Not quite. If you try and exceed the preset maximum or minimum speeds of the engine in that gear it will change anyway. It gives you a degree of manual control which simply isn't needed with a modern auto. It's a five minute wonder to those who specify it.
Yes indeed. I hardly ever use it and then only to maintain a low gear for descending very steep slopes in the Range Rover where I am loath to use the standard Hill Descent Control system for fear of braking traction. Hardly significant or relevant to road car use.
Huw
A three speed Zephyr 6 wouldn't do 100 mph anyway. About 85 was the tested maximum.
They actually handled quite well with decent tyres - certainly as well as other UK offerings from the major makers on a car this size. Remember it was one of the first cars to be fitted with the now common strut front suspension. The small Jaguars were better - but not by much.
Not so if in good condition. Their brakes may have been a problem, but some had all round discs in the late '50s. And the Ford in question had them as an option on the front in the early '60s.
Magazines like Autocar existed well before this and - as today - tested cars at their top speed. And would have been very critical of any which was unstable at this.
It's still a very practical car for today's use if in good condition. I remember it fondly. It just pulled hard from any speed in any gear.
The likely problem with trying to cruise at high speeds on the then new motorways was the engine blowing up. The gearing on most mainstream cars sold in the UK was low enough to allow the engine to exceed its safe limit if attempted for long periods.
Yes but it really felt like 200 compared with today.
They were all wallowy and lurchy as heck and had very little traction on those tyres. Good for their time but I am judging by today's standards.
Their original dire shock absorbers were non existant within two years of use or less as I remember it and were seldom changed in those days prior to the MOT.
They were judging on the standards of the time though. Today they would give any motorist used to a modern car the heeby-jeebies.
And drank like an alky.
No doubt.
Huw
And what does a clutch do? It converts torque :O)
It's a gift.
No it does not. You aren't a mechanical engineer are you:-0
JS
"Emperor's New Widescreen" wrote >> "If you've read about manual transmissions, you know that an engine is
You are having a laugh aren't you? It purely connects and disconnects drive from the engine to the transmission. A torque converter is in effect a fluid flywheel which throws oil from the front part to the back. At low revs it slips like heck and continues to slip to what is called its stall speed or to where a clutch engages full mechanical drive to by-pass it.
I wonder what you think torque is converted to, in the context of your answer to your own question?
Huw
The moron can't switch the motor off? What's up with that! I smell an urban legend.
connection,
No it doesn't it facilitates a variable torque conversion mechanism :O)
Yes its a liquid clutch.
It's not a name I would choose for a clutch, what do you think it is converted to in a torque convertor?
connection,
It does.
Electrical actually but I also did some mechnacial
BEtter than losing your license for speeding :O)
"TonyK" a écrit dans le message news: snipped-for-privacy@eclipse.net.uk...
[...]
He just installed blue lights and a chip the day before. It's well known that those chips provide 50 to 100 HP more, depending on the price you buy them :-)))
Not enough then! :-0
JS
"Emperor's New Widescreen" wrote >> You are having a laugh aren't you? It purely connects and disconnects
Rather than waste my breath or keyboard finger on you, I'll simply refer you to
He tried that, but apparenmtly the manufacturer had neglected to fit a clutch pedal.
Then you should know that a conventional car dry clutch is a switch which facilitates drive or power transfer [or not]. It does exactly what an electric light switch does. It switches power on or off. Would you describe a light switch as a torque converter or a device for converting torque? No? Then neither is a clutch.
Huw
Enough to get by :O)
laugh
Yes I suspected you would have had trouble understanding that :O|
Your logic is as remarkable as your lack of a sense of humor. Good luck with that...
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required