 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / February 2005Simultaneous Application of Gas and Brake Pedals
As strange as it might seem, the potentially disasterous application of throttle and brake is not limited to old ladies pulling into a parking space in front of a beauty shop. Examine and quantify the geometric positions of the brake pedal and accelerator pedal in a current series production car. Do the same in a 1950 model. You will note a striking difference. In early cars, the brake pedal was a considerable distance to the left and more importantly, much HIGHER than the accelerator pedal. It is virtually impossible for the right foot to press on both at the same time. The shoed foot is simply not large enough to accomplish this. Now look at a modern car. The brake and accelerator pedal have little or no difference in height. This was necessitated by the low seating arrangement and also the narrower space available due to the center console. Is is entirely possible for the right foot to press on both pedals at the same time. Try it. The reason why the brake does not overpower the engine in many cases has to do with the angle of application. The driver impulse is to press harder on the "brake", but in doing so he opens the throttle further. As the throttle opens further, the angle of the foot on the brake pedal becomes more and more acute, lessening the force of application. You can try this out safely on a large parking lot. Try various wrong applications and you will soon find one which causes the accident causing lurching. Auto companies should address this issue with more rigor. > Now look at a modern car. The brake and accelerator pedal have > little or no difference in height. Is is entirely possible for > the right foot to press on both pedals at the same time. The heavy duty floor mat (Mopar brand, which I use in the winter) in my 300M tends to creep forward and up against the center console - which means it gets up and behind (and to the right) of the accelerator pedal. This reduces the amount of foot-space to the immediate right of the accelerator pedal and moves the right foot a little to the left instead of being centered on the accelerator pedal. I've found that in this position I brush against the *back* of the brake pedal when pulling back on the gas. All in all I'd have to agree that there should be more spacing between the gas and brake pedal. But I think that it's a manditory design criteria that the brake system of any car is supposed to be able to over-power the engine in all situations. Back in the days when you had a spring that pulled back on the throttle plate, if that spring broke you could have WOT (wide-open-throttle). I can't imagine the braks system of any car not being able to stop the wheels from turing - even in that situation. Couldn't in my 1967 GTO. The engine torque far overpowered any brake pressure I could place on the brake pedal. Now the car wouldn't actually move (the front brakes kept it in place)...but it would sure billow plenty of smoke from the spinning rear tires! >Couldn't in my 1967 GTO. The engine torque far overpowered any brake >pressure I could place on the brake pedal. Now the car wouldn't actually >move (the front brakes kept it in place)...but it would sure billow plenty >of smoke from the spinning rear tires! And if it had been front wheel drive? That's the rub with many of todays high powered vehicles. You have antilock brakes that are made as small as they can get away with to keep the weight down (and since they have antilock, it is hard to overwork them anyway) and now we have cars with more horsepower than the old muscle cars. The power brakes are engine vacuum operated, and the vacuum goes for a dump when the engine is under load. So, yes, there are MANY cars on the road today that would have a hard time restraining the engine with the brakes even well below full throttle. > And if it had been front wheel drive? Isn't more braking power put to the front wheels of a car due to the weight distribution properties during stoping? I don't know the ratios, though. > That's the rub with many of todays high powered vehicles. You have > antilock brakes that are made as small as they can get away with to > keep the weight down (and since they have antilock, it is hard to > overwork them anyway) How do you figure? Antilock does not help with heat tolerance or dissipation. > and now we have cars with more horsepower than > the old muscle cars. The power brakes are engine vacuum operated, and > the vacuum goes for a dump when the engine is under load. Yes, but you should still have pressure for at least a couple brake presses stored up in the system - same as if the engine stops while driving.  SignatureScott Ehardt http://www.scehardt.com > > And if it had been front wheel drive? > > Isn't more braking power put to the front wheels of a car due to the weight > distribution properties during stoping? I don't know the ratios, though. Yup, the ratios are appx 85/15 for FWD and appx 60/40 for RWD > > That's the rub with many of todays high powered vehicles. You have > > antilock brakes that are made as small as they can get away with to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Yes, but you should still have pressure for at least a couple brake presses > stored up in the system - same as if the engine stops while driving. Correct, there is a vacuum check valve in the booster inlet that should prevent the vacuum from dumping out when the engine is under load. It usually takes between 8 and 10 (and sometimes more) pedal pumps to deplete the stored vacuum in a brake booster with the engine not running. >> And if it had been front wheel drive? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >How do you figure? Antilock does not help with heat tolerance or >dissipation. No, but because antilock brakeswork smoother if they don't lock in the first place, manufacturers tend to install smaller less effective brakes on cars with antilock as standard. >> and now we have cars with more horsepower than >> the old muscle cars. The power brakes are engine vacuum operated, and >> the vacuum goes for a dump when the engine is under load. > >Yes, but you should still have pressure for at least a couple brake presses >stored up in the system - same as if the engine stops while driving. >> And if it had been front wheel drive? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > How do you figure? Antilock does not help with heat tolerance or > dissipation. I agree. If anything it would make it worse (assuming locked brakes vs. ABS stop). If the wheels aren't locked while stopping, all the energy is going into frictional heat between pads and the rotors. If the wheels are locked, there is no energy being released as heat in the brakes, they aren't moving, so it all goes to the tires and the pavement. >>Couldn't in my 1967 GTO. The engine torque far overpowered any brake >>pressure I could place on the brake pedal. Now the car wouldn't actually [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the old muscle cars. The power brakes are engine vacuum operated, and > the vacuum goes for a dump when the engine is under load. Horsepower doesn't matter much in this case, it is torque that matters and only a few cars today have torque ratings above the muscle cars of the 60s. > So, yes, there are MANY cars on the road today that would have a hard > time restraining the engine with the brakes even well below full > throttle. I guess it depends on how you define many. I don't think any four cylinders and probably precious few V-6s can do this. Sure, the large V-8s probably can generate enough torque to overcome the brakes on the drive wheels, but I'd have to try it to be sure. The logic that suggests that few cars can do this is simple. Look at how long it takes (in time, not distance) to accelerate a car to 60 MPH. That tells you how fast energy is being put into the motion of the car. Most cars take 6 or more seconds. Now look at how long it takes to stop the same car from 60 MPH. It will often be half this time or less. This tells you that you can remove that same amount of energy with the braks about twice as fast (or more in most cars) as you can put it in with the engine. This gives you a rough