel the need to use them. Fiat do a 7 speed CVT for the Punto, and I may try one of these. Trouble is, I think they may have kept the 'steps' in the fully automatic mode, which would spoil things a bit. Seems like a backwards step to me. When I was talking to a guy from the company that makes these transmissions, he said that customer demand had provoked the changes, so that it felt like a proper gearbox. Just goes to show how public perception can impact on an engineering ideal.

The Chrysler Turbine was indeed smooth. The engine had a very flat torque curve and pulled evenly from a stop to its top speed of over 100 mph. I doubt that even 38 years of additional development would likely overcome the fuel economy problem, though. Turbine engines are most efficient when the speed of the vehicle is high enough to force air into the intake. The vehicle version needed a relatively much larger compressor fan than a jet aircraft would have. This sapped a lot of the engine's power.
Interesting comments on Fiat's direction with the transmission. People are accustomed to a certain sound and feel in their vehicles. I guess with a completely computer controlled CVT and engine management system, a little hesitation could be programmed into the engine at the "shift points" to make it feel like the transmission was shifting. I bet people would pay extra for that feature - just like I'd pay extra to have my car's engine throb like a 7 litre V8.

The exhaust lost a spacer last week, and it sounded great. Maybe you could drill some holes in your downpipe.

"Maybe you could drill some holes in your downpipe."

At the risk of having BA remove this stuff 'cause it has nothing to do with lunar conspiracies ---- I have a broken exhaust manifold stud on my 6 cylinder Nissan, and although it makes a bit more noise than it should, it just isn't the same.

I remember someone theorizing years back that the North American car industry designed the exhaust system on their V8 cars to resonate at a frequency that was comparable to a slightly elevated heart rate. The theory was that the engine noise caused a resonance that made the driver's heart speed up - basically causing a feeling of excitement every time he or she started the car. I don't know if I believe that, but I do know that driving one of the old V8 cars from the 60's or early 70's causes a euphoria that I don't feel in other cars - even though my modern V6 would blow the doors off most of the V8 cars from that era. It may just be a guy thing.

I don't know if I believe that, but I do know that driving one of the old V8 cars from the 60's or early 70's causes a euphoria that I don't feel in other cars - even though my modern V6 would blow the doors off most of the V8 cars from that era. It may just be a guy thing.

Maybe it's because 60's and 70's V8 cars had 60's and 70's brakes? And 60's and 70's handling? You felt more excitement because it was intrinsically more dangerous. Also, with modern cars, they are designed to be smoother and quieter. My friend and I both owned the same model car a few years back. We both had Fiat X1/9's, a nice little mid engined two seater with a targa roof. His was newer than mine. Hence his had better brakes and steering (less 'loose'), and the doors fit better (less rust). Mine had also had most of the sound insulation removed during a bout of body repairs, and I never got round to putting it back. His was smooth and quiet, went round corners like it was on rails, stopped on a sixpence, went like the clappers. Mine was so noisy with the unsound deadened engine just behind your left ear that you couldn't hear the radio, or the passenger screaming, the brakes pulled to the right, the engine had nasty flat spots, the tyres wouldn't grip because the suspension had too much play. In short, mine was a wreck (I know, I know, just like the Uno!). Get this. He preferred driving mine because it felt faster and was much more enjoyable to drive. He sold his not long after driving mine, said it was boring. Yet in every measurable way, his was better. It just didn't feel as good.

So, here's my advice. Take the Nissan, remove the rear silencer and replace it with a bit of pipe, replace the brake fluid with water, put 5 degrees of tow-in on the front wheels, remove all the sound proofing, let 10 psi out of your tyres, and drive with your windows open. Better still, take the doors off. Then you may reclaim some of the feelings you got when you drove the older V8's.

Disclaimer: I accept no responsibility for any accidents caused by daft folks following the stupid advice in this post. DO NOT modify your car in any of the suggested ways. It is dangerous and stupid. Even if it is fun.

I agree completely that the fun of a car is directly proportional to visceral experience. The most fun I ever had driving a car was in my '56 Austin Healey 100-4. Big (2.7 liter) whompin' four that started as a tractor engine. 4 speed with overdrive on 3&4. Drum brakes all around. Plug in side curtains. Canvas top that was such a ***** to erect (and did so little to keep out the elements) that it wasn't worth the bother.
A friend had a AH 3000. All around better car. Smooth and powerful 3 liter 6. Front disk brakes. Roll up windows. Removable hardtop. It would "smoke" mine in every category, but we both preferred driving mine!

_________________
TANSTAAFL!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-02-12 18:39 ]</font>

OK OK I give up. The thrill obviously is related to the challenge of driving the vehicle. I never had one of those early British sports cars. Closest I got was a Nissan 280Z which was a pretty refined car for its day. I still have it stored in my garage awaiting time and money to do a complete restoration. (It was the typical early Japanese rust bucket, although mechanically still very sound.)

Just to obliquely get back to the topic of this thread, I had a little American flag sticker on the back because I used to live right near a border crossing into the US that I used often and found that the New York State Troopers went easier on me for speeding when they saw the flag. It is now all faded and tattered, much like I expect the moon flags will be.

The flags are the standard Annin 3x5 nylon flags that anyone can buy at a department store. They weren't even obtained on contract; some JSC administrative assistant just went down to Montgomery Ward on her lunch break and bought them.

Nylon is a great material for weight. Cotton flags would have weighed too much and been too bulky. But as with most polymers, the intermolecular bonds are affected by ultraviolet light. After 30 years' exposure to ultraviolet, the flag fabric is likely to very weak. Sadly we know that Apollo 11's flag is lying in the dust at Tranquility Base. But those that are still standing might be too flimsy to hold up their own weight, or they might disintegrate the instant a future astronaut disturbs them.

"But those that are still standing might be too flimsy to hold up their own weight, or they might disintegrate the instant a future astronaut disturbs them."

Or presumably the first time a breeze blows across Area 51? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Hey, let the guy talk

Is your middle name Moss?