theholycow's meta-sig

Read the FAQ and still not sure about something? Want to shift faster? Post here.
User avatar
theholycow
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 15940
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:36 pm
Cars: '80 Buick LeSabre 4.1 5MT
Location: Glocester, RI
Contact:

theholycow's meta-sig

Postby theholycow » Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:14 pm

I like to put my most commonly used advice in links in my sig, but our sig length limit is really short. So, here's my stuff.

Me: I'm from http://allOffTopic.com and I'd love to see you there. We have fun smileys and inappropriate content. What I look like

My car:
1980 Buick LeSabre Limited. My grandfather bought it brand new and I ended up with it 25 years/35,000 miles later.
Engine: 4.1L V6 - same as the classic Buick 3.8 but bored out (wiki, more info). Not the same as the GM corporate 3800. Evenfire, Quadrajet M4ME, originally rated 120HP@4000RPM and 200ft-lb@2000RPM but mine is pretty lame.
Transmission: Borg Warner/Tremec T5 5 speed manual from a 1986 Chevy S10 pickup.
Transmission installation: Project Christone slo Hackensteinberg
Image

My previous car:
2008 Volkswagen Rabbit with all the drive-by-wire throttle craptasticness, rev hang, throttle lag, etc and all the numb grabby clutch horror you could ever want.

My truck:
2002 GMC Sierra 1500 4x4 5.3l 4L60E 3.73 extended cab 6.5' bed

Lugging: It's not what you think and it's not happening in your car:
http://www.standardshift.com/forum/view ... 7&start=15

FAQs:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3812
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6552


Commonly misused terms - Gears: What's "low" and what's "high"?
Low = short = 1st or reverse = 4.3:1 = low MPH = high RPM
High = tall = 6th gear = 0.67:1 = high MPH = low RPM

Commonly misused terms - Difficulty starting:
Crank = turn over = electric starter spins the crankshaft = sounds like "RRRrrrr RRRrrrr RRRrrrr" or "fluh fluh fluh". This happens while you hold the key in the "Start" position and stops when you let go of the key.
Fire = fuel is burned at least once.
Run = engine idles for at least a second after it fires, burning fuel.

Sometimes-unclear terms - Clutch status:
Clutch pedal down = clutch disengaged = "clutch in" = clutch pedal floored
Clutch pedal up = clutch engaged = "clutch out" = released

Sometimes-unclear terms - Launch:
Launch = what you do after you stop at a stop sign = what you do when the light turns green = make the car begin moving
"Fast", "hard" or "race" launch = Rev engine way up and dump clutch so you can take off like a bat out of hell (possibly spinning your tires) (Note: This is not a how-to, just a terminology definition)
Rolling launch or rolling 2nd gear launch = Similar technique to a launch, but done when you're not stopped, often for the purpose of getting into 2nd during slow-moving traffic. Clutch pedal down, shift to gear, release clutch pedal the same way you do when launching, step on accelerator the same way you do when launching.


Overcoming difficulty with launching:
It may take a long time. With enough practice you will be able to move your clutch foot quickly through the areas where quick is acceptable, and (where necessary to move slowly) slower than you currently think you can.

I spent a long time not improving at all. Here's a few hurdles I had to get over before I was able to make progress:
1. Smooth continuous clutch movement: Bad idea. In actuality I had to slow or stop my foot through part of the clutch release.

2. Once the car is moving, my clutch foot's job is done: Bad idea. In actuality, there was still more slow/paused clutch foot time even though the car was moving.

3. Feathering the throttle by using just my toe: Bad idea. In actuality I had to plant my entire foot on the entire accelerator pedal. It differs by accelerator pedal design and position.

I recommend these exercises:
1. Go somewhere abandoned and practice no-gas launching. Keep your right foot flat on the floor and repatedly launch from a stop using only your clutch. This will train your clutch foot.

2. Go somewhere that people won't laugh at you for revving your engine. Keep your parking brake on and your shifter in neutral. Practice revving up to various target RPMs, watching your tachometer to confirm the result. Start with large increments, revving up to 1000, 1500, 2000, etc. When you're good at that, practice smaller increments; 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200 RPM. Mix it up; make flash cards and shuffle them, pick a card and without pausing rev to that RPM. This will train your accelerator foot.

