rather than a true hydraulic transmission in locomotive where the engine
drives a hydraulic pump which sends high pressure oil to turbines attached
to wheels - ie with no mechnical connection between engine and wheels.

None do this - choice between a powershifting conventional type gearbox as
in the Hymek, or multiple torque converters filled and unfilled with oil as
fitted to Westerns

Epicyclics only used with small engines.

Sprinter things AFAIK use choice of torque converter then lock up top.

Aghh electric transmission is easy in comparison only field diverts to worry
about.

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message ws.com...
I was trying to keep up. I was stating a fact - that in the UK, very few
makes of car (certainly of the Ford Escort size) are available with both
diesel engine and automatic transmission. I surmised (perhaps wrongly) that
there may be technical reasons for this, and that the possible lack of
support for automatic transmission with a diesel car may be one of the
factors for them being less popular in the States.

I doubt its technical reasons , after all most busses have autoboxes and
even some trucks. Its probably got more to do with car diesels being
rather underpowered and if you shove an automatic on them there performance
would probably come down to arthritic tortoise level plus their mpg would
drop which is the only point in owning a diesel in the first place. The few
diesel cars that do have auto transmissions are generally large and generally
have crap mpg.

B2003

In message , Boltar
writes

I doubt its technical reasons , after all most busses have autoboxes
and even some trucks. Its probably got more to do with car diesels
being rather underpowered and if you shove an automatic on them there
performance would probably come down to arthritic tortoise level plus
their mpg would drop which is the only point in owning a diesel in the
first place. The few diesel cars that do have auto transmissions are
generally large and generally have crap mpg.

B2003
There speaks an unbiased petrol head.
--
Clive

In article , Dave Plowman writes:
In article ,
D.P.Round wrote:
Petrol engines are cheap to make which is why they are used in cars.

That's just bollox.

Which bit? Petrol engines are cheap to make? They are simpler and use
less materials. Petrol engins are used in everything from a chainsaw
size to car sized. In this range their cost of manufacture, simplicity
and weight are more important than their efficiency.

Or they are used in cars because they are cheaper? I don't know many
people, excepting those who have a luxury car, who would not choose a
diesel car over a petrol one if they were the same price. Diesels are
consistently more expensive like for like and towards the bottom
of the market this becomes more pronounced.

Everything else uses diesel.

Because everything else is some form of commercial vehicle where driver
enjoyment and or refinement doesn't matter?


No, because efficiency is important. Refinement does matter but the efficiency
gap becomes too significant to ignore at that scale.

--
*"I am " is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

David

--
****** David Round - EMail Tel (01248) 382416 *****
*****These are my own views, I represent nobody (Well maybe myself)*****
***********I guarantee nothing - Particularly the spelling**************