suggestion that the brakes are substantially more powerful than the engine. Now, of course, you have to factor in that the engine is working on typically only two wheels and thus may be wheel spin limited initially, but that only applies to cars that are fairly high performance. The brakes are working on all four wheels, however, mostly on the front due to weight transfer. Even so, I'll bet that only a few vehicles have engines with sufficient torque to overcome the brakes on even two wheels, and certainly won't overcome all four as the Audi proponents originally claimed. Keep in mind that most torque convertors stall at less than 2,000 RPM so you can't consider the engines peak torque, but must look at the torque available at whatever the stall RPM is for that car's TC. This will typically be much less than the peak torque. Matt >>>Couldn't in my 1967 GTO. The engine torque far overpowered any brake >>>pressure I could place on the brake pedal. Now the car wouldn't actually [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >Matt And the torque at the wheels is typically in the range of 9 to 15 times crankshaft torque with a standard transmission, and higher with a torque converter equipped car. From a dead stop not many cars can overcome the brakes, but when attempting to stop at speed, even relatively low speed, and hitting the accelerator at the same time, it is a bit different story. >>>>Couldn't in my 1967 GTO. The engine torque far overpowered any brake >>>>pressure I could place on the brake pedal. Now the car wouldn't actually [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > attempting to stop at speed, even relatively low speed, and hitting > the accelerator at the same time, it is a bit different story. I've yet to drive a car or truck that couldn't stop from any speed up to 60 MPH with WOT. I've never tried faster speeds, not even in my teenage days. :-) Matt >>>Couldn't in my 1967 GTO. The engine torque far overpowered any brake >>>pressure I could place on the brake pedal. Now the car wouldn't actually >>>move (the front brakes kept it in place)...but it would sure billow plenty >>>of smoke from the spinning rear tires! I've seen a Dodge Aspen do this. True, it was a 1980 model police package with the 360 4-bbl and a monster exhaust. It could be held with the brakes and spin both back tires. -- Jeff Wieland >And if it had been front wheel drive? >That's the rub with many of todays high powered vehicles. You have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the old muscle cars. The power brakes are engine vacuum operated, and >the vacuum goes for a dump when the engine is under load. Huh??? If anything brakes have gotten bigger, not smaller. Especially since larger wheels are so popular nowadays. You end up with a lot of room under the rim to put in bigger brakes. Also, the anitlock system does not give the brakes more braking capacity. If the brakes heat up to the point they start to fade, anti lock systems are not going to help. >So, yes, there are MANY cars on the road today that would have a hard >time restraining the engine with the brakes even well below full >throttle. No there are not. You can easily test the theory out. Mash the gas pedal to the floor. Then mash the brake as hard as you can. I guarantee you the car will eventually stop. -------------- Alex > >And if it had been front wheel drive? > >That's the rub with many of todays high powered vehicles. You have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > does not give the brakes more braking capacity. If the brakes heat up > to the point they start to fade, anti lock systems are not going to help. Also, of course, there's a check valve in the brake booster, so even if you had no vacuum whatever in the intake manifold you'd have several stops before you lost power assist (not arguing with you, pointing out another reason you're right). SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer > Couldn't in my 1967 GTO. The engine torque far overpowered any brake > pressure I could place on the brake pedal. Well, sure, but that was when Deet-riot was still selling cars with 300 horsepower and 9-1/2" drum brakes at all four corners. > Well, sure, but that was when Deet-riot was still selling cars with > 300 horsepower and 9-1/2" drum brakes at all four corners. 300 HP not necessarily at the wheels. Even 300HP was exaggerated. Drum brakes are more efficient (hydraulically speaking) at braking than disk brakes. Way more surface area too. But more prone to fade (which does not come into play in the current context). >> Well, sure, but that was when Deet-riot was still selling cars with >> 300 horsepower and 9-1/2" drum brakes at all four corners. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > than disk brakes. Way more surface area too. But more prone to fade > (which does not come into play in the current context). Both true. I've always found manual drum brakes quite capable. Detroit used to make some cars with 300 gross hp, but not very many. Not like now! I think cars today, on average, have more power than they ever had before, on average. If you look at the big performers, of course it's far more obvious. Several on the market with 400 hp, NET. Find a muscle car with that. >>>Well, sure, but that was when Deet-riot was still selling cars with >>>300 horsepower and 9-1/2" drum brakes at all four corners. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Both true. I've always found manual drum brakes quite capable... That's because of the "self-energizing" property of drum brakes. The geometry of the pivot point is designed such that the small amount of friction applied due to the pedal pressure gets amplified by rotating the shoe into the drum harder (a multiplication effect, a mechanical "power brake"). The downside of power brakes, which is a necessity with disk brakes because they do not have the designed-in mechanical amplification, is that after one or two pumps of the pedal while under throttle, your vacuum reserve is depleted, and you essentially have no (or extremely weak) brakes - this could become critical if a sudden acceleration situation arises (due to driver error, floor mat jam, or vehicle controls failure). The mechanics of the drum brake is trotally immune from that loss of amplification. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') > That's because of the "self-energizing" property of drum brakes. > The geometry of the pivot point is designed such that the small > amount of friction applied due to the pedal pressure gets amplified > by rotating the shoe into the drum harder (a multiplication effect, > a mechanical "power brake"). I thought it was because the 100% of the pressure in the brake line is transfered to pushing both brake shoes into the drum (because the wheel cylinder is pushing 2 pistons outward towards the drum out of both sides of the cylinder) vs disk brakes (where half of the pressure is wasted by trying to force open the calipers and the other half is used to push the pads into the rotor). > The downside of power brakes, which is a necessity with disk brakes > because they do not have the designed-in mechanical amplification, > is that after one or two pumps of the pedal while under throttle, -------------------------------------------------------- A condition I can't imagine happening in the field, unless it's one of these hypothetical mysterious run-away full-throttle-while-standing-still cases. Even in that case, you're not going to be pumping the brakes several times (and depleating the vacuum reservior) - you're going to plant your foot on the brake pedal and keep it there. In that case, you're not going to depleat the vacuum. > I thought it was because the 100% of the pressure in the brake line is > transfered to pushing both brake shoes into the drum (because the > wheel cylinder is pushing 2 pistons outward towards the drum out of > both sides of the cylinder) vs disk brakes (where half of the pressure > is wasted by trying to force open the calipers and the other half is > used to push the pads into the rotor). You might want to stop and think about that... there is no "wasted" force in a disk brake caliper, either the single-piston "floating" type or the 4-piston "fixed" type. >> I thought it was because the 100% of the pressure in the brake line is >> transfered to pushing both brake shoes into the drum (because the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > force in a disk brake caliper, either the single-piston "floating" type > or the 4-piston "fixed" type. Well, a self-energizing drum brake does take significantly less line pressure than a disc to develop the same torque at the wheel... I'll grant you that the explanation given above is inaccurate, but in a typical disc with floating shoes and an anchor pin at the top, a lot of the torque generated actually comes from the rotation of the drum forcing the primary (trailing) shoe into the anchor pin. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > ...but in a > typical disc with floating shoes and an anchor pin at the top, a lot of > the torque generated actually comes from the rotation of the drum > forcing the primary (trailing) shoe into the anchor pin. Obviously you meant "but in a typical drum with floating shoes..." 8^) Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') >> ...but in a typical disc with floating shoes and an anchor pin at the >> top, a lot of the torque generated actually comes from the rotation of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > adddress with the letter 'x') Sometimes I amaze myself. Sometimes even in a good way. Sometimes... well, I just amaze myself. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>> I thought it was because the 100% of the pressure in the brake line is >>> transfered to pushing both brake shoes into the drum (because the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > nate The "self energizing" part is true. But no pedal effort is "wasted" because part of a brake caliper is "forced open" >> That's because of the "self-energizing" property of drum brakes. >> The geometry of the pivot point is designed such that the small [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >is wasted by trying to force open the calipers and the other half is >used to push the pads into the rotor). You do not understand hydraulics.Pressure in a closed system is equal and undiminished in all directions, and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. ALL the pressure in a single ended OR double ended cyl is exerted on the pistons. Also, MANY early drum brakes were non-servo, or non self energizing brakes. Huck (early GM) and centerline(early Chrysler) were not. Twin leading shoe brakes of any description are not. The Bendix brake was the first self energizing, or "servo" drum brake. Also known as single leading shoe - the leading shoe contacts the drum first and jams the trailing shoe firmly against the drum through the adjusting link (180 degrees from the cyl). Brakes with fixed anchors opposite the cyl, or dual cyls, can NOT do this. >> The downside of power brakes, which is a necessity with disk brakes >> because they do not have the designed-in mechanical amplification, >> is that after one or two pumps of the pedal while under throttle, > -------------------------------------------------------- >A condition I can't imagine happening in the field, unless it's one of >these hypothetical mysterious run-away [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and keep it there. In that case, you're not going to depleat the >vacuum. Don't bet your life on it.Several years ago (OK, mabee 15 or more) The aftermarket cruise control on my wife's old Corolla wagon stuck at half throttle. By the second attempt to slow it down,there was NO vacuum left, She got around the "rolling roadblock" ahead of her and allowed the vehicle to build some more speed, which reduced the engine load and allowed vacuum to build again - meaning she had one more good application in store. It was only a 1.8, but at 60MPH the brakes could NOT bring the car to a stop with half throttle applied. To slow down she had to shut off the engine, then restart it to keep going (to get off the highway) Just for kicks, I tried on my 94 TransSport 3.8 today. At 40kph, I hit the brake and the throttle at the same time. Any reduction in speed would be very hard to measure.On the second application without lifting the throttle foot the vehicle sped up as I had less boost. I only did a few seconds test, and the brakes were already starting to smell pretty good. And this vehicle stops VERY well. >>>The downside of power brakes, which is a necessity with disk brakes >>>because they do not have the designed-in mechanical amplification, >>>is that after one or two pumps of the pedal while under throttle, > Just for kicks, I tried on my 94 TransSport 3.8 today. At 40kph, I hit > the brake and the throttle at the same time. Any reduction in speed > would be very hard to measure.On the second application without > lifting the throttle foot the vehicle sped up as I had less boost... Bingo! An experiment that the naysayers refuse to try or don't want to admit the results when they did. Under those conditions, by the second or third pump, most boosted disc brakes are less effective than the typical parking brake at slowing the vehicle down. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') >>>> The downside of power brakes, which is a necessity with disk brakes >>>> because they do not have the designed-in mechanical amplification, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > or third pump, most boosted disc brakes are less effective than the > typical parking brake at slowing the vehicle down. Why would you pump the brakes if you were trying to stop a car with the throttle stuck open? Matt P.S. To the owner of the TransSport, better get those brakes fixed. >>>>> The downside of power brakes, which is a necessity with disk brakes >>>>> because they do not have the designed-in mechanical amplification, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > P.S. To the owner of the TransSport, better get those brakes fixed. You can't always explain what a person does in a panic situation - it's not always a logical though process that stands up to critical analysis after the fact. Forensics specialists can probably give you lots of examples of that. I can very easily picture the non-verbal panic thought process going something like "Damn! I'm pushing as hard as I can, and it's still moving - maybe I'm pushing on the wrong thing, or my foots at an angle - I'll take my foot off and jam it as hard as I can squarely on what I'm pretty sure is the brake pedal!!!" Followed by "Oh S***!! It's even worse now." Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') >>That's because of the "self-energizing" property of drum brakes. >>The geometry of the pivot point is designed such that the small [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > these hypothetical mysterious run-away > full-throttle-while-standing-still cases... I guess I have to ask why you snipped the rest of that paragraph where I essentially said exactly that. Continuing from where you snipped my post: "...your vacuum reserve is depleted, and you essentially have no (or extremely weak) brakes - this could become critical if a sudden acceleration situation arises (due to driver error, floor mat jam, or vehicle controls failure). The mechanics of the drum brake is totally immune from that loss of amplification." > ...Even in that case, you're > not going to be pumping the brakes several times (and depleating the > vacuum reservior) - you're going to plant your foot on the brake pedal > and keep it there. In that case, you're not going to depleat the > vacuum. A person in such a panic situation is not only possibly going to pump the brakes, but will very likely do so, only to find the brakes getting very weak by the first pump, and for all intents and purposes, totally gone by the second or third, and the remainder of the event, whatever it turns out to be, will be over in mere seconds. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') > A person in such a panic situation is not only possibly going to > pump the brakes, but will very likely do so I don't understand the thinking behind that. If you jam on the brakes, and you haven't locked up the wheels (because you don't hear the tires squeeling), then why would the typical person *let up on the brakes* and perform a second (or third, etc) application? In a panic situation where you know you haven't locked the wheels, I bet the typical person would keep his foot planted on the brake pedal until the desired degree of deceleration has been achieved. >>A person in such a panic situation is not only possibly going to >>pump the brakes, but will very likely do so [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > bet the typical person would keep his foot planted on the brake pedal > until the desired degree of deceleration has been achieved. People don't always behave logically in panic situations. That's why police find shooting victims with a bullet hole in their hands in their last desperate effort to stop the bullet from striking their face. Does that action on their part make sense? No - for if they survive, it just means an additional injury and/or permanent disability. Both of us are conjecturing what "most" people will do when they jam on the brakes and the brakes are not effective enough. Heck - many people will pump the brakes in any situation out of habit because that's what they used to be taught. I can't prove it, you can't prove your point - we're both speculating. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') > The downside of power brakes, which is a necessity with disk brakes > because they do not have the designed-in mechanical amplification, Why do people keep saying this? Disk brakes DO NOT "require" power assist at all. I much prefer the feel of manual disk brakes to any other braking system out there. My '69 Dodge currently has stock Kelsey-Hayes front disks and stock rear-drums, activated by a MANUAL disk brake master cylinder and a MANUAL pedal linkage. The feel is just wonderful, and really only slightly higher pedal effort than when it had a power booster, MC, and pedal setup. There is much more pedal *travel* which allows finer control over braking with the manual setup. The car stops on a dime. And if that streetable example weren't enough, how do you explain the fact that no NASCAR race cars have a power booster, but they all have 4-wheel DISK brakes??? > > The downside of power brakes, which is a necessity with disk brakes > > because they do not have the designed-in mechanical amplification, > > Why do people keep saying this? The parrot effect, I'm guessing. > Disk brakes DO NOT "require" power assist at all. You are correct. They don't. > I much prefer the feel of manual disk brakes to any other > braking system out there. Well, to be perfectly semantic about it, the only "manual brakes" out there are the ones on vehicles specially modified for the handicapped. But yes, I agree with you, a properly set up and dialled-in unboosted disc system cannot be beaten in terms of pedal feel. > My '69 Dodge currently has stock Kelsey-Hayes > front disks and stock rear-drums, activated by a MANUAL disk brake [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > allows finer control over braking with the manual setup. The car stops > on a dime. Unboosted discs are terrific in slick winter conditions, too. We're looking at deleting the brake booster from my '92 Spirit R/T clone. It'll doubtless take a different master cylinder, but there's an enormous variety of MCs that'll fit. I think the mistake most people make is in thinking that power brakes without boost are the same as unboosted brakes. They're very definitely not. The mechanical advantage of the brake pedal over the cylinder is much greater in an unboosted setup than it is in a power setup. DS > > > The downside of power brakes, which is a necessity with disk brakes > > > because they do not have the designed-in mechanical amplification, > > > > Why do people keep saying this? > > The parrot effect, I'm guessing. Probably because the vast majority of disc brake cars do have power assist - dating back to the first installation of modern discs on American passenger cars in the '63 Studebaker models, where the disc brake package came with a mandatory power booster. > > Disk brakes DO NOT "require" power assist at all. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > DS True, although with a reasonably heavy car it does become almost a necessity to have the power booster because you are trading off pedal travel against line pressure, and both need to be kept at a reasonable level. Personally the only car I've driven with unboosted discs was my '71 914/4, and the feel is spectacular... nate > I think the mistake most people make is in thinking that power brakes > without boost are the same as unboosted brakes. They're very definitely > not. The mechanical advantage of the brake pedal over the cylinder is much > greater in an unboosted setup than it is in a power setup. > > DS Absolutely, the pedal LINKAGE is often different in addition to a different bore size in the master cylinder when comparing power brake and non-power systems for the same model car. In the case of Mopar B-bodies like my '69, the power brake cars had a bellcrank mechanism that moves the master cylinder piston FASTER than the pedal moves. The loss of leverage is more than offset by the power booster... UNTIL the booster quits working and mashing the brake pedal is like stepping on a block of lead. The manual brake pedal linkage is a direct connection from the pedal to the MC piston and has much more mechanical advantage, at the cost of more pedal travel. All other power brake cars have a similar mechanism for reducing pedal travel, or simply attach the pushrod closer to the pedal rather than closer to the pedal hinge (another way of changing leverage)I LIKE the added pedal travel- for one thing it makes "sudden acceleration" a lot less likely (just to tie two threads in a knot... ) ;-p >>>The downside of power brakes, which is a necessity with disk brakes >>>because they do not have the designed-in mechanical amplification, >> >>Why do people keep saying this? > > The parrot effect, I'm guessing. No. The reality of modern consumer vehicles that will be driven by quite a range of ages, mental quickness, and physical strength. I used to drive an International Travelall (similar in size to a Chevy Suburban). Unfortunately the mfgr. figured it didn't need power steering - but, man, you should have tried to parallel park that thing - quit4e a feat even for a teenager. I think there would be similar problems selling a modern vehicle with unpowered disk brakes as selling ones without power steering just due to human factors. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') > >>>The downside of power brakes, which is a necessity with disk brakes > >>>because they do not have the designed-in mechanical amplification, > >>Why do people keep saying this? > > The parrot effect, I'm guessing. > No. Rawk! Yes. > The reality of modern consumer vehicles that will be driven by > quite a range of ages, mental quickness, and physical strength. Right, 'cause women and little old men *never* drove before what you arbitrarily consider the "modern" age. Pfft. > I used to drive an International Travelall (similar in size to a Chevy > Suburban). Unfortunately the mfgr. figured it didn't need power > steering No, the original owner decided it didn't need power steering. In any event, that's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which deals with *brakes*. > I think Not hard enough, as it seems. >>The reality of modern consumer vehicles that will be driven by >>quite a range of ages, mental quickness, and physical strength. > > Right, 'cause women and little old men *never* drove before what you > arbitrarily consider the "modern" age. Pfft. Oh - I'm sorry - I thought we were living in the present. How silly of me to exclude cars from 20 and 30 years ago from the here and now. >>I used to drive an International Travelall (similar in size to a Chevy >>Suburban). Unfortunately the mfgr. figured it didn't need power >>steering > > No, the original owner decided it didn't need power steering. In any > event, that's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which deals with *brakes*. No - it was a poorly designed standard package that also included an AMC automatic transmission with no external cooling - fluid needed changing every 20,000 miles - you knew it needed it when the tranny started slipping. They quit making them for a reason. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') >>> The reality of modern consumer vehicles that will be driven by >>> quite a range of ages, mental quickness, and physical strength. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > adddress with the letter 'x') I thought that they used TF727s? or was this an earlier model than the ones I'm familiar with? (early 70's) nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >> I used to drive an International Travelall [...] that also included an >> AMC automatic transmission with no external cooling > I thought that they used TF727s? or was this an earlier model than the > ones I'm familiar with? (early 70's) Putney's remembering things that never existed. AMC bought their automatics from other makers (GM Hydramatics from the early mid '60s through '71, Chrysler Torqueflites starting in '72). >>>I used to drive an International Travelall [...] that also included an >>>AMC automatic transmission with no external cooling [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Putney's remembering things that never existed. False - I remember what I was told, and it probably was true. > AMC bought their > automatics from other makers (GM Hydramatics from the early mid '60s > through '71, Chrysler Torqueflites starting in '72). The same tranny apparently was used in AMC's - possibly with certain AMC-specific options. In either case where does the "never existed" part come in? Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') >>>> I used to drive an International Travelall [...] that also included an >>>> AMC automatic transmission with no external cooling [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > AMC-specific options. In either case where does the "never existed" > part come in? I believe AMC *did* use a close relative of the Studebaker Flightomatic (made by Borg-Warner) at the time, and the standard duty version of that tranny was *not* watercooled. The HD version of that would probably have been suitable for use in a truck, but why they would have used the non-watercooled version I don't know. (note that this is all from furry memory, so don't take anything I say as gospel. I also don't know a whole lot about the AMC version of that tranny.) nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > I believe AMC *did* use a close relative of the Studebaker Flightomatic > (made by Borg-Warner) at the time, and the standard duty version of that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > memory, so don't take anything I say as gospel. I also don't know a > whole lot about the AMC version of that tranny.) Thanks, Nate. That would go along with what I was told. Also strange about no water cooling was that the Travelall (or as my dad called it, the Troubleall) was popular and known for its great trailer towing abilities (you used to see those huge Air Streams behind them), though most likely there was an optional "trailer towing package" that mine didn't have. I did mitigate the ATF problem by installing a cooling coil behind the rear axle. The tranny had fittings for a cooling loop, but there was simply a short metal 'U' pipe from the gozinta and gozouta fittings. I removed that pipe and ran rubber lines to the cooler. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') >> I believe AMC *did* use a close relative of the Studebaker >> Flightomatic (made by Borg-Warner) at the time, and the standard duty [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > adddress with the letter 'x') Now that is bizarre. the tranny I'm thinking of had no provisions for external cooling at all in standard form, it was cooled through shaped fins on the torque converter. The HD version *did* have cooling line fittings, but then it was always used with the appropriate radiator with built in cooler. (speaking for Studebakers only, not any other vehicles.) nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>> I believe AMC *did* use a close relative of the Studebaker >>> Flightomatic (made by Borg-Warner) at the time, and the standard duty [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > nate Well apparently the IH factory got the HD version for other beefed up internals and they simply did not put the cooling loop in, which it needed as evidenced by the fluid cooking every 20k. Perhaps that would have been part of the trailer towing package. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') AMC and RAMBLER used tranny's that did not have extarnal cooling through the sixties. The "Typhoon six" which is now called 4.0 liter in Jeeps was orginally sold with Borg Warners. The V8 versions had a goofy finned Tourque converters. The Heavy Duty or Torque Tube Transmissions on Trucks and early sixties V-8's were even more "Special". I've got both versions downstairs in my garage if u got a hankerin fer a picture Torqueflight 904's 998's and 727's were used post 1971. > >>> I believe AMC *did* use a close relative of the Studebaker > >>> Flightomatic (made by Borg-Warner) at the time, and the standard duty [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > adddress with the letter 'x') >>>>> I used to drive an International Travelall [...] that also included an >>>>> AMC automatic transmission with no external cooling [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >nate My memory is about the same. In the late 60s they were using a Borg-Warner auto. It shifted firmly and early compared to later day automatics. I really liked AMC's drive trains but can't say I was much impressed by the bodies. Lots of vehicles used air cooled ATs back then, I know my Mom's 64 Chevelle used an air cooled powerglide behind a HO 283. When it shifted at WOT the whole car jumped. -- Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 > > AMC bought their automatics from other makers (GM Hydramatics from the > > early mid '60s through '71, Chrysler Torqueflites starting in '72). > > In either case where does the "never existed" part come in? The part where there was any such a thing as an "AMC automatic transmission". >>>AMC bought their automatics from other makers (GM Hydramatics from the >>>early mid '60s through '71, Chrysler Torqueflites starting in '72). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The part where there was any such a thing as an "AMC automatic > transmission". Any reasonable person would accept referring to a transmission that was used in AMC vehicles as an AMC transmission. Key word being "reasonable". Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') >>>> AMC bought their automatics from other makers (GM Hydramatics from the >>>> early mid '60s through '71, Chrysler Torqueflites starting in '72). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Any reasonable person would accept referring to a transmission that was > used in AMC vehicles as an AMC transmission. Key word being "reasonable". 'Scuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor! I've *NEVER* run anto anyone who thought AMC ever built their own transmissions before. >>>>> AMC bought their automatics from other makers (GM Hydramatics from the >>>>> early mid '60s through '71, Chrysler Torqueflites starting in '72). [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I've *NEVER* run anto anyone who thought AMC ever built their own > transmissions before. And you still haven't. 8^) I was told that the trannies used in AMC vehicles (in my terminiology "AMC trannies") were what was used in the subject vehicle. At least two people reading did not take that to mean that AMC built those trannies. I wasn't intentionally being ambiguous, but I figured that anyone who knew the score would take it to mean what I had intended. So let's see. To apply this rule, no one can ever refer to a wheel that fits Chevrolet vehicles (as well as certain other brands) as a "Chevrolet wheel", or a wheel that fits a Chrysler vehicle (as well as certain other brands) as a "Chrysler wheel"? Is that what we're saying here? Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') >>>>AMC bought their automatics from other makers (GM Hydramatics from the >>>>early mid '60s through '71, Chrysler Torqueflites starting in '72). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Any reasonable person would accept referring to a transmission that was > used in AMC vehicles as an AMC transmission. Key word being "reasonable". Only if they had no clue how parts are sourced and put together, or what the difference between a part made by a company & just installed. Anyone who thinks International Harvester products were *under* engineered has no concept of what they are talking about. I say this as the owner of a forty year old four cyl. scout that came factory with sodium filled valves, just because it seemed like the way to do it. Bernard > Anyone who thinks International Harvester products were *under* > engineered has no concept of what they are talking about. There is that, but I didn't pick on Putney for it 'cause his claim that "AMC automatic transmissions" was crying out louder for attention. They did have their downsides, chief amongst which was parts interchangeability. Ever look at the Hollander Interchange Manual for just about any "light duty" IH product? Six different and non-interchangeable front brake drums for one model, for instance, depending on production date! But yeah, IH was never *ever* known for putting out marginally-engineered products before the company failed and was reborn as "Navistar". > I say this as the owner of a forty year old four cyl. scout that came > factory with sodium filled valves, just because it seemed like the way > to do it. Yup. Very typical of IH. DS >>Anyone who thinks International Harvester products were *under* >>engineered has no concept of what they are talking about. > > There is that, but I didn't pick on Putney for it 'cause his claim that > "AMC automatic transmissions" was crying out louder for attention. Ignoring the fact that I never said they were under-engineered, though I did point out that they put an automotive tranny in a tank with no cooler on it that needed fluid replacement every 20k miles. Yeah - I would call that particular feature under-engineered, though I had not called it that. Grossly under-engineered here, grossly over-engineered everywhere else - maybe the correct term for them would be "very unbalanced" (which is by definition "not competitive" as time proved). Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') > Anyone who thinks International Harvester products were > *under* engineered has no concept of what they are talking about. 100% agreed on that one. The IH 345 is one of the most amazingly tough engines I've ever seen. Pretty comparable overall to the truck/industrial versions of the Mopar big-blocks of the 60s and 70s (the 413 and 361 in particular). >> Anyone who thinks International Harvester products were >> *under* engineered has no concept of what they are talking about. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > truck/industrial versions of the Mopar big-blocks of the 60s and 70s > (the 413 and 361 in particular). My dad had a whole fleet of their trucks in his mechanical contracting business. One small pickup truck had a four cylinder engine. It was obvious that they had taken the mold for casting a 304 CI V-8 and blocked off one whole side of the mold to create the 4-banger. We used to laugh at that. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') >>> Anyone who thinks International Harvester products were >>> *under* engineered has no concept of what they are talking about. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > off one whole side of the mold to create the 4-banger. We used to laugh > at that. Yes, you keep laughing, I am still driving one. It is forty three years old, and I still hop in and drive it whenever I need to. It has been the most reliable vehicle I have owned (and I have owned alot) in the twenty two years since I got the first one. Bernard >>> Anyone who thinks International Harvester products were >>> *under* engineered has no concept of what they are talking about. I worked for a "corn binder" dealer in the early seventies, and my impression then and now, was "under engineered and over built". They were dirt simple, rock solid, butt ugly, almost indestructible, crude, purpose built machinery. They were elegent in their simplicity, and if the ultimate test of engineering is not that nothing more can be added, but rather that nothing more can be removed, then you could say they were well engineered. >> 100% agreed on that one. The IH 345 is one of the most amazingly tough >> engines I've ever seen. Pretty comparable overall to the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >adddress with the letter 'x') >>>> Anyone who thinks International Harvester products were >>>> *under* engineered has no concept of what they are talking about. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > nothing more can be removed, then you could say they were well > engineered. For a sports car, that would be *under* engineered, for a truck expected to stand up to poor treatment, poor maintinence, poor fuel, etc.. and keep running and running I think that is a pretty good definition of what the target should be, IMHO. Bernard >>>>>AMC bought their automatics from other makers (GM Hydramatics from the >>>>>early mid '60s through '71, Chrysler Torqueflites starting in '72). [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > put together, or what the difference between a part made > by a company & just installed. So you would *never* refer to certain wheels in a junk yard as "Chevrolet wheels" or "Ford wheels". You would first find out who manufactured the wheels and reference them that way. Or how about cell phone chargers? If I wanted to buy a charger for my Motorola cell phone, I would walk into a store and ask for a Kikosuki charger because they are the company who made it, and the store owner would immediately know it was for a Motorola phone even thought Kikosuki makes chargers for 3 other brands of cell phones. Let's get real. > Anyone who thinks International Harvester products were > *under* engineered has no concept of what they are talking about. Well - I agree with you on the under-engineered part - except for that tranny. It was ridiculous to put that tranny in that heavy a vehicle with no cooler. The proof in that pudding was having to replace the fluid every 20k miles in a time when no one ever changed ATF. The over-engineered aspect of the IH vehicles was also their demise - their trucks and Travelalls could not compete with the lighter vehicles. Nor could the Scout compete witht he lighter more nimble competition. Not saying over-engineering is necessarily bad, just not competitive in a very competitive consumer market. BTW - I did things to that Travelall that would have totally done in many other vehciles, so I hear you on the over-engineered thing. It was heavier than anything. IH dealers used to brag that "our engines are 600 pounds heavier than the equivalent Ford engine!" And that's what did them in. Same with the 1942 Gravely tractor that I used to cut the grass while growing up. > I say this as the owner of a forty year old four cyl. scout that came > factory with sodium filled valves, just because it seemed like > the way to do it. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') >>> Any reasonable person would accept referring to a transmission that >>> was used in AMC vehicles as an AMC transmission. > > Only if they had no clue how parts are sourced and put together, or > > what the difference between a part made by a company & just installed. > So you would *never* refer to certain wheels in a junk yard as > "Chevrolet wheels" or "Ford wheels". Sure you would. But you wouldn't refer to an "AMC starter" (it's a Delco) or an "AMC alternator" (it's a Motorola) or an "AMC carburetor" (it's a Carter or a Holley) or an "AMC transmission" (it's a Hydramatic or a Torqueflite). You *would*, however, refer to an "AMC engine". I'm sure you can understand the difference. The question is whether you'll choose to admit it. >>>>Any reasonable person would accept referring to a transmission that >>>>was used in AMC vehicles as an AMC transmission. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'm sure you can understand the difference. The question is whether you'll > choose to admit it. Well, you'll have to tell the guy who was knowledgeable enough to know the different applications and conveyed that to me - except he's been dead probably 15 or 20 years. anbd which I understood what he meant - just as people here understood what was meant even though it was not quite up to the Stern standard for truth and excellence. So is it because wheels are round and transmissions and alternators are irregularly shaped that there's a difference in how they are referred to? Just trying to figure out the rules. 8^) Truth is Daniel, knowledgeable people all the time refer to such devices by application even though technically it's not up to your standards, and people all the time understand the information that is being conveyed (which is the goal most of the time. No different I guess in correcting someone when they refer to a "lash adjuster" as a lifter, or talking about torque in pounds, both of which I joke about all the time. Just depends on how anal we all want to be. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') > Well, you'll have to tell the guy who was knowledgeable enough to know > the different applications and conveyed that to me - except he's been [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > talking about torque in pounds, both of which I joke about all the time. > Just depends on how anal we all want to be. Hmmm - speaking of being anal - looking back at what I just posted - was a time I would have been mortified at the typos I made in that masterpiece. Oh well. In too much of a hurry. (and look at that - two incomplete sentences in a row! Wuff! Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') > So is it because wheels are round and transmissions and alternators are > irregularly shaped that there's a difference in how they are referred to? > Just trying to figure out the rules. 8^) Nope, the difference is in how they are sourced and installed and how parts are cataloged for them. If you need an alternator for your BMW you may be asked if it is a Bosch unit or a Marshal because the alternator was purchased seperately and installed by BMW, not manufatured by them. If you have a honda, and you need a cap and rotor, you will need to know who made your distributor, TEC or Hitachi, or perhaps Mitsuba. just calling it a "Honda distributor" will make the parts counter guy laugh, but will not get you the part > Truth is Daniel, knowledgeable people all the time refer to such devices > by application even though technically it's not up to your standards, Not always, and specifically not in automotive applications > and people all the time understand the information that is being conveyed Nope, not always (which is the goal most of the time. No different I guess in > correcting someone when they refer to a "lash adjuster" as a lifter, or > talking about torque in pounds, both of which I joke about all the time. > Just depends on how anal we all want to be. You must be an engineer, lots of theory, no practical application as applies to automotive. I know that some of the people who plst are engineers, but I have seen to much of this "really informed mis-information" from that particular class in my sixteen years of selling auto parts in Seattle (Boeing country) to miss making the observation. Bernard >> So is it because wheels are round and transmissions and alternators are >> irregularly shaped that there's a difference in how they are referred to? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >just calling it a "Honda distributor" will make the parts counter guy >laugh, but will not get you the part No, you will ask for an alternator to fit a sept 1994 production (or a an "N" code) Honda Civic SE, or whatever, and IF more than one manufacturer was used on that model and production date, the counterman will ask which one it is, as the alternator, or distributor, or starter or whatever is built by these several different companies SPECIFICALLY to HONDA specs. The mounting ear location may fit ONLY a certain Honda engine, and nothing else. And for wheels, it is just as correct to refer to say, a 4 boltX 98mm 13X5" J3 rim with negative offset as to say it is a Fiat 128L rim. (numbets may be off a bit, but 4X98 it is. Or Chrysler 5X100mm, or GM 5X115, or Ford/AMC/Mopar 5X4.5? DOes not matter what the original application was if it has the right bolt pattern, size, and offset. >> Truth is Daniel, knowledgeable people all the time refer to such devices >> by application even though technically it's not up to your standards, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Bernard >>> So is it because wheels are round and transmissions and alternators are >>> irregularly shaped that there's a difference in how they are referred [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > different companies SPECIFICALLY to HONDA specs. The mounting ear > location may fit ONLY a certain Honda engine, and nothing else. Not true, alternators may be used on BMW, or Volvo, or Volkswagon that are the same part number. Distributor caps that fit a Subaru may also be found on a Toyota. Don't take my word for it (since I have only been ASE certified P2 for ten freekin' years) open up a buyers guide for Standard,Niehoff, any tune up parts manufacterer. Then look in the back of a buyers guide for rotating electrical (alternators & starters) and see what the application listings are by part number. A little knowledge..... Bernard >>>> So is it because wheels are round and transmissions and alternators are >>>> irregularly shaped that there's a difference in how they are referred [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Not true, alternators may be used on BMW, or Volvo, or Volkswagon >that are the same part number. This is/was common in European vehicles - but is NOT universally true. >Distributor caps that fit a Subaru may also be found on a Toyota. The cap and rotor, yes. The distributor itself, no. Both alternators and distributors CAN be very specific to a very limited range of vehicles. >Don't take my word for it (since I have only been ASE certified P2 >for ten freekin' years) And I've been a (Canadian interprovincial)licenced auto mechanic since 1971 and was service manager for a Toyota dealer for 10 of those years. > open up a buyers guide for Standard,Niehoff, >any tune up parts manufacterer. Then look in the back of a buyers guide for >rotating electrical (alternators & starters) and see what the application >listings are by part number. > >A little knowledge..... can make some young squirts overconfident. >Bernard >>So is it because wheels are round and transmissions and alternators are >>irregularly shaped that there's a difference in how they are referred to? >>Just trying to figure out the rules. 8^) > > Nope, the difference is in how they are sourced and installed > and how parts are cataloged for them. I understand that. > If you need an alternator > for your BMW you may be asked if it is a Bosch unit or a Marshal > because the alternator was purchased seperately and installed by BMW, > not manufatured by them. I understand that. > If you have a honda, and you need a cap and rotor, you will need to know > who made your distributor, TEC or Hitachi, or perhaps Mitsuba. > just calling it a "Honda distributor" will make the parts counter guy > laugh, but will not get you the part I understand that. >>Truth is Daniel, knowledgeable people all the time refer to such devices >>by application even though technically it's not up to your standards, > > Not always, and specifically not in automotive applications Yes - frequently. Chevrolet wheel, Chrysler transmission, etc., etc., etc. To hear you and Daniel, I get the impression that if someone posted a statement like "Hi guys. I hear that Chrysler transmissions of the early and mid 90's were trouble-prone" that you would be totally puzzled about what the person meant by "Chrysler transmissions", when everybody else would know exactly what was meant. >>and people all the time understand the information that is being conveyed > > Nope, not always It's done all the time. Again, Chevrolet wheels, Chrysler transmissions, etc., etc., etc. > (which is the goal most of the time. No different I guess in > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You must be an engineer, lots of theory, no practical > application as applies to automotive. You missed it on this one. I knew enough even as a teenager in the sixties to know that when a mecahnic told me that my Travelall had an AMC transmission in it that it had the same transmission that was used in AMC vehicles. Sounds pretty practical to me. > I know that some of the people who plst are engineers, > but I have seen to much of this "really informed mis-information" > from that particular class in my sixteen years of selling > auto parts in Seattle (Boeing country) to miss making the > observation. Oh - so other "classes" of people are immune from that. B.S. So you're saying I should use pounds as a unit of torque? What's practical about that? Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') > I knew enough even as a teenager in the sixties to know that when a > mecahnic told me that my Travelall had an AMC transmission in it that it > had the same transmission that was used in AMC vehicles. Sounds pretty > practical to me. try this as an explination (lifted from the IH digest page) http://www.binderbulletin.org/faq/18.htm#9 Begin quote > Re: t-409 band adjustment tools Dana Fisher -- 1/10/2000, 3:33 p.m. The T-409 automatic transmission is a heavy duty cast iron unit made by Borg-Warner. AMC called it a flash-o-matic. The T 39 and T 49 are the same just not as heavy duty in the servo and planetary area. This style goes way back to the 50's with IHC T26 T28. They got better over the years but were quite heavy and I think Warner quit making them in 1971 or there abouts--IH being about the only user. Ford also used this design but used linkage for the kick-down not electrical [ Ford Model FMX ]. I think Japan even copied it but shrunk the mold somewhat. end quote Made by borg warner, they are an independant company that makes MANY transmissions for MANY auto and truck manufacturers. Apparently it was also purchased by AMC, but was, in fact not an AMC trans. Small point perhaps, but laziness annoys some people. <snip my ad. hom attack on engineers> > Oh - so other "classes" of people are immune from that. B.S. Nope, just saying you seemed like a particularly bad type of nut-job that I had run into before. > So you're saying I should use pounds as a unit of torque? What's > practical about that? See? that sentance makes absolutely NO sense. >>I knew enough even as a teenager in the sixties to know that when a >>mecahnic told me that my Travelall had an AMC transmission in it that it [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Nope, just saying you seemed like a particularly bad > type of nut-job that I had run into before. Yes - I know your type too, if you want to start stereotyping people - the guy, who for whatever reason did not get a college education, and stupidly feels inferior to those who did and so looks for reasons to cut those whom he feels inferior to down to try to feel better about himself. I'm still amazed that all of this is over a simple statement that I was told that the vehicle I drove as a teenager had an "AMC transmission". While, for non-professional conversation, it was perfectly adequate for conveying what was meant, you are looking at it as an opportunity to nit-pic the precise meaning of. You don't really believe that you don't know what someone means when they say an early- or mid-90's Chrysler trasnmission? I suppose you have some convuluted explanation why that isn't the same as a statement of that day of saying the vehicle used an AMC transmission? Yes - I also know your type very well. >>So you're saying I should use pounds as a unit of torque? What's >>practical about that? > > See? that sentance makes absolutely NO sense. I was just trying to find examples of what you were nebulously claiming about impracticalities in what I had said previously that put me into your stereotypical view of engineers. The only thing I could find that you might have been referring to was the example I had given of technical illiterates who express torque values in pounds. You seem to fit the category. So how does it feel to be stereotyped? Are you one of those guys who tries to sell your customers SilverStar bulbs because they are "brighter". Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') >>I knew enough even as a teenager in the sixties to know that when a >>mecahnic told me that my Travelall had an AMC transmission in it that it [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > by AMC, but was, in fact not an AMC trans. Small point > perhaps, but laziness annoys some people. Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of - also used by Studebaker as the "Flightomatic" or "Powershift." nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > To hear you and Daniel, I get the impression that if someone posted a > statement like "Hi guys. I hear that Chrysler transmissions of the > early and mid 90's were trouble-prone" that you would be totally puzzled > about what the person meant by "Chrysler transmissions", when everybody > else would know exactly what was meant. But those were indeed CHRYSLER transmissions. If you said, "I hear mid-70s AMC transmissions were trouble prone," I'd say, "Which do you mean? The GM-built Hydramatic in the full-size Jeep trucks, Cherokee, and Wagoneer, or the Chrysler-built TorqueCommand in the cars?" >> To hear you and Daniel, I get the impression that if someone posted a >> statement like "Hi guys. I hear that Chrysler transmissions of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > trucks, Cherokee, and Wagoneer, or the Chrysler-built TorqueCommand in > the cars?" I guess I chose a bad example then. But *IF* the Chrysler trannies were made by a third party, then people still would understand if the statement were made as I said it. I think this horse is dead about three times over. Thanks for your sensible discussion on this. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') >>> To hear you and Daniel, I get the impression that if someone posted a >>> statement like "Hi guys. I hear that Chrysler transmissions of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I guess I chose a bad example then. I guess that's why it stuck out with me... AMC is a company that NEVER made their own automatic. Its not as if they made some and bought some, they literally never developed one, and thats one of the many oddities about AMC. > But *IF* the Chrysler trannies were > made by a third party, then people still would understand if the > statement were made as I said it. Come to think of it, one of them WAS made by a third party for many years, ending only recently. The Jeep Cherokee (not Grand) had an Asin-Warner automatic, never a Chrysler. > I think this horse is dead about three times over. True enough.... >>So is it because wheels are round and transmissions and alternators are >>irregularly shaped that there's a difference in how they are referred to? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > just calling it a "Honda distributor" will make the parts counter guy > laugh, but will not get you the part... > You must be an engineer, lots of theory, no practical > application as applies to automotive. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > auto parts in Seattle (Boeing country) to miss making the > observation. The stark reality just hit me that you took my comment about the reason for the difference in referencing types of wheels and alternators and transmissions being because wheels are round and alternators and transmissions are irregularly shaped as a serious assertion on my part. LOL! Please tell me that isn't the case. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') > The stark reality just hit me that you took my comment about the reason > for the difference in referencing types of wheels and alternators and > transmissions being because wheels are round and alternators and > transmissions are irregularly shaped as a serious assertion on my part. > > LOL! Please tell me that isn't the case. Nope, just heard misinformation about stuff I do each and every day. >>The stark reality just hit me that you took my comment about the reason >>for the difference in referencing types of wheels and alternators and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Nope, just heard misinformation about stuff I do > each and every day. Examp |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message