If I had done those exercises in the beginning I would have gotten comfortable with launching a lot sooner than I did.
Last edited by theholycow on Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:39 am, edited 4 times in total.
1980 Buick LeSabre 4.1L 5MT

Put your car in your sig!

Learn to launch/FAQs/lugging/misused terms: meta-sig
watkins wrote:Humans have rear-biased AWD. Cows have 4WD

Rope-Pusher
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 10421
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:44 pm
Cars: '08 Jeep Liberty
Location: Greater Detroit Area

Re: theholycow's meta-sig

Postby Rope-Pusher » Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:32 pm

Image

Will Rogers more than once said "I never meta-sig I didn't like!"
'08 Jeep Liberty 6-Speed MT - "Last of the Mohicans"

User avatar
charbs152
Senior Standardshifter
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:30 pm
Cars: 2015 Mazda3 i Touring 6MT
Location: Upstate NY

Re: theholycow's meta-sig

Postby charbs152 » Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:48 pm

so i was just doing some reading. kind of shocked to see your 4.1 only makes around 125hp...is that correct? i also see 200lb torque.

hows it drive, its a big car does it feel like it has power? my tiny corolla has 125hp but it has alot less torque than 200. just curious as i would expect an engine of that size to put out more power.
Image

User avatar
theholycow
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 15940
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:36 pm
Cars: '80 Buick LeSabre 4.1 5MT
Location: Glocester, RI
Contact:

Re: theholycow's meta-sig

Postby theholycow » Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:21 pm

Short answer:
It's no drag race winner, that's for damn sure, but I enjoy it. It keeps up with traffic and still has some to spare (hooray torque and 5 speed manual) but comes up short accelerating from already high speeds. I love how it handles and that's where I get my excitement.

Long answer:
1980 was the height of the emissions era. Nothing made much horsepower, even big V8's in pony cars, sports cars, and trucks. Emissions regulations were tightened down hard, but technology hadn't caught up. Compression ratio on my engine is a measly 8.0:1. In 1981 GM started using computers, mine was the last year of completely mechanical carburetion and vacuum-advance ignition (electronic but not computer).

The car is big, but not too heavy. Weight is 3500 pounds (shipping weight on build sheet, as well as listed curb weight in owner's manual). That's about the same as a well-equipped Honda Accord. It also has aerodynamic qualities about the same as a cardboard box.

When I did the transmission project, I included "slo" in the name because I expected it to be horribly slow. In fact, I've found that it's got a decent amount of "go", especially at lower speeds. It's fun to throw around. At higher speeds (say 50mph) it isn't the right vehicle for risky oncoming lane passes; if I can't build speed while still in my lane and slingshot past, I'll need a decent amount of clearance to accelerate. It runs out of breath at higher RPM.

It's got plenty of power to get my license revoked, but not enough to encourage me to drive like that. That's good because feeding my inner speed demon just makes it stronger...starving it makes my inner Vulcan's logic stronger. I sail it around exit ramps and good visibility turns fast and enjoy the combination of even handling and comfy ride, I accelerate from stops in a way that I consider slow but still faster than everybody around here, but I don't ask it to make speed like a more modern vehicle does.
1980 Buick LeSabre 4.1L 5MT

Put your car in your sig!

Learn to launch/FAQs/lugging/misused terms: meta-sig
watkins wrote:Humans have rear-biased AWD. Cows have 4WD

User avatar
InlinePaul
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 1411
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:55 pm
Cars: 2001 Ranger 2.3L manual
Location: Detroit MI

Re: theholycow's meta-sig

Postby InlinePaul » Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:09 pm

Torque is fun! I loved my 1995 F150 that had the 4.9L inline six. That engine put out 265 pound feet of torque, but only 155 horsepower. Yet is was beautiful to mat the pedal and feel that torque roll out. Big block power is torquepower.
Stick shiftin since '77
theholycow wrote:Why in the world would you even want to be as smooth as an automatic? Might as well just drive an automatic...

