 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / April 20061998 Grand Caravan
Just bought a new to me van, 3.3L with O/D and 206,000 Km's, and hope to get some information. It's in great shape, no rust, runs well and gives no hint to any engine/drivability issues at all. My question: Is there anything that is relatively common to this type of van that I should know about, any major problems, or recalls that I should check in to? Any replies will be appreciated, Dave Watch out for your tranny. I know the 1991-95 dodge vans had major tranny issues. I am not sure if they got them fixed or not. I knew someone who put 3 trannies in thier's before they traded it off. great combination we had the 3.3 / 604 in a 91 Dynasty and now in a 93 Voyager check belt tensioner regularly for seizing of the pivot change transmission fluid religiously; make sure there's an o-ring on the new filter keep an eye on transmission cooler lines for leaks at the clamps > Just bought a new to me van, 3.3L with O/D and 206,000 Km's, and hope to get > some information. It's in great shape, no rust, runs well and gives no hint [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Dave Most of the nasty tranny problems from the early 90s were fixed by this time. The main thing is change that fluid! Take it to a competant tranny shop, and have the fluid changed. Depending upon the amount of driving, I would say every couple of years. This service is one where they drop the pan and replace the internal filter. DO NOT let them pressure flush the tranny. DO NOT let ANY shop lay a hand on that transmission if they want to put anything other than ATF +4 fluid in it. Dexron III with Lube-guard DOES NOT CUT IT. Make sure they drop the pan. DO NOT let them just drain and refill with new fluid. The only other problem I have heard of in the late 90s was that there is a main pin inside which can wear and come loose. The car will run fine until the pin completely falls out. If this happens at highway speeds, then the force of the pin will cause it to blast through the side of the transmission casing. This is a VERY expensive repair. I do not know if it is possible for the trans shop to inspect this pin when the pan is dropped, but if it is possible, then you might want to have it checked. I have a 94 GC with that trans. When mine was rebuilt, a special bracket was installed which absolutely prevents this from happening. The pin may come lose and rattle, but it is NOT possible for it to cause any significant damage as reported above. DC knows full well of the problem, and is NOT prepared to assist customers unless the van is fairly new, and within some mileage limit (110,000 kms I think). After that, you are on your own. The 3.3 engine is a total work horse. Periodically check the belt tensioner. With mine, the bearing for the tensioning wheel was starting to go, and squeeking quite loudly. That was around 165,000 kms. Replacing the tensioner is a fairly inexpensive repair. Probably cheaper than a tow! If the tensioner fails, you WILL be stranded and need a tow. Have the front end checked periodically. One fellow locally had ball joints wear out prematurely which caused him a lot of grief. I have had mine regularly inspected, and have yet to come even close to replacing them - so I think this guy was just unlucky. In any case, better safe than sorry. Other than that, enjoy the ride! I love my mini-van. It holds all my kids, all our stuff, has power to spare, and - touch wood - has never left me stranded. Happy motoring. >Just bought a new to me van, 3.3L with O/D and 206,000 Km's, and hope to get >some information. It's in great shape, no rust, runs well and gives no hint [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Dave > Most of the nasty tranny problems from the early 90s were fixed by > this time. The main thing is change that fluid! Take it to a competant [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it. Dexron III with Lube-guard DOES NOT CUT IT. Make sure they drop > the pan. DO NOT let them just drain and refill with new fluid. ATF +4 did not arrive till 2000 ATF +3 is specified, you can use +4 but it's needless expense > The only other problem I have heard of in the late 90s was that there > is a main pin inside which can wear and come loose. The car will run [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > when the pan is dropped, but if it is possible, then you might want to > have it checked. nope; unless they take the differential cover off usually caused by spinning one wheel if on snowy / icy pavement, do NOT allow wheels to start spinning when they 'catch', it will shear off the 'underdrive hub' > I have a 94 GC with that trans. When mine was rebuilt, a special > bracket was installed which absolutely prevents this from happening. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > cheaper than a tow! If the tensioner fails, you WILL be stranded and > need a tow. you need a 15 mm deep socket, 6" extension, swivel, and long extension go at it from underneath > Have the front end checked periodically. One fellow locally had ball > joints wear out prematurely which caused him a lot of grief. I have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > kids, all our stuff, has power to spare, and - touch wood - has never > left me stranded. when descending steep grades, put selector in '3' this locks torque converter and provides engine braking > Happy motoring. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > >Dave Ok, I'm confused . . . . Gary, We ended up buying a rebuilt 604 and installing it after I started having some chest pains again. No heart attack, just a warning. Now we're like that guy in the home loan commercials, in debt up to our eyeballs. Btw, found out the one we took out was a rebuilt unit probably from AAMCO. . . but it lasted 40,000 miles with a 25 year old lead foot driving it in sunny Florida for 25,000 of those miles. I got it programmed pretty easily out on a back road and it seems to be fine. >> Most of the nasty tranny problems from the early 90s were fixed by >> this time. The main thing is change that fluid! Take it to a competant [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ATF +3 is specified, you can use +4 but it's needless expense I have to either order ATF+4 by the case or go to Grand Juction CO to get it as no one will stock it locally. I can get ATF+3 locally. Is there a way to tell if the rebuilt needs the expensive stuff? The Mopar tag on the case says it was originally built in 95. >> The only other problem I have heard of in the late 90s was that there >> is a main pin inside which can wear and come loose. The car will run [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > when they 'catch', it will shear off the 'underdrive hub' Is this something my car can have trouble with? I don't spin tires much anymore, but is it something I should avoid at all costs? >> I have a 94 GC with that trans. When mine was rebuilt, a special >> bracket was installed which absolutely prevents this from happening. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > this locks torque converter and provides engine braking I wish I had this kind of control with my Lebaron. The detents on the transmission shift shaft figure out to be the same as for the vans, but the shifter inside has only P-R-N-D-3-1 positions."3" is a "sport" mode that won't shift into direct until over 50 mph. Budd > Ok, I'm confused . . . . > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > tell if the rebuilt needs the expensive stuff? The Mopar tag on the case > says it was originally built in 95. what did the paperwork with the reman say ? > >> The only other problem I have heard of in the late 90s was that there > >> is a main pin inside which can wear and come loose. The car will run [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Is this something my car can have trouble with? I don't spin tires much > anymore, but is it something I should avoid at all costs? yes > >> I have a 94 GC with that trans. When mine was rebuilt, a special > >> bracket was installed which absolutely prevents this from happening. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > shifter inside has only P-R-N-D-3-1 positions."3" is a "sport" mode that > won't shift into direct until over 50 mph. 3 IS 'direct' just use '3' when descending long grades and save your brakes > Budd > > *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com *** > *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com *** >> Ok, I'm confused . . . . >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > what did the paperwork with the reman say ? "Dexron III / ATF+3" That's why it concerned me. The date of original manufacture for the transwas 95, an ATF+4 unit, but the rebuilder says otherwise. It's got ATF+4 in it and the upshifts are smooth and kickdowns clean and solid. >> >> The only other problem I have heard of in the late 90s was that there >> >> is a main pin inside which can wear and come loose. The car will run [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > yes I was afraid you'd say that. Darn. My wife has decided to start driving again so I'll have to teach her to avoid tire spin. >> >> I have a 94 GC with that trans. When mine was rebuilt, a special >> >> bracket was installed which absolutely prevents this from happening. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > just use '3' when descending long grades and save your brakes My concern was for when I tow a small boat trailer in these mountains or a 1/2 ton trailer load of rubbish out to the transfer station Thanks. Budd >>> Ok, I'm confused . . . . >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >otherwise. It's got ATF+4 in it and the upshifts are smooth and kickdowns >clean and solid. With a transmission that age, you could probably use ATF +3. What I found is that most trans shops don't want to stock different kinds of fluid. Most shops in my area ONLY have Dexron III, and they add "lubeguard" for Chrysler trannys. I have onyl found one or two shops that have "ATF", and they refuse to stock both +3 and +4, so have decided to buy ATF +4. Not sure if they buy it in bulk or not. My experience is similar to yours! I have a 94GC. THe original rebuild had Dexron III + lubeguard in it. It ran "ok" but not great. When I recently had the solenoid pack replaced, I had them drop the pan and replace the internal filter, and refill with ATF +4. My trans now shifts like and absolute dream. Smoother than ever. No more "thump" when dropping into low gear while slowing to a stop. All running perfectly. From my experience, you can't go wrong with ATF +4. How expensive is it really when compared with the cost of pre-mature transmission failure??? ;) >>> >> The only other problem I have heard of in the late 90s was that there >>> >> is a main pin inside which can wear and come loose. The car will run [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > >Budd Even though the torque converter is "locked in" to the mechanical system, this just makes it perform like the trannys did in the "old days" before the lock-out torque converter. There will be SOME breaking, but it will be minimal. Automatic tranmissions are NOT designed to provide engine braking like a manual tranmission is. I agree with the advice though. "3" is the appropriate slection for towing anything through mountains. It will keep the RPMs up slightly and give you the torque you need. It will also prevent needless shifting of the trans under heavy load. The plain fact is that putting load on the A604 transmission is going to shorten its service life, period. As refined as the design is now, it still sucks when compared to the old tranmissions that were tricked-out with a "shift kit". So much for progress and improvement. >*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com *** >*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com *** >>>> Ok, I'm confused . . . . >>>> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > that have "ATF", and they refuse to stock both +3 and +4, so have > decided to buy ATF +4. Not sure if they buy it in bulk or not. Gary's the group's resident trans expert, imho, though I believe he's no longer in the business full time. He's the one that pointed out to me the symptoms I was having ( second gear limp mode after trans warms up) was probably due to my son's use of Dex III / ATF+3 when he had it before giving it to me. I'm in Moab, UT . . .that about 4 billion miles from anywhere unless it's time for Jeep Safari, Fat / Skinny Tire Festivals (bicyclists!!!) or Half Marathon. The nearest source in miles for ATF+4 is Grand Junction CO (120 miles, one way), unless I order it from SAlt Lake City Mopar dealerships thru a auto parts store like Car Quest ( $70 / case). I'm on fixed income due to diasdability and I'm trying to save as much $$$ as I can to pay for that consarn transmission. > My experience is similar to yours! I have a 94GC. THe original rebuild > had Dexron III + lubeguard in it. It ran "ok" but not great. When I > recently had the solenoid pack replaced, I had them drop the pan and > replace the internal filter, and refill with ATF +4. You may have saved yourself some grief or you may have delayed the enevitable .. it depends on how long the Dex III was in the transmission. In my case, there was a total of 1 1/2 quarts added over a 15 month period while my son had the car. I never had to add any. > My trans now shifts like and absolute dream. Smoother than ever. No > more "thump" when dropping into low gear while slowing to a stop. All > running perfectly. From my experience, you can't go wrong with ATF +4. > How expensive is it really when compared with the cost of pre-mature > transmission failure??? ;) Gee, for me, it's very expensive either way. To be honest, I miss the solid shifts my 79 D-150 had ( 318, 727, 3.55:1) because the Lebaron is still on the learning curve. Around town, normal driving I can't feel the 1-2, 2-3 shifts and it doesn't hit OD / lockup until 40 or better. If I give it pretty good kick off the line then I feel the shifts. >>>> >> The only other problem I have heard of in the late 90s was that >>>> >> there [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > breaking, but it will be minimal. Automatic tranmissions are NOT > designed to provide engine braking like a manual tranmission is. Excuse me, but this is not my first car, nor is it my first automatic. 727 / 904 transmissions can be manually shifted to lower gears and do a creedible job of retarding on hills AS LONG AS YOU USE YOUR HEAD. > I agree with the advice though. "3" is the appropriate slection for > towing anything through mountains. It will keep the RPMs up slightly > and give you the torque you need. It will also prevent needless > shifting of the trans under heavy load. And it also shifts up more harshly and stays in lower gears too long for economy. Have you looked at gas prices lately? Currently $2.35 / gal and when tourist season hits $3 is not impossible here in Moab. > The plain fact is that putting load on the A604 transmission is going > to shorten its service life, period. As refined as the design is now, > it still sucks when compared to the old tranmissions that were > tricked-out with a "shift kit". So much for progress and improvement. Agreed but since my son got the truck in exchange for the Lebaron, I have to use a trailer until I can find another truck and the money to buy it with. Being able to lock out OD and the installation of a big trans cooler would help a bunch. If I could, I'd plug in a trans controller from a Caravan, a shifter with all shift positions, and a huge trans cooler . . . .I've got the one from the D-150 out in my storage shed. It's as big as the radiator on the Lebaron. Budd > Even though the torque converter is "locked in" to the mechanical > system, this just makes it perform like the trannys did in the "old > days" before the lock-out torque converter. There will be SOME > breaking, but it will be minimal. Automatic tranmissions are NOT > designed to provide engine braking like a manual tranmission is. Wrong. Have you ever read your owner's manual? Matt > Even though the torque converter is "locked in" to the mechanical > system, this just makes it perform like the trannys did in the "old > days" before the lock-out torque converter. There will be SOME > breaking, but it will be minimal. Automatic tranmissions are NOT > designed to provide engine braking like a manual tranmission is. oh, give me a freaking break ! the A604 uses NO over-running clutches therefore, with the converter locked, it's like a manual > I agree with the advice though. "3" is the appropriate slection for > towing anything through mountains. It will keep the RPMs up slightly > and give you the torque you need. It will also prevent needless > shifting of the trans under heavy load. the advice was SPECIFICALLY about descending grades > The plain fact is that putting load on the A604 transmission is going > to shorten its service life, period. As refined as the design is now, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com *** > >*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com *** >> Even though the torque converter is "locked in" to the mechanical >> system, this just makes it perform like the trannys did in the "old [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > therefore, with the converter locked, it's like a manual I agree, however when the accellerator is released the tcc disengages. <snip> not in '3', it doesn't > >> Even though the torque converter is "locked in" to the mechanical > >> system, this just makes it perform like the trannys did in the "old [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > <snip> I'll have to try that. :-) Although none of the CV I've driven have had a 3 position. Must be on the new ones? Mine all had and have P R N OD D L, IIRC > not in '3', it doesn't > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> <snip> > I'll have to try that. :-) Although none of the CV I've driven have had > a 3 position. Must be on the new ones? Mine all had and have P R N OD D > L, IIRC Go out and look, and you'll probably find you're misremembering. With a 4-speed automatic, the shift quadrant reads P R N D 3 L. With a 3-speed automatic, the shift quadrant reads P R N D 2 1. GM does it differently with a 4-speed: "P R N [D] D 3 2 1", while Ford usually gives you "P R N (D) 3 1". >Go out and look, and you'll probably find you're misremembering. With a >4-speed automatic, the shift quadrant reads P R N D 3 L. With a 3-speed >automatic, the shift quadrant reads P R N D 2 1. For the benefit of those who are new here and/or haven't been following the various Caravan transmission discussions, which of those two transmissions tends to have the most maintenance problems, in the early-to-mid 90's Grand Caravans? >>Go out and look, and you'll probably find you're misremembering. With a >>4-speed automatic, the shift quadrant reads P R N D 3 L. With a 3-speed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >two transmissions tends to have the most maintenance problems, in the >early-to-mid 90's Grand Caravans? IIRC, the 3 speed tranmission is a GOOD tranmission. It has not had any particular problems that I recall reading about here. The only problem was that most vehicles were not equipped with it! ;) The 4 speed automatic ( AKA A-604 or 41te in more recent years) is the one with the problems. It is also the most common trans found in the Caravans. Based on my experience, and what I have read here, I would say that earlier models (early to mid 90s) are the ones that had the most problems. Newer versions appear to be better, but you must be mindful of the high maintenence requirements compared with the older tranmissions. In the old days pretty much all you had to do was make sure the fluid was topped up, and that was about it. The tranny ran until it died, and that was somewhere between 150,000 and 300,000 MILES. The A-604 is a nasty piece of work by comparision. You should change the fluid and filter every one to two years. It is NOT designed to do any particular amount of towing, and if not properly maintained will die at an early age. My 94 GC dropped the tranny at approximately 130,000 km, or approximately 81,000 miles and it did so before the van was 10 years old. It had to be rebuilt twice - once at charge, and once on "warranty" before it was rebuilt correctly. Touch wood, I am about 30,000 kms into the second rebuild and all seems well. Prior to owning this vechicle, I had all GMs. My old 68 nova went 130,000 miles before the powerglide started to have problems. The rebuild cost me $150, and another $150 to re & re. My old 79 malibu went in excess of 300,000 kms before I sold it. NEVER had a problem with the transmisison - ever. My 88 cutlass cruiser had almost 250,000 kms on it when I traded it in, again NO tranmission problems of any kind. When you compare those numbers to the A-604, the A-604 has performed quite badly. It appears that DC released the design long before it was really ready, and has been using the general driving public as part of its R&D efforts at our expense. Having said that, this is water under the bridge. The newer incarnations of the 41te seem to be generally more reliable, and people are now acutely aware of the maintenence requirements, so things tend to last longer. Whether the reliability is up to snuff, only time will tell. And, despite all that, I love driving my GC. Mine has the 3.3l engine - the total opposite of the trans! It is a rock, but that is another story. (just STAY AWAY from the 3.0l engine). It is a great vehicle that has - touch wood - never left me stranded. :) My wife drives a 1989 Caravan. Had the transmission replaced at about 95,000 the second one has about 50,000 on it. I do no maintence on this transmission other the check the fluid. My wife also drives it harder than I would. It is my experience that any transmission that makes it to about 100,000 in Phx, AZ is doing about all it can. I had Ford C-4's that only went around 75,000. Ford C-6 seem to go a lot longer. Yes the caravan was never ment to tow anything. >>>Go out and look, and you'll probably find you're misremembering. With a >>>4-speed automatic, the shift quadrant reads P R N D 3 L. With a 3-speed [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > story. (just STAY AWAY from the 3.0l engine). It is a great vehicle > that has - touch wood - never left me stranded. :) > My wife drives a 1989 Caravan. Had the transmission replaced at about > 95,000 the second one has about 50,000 on it. I do no maintence on this > transmission other the check the fluid. Hmmm - you do no maintenance and then make broad statements about life expectations of transmissions where you live? I don't live in Phoenix, but I'm thinking that if you would change the fluid and filter once in a while, you might get better service out of them. Fluid changeouts in today's trannies are almost a must for higher mileage. > ...My wife also drives it harder > than I would. It is my experience that any transmission that makes it > to about 100,000 in Phx, AZ is doing about all it can. I had Ford > C-4's that only went around 75,000. Ford C-6 seem to go a lot longer. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> I'll have to try that. :-) Although none of the CV I've driven have had >> a 3 position. Must be on the new ones? Mine all had and have P R N OD D [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 4-speed automatic, the shift quadrant reads P R N D 3 L. With a 3-speed > automatic, the shift quadrant reads P R N D 2 1. I haev not checked on my '94 yet, but my 1990 grand caravan has it: P R N OD D L.... And the tcc does disengage when the accellerator is released in D. (But it does still provide pretty good engine braking in D.) > GM does it differently with a 4-speed: "P R N [D] D 3 2 1", while Ford > usually gives you "P R N (D) 3 1". > >> I'll have to try that. :-) Although none of the CV I've driven have had > >> a 3 position. Must be on the new ones? Mine all had and have P R N OD D [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I haev not checked on my '94 yet, but my 1990 grand caravan has it: P R N OD > D L.... And the tcc does disengage when the accellerator is released in D. how do you know this ? scan tool ? > (But it does still provide pretty good engine braking in D.) > > > GM does it differently with a 4-speed: "P R N [D] D 3 2 1", while Ford > > usually gives you "P R N (D) 3 1". >>D L.... And the tcc does disengage when the accellerator is released in > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > scan tool ? My guess would be "tachometer." If the TCC doesn't disengage, there will be no drop in RPM when you lift your foot off the gas. Its also obvious that the RPM will flare high then drop down when you get BACK on the gas as the TCC locks up shortly afterward. >>>D L.... And the tcc does disengage when the accellerator is released in >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > My guess would be "tachometer." And you would be correct. > If the TCC doesn't disengage, there will be no drop in RPM when you lift > your foot off the gas. Its also obvious that the RPM will flare high then > drop down when you get BACK on the gas as the TCC locks up shortly > afterward. Absolutely correct. My guess is that the gear labels on the newer vans may not be the same as the older ones. I believe my 1990 is the first year they came out with the A-604 and 3.3 litter engine. One thing my 1990 beater does that my 1994 didn't is shift to overdrive no matter what position the accelerator is in at about 85-90 MPH (well, while in overdrive of course). If I feel like being really mean to 'er and pushing it to 100+ I have to put the gearshift in drive to keep 'er from shifting to OD. (You should see the blue paint fly off then!) My 1994 will always downshift to 3rd past 70 MPH when the gas is floored. >>>>D L.... And the tcc does disengage when the accellerator is released in >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >matter what position the accelerator is in at about 85-90 MPH (well, while >in overdrive of course). My 1994 had an "O/D OFF" button on the dash. > If I feel like being really mean to 'er and pushing >it to 100+ I have to put the gearshift in drive to keep 'er from shifting to >OD. (You should see the blue paint fly off then!) My paint got scratched up by the previous owner, but in spite of that, I have NOT had the problems that I have seen iwht other vans! Damn, there are some around that I swear you can watch the paint peal off af they drive in traffic! What the hell happened? Did CHrysler have sone nasty process problem?? Any recalls for this? > My 1994 will always >downshift to 3rd past 70 MPH when the gas is floored. > ...Damn, > there are some around that I swear you can watch the paint peal off af > they drive in traffic! What the hell happened? Did CHrysler have sone > nasty process problem?? Any recalls for this? In fact I remember seeing a link to a site that discussed secret warranties, and that ia in fact one of them. Anyone have that link? There ought to be a special warranty on LH car a.c. evaporators. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> ...Damn, >> there are some around that I swear you can watch the paint peal off af >> they drive in traffic! What the hell happened? Did CHrysler have sone >> nasty process problem?? Any recalls for this? Look up paint delamination....it wasnt just a Chrysler issue... GM didnt "recall" the cars, but we did what was called a tape test...2 inches of packing tape across the hood, and RIP.....if it came up, you got a repaint to the first set of trim moldings on the side. They ended that one too. > In fact I remember seeing a link to a site that discussed secret > warranties, and that ia in fact one of them. Anyone have that link? Secret warranties..LOL...aint NO such thing. There are however, GOODWILL REPAIRS, and SBs and dealers that can get a known common repair covered by the local rep...oh..thats a goodwill repair. > There ought to be a special warranty on LH car a.c. evaporators. Why? Yours fail out of warranty and you had to spend some money? > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address > with the letter 'x') >>There ought to be a special warranty on LH car a.c. evaporators. > Why? > Yours fail out of warranty and you had to spend some money? If you're implying that I'm one of those people that think that cars ought to be warranteed forever, I'm not. However, for something that will cost the owner *major* expense, and I say this as an engineer, engineering practice says that you make sure you design that area well into the bell curve. Can they be made to do a good will coverage as other auto makers often do to keep customers that deserve a little more than what they got? Absolutely not. Can I be forced to buy product from a company that takes major expenses of their customers so lightly? Absolutely not. It's called free market. Truth is that a huge percentage of LH car evaporators fail after only a few years of normal use. There *is* such a thing as implied warranty of merchantability, and if it was pushed in the legal system, they'd lose the case on that one. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>>There ought to be a special warranty on LH car a.c. evaporators. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > major expenses of their customers so lightly? Absolutely not. It's called > free market. Well, actually, yea..you are sounding like someone that thinks that , (oh..wait..yer an engineer)..:) As someone thats seen both ends of the market, and still sees the automotive end regularly now that I have gotten out of it for the most part..nothings wrong with the evaps on the LH line...altho I think many people have gotten that snow job line before..you know...charge to replace that evap, but instead spend 5 hours replacing every damn O-ring on the system, cause some engineer thought it would be good for business if they were all impossible to get to , and failed regularly. > Truth is that a huge percentage of LH car evaporators fail after only a > few years of normal use. There *is* such a thing as implied warranty of > merchantability, and if it was pushed in the legal system, they'd lose the > case on that one. Nope. Not at all. Actually, in practice, more evaps failed on another brand of vehicle. But you know, 3 years or 36,000 miles is the warranty, you bought it, you accepted it, and if it fails after that, its yours. Implied warranty of merchantability ok...that simply means that the car will run, and the AC will cool when you buy it...thats it..nothing more. Yea...take em on man...the legal definition of what you just stated is nohting but the fact that the cars gonna run...anything they add on after, you just get extra. As an engineer, I know its hard to understand...but just because it looks good on paper....real worlds a bit different...and yes, I mean that the way it sounds. > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address > with the letter 'x') >>>>There ought to be a special warranty on LH car a.c. evaporators. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Well, actually, yea..you are sounding like someone that thinks that , Sounding and being are two different things. > (oh..wait..yer an engineer)..:) If anyone unbderstands real-world realities of good and bad designs, it's engineers. > As someone thats seen both ends of the market, ...and I also fall into that category. > ...and still sees the automotive > end regularly now that I have gotten out of it for the most part..nothings [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > engineer thought it would be good for business if they were all impossible > to get to , and failed regularly. OK wise guy (and I mean that in the friendliest of ways) :) , as soon as the weather warms back up, when I charge my system back up and use the combination of electronic sniffer (just bought it) and dye (put in last summer), you're telling me that I should fully expect to find zero leaks in the evap., and instead should find leaks at one or more of the several o-ring'ed joints? If that's going to be the case, then this conversation will have been well worth it. Tell me one thing: I could answer this myself by getting back into the diagrams and procedures (been a few weeks since I studied them), but you can save me the trouble - can I get to all of the o-rings without taking the dash out? (I can't recall if the evap. joints are on the engine or passenger compartment side of the firewall.) >>Truth is that a huge percentage of LH car evaporators fail after only a >>few years of normal use. There *is* such a thing as implied warranty of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > nohting but the fact that the cars gonna run...anything they add on after, > you just get extra. And you totally missed my point about (legalities and reasonableness aside) - I can decide not to buy another of their vehicles for any reason - valid or not. Ask Ford and GM about that. > As an engineer, I know its hard to understand...but just because it looks > good on paper....real worlds a bit different...and yes, I mean that the way > it sounds. If I wasn't genuinely wanting your answer on the above question, I'd say something else - I'll wait until you give me a good answer, and then tell you (and even then, I just need to look at the FSM and other sources to figure it out - paper meets real world, eh). :) Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>>>>There ought to be a special warranty on LH car a.c. evaporators. >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > If anyone unbderstands real-world realities of good and bad designs, it's > engineers. Aint that the truth...you guys design it, and then we get to tell you how bad it sucks....LOL >> As someone thats seen both ends of the market, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > o-ring'ed joints? If that's going to be the case, then this conversation > will have been well worth it. First of all, I REALLY hope you didnt get anything in the sniffer but a Inficon, or a CPS. Anything else, you can throw away. In an automotive enviroment, you are gonna want one you can actually trust, and those are the ONLY two, unless of course, you went for the 110VAC H1. Then....hats off to you...but Inficon or CPS...No Tiff or other rebreanded crap. And dye.....gads....that sh.t exists for only one reason...to eat o-rings... kiddin kiddin about the o-rings and dye.... but yea...I expect you will find you have no leaks at the evap. At least 90% of the ones I have seen have had no leaks at the evap...most are at the expansion valve, or compressor seals. > Tell me one thing: I could answer this myself by getting back into the > diagrams and procedures (been a few weeks since I studied them), but you > can save me the trouble - can I get to all of the o-rings without taking > the dash out? (I can't recall if the evap. joints are on the engine or > passenger compartment side of the firewall.) IIRC, yes. >>>Truth is that a huge percentage of LH car evaporators fail after only a >>>few years of normal use. There *is* such a thing as implied warranty of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > aside) - I can decide not to buy another of their vehicles for any > reason - valid or not. Ask Ford and GM about that. >> As an engineer, I know its hard to understand...but just because it looks >> good on paper....real worlds a bit different...and yes, I mean that the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you (and even then, I just need to look at the FSM and other sources to > figure it out - paper meets real world, eh). :) LOL..depends...if you are an EE or an ME you can kindly GFU..LOL Sorry...i know there are a couple in here that HATE it when I do that. > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address > with the letter 'x') >>Tell me one thing: I could answer this myself by getting back into the >>diagrams and procedures (been a few weeks since I studied them), but you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > IIRC, yes. Yep - I was coming back to post what a mental refresh from the FSM told me - a single flange joint on the engine side of the firewall - expansion valve-to-evap. Yay!! The difficult parts will be getting into the expansion valve/filter drier area, but I've had the cowling off before for windshield wiper, brake booster, and inner tie rod bushings before (more good design, eh?) - and the condensor connections - yeah - been partly in that area before to replace cooling fan motors - more poor engineering. But anything is better than having to pull the dash off to get to the evap. I was going to replace all o-rings and the filter/drier when I did the evap., but will forget doing the evap. unless I detect refrigerant coming thru the vents and/or see florescence out the condensate drain tube. >>>As an engineer, I know its hard to understand...but just because it looks >>>good on paper....real worlds a bit different...and yes, I mean that the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > LOL..depends...if you are an EE or an ME you can kindly GFU..LOL > Sorry...i know there are a couple in here that HATE it when I do that. Hmmm - shouldn't that have been GFY? That's Ok - I understand if you can't spell too well. Actually I'm sort of both (ME - EE) and sort of neither. Degree is in Engineering Science and Mechanics (ESM) - kind of a blend of mechanical and materials science, and yet I am self-taught in electronics design, am licensed, and practiced as if a EE in medical, aerospace, and automotive for over 20 years even though my engineering degree is not EE. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>>Tell me one thing: I could answer this myself by getting back into the >>>diagrams and procedures (been a few weeks since I studied them), but you [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Hmmm - shouldn't that have been GFY? That's Ok - I understand if you > can't spell too well. Read what I wrote again...there area a couple in here that hate it when I do that,.....do what? Oh...use a U when it shoudl be a Y... Roy...wannna step in and see if SF#2009 gets it? or maybe its just a BF45 that we got here....LOL Calm down....the humor here is well...odd. >Actually I'm sort of both (ME - EE) and sort of neither. Degree is in >Engineering Science and Mechanics (ESM) - kind of a blend of mechanical and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address > with the letter 'x') >>>LOL..depends...if you are an EE or an ME you can kindly GFU..LOL >>>Sorry...i know there are a couple in here that HATE it when I do that. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Calm down....the humor here is well...odd. So the chip on your shoulders about engineers and people with eduation in general is an act? I was beginning to think that Max Dodge had a new posting identity. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') No new posting identity here. Although obviously you've come off as a desk driver again....  SignatureMax "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>>>LOL..depends...if you are an EE or an ME you can kindly GFU..LOL >>>>Sorry...i know there are a couple in here that HATE it when I do that. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address > with the letter 'x') Well, would you want to talk about "engineering' and "common sense" instead? As in; Overdrive transmission ratios are not efficient in comparison to lower numerical final (axle) drive ratios combined with a direct (1:1) transmission ratio. (Look at Archimedes' principles on leverage for the clue.) Or "if it ain't broke, don't fix it till it is" mentality coming out of Detroit, Japan, Germany, Korea, ad nauseum. . . .namely, the A-604 transmission design. It had potential, if . . .IF .. .they hadn't gone to an OD, if they had given sufficient line pressures, if they had given it another underdriven gear instead of the OD, if they had used a lower numerical drive axle ratio, made it less sensitive to fluid type, given it more cooling . . . . Think on this, Bill, I get 26 MPG highway out of my 95 3.0 Lebaron GTC . . .not bad, not great. I squeezed 37 average MPG out of a 64 225 /6 (3 speed manual, 3.23 axle, water vapor injection) and I got 21 average MPG out of a 79 D-150 (318, auto, 3.55, recurved vacuum advance), so what happened with the GTC? By common sense, it should be getting near 45 MPG. IMHO, that consarned OD is sucking up the fuel. SignatureBudd Cochran John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9 "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams) >>>>LOL..depends...if you are an EE or an ME you can kindly GFU..LOL >>>>Sorry...i know there are a couple in here that HATE it when I do that. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address > with the letter 'x') > Well, would you want to talk about "engineering' and "common sense" instead? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the GTC? By common sense, it should be getting near 45 MPG. IMHO, that > consarned OD is sucking up the fuel. On the 300M Club forums, the accepted figure for the loss of power thru the 42LE tranny (the next generation from the A-406) is a whopping 33%! Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > On the 300M Club forums, the accepted figure for the loss of power thru > the 42LE tranny (the next generation from the A-406) is a whopping 33%! Thats acceptable? SignatureMax "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Well, would you want to talk about "engineering' and "common sense" >> instead? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address > with the letter 'x') >>On the 300M Club forums, the accepted figure for the loss of power thru >>the 42LE tranny (the next generation from the A-406) is a whopping 33%! > > Thats acceptable? Uhh - to you maybe, but everyone else considers it atrocious (oh - sorry - that's a word that means 'bad'). Or are you just trying to play another shell game with words (morphing the word 'accepted' into 'acceptable')? Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> Thats acceptable? > > Uhh - to you maybe, but everyone else considers it atrocious (oh - sorry - > that's a word that means 'bad'). Or are you just trying to play another > shell game with words (morphing the word 'accepted' into 'acceptable')? Once again, an engineer talking down to someone, knowing nothing of the other persons credentials... and you wonder why we "common folk" get tired of your crap. I don't consider it acceptable. In fact, despite my dedicated following of Chrysler, I would never buy something with an A604/41TE etc in it. Will you next be defining "is"? I ask because you seem to think "accepted" and "acceptable" are terribly different. If you choose to do so, make it succinct (that means 'cut the bullshit out and get to the point') SignatureMax "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>>On the 300M Club forums, the accepted figure for the loss of power thru >>>the 42LE tranny (the next generation from the A-406) is a whopping 33%! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address > with the letter 'x') >>>Thats acceptable? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > and "acceptable" are terribly different. If you choose to do so, make it > succinct (that means 'cut the bullshit out and get to the point') You've just proven your ignorance of the English language. Wow - I was only halfway kidding that you would be equating 'accepted' and 'acceptable' - I didn't think anyone could be that ignorant, but I guess I was wrong (see - I can admit mistakes on my part). But I guess to you, someone stating facts is "talking down" to you. I'm starting to understand your inferiority complex. I could explain the difference between 'accepted' and 'acceptable' but something tells me that you still wouldn't get it and/or would want to continue arguing against the obvious. I bet my teenage daughter understands the difference. I try to avoid such imbecilic discussion - though with you it is difficult. I have said before that sometimes it is difficult to separate out dishonesty and stupidity, and you're illustrating why (you have to make up explanations to justify an erroneous position that you don't even understand but don't even realize). Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> Well, would you want to talk about "engineering' and "common sense" >> instead? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > On the 300M Club forums, the accepted figure for the loss of power thru > the 42LE tranny (the next generation from the A-406) is a whopping 33%! Exactly the point I'm making!!!! If that's the loss in OD, then it's 1.65 TIMES the loss of a 727 or 904 in direct with a 2.76 - 3.55 : 1 axle. That's gotta hurt economy. That's not traditional Chrysler engineering. The 8.75 (8 3/4) axle had the lowest internal friction losses in the industry, and, it'll make someone mad, Ford had the highest with the early 9" that would burn up if run too hard. SignatureBudd Cochran John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9 "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams) >>>Well, would you want to talk about "engineering' and "common sense" >>>instead? [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > mad, Ford had the highest with the early 9" that would burn up if run too > hard. I wonder where they got the 33% loss figure. Frankly, that sounds like BS to me. If the transmission really is dissipating 1/3 of the engine power input as heat, then you'd need a transmission cooler bigger than the radiator to cool it when running the car hard at all. Matt >>>> Well, would you want to talk about "engineering' and "common sense" >>>> instead? [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Matt SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>> On the 300M Club forums, the accepted figure for the loss of power >>> thru the 42LE tranny (the next generation from the A-406) is a >>> whopping 33%! > I wonder where they got the 33% loss figure. Frankly, that sounds like > BS to me. If the transmission really is dissipating 1/3 of the engine > power input as heat,... I suspect at least some of that 33% is not true loss, but, as I said in another post, some have speculated that a seemingly excessive loss figure is due to DC's possible exaggerated engine output claims being eplugged into the efficiency formula as the input. >> then you'd need a transmission cooler bigger than >> the radiator to cool it when running the car hard at all. >> >> Matt Well you just shot your argument in the foot because LH cars do in fact have *two* coolers: The radiator tank (of course acting more as a temp. stabilizer or buffer), plus an air coil hung out in front of the radiator. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > Well you just shot your argument in the foot because LH cars do in fact > have *two* coolers: The radiator tank (of course acting more as a temp. > stabilizer or buffer), plus an air coil hung out in front of the radiator. Wouldn't be the first time. :-) Is the cooling capacity of these two equal to the engine radiator? If it is, then maybe the 33% loss is closer to reality, but I still HIGHLY doubt it. Is the fuel economy of this car much worse than similar weight and horsepower cars? Matt > Is the cooling capacity of these two equal to the engine radiator? If > it is, then maybe the 33% loss is closer to reality, Not even close... but I still HIGHLY > doubt it. Is the fuel economy of this car much worse than similar > weight and horsepower cars? > > Matt Actually I think there is some good evidence that the DC electronic transmission family does have an inefficiency issue compared to others. I haven't ever really researched it hard, but here's my hunch about why its a bit on the lossy side: Like all automatic transmissions, its gears are in constant mesh so in various different drive ratios (by which I mean "first gear" versus "4th gear" etc.) some of the whirly bits are spinning at various speeds but aren't actually in use. All automatics do that... but what all automatics *don't* do that the A-604 derivatives do is have multi-plate clutches that are released but the drive and driven plates are spinning at different speeds while in cruising gear. I think the shearing of the fluid due to the driving and driven plates spinning at different speeds is a loss mechanism that other transmission designs (for example, the old rear-drive Torqueflites in both 3-speed and 4-speed models) do not have. In high gear with an A-904 or A-727, both of the multi-plate clutches are engaged and the whole gear-train is locked into what amounts to a solid shaft, and only the bands are released. Bands don't exert a lot of shear force on fluid when released- multi-plate clutches do. In the case of the 4-speed versions (A500 and A518) the O/D clutch is released in 3rd gear, but in 4th its locked and the gears in the OD unit are working, but the main transmission section is still locked into a solid shaft. >> Well, would you want to talk about "engineering' and "common sense" >> instead? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > On the 300M Club forums, the accepted figure for the loss of power thru > the 42LE tranny (the next generation from the A-406) is a whopping 33%! Hi Bill... Find it terrible terrible hard to believe :) That's an incredible amount of heat to get rid of; stand well back before the whole thing melts! Take care. Ken >>> Well, would you want to talk about "engineering' and "common sense" >>> instead? [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Ken You're right. It has been proposed by some that the "losses" are not real, and are purely a result of the manufacturer's overstated engine output blindly plugged into the efficiency equations with the dynamometer-measured horsepower at the wheels. On the other hand, maybe that's why the ATF properties are so critical. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > Well, would you want to talk about "engineering' and "common sense" instead? > > As in; Overdrive transmission ratios are not efficient in comparison to > lower numerical final (axle) drive ratios combined with a direct (1:1) > transmission ratio. (Look at Archimedes' principles on leverage for the > clue.) I'd like to hear your explanation on this. If the overall ratio from engine to wheel is the same, why does it matter where reduction comes into play? > Or "if it ain't broke, don't fix it till it is" mentality coming out of > Detroit, Japan, Germany, Korea, ad nauseum. . . .namely, the A-604 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the GTC? By common sense, it should be getting near 45 MPG. IMHO, that > consarned OD is sucking up the fuel. I don't care about your opinion, but I am very curious to see your technical explanation as to why you believe this to be true. Use Archimedes or anyone else for that matter, but tell us your technical explanation. Matt > I'd like to hear your explanation on this. If the overall ratio from > engine to wheel is the same, why does it matter where reduction comes into > play? I don't agree entirely with Budd, but..... If you put the engine first at a mechanical disadvantage (OD ratio) then back to an advantage (rear axle ratio), you are sacrificing energy in the OD ratio (more effort to move a load, due to mechanical disadvantage). This is, I suppose, subject to mathematical calculations and would vary due to ratio, amount of power input, load on the output end, etc. and could be extremely variable. But you won't get out of the parasitic loss encountered when you convert rpm/torque once, and then twice, between engine and tire. A direct ratio would eliminate one of the losses. As such, you've effectively lowered useable hp at the wheel by using an OD ratio. Thus, it could be assumed that you would use more fuel to make up for the loss in power, dropping MPG figures. So it doesn't matter where reduction comes into play as much as it matters how many times you change the "reduction" in a drivetrain. An interesting example would be my LeBaron GTC, where the 4th ratio is in fact a mild OD (0.94) and the 5th ratio a normal OD ratio (0.69). MPG between the two is not significantly different....at least, in several checks over the years, the MPG indicator on the dash never changed significantly (2 MPG or more) despite a ratio change with driving conditions remaining constant, including road speed. OTOH, a shift down to 3rd would significantly lower MPG figures on the dash display. Take from that what you will, I'll not claim any scientific structure. SignatureMax "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Well, would you want to talk about "engineering' and "common sense" >> instead? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Matt Since a drivetrain is a proven to "lose" power to begin with, regardless of ratios, adding a gear ratio that aggravates the situation is just plain dumb. I had three transmission choices on my Cushman scooter: simple centrifugal clutch / jackshaft ( single overall ratio), a three speed ( low/direct/OD) that would have required either gearing the final drive quite high numerically (not feasible) or using a 1:3 underdrive input ratio, or a two speed ( low / direct) with a 1:1 input ratio . . . .I went with the latter since I only have 7 hp to work with and my estimated top speed is about 62 mph at 4200 rpm. Choice number one gave a top speed of 41 and yet have good acceleration. Choice number two gave a estimated 70 mph with a 1:1 primary belt ratio, but that would have been only on paper. In reality, I don't believe I had enough power to get over 30 mph in OD. SignatureBudd Cochran John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9 "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams) >> I'd like to hear your explanation on this. If the overall ratio from >> engine to wheel is the same, why does it matter where reduction comes [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >> >> Matt > Since a drivetrain is a proven to "lose" power to begin with, regardless of > ratios, adding a gear ratio that aggravates the situation is just plain > dumb. The gear ratio has virtually nothing to do with it. Sure, more gears will consume power due to the frictional losses, but this has little to do with the ratios. If you want to change the overall ratio by 6:1, it doesn't matter if you do 3:1 first and then 2:1 or 2:1 followed by 3:1. Matt Have you ever heard of a guy by the name of Archimedes? Look up his information on levers. The same rules apply to gearing. An underdrive ration is like a prybar with a long handle and a short span from pivot to load, a small force moves a large mass. OTOH, an overdrive is like a short handle and a longer span from pivot to load and requires much more force to move a small mass. To make a OD work, the axle ratio has to be lowered and it doesn't quite make up the losses in the drive train . . .it can't as that would violate the laws of levers and physics. "Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I shall move the World." (Archimedes, if I remember the quote correctly) SignatureBudd Cochran John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9 "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams) >> Well, would you want to talk about "engineering' and "common sense" >> instead? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Matt > Have you ever heard of a guy by the name of Archimedes? Look up his > information on levers. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I shall move the > World." (Archimedes, if I remember the quote correctly) Your argument isn't very convincing in that, in your lever examples, you appear to be equating force and mechanical advantage with energy loss, and that just isn't inherently the case (the same being true with gear ratios, which I know you correctly related to levers). The energy loss (heat generated) has nothing to do with the mechanical advantage (the distance/force trade-offs) but has everything to do with the friction in the transfer of motion - nothing to do with the lengths of the levers (size of the gears), and everything to do with the reduction of friction at the points of sliding, pivoting, etc. No offense, but this is exactly the kind of technically incorrect discussion that seems to crop up with those who consider themselves technically savvy in a *hands-on* sense but who put down those with technical (in a *theoretical* sense) expertise. In the same way that you would correctly invoke Archimedes, I would say "Yes, but you also need to consider the law of the conservation of energy which you seem to be ignoring (in your lever examples)". You could move the world with Archimede's lever, but not very rapidly. You could use an opposite lever to move a pea and move it very rapidly. The energy put into the system to accomplish both may be the same - one has a lot of mass moving very slowly, the other has a tiny mass moving very rapidly - the energy calculations are the same - energy applied minus friction losses = energy out. Now - one implementation of the gears or levers may be more efficient than the other, but it's all in how the friction losses are managed, and not in the mechanical advantage per-se. There's a place for both "hands on" and "theroetical" - and results are best when they co-exist. Real world follows the laws of physics - what some here disdainfully call "theoretical"; but what many are sarcastically or disdainfully calling the "theoretical" *is/are* the real world laws of physics. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > > Have you ever heard of a guy by the name of Archimedes? Look up his > > information on levers. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > (size of the gears), and everything to do with the reduction of friction > at the points of sliding, pivoting, etc. Transmissions 101 Frictional losses are a given in ANY transmission design, as are heat losses and parasitic losses. So, why mention the obvious that, as an engineer, you should know about already? In an overdrive ratio, do you have more or less usable torque on the output shaft of the gearset? Energy ( torque in), divided ( OD, remember?) by the ratio equals output torque ( minus parasitic losses, of course!!!!) proportionally reduced according to the leverage . . er, ratio of the gearset. > No offense, but this is exactly the kind of technically incorrect > discussion that seems to crop up with those who consider themselves > technically savvy in a *hands-on* sense but who put down those with > technical (in a *theoretical* sense) expertise. Sorry, it seems I stepped on a toe or two . . . > In the same way that > you would correctly invoke Archimedes, I would say "Yes, but you also > need to consider the law of the conservation of energy which you seem to > be ignoring (in your lever examples)". You assume they are ignored because they are unmetioned. Name a transmission design that generates no friction, heat or parasitic losses????? Now, since there is no such thing, these losses are common and may be set asiode for a discussion of RATIOS AND THEIR EFFICIENCY. > You could move the world with > Archimede's lever, but not very rapidly. True, I don't deny that and I didn't deny it. It was a metaphor. > You could use an opposite > lever to move a pea and move it very rapidly. Yaes, as in a trebuchet, for example ... nope, I didn't deny this either, bith both of your exaples are fine evdence of the effectiveness of RATIOS dependent, of course, on whether you want to lift a locomotive or throw rocks. Gear ratios parallel that law. > The energy put into the > system to accomplish both may be the same - one has a lot of mass moving > very slowly, the other has a tiny mass moving very rapidly - the energy > calculations are the same - energy applied minus friction losses = > energy out. Agreed, but why are you adding given and common known factors into a discussion on the effectiveness of RATIOS if not to cloud the topic to save your butt? > Now - one implementation of the gears or levers may be more efficient > than the other, but it's all in how the friction losses are managed, and > not in the mechanical advantage per-se. ROTFLMBO!!!!!!!!!!! Assume a 20% loss in either transmission to parasitical loss for sake of discussion: A 1:1 direct drive with a 100 ft.lb. input torque has 80 ft.lb.available from the output shaft out of a theoretical maximum of 100 ft.lb. A 1:2 overdrive with a 100 ft.lb. input torque has only 40 ft.lb. left out of a theoretical maximum of 50 ft.lb. (This is still theoretical because it doesn't allow for the increased torque loss due to poor mechanical advantage) Now, tell us again which has the best torque output to run 75 mph with? > There's a place for both "hands on" and "theroetical" - and results are > best when they co-exist. Real world follows the laws of physics - what > some here disdainfully call "theoretical"; but what many are > sarcastically or disdainfully calling the "theoretical" *is/are* the > real world laws of physics. Math is "real life", Bill. 1+1=2 And as long as math is a true science it can prove physics. Budd >>>Have you ever heard of a guy by the name of Archimedes? Look up his >>>information on levers. [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > > Budd Budd - I'll say this in the least offensive way I know how (Matt said it and I said it before): Torque and energy are different units - losing torque thru levering or gearing is not in itself energy loss. Energy is work x speed x time. In your lever and gear examples, what you lose in torque you gain in speed - the product of the two is proportional to energy and will be the same - except - yes - for some energy loss due to friction, but that friction is not inherent in the lever or gear multiplication or division factor. Think about this example: Situation 1 - The fulcrum point is on a sliding friction bushing. Situation 2 - The fulcrum point is on a roller bearing of some sort. If you truly think it thru, you will realize that there are friction losses in both cases, but it is not directly related to the ratios. You will also have sliding friction between the gear teeth - but its amount is not a given relation to the torque multiplication factor - it can be varied all over the place depending on wheter it is lubed or not, and if lubed, what lube is used. I will give you that, simplisitically speaking, if you have two meshed gears for one multiplication factor, you will have half the friction losses than if you have a series of two pairs of meshed gears to achieve the same final ratio (the difference between the OD and direct drive scenarios). But *that's* where the added losses are coming from that you're talking about - not in the ratios themselves. In a nutshell, as I and Matt have already pointed out, your fallacy in your explanation is in trying to equate torque multiplication with energy multiplication. You trade off torque and speed, and energy being the product of the two (with time factored in), well - you do the math. The same kind of arguments occur about torque and horsepower because of the same failure on people's part to understand what they are mathematically (and in reality). Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > Budd - I'll say this in the least offensive way I know how (Matt said it > and I said it before): Torque and energy are different units - losing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > friction, but that friction is not inherent in the lever or gear > multiplication or division factor. Hold it!!! Hold the presses!! You just contradicted yourself. First you say there is no energy loss then there is . . you don't know squat. > Think about this example: Situation 1 - The fulcrum point is on a sliding > friction bushing. Situation 2 - The fulcrum point is on a roller bearing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it can be varied all over the place depending on wheter it is lubed or > not, and if lubed, what lube is used. What the fixation with friction losses?? Is it some thrill for you? How many times must I agree that there is parasitic losses before you set them aside and discuss ratios? > I will give you that, simplisitically speaking, if you have two meshed > gears for one multiplication factor, you will have half the friction > losses than if you have a series of two pairs of meshed gears to achieve > the same final ratio (the difference between the OD and direct drive > scenarios). But *that's* where the added losses are coming from that > you're talking about - not in the ratios themselves. Reading comprhension isn't your strong point is it? Again, how many times will I hacve to tell you that I agree with this BEFORE IT GETS THRU YOUR THICK SKULL ( no, I am not a politically correct person, thank you) > In a nutshell, as I and Matt have already pointed out, your fallacy in > your explanation is in trying to equate torque multiplication with energy > multiplication. You trade off torque and speed, and energy being the > product of the two (with time factored in), well - you do the math. I did the math and the net effect is a major measurable loss of efficiency. > The same kind of arguments occur about torque and horsepower because of > the same failure on people's part to understand what they are > mathematically (and in reality). No, the same arguments happen because overeducated idiots like yourself have the misconception you know everything. The only reason you think I'm in error is because you added parasitic losses into a discussion ABOUT RATIOS. So, you failed to discuss the topic. SignatureBudd Cochran John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9 "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams) >>Budd - I'll say this in the least offensive way I know how (Matt said it >>and I said it before): Torque and energy are different units - losing [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > I did the math and the net effect is a major measurable loss of efficiency. Show us the math then. First though, you need to look up efficiency and post that definition and then work from there. >> The same kind of arguments occur about torque and horsepower because of >>the same failure on people's part to understand what they are >>mathematically (and in reality). > > No, the same arguments happen because overeducated idiots like yourself have > the misconception you know everything. No, we're more than happy to have you post some data, calculations, references to others who have done the calculations, etc. The fact is that you can't. Matt >>>Budd - I'll say this in the least offensive way I know how (Matt said it >>>and I said it before): Torque and energy are different units - losing [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Show us the math then. First though, you need to look up efficiency and > post that definition and then work from there. No, I don't have to post anything. Efficiency: the ratio of input to reslutant output. If your output isn't within the design parameter, it's either more or less efficient than required. Overdrive ratios are inheriently inefficient. the proof is the almost mandatory need to shift down to a lower ratio to climb a hill UNLESS YOU'RE TRAVELING AT A SPEED FAR ABOVE THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT. >>> The same kind of arguments occur about torque and horsepower because of >>> the same failure on people's part to understand what they are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > references to others who have done the calculations, etc. The fact is > that you can't. The true fact is it wouldn't matter if I did. You'd just wave your wallpaper around and find some fault with it, most likely, my high school education. SignatureBudd Cochran John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9 "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams) > No, I don't have to post anything. Efficiency: the ratio of input to > reslutant output. If your output isn't within the design parameter, it's > either more or less efficient than required. Overdrive ratios are > inheriently inefficient. the proof is the almost mandatory need to shift > down to a lower ratio to climb a hill UNLESS YOU'RE TRAVELING AT A SPEED FAR > ABOVE THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT. Right, you don't have to, but you also can't. The need to shift down has nothing to do with efficiency, and has everything to do with torque multiplication which is an entirely separate topic. >>>>The same kind of arguments occur about torque and horsepower because of >>>>the same failure on people's part to understand what they are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The true fact is it wouldn't matter if I did. You'd just wave your wallpaper > around and find some fault with it, most likely, my high school education. That is where you are wrong. You post one single reputable reference that supports your claim, and I'll concede that I'm wrong and you are right. I don't care what your education level is. I only care that you are claiming physics support for an argument that isn't based on physics. I wouldn't care if you had a Ph.D., I'd still point out the fallacy of your argument. This is the classic "I lost the logical argument and now need to bail out" statement. No matter what I do you will just keep picking on me. I haven't heard that since grade school. Matt >>Your argument isn't very convincing in that, in your lever examples, you >>appear to be equating force and mechanical advantage with energy loss, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > of course!!!!) proportionally reduced according to the leverage . . er, > ratio of the gearset. Less torque, yes, but not less power. Efficiency is related to energy/work/power, not force/torque. >>Now - one implementation of the gears or levers may be more efficient >>than the other, but it's all in how the friction losses are managed, and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Now, tell us again which has the best torque output to run 75 mph with? I see the problem now. You are talking about engine efficiency, not gear ratio "efficiency" whatever that is. Keeping the engine in an efficient RPM range is a different discussion altogether, but, again, it doesn't matter how you keep it there (whether OD tranny and numerically higher rear end ratio or 1:1 transmission and a lower numerically rear end ratio. I thought that was your original argument, but you've now changed horses mid-stream. I'm still waiting to see how moving the point of reduction from the rear axle to the transmission makes a fundamental change in efficiency of power transmission. Matt >>>Your argument isn't very convincing in that, in your lever examples, you >>>appear to be equating force and mechanical advantage with energy loss, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Less torque, yes, but not less power. Efficiency is related to > energy/work/power, not force/torque. Then how come cars running north of me at the Bonneville salt flats run faster with low numerical axles and direct trans ratios than cars with higher numericals and OD ( case in point: Summers Brother's Goldenrod. A still standing land speed record with a car that could not pull in 4th gear, that is OD). >>>Now - one implementation of the gears or levers may be more efficient >>>than the other, but it's all in how the friction losses are managed, and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I see the problem now. You are talking about engine efficiency, not gear > ratio "efficiency" whatever that is. No, I'm talking ratio efficiency, but you keep avoiding / clouding the topic. > Keeping the engine in an efficient RPM range is a different discussion > altogether, but, again, it doesn't matter how you keep i |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message