Is the Gearbox of a Lamborghini Aventador upgradable?

[Levent]

8 hours ago, RasmusDC said:

owning a car with a dry dual clutch automatic, i do however know that i will NEVER own a car with that gearbox in the future..

 

a regular old style automatic like the BMW 8 speed, or a manual is going to be it for me. 

 

I actually could live with a CVT more than the DSG gearbox (the DSQ200 and 250)

DSQ200 is the most common DSG used in VWs in Europe. Funny enough, manuel equivalent of that transmission is pretty solid, people are pushing over 600nm on those (but they have this occasional input shaft bearing issue)

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

No doubt. I believe you. That doesn't make CVT's inherently bad.

Makes them untrustable for me.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Makes them untrustable for me.

Do you do that for all types of products? Say, you buy an IPS monitor that literally catches fire. Does that mean you now will refuse to buy any IPS monitors on the insignficant risk that a different model from a totally different brand might also catch fire?

[Bombastinator]

33 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Do you do that for all types of products? Say, you buy an IPS monitor that literally catches fire. Does that mean you now will refuse to buy any IPS monitors on the insignficant risk that a different model from a totally different brand might also catch fire?

Heh.  Attempt to switch a failed part for a part that doesn’t fail in that manner.  “An IPS” monitor? Was it the fact that it had an IPS panel  that caused the fire?  Do IPS panels represent a fire hazard?  If a monitor caught fire it wouldn’t be the panel.  It would be the power supply board.  Suppose for example that the problem was caused by the combination of the two where that power supply board should never ever be hooked up to an IPS panel. In that case I would avoid all IPS monitors that came with that board.  Possibly any monitors that came with that board, though probably what I would do is check to make sure that the board was safe with that monitor.

 

This is what I learned: fake “gearing” in CVT transmissions combined with horsepower over a certain level causes problems.  Would I look at a car with under 60hp that used a CVT? Sure.  Would I look at a car with over that that had a cvt but did not have the fake gearing thing? Perhaps.  I would be quite Leary though.

Would I look at a car with higher horsepower that did have the fake gearing?  Nope.  Been burned once thankyouverymuch.

 

Doesnt really matter.  My next car will almost certainly be electric.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Heh.  Attempt to switch a failed part for a part that doesn’t fail in that manner.  “An IPS” monitor? Was it the fact that it had an IPS panel  that caused the fire?  Do IPS panels represent a fire hazard?  If a monitor caught fire it wouldn’t be the panel.  It would be the power supply board.  Suppose for example that the problem was caused by the combination of the two where that power supply board should never ever be hooked up to an IPS panel. In that case I would avoid all IPS monitors that came with that board.  Possibly any monitors that came with that board, though probably what I would do is check to make sure that the board was safe with that monitor.

 

This is what I learned: fake “gearing” in CVT transmissions combined with horsepower over a certain level causes problems.  Would I look at a car with under 60hp that used a CVT? Sure.  Would I look at a car with over that that had a cvt but did not have the fake gearing thing? Perhaps.  I would be quite Leary though.

Would I look at a car with higher horsepower that did have the fake gearing?  Nope.  Been burned once thankyouverymuch.

But you're coming to the conclusion that "CVT's can't handle decent HP" (above 60, seems to be your metric), based on the statistic of one car that had a shitty CVT. That's incredibly illogical.

 

Perhaps the CVT's that Mini uses are crap - that could be the case. But what about CVT's in Subaru's? To write them off because of a Mini Cooper's bad CVT is like saying "Disc brakes are bad because one car had shitty disc brakes".

[Bombastinator]

On 1/20/2020 at 10:28 PM, dalekphalm said:

But you're coming to the conclusion that "CVT's can't handle decent HP" (above 60, seems to be your metric), based on the statistic of one car that had a shitty CVT. That's incredibly illogical.

 

Perhaps the CVT's that Mini uses are crap - that could be the case. But what about CVT's in Subaru's? To write them off because of a Mini Cooper's bad CVT is like saying "Disc brakes are bad because one car had shitty disc brakes".

 

Here’s the thing.  When that car died I was really really pissed off so I did a bunch of looking about to find out what could cause such a thing.  I actually know a bit about this one.

The new style CVT Transmissions work with 2 pairs of cones facing each other that move closer together or farther apart to change the gear ratio.  On those cones rides a really really wide chain link belt a bit like a bicycle chain.  The pins holding the chain together are what ride on the cones, not the chain itself.

 

Heres the problem:  metal is tough stuff but it’s only so tough.  With high enough horsepower the heads of the pins actually bite into the cones.  There are ways to mitigate this problem (though not eliminate it) but they require a lot of adjustment.  It’s made worse when the thing is designed to simulate a jerking motion with fake gear changes.  With low enough horsepower it’s not a problem.  Easy solution?  Keep the horsepower low enough the pins don’t bite in the first place.  60 horsepower was a random number.  Low though.  Torque is also an issue.

Edited January 24, 2020 by LogicalDrm

[dalekphalm]

 

Quote

You’ve got a cvt car haven’t you.

I do not. I have a tiptronic VW 6-speed automatic transmission that is mostly really good (the only annoyance is that it downshifts on hills a little too aggressively when I'm trying to drive in a fuel efficient manner - but it's also not a big deal because it has a manual mode and I can just lock it in the desired gear while going up the hill).

Quote

Here’s the thing.  When that car died I was really really pissed off so I did a bunch of looking about to find out what could cause such a thing.  I actually know a bit about this one.

The new style CVT Transmissions work with 2 pairs of cones facing each other that move closer together or farther apart to change the gear ratio.  On those cones rides a really really wide chain link belt a bit like a bicycle chain.  The pins holding the chain together are what ride on the cones, not the chain itself.

 

Heres the problem:  metal is tough stuff but it’s only so tough.  With high enough horsepower the heads of the pins actually bite into the cones.  There are ways to mitigate this problem (though not eliminate it) but they require a lot of adjustment.  It’s made worse when the thing is designed to simulate a jerking motion with fake gear changes.  With low enough horsepower it’s not a problem.  Easy solution?  Keep the horsepower low enough the pins don’t bite in the first place.  60 horsepower was a random number.  Low though.  Torque is also an issue.

So what is the number? You can't even buy a 60 HP car in Canada, so that's not relevant. Most of the CVT cars I've seen are typically not super fast cars - Civics, Corolla's, and the like (and no, not the sport versions). 

 

Aside from all of that, CVT technology seems to still be evolving even now. For example, Toyota has come out with a "Launch gear" equippted CVT, which has a single gear up to 25 MPH, then it switches over to the CVT. This allows faster and smoother acceleration, apparently.

 

None the less, as I said, CVT's have pros and cons. If one of the cons is "don't put this into a high performance car", then that's not really a big deal. Most CVT equipped cars seem to be compacts and eco friendly lower power options anyway.

 

That doesn't make CVT crap or inherently bad. It just means you have to use the right style of transmission for the right car.

Edited January 24, 2020 by LogicalDrm

[Bombastinator]

You seem to have a thing for them.  Triptronic is single fluid clutch automatic iirc.  

 

what is the number?  I don’t know.  The car I had was 97hp and it was apparently way too much.  Snow mobiles do fine with CVTs but they have lower HP.  I picked 60hp because I thought “what is more horsepower than even a performance snowmobile reasonably needs?”  It might be more.  There are probably 140hp racing snowmobiles out there.  I’m not gonna  trust their clutches either though.

Edited January 24, 2020 by LogicalDrm
Name added and autocorrects that I noticed fixed

[Monkey Dust]

On 1/20/2020 at 12:18 PM, Jerakl said:

 

The Huracan Performante is seriously quick around a track. The Aventador not so much, but I'd be willing to bet still a good laugh.

 

Double clutch box into an Aventador, if it was straight forward Lambo would have done it themselves. The Huracan box may not be able to take the torque, or there simply may not be enough room back there. If lap times are all important, and you have a huge heap of money to spend, the Mclaren Senna might suit better.   

Edited January 24, 2020 by LogicalDrm

[dalekphalm]

 

Quote

You seem to have a thing for them.

So someone must have a "thing" for something when defending people bashing random things due to one-off incidents?

Quote

Triptronic is single fluid clutch automatic iirc.  

Might well be. Not that this is particularly relevant to anything.

Quote

what is the number?  I don’t know.  The car I had was 97hp and it was apparently way too much.  Snow mobiles do fine with CVTs but they have lower HP.  I picked 60hp because I thought “what is more horsepower than even a performance snowmobile reasonably needs?”  It might be more.  There are probably 140hp racing snowmobiles out there.  I’m not comma trust their clutches either though.

If your car was 97 HP, then it must have just been a really garbage CVT, considering in NA, even entry level cars are typically 100+ HP - basically every CVT equipped car sold here has more than 97 HP.

Edited January 24, 2020 by LogicalDrm

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Right... so that was nonsense. Gotcha.

So someone must have a "thing" for something when defending people bashing random things due to one-off incidents?

Might well be. Not that this is particularly relevant to anything.

If your car was 97 HP, then it must have just been a really garbage CVT, considering in NA, even entry level cars are typically 100+ HP - basically every CVT equipped car sold here has more than 97 HP.

I was comparing nonsense to nonsense.

 

its relevant in that you mentioned it as an example.  I was pointing out that it wasn’t.  If it isn’t relevant it isn’t relevant.  I’m fine with that.

 

Oh it was garbage alright.  Such flaming garbage it caused me to learn a bit about CVTs.  Every car has more hp than 97.  I won’t buy a one of them.  They’ve probably done something  like improve automatic adjustment or strengthen the cones or pins beyond the capacity of normal metal or something.  Balance their capacity right at the edge of exotic materials tech.  That stuff has a way of going bad suddenly.

Something that will work as long as nothing changes.  Except things change.

[Blademaster91]

Most CVT's are pretty crap though, the units Nissan uses are known to fail or the clutches slip so badly the car is useless. And I really dislike that Subaru went to CVT's, a CVT isn't very good at handling wheel slip either, which makes having an AWD System pointless because taking it off solid pavement means you risk burning up the transmission. Another thing I can't stand with CVT's are most manufacturers claim the fluid never needs changing and is usually sealed off with no drain plug, yeah good luck with making your car last 100k miles by never changing the transmission oil.

[dalekphalm]

On 1/20/2020 at 11:57 PM, Bombastinator said:

 

Your replies aren't properly quoted usually, and it's often difficult to even know what part of my post you're specifically referencing.

Quote

its relevant in that you mentioned it as an example.  I was pointing out that it wasn’t.  If it isn’t relevant it isn’t relevant.  I’m fine with that.

It's not relevant at all aside from the fact that you lowkey called me a shill, saying I probably owned a CVT car (presumably to try and prove I'm not an objective party or something).

Quote

Oh it was garbage alright.  Such flaming garbage it caused me to learn a bit about CVTs.

I'm just trying to get you to understand that your obvious bias of having a bad experience may well be affecting your disposition.

 

Anyway, I can't see any point in continuing discussion.

Edited January 24, 2020 by LogicalDrm

[iDeFecZx]

12 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

The Huracan Performante is seriously quick around a track. The Aventador not so much, but I'd be willing to bet still a good laugh.

 

Double clutch box into an Aventador, if it was straight forward Lambo would have done it themselves. The Huracan box may not be able to take the torque, or there simply may not be enough room back there. If lap times are all important, and you have a huge heap of money to spend, the Mclaren Senna might suit better.   

IIRC they didnt use a DCT setup because it wouldnt fit.

 

Also the SVJ is quite a bit faster round a track than the Performante

[Bombastinator]

You went 

On 1/21/2020 at 12:04 AM, dalekphalm said:

Your replies aren't properly quoted usually, and it's often difficult to even know what part of my post you're specifically referencing.

It's not relevant at all aside from the fact that you lowkey called me a shill, saying I probably owned a CVT car (presumably to try and prove I'm not an objective party or something).

I'm just trying to get you to understand that your obvious bias of having a bad experience may well be affecting your disposition.

 

Anyway, I can't see any point in continuing discussion.

I do.  I was comparing your “possibly” to that “possibly”. It was perhaps an extreme example.  They’re useful as examples because they’re clear.

 

I was wondering if you might be one.  Or not a shill exactly but defensive for an outside reason.  I’m saying “I owned a CVT, it sucked hard.  I learned about CVTs to find out why that one sucked so hard and what I found out was that the whole technology is really pretty iffy at higher horsepowers because physics.”. You seem to be saying “NO!  You have no right to even think that because ‘possibly’ ”.  It’s not super rational so I was thinking there must be another reason.  Apparently it wasn’t that one.  I still think there is one.  I don’t know what it is though.

 

My obvious bias?!  There may be bias here.  I’m not at all sure it’s mine though.

Dude.  I LOOKED INTO IT.  I didn’t WANT to have a general opinion about CVTs because I knew that that others worked better than the one I had.  Unfortunately the whole tech seems to me to have some weaknesses.  Weaknesses I want no part of.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by LogicalDrm

[PlayStation 2]

There's a lot of shit CVTs out there (stares directly at Nissan) but for what it's worth, I've had the experience of a decent CVT in my brother's new Civic. It actually doesn't feel bad in general usage. Dunno about flooring it, but if you're buying a modern economy car to tap it out, you might be doing something wrong. 

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, Curious Pineapple said:

Sounds like a badly designed pile of shite if I'm honest.

That too.  There was an EU version that was supposed to work much better.  It was modified with fake shift points for the American market because BMW which owns Mini was concerned about performance.

[dalekphalm]

On 1/21/2020 at 12:17 AM, Bombastinator said:

You went 

I do.  I was comparing your “possibly” to that “possibly”. It was perhaps an extreme example.  They’re useful as examples because they’re clear.

Extreme examples are not helpful nor necessary, < content removed >

Quote

I was wondering if you might be one.  Or not a shill exactly but defensive for an outside reason.  I’m saying “I owned a CVT, it sucked hard.  I learned about CVTs to find out why that one sucked so hard and what I found out was that the whole technology is really pretty iffy at higher horsepowers because physics.”. You seem to be saying “NO!  You have no right to even think that because ‘possibly’ ”.  It’s not super rational so I was thinking there must be another reason.  Apparently it wasn’t that one.  I still think there is one.  I don’t know what it is though.

I'm not saying "NO!" I'm saying you can't judge every single CVT based on the one you drove. Yes there are bad ones. There are good ones. There are mediocre ones. There are inherent downsides and upsides to CVT's.

 

That's all.

 

You're projecting everything else.

Quote

My obvious bias?!  There may be bias here.  I’m not at all sure it’s mine though.

Yes, you bought a car that was basically a lemon. That's a very obvious bias.

 

As long as you acknowledge the bias and try to minimize it's impact on your argument, that's not really a problem.

Quote

Dude.  I LOOKED INTO IT.  I didn’t WANT to have a general opinion about CVTs because I knew that that others worked better than the one I had.  Unfortunately the whole tech seems to me to have some weaknesses.  Weaknesses I want no part of.

Fair enough. The downsides outweigh the upsides for you. They won't for every person. Never the less, I'm done with this conversation.

Edited January 24, 2020 by LogicalDrm

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Extreme examples are not helpful nor necessary, as all they do is discredit your entire argument when you start bringing up alt-right talking points to try and make some obscure comparison.

I'm not saying "NO!" I'm saying you can't judge every single CVT based on the one you drove. Yes there are bad ones. There are good ones. There are mediocre ones. There are inherent downsides and upsides to CVT's.

 

That's all.

 

You're projecting everything else.

Yes, you bought a car that was basically a lemon. That's a very obvious bias.

 

As long as you acknowledge the bias and try to minimize it's impact on your argument, that's not really a problem.

Fair enough. The downsides outweigh the upsides for you. They won't for every person. Never the less, I'm done with this conversation.

Seemed pretty cut and dry to me.  I didn’t find the comparison obscure at all.  It’s unfortunate that there are things you don’t like.

Are there CVT cars that work better? Sure.  The issue is I learned that even when they do it they do it by leveraging max technology in a fairly fragile way. They may apparently sometimes work decently.  Barely.  Theres no slop.  Something goes even a little wrong and the whole thing falls to shit.  That’s a problem.

 

Buying a car that is a lemon is not what created the opinion.  Learning about how CVTs worked was created the opinion.  It did CAUSE me to look into it, but it didn’t create it.  

 

Is it that if you repeat the word “bias” often enough it will become true?  Or at least truthy? No.

 

[dizmo]

Haha, what? Why. If you're asking...especially here...it's nothing you'd ever have to deal with. As others have pointed out, you'd be better off spending the immense amounts of money that it would cost to do that and buying a car that's more focused for the track. If you're worried about performance off the track, the single clutch is more than sufficient for any kind of screen shenanigans.

 

20 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Ive watched people put a 351 out of an old ford truck into a pinto in the backyard using a few car batteries to weld the frame and extend it. Youd be surprised at what normal people can do to cars. Let alone seasoned engineers.

Yes. But those are made of metal, not carbon tubs, and they're extremely cheap, not several hundred thousand dollars. Not to mention the extreme complexity of dual clutch transmissions, ECUs, etc. Not really the same thing at all.

14 hours ago, RasmusDC said:

owning a car with a dry dual clutch automatic, i do however know that i will NEVER own a car with that gearbox in the future..

 

a regular old style automatic like the BMW 8 speed, or a manual is going to be it for me. 

 

I actually could live with a CVT more than the DSG gearbox (the DSQ200 and 250)

Why do you have DSGs that much?

[RonnieOP]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

Haha, what? Why. If you're asking...especially here...it's nothing you'd ever have to deal with. As others have pointed out, you'd be better off spending the immense amounts of money that it would cost to do that and buying a car that's more focused for the track. If you're worried about performance off the track, the single clutch is more than sufficient for any kind of screen shenanigans.

 

Yes. But those are made of metal, not carbon tubs, and they're extremely cheap, not several hundred thousand dollars. Not to mention the extreme complexity of dual clutch transmissions, ECUs, etc. Not really the same thing at all.

Why do you have DSGs that much?

im not saying its the same process. what im saying is a seasoned engineer could find a way. If price wasnt an issue.

 

Is it worth it? for most people no. But tbh for most people a very very expensive car isnt worth it to begin with.

[Bombastinator]

11 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

im not saying its the same process. what im saying is a seasoned engineer could find a way. If price wasnt an issue.

 

Is it worth it? for most people no. But tbh for most people a very very expensive car isnt worth it to begin with.

Henry ford firmly believed that going faster than 40mph was totally unnecessary and wouldn’t make mass prices cars that would do it till he died.  Took Henry ford 2 to make them any faster.  He sort of had a point pure transportation wise.

[RonnieOP]

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Henry ford firmly believed that going faster than 40mph was totally unnecessary and wouldn’t make mass prices cars that would do it till he died.  Took Henry ford 2 to make them any faster.  He sort of had a point pure transportation wise.

Im not really sure what this post is meant to convey lol.

[Bombastinator]

20 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Im not really sure what this post is meant to convey lol.

I was just underlining you’re statement with this thing it caused me to remember.  He did have a somewhat narrow point.  The faster you go the more energy it takes to push the wind out of the way.  Going 50 takes twice a as much energy as going frothy but it’s only 20% faster. Sixty is the same but 10% faster.   It keeps on going up.  Eventually you’re heating the skin of the vehicle white hot just with the force of movement.  40 is kind of a sweet spot.

[RasmusDC]

5 hours ago, dizmo said:

Haha, what? Why. If you're asking...especially here...it's nothing you'd ever have to deal with. As others have pointed out, you'd be better off spending the immense amounts of money that it would cost to do that and buying a car that's more focused for the track. If you're worried about performance off the track, the single clutch is more than sufficient for any kind of screen shenanigans.

 

Yes. But those are made of metal, not carbon tubs, and they're extremely cheap, not several hundred thousand dollars. Not to mention the extreme complexity of dual clutch transmissions, ECUs, etc. Not really the same thing at all.

Why do you have DSGs that much?

The problem with the Dry Clutch DSG, is if you live in damp weathers like Denmark, then Micro slip, is an issue. 

 

it was really bad, and still is on my Passat, when it was new from factory it slipped up to 200-300rpm for 30minutes until REALLY Dry, and VW tried to refer to it being a "part" of owning a DSG... and that i could just force shift a lot, so it would only be 10-15 minutes. at 27.000km i got the upgraded clutch with a better grip, but it shifts hard, so it is not comfortable (and still has microslip, just the small kind, not 200-300rpm).. in Denmark, the issue is nearly all dry clutch DSG´s so there are forum threads on 600-900 pages refering to cars with this issue.

 

i have yet to drive a VAG car with the 7-Speed DSG that does not in some way have micro slip. (but most are just "low amount" so you can just feel the DSG Slipping until it gets hot..

 

a Clutch not under warrenty in denmark is 26.000kr = that is over 4000 Dollars for that.. if it was not under warrenty..

 

i would much rather own a CVT that works that this piece of crap, even though i hate the CVT, would even own a old Citroen pneumatic automatic...

 

if you live in a hot climate, this is not an issue. but these are german cars, not southern european so they should work in damp enviroments, VW has updated the DSQ (DSG) gearbox, to now not be dry.. so the issue should be solved, on certain new VW´s i think the Mark 7.5 150Hp 1.5 TSI had one of the good gearboxes.