User avatar
charbs152
Senior Standardshifter
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:30 pm
Cars: 2015 Mazda3 i Touring 6MT
Location: Upstate NY

Re: theholycow's meta-sig

Postby charbs152 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:59 am

theholycow wrote:Short answer:
It's no drag race winner, that's for damn sure, but I enjoy it. It keeps up with traffic and still has some to spare (hooray torque and 5 speed manual) but comes up short accelerating from already high speeds. I love how it handles and that's where I get my excitement.

Long answer:
1980 was the height of the emissions era. Nothing made much horsepower, even big V8's in pony cars, sports cars, and trucks. Emissions regulations were tightened down hard, but technology hadn't caught up. Compression ratio on my engine is a measly 8.0:1. In 1981 GM started using computers, mine was the last year of completely mechanical carburetion and vacuum-advance ignition (electronic but not computer).

The car is big, but not too heavy. Weight is 3500 pounds (shipping weight on build sheet, as well as listed curb weight in owner's manual). That's about the same as a well-equipped Honda Accord. It also has aerodynamic qualities about the same as a cardboard box.

When I did the transmission project, I included "slo" in the name because I expected it to be horribly slow. In fact, I've found that it's got a decent amount of "go", especially at lower speeds. It's fun to throw around. At higher speeds (say 50mph) it isn't the right vehicle for risky oncoming lane passes; if I can't build speed while still in my lane and slingshot past, I'll need a decent amount of clearance to accelerate. It runs out of breath at higher RPM.

It's got plenty of power to get my license revoked, but not enough to encourage me to drive like that. That's good because feeding my inner speed demon just makes it stronger...starving it makes my inner Vulcan's logic stronger. I sail it around exit ramps and good visibility turns fast and enjoy the combination of even handling and comfy ride, I accelerate from stops in a way that I consider slow but still faster than everybody around here, but I don't ask it to make speed like a more modern vehicle does.



ahh, as i thought. the torque is your saving point. so is it a big lazy v6? meaning does it not rev up high and likes to spend its time down low in the rpms? just asking because im curious and i was reading that it was basically built as a v8 with 2 less calendars and even had an un even way of firing. its pretty interesting as i dont really know much about the older engines, especially non v8
Image

User avatar
Squint
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 3390
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: KY

Re: theholycow's meta-sig

Postby Squint » Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:06 am

theholycow wrote:The car is big, but not too heavy. Weight is 3500 pounds (shipping weight on build sheet, as well as listed curb weight in owner's manual). That's about the same as a well-equipped Honda Accord. It also has aerodynamic qualities about the same as a cardboard box.

When I did the transmission project, I included "slo" in the name because I expected it to be horribly slow. In fact, I've found that it's got a decent amount of "go", especially at lower speeds. It's fun to throw around. At higher speeds (say 50mph) it isn't the right vehicle for risky oncoming lane passes; if I can't build speed while still in my lane and slingshot past, I'll need a decent amount of clearance to accelerate. It runs out of breath at higher RPM.

So... what you're saying is that your car is... a cow.
'15 Mazda 3 iSport Hatch 6MT
'11 Ford Fiesta Hatchback SE 5MT
'14 Giant Escape City 24MT
'97 Honda Civic EX 4AT - Retired @ 184,001 mi

For Pony!

User avatar
theholycow
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 15940
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:36 pm
Cars: '80 Buick LeSabre 4.1 5MT
Location: Glocester, RI
Contact:

Re: theholycow's meta-sig

Postby theholycow » Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:11 am

Squint: Exactly.

InlinePaul: Your 1995 F150's engine must have been a last holdout of old tech, I would expect by 1995 everything was more horsepowerey.
charbs152 wrote:ahh, as i thought. the torque is your saving point. so is it a big lazy v6? meaning does it not rev up high and likes to spend its time down low in the rpms? just asking because im curious and i was reading that it was basically built as a v8 with 2 less calendars and even had an un even way of firing. its pretty interesting as i dont really know much about the older engines, especially non v8

I see you read up on the Buick V6's history! :D

Online documentation is lacking in one specific detail: Somewhen in the late 70s Buick changed the crankshaft so it could be evenfire instead of oddfire. I thought it was oddfire for a long time until eventually I found out otherwise. Even then I had my doubts because I found the same prevailing information saying it was oddfire. From the manual: "The location of the crankpins has been displaced by an included angle of 30° in order to fire the cylinders at equal 120° intervals of crankshaft rotation."

I'm told it revs up to about 5500 and then the heads don't flow enough to rev any higher, naturally preventing overrev under load. I have no idea if I've ever reached that level, I suspect I haven't passed 4500 much (or at all). Kinda weirdly, it seems to come alive at high RPM in 1st and 2nd but get completely asthmatic at the same RPM in 3rd or 4th, accelerating better after upshifting out of those gears but better when holding 1st and 2nd.

I imagine high torque/low horsepower, low RPM bruisers like the Buick V6 and InlinePaul's F150's 4.9 I6 behave similarly to diesels. The 2013 Passat TDI has a similar high torque/low HP/low RPM profile:
  • Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 140 @ 4,000
  • Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 236 @ 1,500
  • Curb weight: 3,459 lb
Coincidentally it's almost exactly a mere 100 pounds lighter. With 15 more HP at the same RPM, 31 more ft-lb at 500 fewer RPM, 33 fewer years, no amateur maintenance/repair, and a great computer to handle stuff instead of mechanical compromise stuff designed by engineers guessing what will work tolerably in a variety of conditions, I bet it produces more real-world power and goes a lot faster.
1980 Buick LeSabre 4.1L 5MT

Put your car in your sig!

Learn to launch/FAQs/lugging/misused terms: meta-sig
watkins wrote:Humans have rear-biased AWD. Cows have 4WD

User avatar
InlinePaul
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 1411
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:55 pm
Cars: 2001 Ranger 2.3L manual
Location: Detroit MI

Re: theholycow's meta-sig

Postby InlinePaul » Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:47 pm

Yeah, the 4.9 inline Ford six (also had little brother a 3.9L) began about 1966. It was known by emissions regulators as a "hydrocarbon hog" and I believe it ended up with two cats to control its bad output before they ditched in about 1997 when it would not fit (so i heard) under the more curvaceous hood of the new F150 that left behind the 1966-1996 styling motif. Anyways, I love that engine, it is a blast to drive and never felt better than when hauling a load. The newer F150 had a 4.2L V6 which was not a bad engine at all power wise--just I am not a big fan of bent ("V") engines unless it is a bent 5.0 pushrod V8 in a Fox Mustang!

Didja know that in the 1960s GMC pickups could be had with a 300 cid V6. Now that is respectable and would be quite the torque monster. This is a conversion waiting to happen, Cow--if you can find one to rebuild.
Stick shiftin since '77
theholycow wrote:Why in the world would you even want to be as smooth as an automatic? Might as well just drive an automatic...

User avatar
tankinbeans
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:04 pm
Cars: 17 300S, 03 Century
Location: Shakopee, MN

Re: theholycow's meta-sig

Postby tankinbeans » Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:24 pm

And here I thought 190 hp and 201 hp out of a 4.3 and 3.8 respectively was slow, both GM. Isn't GM's trick to under-rate the engines on paper for insurance reasons, but make them more powerful in the real world?

The only real low-hp/low torque car I've had was my Escort. I think it was something like 90hp and similar torque figures (it was a 93 LXi with the 1.9 - with less power than the 1.8 had).

I think the 1.9 was designed in-house while the 1.8 was Mazda's design.
17 Mazda6
03 Century
InlinePaul wrote:The driving force of new fangled features to sell more cars [is to] cater to the masses' abject laziness!

User avatar
theholycow
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 15940
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:36 pm
Cars: '80 Buick LeSabre 4.1 5MT
Location: Glocester, RI
Contact:

Re: theholycow's meta-sig

Postby theholycow » Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:04 pm

tankinbeans wrote: Isn't GM's trick to under-rate the engines on paper for insurance reasons, but make them more powerful in the real world?

I've heard that too, though I'm not sure it makes sense..it'd only work for a new model, once the model has been out for a while the insurance companies would have real world actuarial statistics to use.
1980 Buick LeSabre 4.1L 5MT

Put your car in your sig!

Learn to launch/FAQs/lugging/misused terms: meta-sig
watkins wrote:Humans have rear-biased AWD. Cows have 4WD


Return to “Manual Driving Tips”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests