Position N or D
Hing On
position when I stop at the traffic light? If I don't change it, will it
damage any parts of my car? Thx!
Patrick
"Hing On" <Hin...@hotmail.com> 撰寫於郵件
news:9fn875$19$1...@dahlia.singnet.com.sg...
Roger Dunk
doing your torque convertor a favour by shifting into netural.
Cheers...
Roger
"Hing On" <Hin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fn875$19$1...@dahlia.singnet.com.sg...
Hing On
Thanks for reply! I also heard of this torque convertor.Can you tell me more
about it or point me to some of the web site that I can get more info.
Thanks!
"Roger Dunk" <ro...@nospam.at.com.au> wrote in message
news:X9GT6.27577$BU4....@news1.blktn1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
Greg Stewart
about doing it, at idle the torque converter won't create anywhere near
enough heat to cause any problems with it, and any excessive shifting from
D - N - D will only cause more transmission component wear.
The differences in fuel economy will be so small that they will never be
noticeable.
Greg.
"Hing On" <Hin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fn875$19$1...@dahlia.singnet.com.sg...
Phil Bruce
The torque convertor is a donut shaped device made of welded pressed sheet
steel filled with transmission oil. To understand how it works, place two
household electric fans facing each other, with one turned on and the other
turned off. The breeze from the running fan will also run the non running fan.
In a torque converter the blades of the fan are inside a steel (donut) casing.
There is no need to change from Drive to Neutral as the stress on the
transmission when actually changing could be more than the the stress
experienced while sitting at the lights without changing.
Luke Farrugia
--
Luke Farrugia
Greg Stewart wrote in message ...
Super
究竟我部車係咪個波箱有咩問題呢?
"Greg Stewart" <gjst...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:goGT6
.111464$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Luke Farrugia
--
Luke Farrugia
Super wrote in message <9fnegn$hq...@imsp212.netvigator.com>...
>但唔知點解我部車如果長開D波，半粒鐘左右架車響靜止時佢就會chok下chok下，好似
The Red Krawler
If you managed to find a "D" or an "N" on your manual, then three cheers for
you.
Roger Dunk
driving, I reckon I'd be giving the transmission and torque convertor every
chance it can to cool down when stopped at lights. That's probably why my
1966 Dodge has been going since new without even an oil change to the
transmission, let alone needing the bands adjusted or torque convertor
replaced etc.
The only thing I agree with is that yes, it ain't gonna make the slightest
difference to your fuel economy one way or the other.
Cheers...
Roger
"Greg Stewart" <gjst...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:goGT6.111464$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Luke Farrugia
the damn thing??
btw how does the quickshift autos work in that case???
--
Luke Farrugia
The Red Krawler wrote in message ...
Tim
ever you see a big hill....I figure i am saving plenty of fuel.....it
is...fulsik.....wait nm
Noddy
> With the significant temperatures these things are running at during
normal
> driving, I reckon I'd be giving the transmission and torque convertor
every
> chance it can to cool down when stopped at lights. That's probably why my
> 1966 Dodge has been going since new without even an oil change to the
> transmission, let alone needing the bands adjusted or torque convertor
> replaced etc.
>
> The only thing I agree with is that yes, it ain't gonna make the slightest
> difference to your fuel economy one way or the other.
Won't make any difference to the life of your auto either.
If your torque converter is constructed in such a way that selecting neutral
while stationary is beneficial to it's life, then driving the car down the
freeway will be virtually destroying it. The load placed on a torque
converter's internals at idle speeds are *very* minor.
By the way, if you've never changed the fluid in your auto in 35 years, then
you're either not too bright or very stingy. Transmission fluid loses it's
properties over time and running fluid that old in an auto would be doing
more damage that you ever thought possible. Trans fluid is cheap, and should
be changed every couple of years if you care about the internal workings of
your auto.
Would you run your engine oil for 35 years?
Regards,
Noddy.
Geoff
for
> you.
I've got a D and an N. N is for Neutral, and the bottom part of the R wore
off so it looks like a D :)
lol.
Geoff
kill
> the damn thing??
Eventually, yes. When you change gears, there are a pair of "synchro" rings
that make sure the gears are rotating at the same speed when they engage.
Otherwise you get a *crunch*. If you change gears all the time then you're
using the synchros a lot. Synchros work based on friction, kinda like if
you're falling and you grab hold of some rope to stop yourself. You might
stop yourself, but the friction between your hands and the rope gives you
some nice rope burn. Synchros don't suffer to that degree, but it seemed an
interesting analogy :)
Roger Dunk
slightest
> > difference to your fuel economy one way or the other.
>
> Won't make any difference to the life of your auto either.
True.
> If your torque converter is constructed in such a way that selecting
neutral
> while stationary is beneficial to it's life, then driving the car down the
> freeway will be virtually destroying it.
I wouldn't go as far as to say 'virtually destroying it', but it does stand
to reason that the more you use it, the more it will wear out. I thought
that would've been obvious.
> The load placed on a torque converter's internals at idle speeds are
*very* minor.
True, but it's a load none the less. If it wasn't, your car wouldn't creep
forward in drive if you took your foot off the brake (unless you have a
/really/ slow idle, or worn out convertor). I never said it was going to
save x number of years on the life of the convertor if you change into
neutral, but personally the less wear and tear I can place on moving parts,
the better they are for it. Since I've never managed to wear out a
convertor, I'll think I'll stick to selecting netural when not in motion.
Also, I suppose when driving a manual and stopped at traffic lights, you
continually slip the clutch, because hey, it's only a minor load at idle
speed? I don't think so.
> By the way, if you've never changed the fluid in your auto in 35 years,
then
> you're either not too bright or very stingy. Transmission fluid loses it's
> properties over time and running fluid that old in an auto would be doing
> more damage that you ever thought possible.
Funny how you can say that it's doing 'more damage' than I ever thought
possible, when the fact of the matter is the transmission is as good as new.
For what it's worth, I actually did have to change the transmission oil late
last year, only because the gasket on the transmission sump had started to
leak. Upon inspecting the drained oil, it looked nearly as new, with
virtually no contamination from band wear etc. I also checked the bands,
which required absolutely no adjustment. Suffice it to say, running the same
oil for 35 years had NO detrimental effect on the transmission.
> Trans fluid is cheap, and should be changed every couple of years if you
care about the >internal workings of your auto.
Depends what you mean by cheap. But in any case, I've no mind to go changing
it every two years when it can last a heck of a lot longer than that.
There's this little thing called a dip-stick that some people use to check
on such things as the level and quality of oil. Of course, a dip-stick like
yourself probably doesn't bother to check such things, and just changes the
oil based on manufacturers recommendations, and not common-sense.
>Would you run your engine oil for 35 years?
Absolutely not, because engine oil is crap (even the synthetic totally
'pure' crap that Mr. Brock swears by) and breaks down far too quickly. I
find I have to change engine oil at least every 6 months, fairly
irrespective of distance travelled.
Cheers...
Roger
Daniel Gordon
"Roger Dunk" <ro...@nospam.at.com.au> wrote in message
news:heJT6.27610$BU4....@news1.blktn1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
Roger Dunk
All I know is what works for me. I'm not saying it does for everyone, and
quite frankly I could't give a rats arse. I'm not in the auto trade, so I'm
not the one who has to give bad advice to stay in business :)
Cheers...
Roger
"Daniel Gordon" <dan...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:5pJT6.112358$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Noddy
"Roger Dunk" <ro...@nospam.at.com.au> wrote in message news:heJT6.27610
>
> I wouldn't go as far as to say 'virtually destroying it', but it does
stand
> to reason that the more you use it, the more it will wear out. I thought
> that would've been obvious.
To be more accurate, the harder you spin the converter the more strain it,
and the fluid, is put under.
> True, but it's a load none the less. If it wasn't, your car wouldn't creep
> forward in drive if you took your foot off the brake (unless you have a
> /really/ slow idle, or worn out convertor). I never said it was going to
> save x number of years on the life of the convertor if you change into
> neutral, but personally the less wear and tear I can place on moving
parts,
> the better they are for it. Since I've never managed to wear out a
> convertor, I'll think I'll stick to selecting netural when not in motion.
Converters don't generally "wear out" a unless they're subject to extreme
duty. You aren't really saving yourself anything by selecting neutral while
pulled up at a light. However, you *are* accelerating the wear on things
like your shifter linkages, universal joints, crownwheel & pinion and brake
shoes & pads every time the think goes "clunk" when you pull it into drive.
It's your car, if you reckon it's benefitting from doing this it's fine with
me :)
> Also, I suppose when driving a manual and stopped at traffic lights, you
> continually slip the clutch, because hey, it's only a minor load at idle
> speed? I don't think so.
I don't either. I also don't think that's much of an analogy...
> Funny how you can say that it's doing 'more damage' than I ever thought
> possible, when the fact of the matter is the transmission is as good as
new.
How do you know?
> For what it's worth, I actually did have to change the transmission oil
late
> last year, only because the gasket on the transmission sump had started to
> leak. Upon inspecting the drained oil, it looked nearly as new, with
> virtually no contamination from band wear etc. I also checked the bands,
> which required absolutely no adjustment. Suffice it to say, running the
same
> oil for 35 years had NO detrimental effect on the transmission.
With all due respect, my 20 odd years as a mechainc tells me that I simply
do not believe this to be true.
> Depends what you mean by cheap. But in any case, I've no mind to go
changing
> it every two years when it can last a heck of a lot longer than that.
> There's this little thing called a dip-stick that some people use to check
> on such things as the level and quality of oil. Of course, a dip-stick
like
> yourself probably doesn't bother to check such things, and just changes
the
> oil based on manufacturers recommendations, and not common-sense.
No, I change things like transmission fluid at regular intervals because
it's called "preventative maintenance". It's a procedure that saves a lot in
terms of cost and equipment over time, and it's praciced by many for good
reason. It also applies to other fluids and lubricants in the car too, like
brake fluid, coolant, diff and gearbox oils.
No offence, but if you pulled the dipstick out of your auto, would you know
what to look for to indicate a problem?
> Absolutely not, because engine oil is crap (even the synthetic totally
> 'pure' crap that Mr. Brock swears by) and breaks down far too quickly. I
> find I have to change engine oil at least every 6 months, fairly
> irrespective of distance travelled.
Well, I guess you're not totally crazy... :)
Regards,
Noddy.
BoganMan
> when ever you see a big hill....I figure i am saving plenty of fuel.....
> it is...fulsik.....wait nm
I do that.
--------- BoganMan
[[ ICQ 32988117 ]]
*-n i c k-*
engages Neutral when the car is at idle with footbrake on. It is supposedly
to use less fuel and to make it idle smoother, when you release the brake it
changes back to D.....
Greg Stewart <gjst...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:goGT6.111464$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Milky
"Noddy" <dgib...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3b1f...@news.iprimus.com.au...
:
: "*-n i c k-*" <nmou...@uk2.net> wrote in message
: news:ZGKT6.112856$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
: > what about Saabs, some Volvos and the Holden (opel) Vectra? Their auto
box
: > engages Neutral when the car is at idle with footbrake on. It is
: supposedly
: > to use less fuel and to make it idle smoother, when you release the
brake
: it
: > changes back to D.....
: But does it actually do anything except make them appear to be
"technically
: advanced"?
Yes, it does. it is not that smooth if the netural-idle is not working
:
: Regards,
: Noddy.
:
:
BobCa...@mailcity.com
Imat...@mailcity.com
First you pay for the automatic then you pay in lost power than
you pay for more gas then you pay more to have it fixed. Get
a 6 speed if you can. I wish my mom would have got me a six
speed in my Metro if they even make one but I wish they did.
the Metro is a good GM car but it is really a Jap car, they
make better cars than americans or Koreans even if the Koreans
do have the best warranty. I think all cars should have a
100,000 mile warranty even maybe 200,000 some day when they
get the new technology form the space shuttle but the government
is keep that stuff a secrete. They don't want their friends
in big business to loose their big profits that the steal for
the little guys buy making cars that don't have manual trannys
so we can save a few dollars. If they would raise the minimum
wage maybe we can afford to buy an automatic. If they get
the technology the government is keeping secret we could have
an automatic that will give good mileage but for now I would
not buy an automatic useless of course you really like automatic
or have a mom that can't shift for sh*t, I don't, you will
probably still probably buy one. If i could buy a Corvette
I would not get an automatic like some guys do just because
they have lots of money my Metro gets me just as many places
as a guy that has a Corvette and I have more seat too. The
government should make the car companies build cars will more
seats so that more can get in the cars to save gas and I
don't mean big gas guzzling SUV's either because they roll
over a lot even if they don't have Firestone tires and if
they have more seats more people get killed. I think if
I were driving something that rolled over just because the
tires that Firestone makes ar junk, I like Michelin better
but that is another thing, but if I'm going to roll over
I would rather do it in my Metro with less seats so fewer
people would die. I guess the guy driving a Corvette would
feel like I do and most of all I can't imagine why YOU ARE
ACTUALLY STILL READING THIS?
Casey
好快又會變成一??戰........
Casey
"Hing On" <Hin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fn875$19$1...@dahlia.singnet.com.sg...
Happy Hunter
an effort to give the car the performance of a manual transmission with the
ease of an automatic. They also have a sync device to accomodate the
constant in and out of drive like a manual has for engageing the clutch. I
think it's a neat idea, but if I want (and I do) a manual transmission, I
will buy(and I do) a manual transmission.
HH
"Milky" <fa...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:GCMT6.113412$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Happy Hunter
then they CAN make more laws to control you and your friends. My mother
taught me how to drive a manual transmission when I was 11 years old. And
she does not wear army boots. Welfare is the basis of socialism...US is
more capitalistic...the two don't fare well together.
HH
<Imat...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:3ADC16F0...@mailcity.com...
BigJo...@mailcity.com
Happy Hunter
EVERYTHING! Why? Because I have nothing better to do with my time. Trolls
are fun. It's the flamers that really bug me.
HH
<BigJo...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:3ADC3D74...@mailcity.com...
Casey Maggee
theres a writeup on torque convertors there
cheers
pcman
"Hing On" <Hin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fnb3r$s1c$1...@dahlia.singnet.com.sg...
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for reply! I also heard of this torque convertor.Can you tell me
more
> about it or point me to some of the web site that I can get more info.
> Thanks!
>
> "Roger Dunk" <ro...@nospam.at.com.au> wrote in message
> news:X9GT6.27577$BU4....@news1.blktn1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
> > If you're going to be stopped more than 20-30 seconds, you are probably
> > doing your torque convertor a favour by shifting into netural.
> >
> > Cheers...
> > Roger
> >
M@W8
No... so how about posting something useful...
<BobCa...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:3ADC10BB...@mailcity.com...
Roger Dunk
> and the fluid, is put under.
No arguement there.
> Converters don't generally "wear out" a unless they're subject to extreme
> duty. You aren't really saving yourself anything by selecting neutral
while
> pulled up at a light. However, you *are* accelerating the wear on things
> like your shifter linkages, universal joints, crownwheel & pinion and
brake
> shoes & pads every time the think goes "clunk" when you pull it into
drive.
True up to a point, which is why I definately don't bother if I'm only going
to be stopped a short while. As for going 'clunk' when put into drive, my
idle speed is set slow enough that there is minimal movement of the
tailshaft when going into drive, so I don't perceive it as a problem (and I
would much prefer to replace uni's than a tranmission or convertor). Wearing
out brake shoes and pads I would also question.
> It's your car, if you reckon it's benefitting from doing this it's fine
with
> me :)
And I think it's fine if people don't want to move to neutral when stopped.
As I said before, it's really not a matter of life and death to any parts of
the transmission or driveline if you either do, or don't shift into neutral.
I believe there is some benefit to my practice, but accept that other people
see it differently.
> > Also, I suppose when driving a manual and stopped at traffic lights, you
> > continually slip the clutch, because hey, it's only a minor load at idle
> > speed? I don't think so.
>
> I don't either. I also don't think that's much of an analogy...
Neither do I, but it seemed ok at the time :)
> > Funny how you can say that it's doing 'more damage' than I ever thought
> > possible, when the fact of the matter is the transmission is as good as
> new.
>
> How do you know?
Answered below.
> > For what it's worth, I actually did have to change the transmission oil
> late
> > last year, only because the gasket on the transmission sump had started
to
> > leak. Upon inspecting the drained oil, it looked nearly as new, with
> > virtually no contamination from band wear etc. I also checked the bands,
> > which required absolutely no adjustment. Suffice it to say, running the
> same
> > oil for 35 years had NO detrimental effect on the transmission.
>
> With all due respect, my 20 odd years as a mechainc tells me that I simply
> do not believe this to be true.
Well, that's up to you. Of course, I never stated that in the 35 years the
vehicle has been driven, it's accumulated as many miles as most vehicles
would given that time period. In fact, it's only travelled about 250,000k's.
But, what I am suggesting is that transmission oil doesn't deteriorate over
time to the same degree that engine oil would.
> No, I change things like transmission fluid at regular intervals because
> it's called "preventative maintenance". It's a procedure that saves a lot
in
> terms of cost and equipment over time, and it's praciced by many for good
> reason. It also applies to other fluids and lubricants in the car too,
like
> brake fluid, coolant, diff and gearbox oils.
Coolant and engine oil definately need to be changed regularly for the
obvious reasons that they get contaminated quickly, or break down quickly.
The transmission oil in automatics does a great amount of work, and I agree
that one would expect it to breakdown pretty quickly, but from my experience
above, it seems to last amazingly well. Manual transmission oil/diff oil
doesn't really (IMO) do all that much work, and thus doesn't need to be
changed very often. Brake fluid on the other hand I wouldn't ever dream of
changing. Certainly some of it gets replaced when changing a master/slave
cylinder etc, but I certainly wouldn't replace it all for the fun of it.
Then again, maybe my brakes would work better if I did change it. Having
never changed it all, I can't really comment. What are your experiences with
the breakdown of brake fluid over time?
> No offence, but if you pulled the dipstick out of your auto, would you
know
> what to look for to indicate a problem?
I rebuild transmissions, so yes, I am famililar with their most intimate
inner workings and know pretty quickly when something ain't right. Note that
I realise that looking at the dip-stick isn't usually the best way to
identify transmissions problems (unless there's a nice collection of metal
particles on the stick). However, it is usually fairly easy to determine the
quality of an oil this way (ie colour, cleanliness, and whether it still
feels like a good lubricant).
> > Absolutely not, because engine oil is crap (even the synthetic totally
> > 'pure' crap that Mr. Brock swears by) and breaks down far too quickly. I
> > find I have to change engine oil at least every 6 months, fairly
> > irrespective of distance travelled.
>
> Well, I guess you're not totally crazy... :)
No, I only GO crazy when described as being 'either not too bright or very
stingy' :)
Cheers...
Roger
M@W8
Once you change to neutral at a set of lights, let the clutch out.
Otherwise there is uneccessary wear on the thrust bearing.
Changing gears (as with changing from D-N-D) will cause wear, but so will
driving the car, opening the doors, etc...
What are you gonna do, put it up on blocks and sit looking at it?
If you're really worried about your automatic suffering wear from sitting in
D when stationary, buy a Vectra. They change into neutral when you stop
automatically.
"Luke Farrugia" <jfar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:CRGT6.111576$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> how does this work with a manual??/
>
> --
>
>
> Luke Farrugia
>
> Greg Stewart wrote in message ...
> >I asked the guys at the transmission shop this, they told me not to worry
> >about doing it, at idle the torque converter won't create anywhere near
> >enough heat to cause any problems with it, and any excessive shifting
from
> >D - N - D will only cause more transmission component wear.
> >The differences in fuel economy will be so small that they will never be
> >noticeable.
> >
> >Greg.
> >
Roger Dunk
Unfortunately I only have the luxury of tinkering with automobiles in my
spare time. I have to piss-fart around on these wretched computers the rest
of the time, which is probably why I envy you lucky bastards in the auto
trade! But at least I don't end up with a crook back from sitting down all
day ;)
Cheers...
Roger
Roger Dunk
my car to shift into netural /every/ time it was stationary and I had the
brake on. Sheesh!
Cheers...
Roger
"*-n i c k-*" <nmou...@uk2.net> wrote in message
news:ZGKT6.112856$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Michael
Hing On <Hin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fn875$19$1...@dahlia.singnet.com.sg...
> Anyone can tell me that should I change my Gear from 'D' position to 'N'
> position when I stop at the traffic light? If I don't change it, will it
> damage any parts of my car? Thx!
Leave it in D - Won't be a problem.
Michael
Michael
Luke Farrugia <jfar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:flHT6.111717$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> lol no i mean does swapping the aorund the gears in a manual tooo much
kill
> the damn thing??
Every shift will cause wear as does every rev of the engine. If your car is
serviced at it's propper intervals, and when you do change gear the clutch
is depressed all the way it shouldn't be an issue.
Michael
Michael
Roger Dunk <ro...@nospam.at.com.au> wrote in message
news:ojHT6.27587$BU4....@news1.blktn1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
> With the significant temperatures these things are running at during
normal
> driving, I reckon I'd be giving the transmission and torque convertor
every
> chance it can to cool down when stopped at lights. That's probably why my
> 1966 Dodge has been going since new without even an oil change to the
> transmission, let alone needing the bands adjusted or torque convertor
> replaced etc.
>
> The only thing I agree with is that yes, it ain't gonna make the slightest
> difference to your fuel economy one way or the other.
Technology has come a long way since your Dodge. If a modern car cannot
cope sitting for a min or so stationary (sp) in "D", I'd consider getting a
different car.
Michael
Confusement
news:MdHT6.4779$l_3....@news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au...
> > how does this work with a manual??/
>
for
> you.
>
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAA!
Michael
Roger Dunk <ro...@nospam.at.com.au> wrote in message
news:heJT6.27610$BU4....@news1.blktn1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
> > Trans fluid is cheap, and should be changed every couple of years if you
> care about the >internal workings of your auto.
>
> Depends what you mean by cheap. But in any case, I've no mind to go
changing
> it every two years when it can last a heck of a lot longer than that.
> There's this little thing called a dip-stick that some people use to check
> on such things as the level and quality of oil. Of course, a dip-stick
like
> yourself probably doesn't bother to check such things, and just changes
the
> oil based on manufacturers recommendations, and not common-sense.
Ahahahaahaha Do you actually expect us to believe that you checked your auto
oil religiously for 35 years??
.....checking the oil Maw.
.....yep - the oil is fine again Maw.
Michael
Confusement
"Super" <su...@hk.com> wrote in message
news:9fnegn$hq...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
>
但唔知點解我部車如果長開D波，半粒鐘左右架車響靜止時佢就會chok下chok下，好似�Q入波去咁。但如果我響長燈位時俾佢N波休息下，就唔會有這個問題出現。
>
> 究竟我部車係咪個波箱有咩問題呢?
>
>
> "Greg Stewart" <gjst...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:goGT6
> .111464$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > I asked the guys at the transmission shop this, they told me not to
worry
> > about doing it, at idle the torque converter won't create anywhere near
> > enough heat to cause any problems with it, and any excessive shifting
from
> > D - N - D will only cause more transmission component wear.
> > The differences in fuel economy will be so small that they will never be
> > noticeable.
> >
> > Greg.
> >
Confusement
news:msWT6.53224$hV3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> Technology has come a long way since your Dodge. If a modern car cannot
> cope sitting for a min or so stationary (sp) in "D", I'd consider getting
a
> different car.
>
> Michael
>
While I can't speak for auto transmissions specifically, I don't agree with
the blanket statement that because it's modern, it's going to be able to
cope with more, or be "tougher" in some sense. In some cases, it's quite the
opposite (crumple-zone trolling aside).
Michael
Confusement <Allo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:ZUWT6.20$V_4....@news0.optus.net.au...
I didn't say that because everything is modern its going to be able to cope
with more. I said if it's a modern transmission, I would expect it to be
able to cope with sitting stationary for a min or so.
Michael.
Confusement
>
> I didn't say that because everything is modern its going to be able to
cope
> with more. I said if it's a modern transmission, I would expect it to be
> able to cope with sitting stationary for a min or so.
>
> Michael.
>
Yeah, sorry 'bout that. I should have pointed out that (believe it or not),
my comment wasn't exactly aimed at you, I just saw it as a good place to say
what I said =)
Super
mean the wheels fell off??
"Confusement" <Allo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:LLWT6.19$V_4....@news0.optus.net.au...
> I had one, but the wheels fell off.
>
>
> "Super" <su...@hk.com> wrote in message
> news:9fnegn$hq...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> >
> 但唔知點解我部車如果長開D波，半粒鐘左右架車響靜止時佢就會chok下chok下，好
似?
Super
gearbox?
"Oz1" <ozsa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkhuht4ojuog55cj5...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 16:38:14 +0800, "Super" <su...@hk.com> wrote:
>
> >但唔知點解我部車如果長開D波，半粒鐘左右架車響靜止時佢就會chok下chok下，好
似想入波去咁。但如果我響長燈位時俾佢N波休息下，就唔會有這個問題出現。
> >
> >究竟我部車係咪個波箱有咩問題呢?
> >
> Yep!
> You got it in one.
Super
嘛
"Casey" <ca...@casey.com> wrote in message
news:9fo82d$8f...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
Gavin Cato
> changing. Certainly some of it gets replaced when changing a master/slave
> cylinder etc, but I certainly wouldn't replace it all for the fun of it.
> Then again, maybe my brakes would work better if I did change it. Having
> never changed it all, I can't really comment. What are your experiences
with
> the breakdown of brake fluid over time?
Go to a racetrack and you'll notice interesting things with brake fluid :)
Gav
Mike...@mailcity.com
he was a troll!
Confusement
all *I* see (and I assume Oz1 as well) is a whole lot of garbled mess - not
one single distinguishable "English" word or letter in there at all.
i.e. may as well be Greek to me.
Care to post it again?
"Super" <su...@hk.com> wrote in message
news:9fpf92$rtt...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
Roger Dunk
slightest
> > difference to your fuel economy one way or the other.
>
> Technology has come a long way since your Dodge. If a modern car cannot
> cope sitting for a min or so stationary (sp) in "D", I'd consider getting
a
> different car.
If /any/ car can't cope sitting statiationary for a minute or so I would
suggest getting a different car. Nobody suggested that it was a case of 'not
coping' with it sitting in drive. It was merely a suggestion that perhaps
shifting into netural might prolong the life of transmission components.
Just as changing engine oil regularly will prolong the life of an engine. Or
perhaps in a manual transmission we could say that rev-matching while
shifting will prolong the life of the synchros.
And I take offence to the suggestion that modern cars are better able to
'cope' than older ones. In too much of a generalisation to have any
relevance.
Cheers...
Roger
M@W8
<Mike...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:3ADC5BB3...@mailcity.com...
Greg Stewart
you foot on the clutch as apposed to changing to Neutral and letting the
clutch off.
Sitting with you manual transmission in gear and your foot on the clutch
will cause absolutely zero strain on you transmission, but will wear you
throw-out bearing in the clutch, this is the bearing that takes the pressure
from the slave cylinder via the clutch fork (stationary) and presses on the
pressure plate(which is spinning) to disengage the clutch.
On the other side, you can shift to neutral and release your clutch, thus
causing zero wear on you clutch during this time, but when you decide it's
time to start moving and push you clutch in and engage 1st, you are placing
some wear on your 1st gear synchro rings inside your transmission, and the
quicker you engage 1st after applying the clutch, the more wear you will
cause.
In the real world, your 1st gear synchros don't do much work, as it isn't
used during normal gear changes while driving, unless you often select 1st
while your still moving, so changing to neutral when you stop at the
lights..etc.. then engaging 1st again, won't cause your 1st gear synchros to
fail before the others.
If you want to be really pedantic, you can shift to neutral, release the
clutch, then anticipate the lights (or whatever), and apply the clutch, wait
about 5 sec, then shift to 1st, this will give enough time for you 1st gears
to stop before engaging thus causing no wear to synchro rings.
Hope this makes sense
"Luke Farrugia" <jfar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:CRGT6.111576$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> how does this work with a manual??/
>
> --
>
>
> Luke Farrugia
>
> Greg Stewart wrote in message ...
a@b.c
ro...@nospam.at.com.au says...
> Brake fluid on the other hand I wouldn't ever dream of changing.
You've got to be joking?! Brake fluid is supposed to be replaced every
two years.
> Then again, maybe my brakes would work better if I did change it. Having
> never changed it all, I can't really comment. What are your experiences
> with the breakdown of brake fluid over time?
Brake fluid doesn't break down, it absorbs water. Two things happen when
brake fluid absorbs water. The brake fluid's boiling point gets lower and
your braking system starts to corrode. You can probably guess what
happens if the boiling point is low enough and you're using the brakes a
lot.
a@b.c
mcm...@bigpond.net.au says...
> how about if you're just really tight like me and move into neutral when
> ever you see a big hill....I figure i am saving plenty of fuel.....it
> is...fulsik.....wait nm
If you have fuel injection then you'll use more fuel idling in neutral
than you will coasting in gear (the fuel is cut off completely).
Noddy
"Milky" <fa...@mail.com> wrote in message news:GCMT6.113412$ff.846868@news-
>
> Yes, it does. it is not that smooth if the netural-idle is not working
You could pretty much say that just about any auto idles smoother in
neutral/park than it does in drive
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"Roger Dunk" <ro...@nospam.at.com.au> wrote in message news:MdVT6.27699
> True up to a point, which is why I definately don't bother if I'm only
going
> to be stopped a short while. As for going 'clunk' when put into drive, my
> idle speed is set slow enough that there is minimal movement of the
> tailshaft when going into drive, so I don't perceive it as a problem (and
I
> would much prefer to replace uni's than a tranmission or convertor).
Wearing
> out brake shoes and pads I would also question.
You get brake wear if your car creeps a bit when you pull it into drive with
your foot on the brake, but not hard enough to hold the car stationary. Do
it once or twice and you'd never notice a difference. Do it all the time and
you will.
BTW, your tailshaft moves just the same amount with the idle turned down low
as it does if the engine was screaming. Backlash doesn't vary with rpm, only
the severity of the "clunk".
> And I think it's fine if people don't want to move to neutral when
stopped.
> As I said before, it's really not a matter of life and death to any parts
of
> the transmission or driveline if you either do, or don't shift into
neutral.
> I believe there is some benefit to my practice, but accept that other
people
> see it differently.
Fair enough.
> Well, that's up to you. Of course, I never stated that in the 35 years the
> vehicle has been driven, it's accumulated as many miles as most vehicles
> would given that time period. In fact, it's only travelled about
250,000k's.
> But, what I am suggesting is that transmission oil doesn't deteriorate
over
> time to the same degree that engine oil would.
Not as quickly or to the same degree as engine oil, no. But it still breaks
down just the same.
> Coolant and engine oil definately need to be changed regularly for the
> obvious reasons that they get contaminated quickly, or break down quickly.
> The transmission oil in automatics does a great amount of work, and I
agree
> that one would expect it to breakdown pretty quickly, but from my
experience
> above, it seems to last amazingly well. Manual transmission oil/diff oil
> doesn't really (IMO) do all that much work, and thus doesn't need to be
> changed very often. Brake fluid on the other hand I wouldn't ever dream of
> changing. Certainly some of it gets replaced when changing a master/slave
> cylinder etc, but I certainly wouldn't replace it all for the fun of it.
> Then again, maybe my brakes would work better if I did change it. Having
> never changed it all, I can't really comment. What are your experiences
with
> the breakdown of brake fluid over time?
Regular brake fluid absorbs moisture, namely water, and this does two things
to the brake system. It lowers the boiling point of the fluid which reduces
the effectiveness of the brakes and it corrodes internal parts of
master/wheel/slave cylinders and steel brake lines. Silicone brake fluid
does not deteriorate in the same manner and keeps brake system parts in mint
condition.
Gear oils, like engine oil and transmission fluid, are crude based products
and break down just as easily. Your average manual gearbox or differential
relies on a good quality lubricant just as much as your crankshaft does.
> I rebuild transmissions, so yes, I am famililar with their most intimate
> inner workings and know pretty quickly when something ain't right. Note
that
> I realise that looking at the dip-stick isn't usually the best way to
> identify transmissions problems (unless there's a nice collection of metal
> particles on the stick). However, it is usually fairly easy to determine
the
> quality of an oil this way (ie colour, cleanliness, and whether it still
> feels like a good lubricant).
Smell is usually the *best* indication actually...
> No, I only GO crazy when described as being 'either not too bright or very
> stingy' :)
Well, I think the comment still stands. Shit, I wouldn't go 35 years with
the same air in my tyres let alone trans fluid in my auto... :)
Regards,
Noddy.
Greg Stewart
<a@b.c> wrote in message news:MPG.158b6ca9b...@news.inet.net.nz...
There is only a few factory engine management systems that cut the fuel
completely when coasting, most just measure manifold pressure or intake
airflow, and continue injecting the correct amount of fuel to suit, not much
air gets to the engine due to the closed throttle, so not much fuel is
injected either.
Greg.
Happy Hunter
anything intertesting about brake fluid...and I go to the race trac every
weekend.
HH
"Gavin Cato" <gc...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:xmXT6.114265$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Happy Hunter
> happens if the boiling point is low enough and you're using the brakes a
> lot.
No I can't...tell me more about this boiling point theory. Does the brake
fluid cool the rotor somehow? Or are you saying that the heat is transfered
from the rotor/pad to the brake lines somehow?
HH
atec77
yes it is .. and that's why you must change the fluid periodically , or
it may boil and suddenly you have little pedal left , quite scary
G>
>
> HH
Ilene...@lycos.com
wheel cylinders and rusts them rather badly, as well.
Ilene...@lycos.com
an engineering text book on Hydraulics, for a definitive explanation
of you intuitive questions on thermodynamics and latent heat.
Ilene...@lycos.com
miles to where I work. The only problem the engine always stops
running and it is really hard to steer around the turns. Now at
least I know why it stops running.
Ilene...@lycos.com
My mom could never afford an automatic.
Patrick
"Michael" <g.re...@bigpond.com> 撰寫於郵件
news:LmWT6.53209$hV3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Hi...
>
> Hing On <Hin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9fn875$19$1...@dahlia.singnet.com.sg...
> > Anyone can tell me that should I change my Gear from 'D' position to 'N'
> > position when I stop at the traffic light? If I don't change it, will it
> > damage any parts of my car? Thx!
>
>
> Michael
>
>
Greg Stewart
compressed (liquid) to something that can be compressed (gas), air is gas,
and what happens when you have that in your brake lines.. no brakes!!...
same problem when you fluid boils!!
Brakes get very hot, especially when they are used a lot, I have heard
stories of disk rotors glowing red after excessive use down hills etc.. And
since your wheel cylinders are part of your calliper, heat will transfer
from the pad to the cylinder very quickly!
Greg.
"Happy Hunter" <nate...@junkmail.nvbell.net> wrote in message
news:iB5U6.854$sw.3...@news.pacbell.net...
Gary Hampton
changing gears will
"Geoff" <spamif...@cyberjunkie.com> wrote in message
news:5YIT6.2088$S5....@news1.belrs1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
> > lol no i mean does swapping the aorund the gears in a manual tooo much
> kill
> > the damn thing??
>
> Eventually, yes. When you change gears, there are a pair of "synchro"
rings
> that make sure the gears are rotating at the same speed when they engage.
> Otherwise you get a *crunch*. If you change gears all the time then
you're
> using the synchros a lot. Synchros work based on friction, kinda like if
> you're falling and you grab hold of some rope to stop yourself. You might
> stop yourself, but the friction between your hands and the rope gives you
> some nice rope burn. Synchros don't suffer to that degree, but it seemed
an
> interesting analogy :)
>
>
>
>
TWANG
"Patrick" <pkh...@hongkong.com> wrote in message
news:9fr991$lg...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
Roger Dunk
with
> your foot on the brake, but not hard enough to hold the car stationary. Do
> it once or twice and you'd never notice a difference. Do it all the time
and
> you will.
True, but I'd certainly count this brake wear to be muuuch less than the
possible wear to the torque convertor. Besides, brake shoes are going to
have to be changed every so often anyway, torque convertors (hopefully) not
so.
And while you're on brake wear, it works the other way as well. If I am
stopped on a flat surface with the car in drive, it requires more pressure
on the pedal to keep the car from moving forward, than it does in netural
(which requires no pressure). So, my brake booster and master/slave
cylinders are going to thank me for shifting into netural, even if my brake
shoes/pads are not.
> BTW, your tailshaft moves just the same amount with the idle turned down
low
> as it does if the engine was screaming. Backlash doesn't vary with rpm,
only
> the severity of the "clunk".
Even if did move just as much, does that necessarily mean it causes the same
amount of wear than a faster 'clunk' would? I doubt it. And with a slower
idle, the input of the torque convertor is not spinning as quickly,
therefore the output is not going to spin as quickly (if at all), so again,
it may or may not move as much.
> > But, what I am suggesting is that transmission oil doesn't deteriorate
> over
> > time to the same degree that engine oil would.
>
> Not as quickly or to the same degree as engine oil, no. But it still
breaks
> down just the same.
No arguement there. But from my experience, with the use the trans oil had
got, it lasted 35 years without breaking down to the extend that it really
needed replacing.
> Regular brake fluid absorbs moisture, namely water, and this does two
things
> to the brake system. It lowers the boiling point of the fluid which
reduces
> the effectiveness of the brakes and it corrodes internal parts of
> master/wheel/slave cylinders and steel brake lines. Silicone brake fluid
> does not deteriorate in the same manner and keeps brake system parts in
mint
> condition.
Ok, yes, it does absorb moisture. But where is this moisture getting into
the (sealed) system? Presumably only when you open the reservoir to check
the fluid level (unless you have a clear reservoir, which I'm assuming all
new cars do, so it's not an issue) or top it up (in which case, something is
leaking, and probably needs replacing anyway). Again from my experience, the
bore and rubbers in slave cylinders wear out long before anything starts
corroding due to moisture content. The same goes for master cylinders (I've
had plenty that look rusty, but it's always the bore and rubbers that wear
out before anything else). The only part of the brake system that has
corroded on me is the power booster, and only because the master cylinder
was leaking and brake fluid entering the power booster.
However I agree that if moisture does enter the brake system, it's obviously
going to reduce the effectiveness of brakes, and for that reason alone it
would make sense to change it. I only question how much moisture enters the
brake system over any given period of time? Meaning how long does it take
before the moisture entering the system is sufficient to cause a significant
degredation in the performance of the brakes?
> Gear oils, like engine oil and transmission fluid, are crude based
products
> and break down just as easily. Your average manual gearbox or differential
> relies on a good quality lubricant just as much as your crankshaft does.
Yes, very true, but avioding what I said. While both engines and
gearboxes/diffs require a good lubricant, gearboxes/diffs are not doing
anywhere near as much work as engine oil (and aren't being diluted with
petrol etc). Also in most cases gearboxes/diffs use a higher grade (ie
thicker) oil, which is going to take longer to lose its lubricating
properties anyway.
> > particles on the stick). However, it is usually fairly easy to determine
> the
> > quality of an oil this way (ie colour, cleanliness, and whether it still
> > feels like a good lubricant).
>
> Smell is usually the *best* indication actually...
Quite possibly, but for someone without a good sense of smell, it's next to
useless :)
> Well, I think the comment still stands. Shit, I wouldn't go 35 years with
> the same air in my tyres let alone trans fluid in my auto... :)
I'd definately go 35 years with the same air in my tyres, it they made tyres
as well as they made Torqueflite 727 transmissions. Unfortunately tyres leak
and wear out, unlike my transmission :)
Cheers...
Roger
Roger Dunk
"Gavin Cato" <gc...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:xmXT6.114265$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Roger Dunk
>
> You've got to be joking?! Brake fluid is supposed to be replaced every
> two years.
Why? Have you done tests yourself and come to the conclusion that after two
years sufficient moisture will have entered the average brake system to
cause a significant degredation in the performance of the brakes? I doubt
it.
> > Then again, maybe my brakes would work better if I did change it. Having
> > never changed it all, I can't really comment. What are your experiences
> > with the breakdown of brake fluid over time?
> Brake fluid doesn't break down, it absorbs water. Two things happen when
> brake fluid absorbs water. The brake fluid's boiling point gets lower and
> your braking system starts to corrode. You can probably guess what
> happens if the boiling point is low enough and you're using the brakes a
> lot.
Boiling brake fluid? In race cars, no doubt. In modern cars with four wheel
disc brakes and women drivers with abs brakes, a slight possibility. In my
'60's Dodges with four wheel drum brakes and less than effective power
boosters, you've gotta be kidding :)
Cheers...
Roger
Roger Dunk
>
> You could pretty much say that just about any auto idles smoother in
> neutral/park than it does in drive
And presumably only because the idle speed decreases slightly when in drive,
as opposed to netural (although the computers in modern cars probably adjust
for this anyway - I don't drive one so wouldn't know).
Cheers...
Roger
Steve Fleckenstein
sealed so no water could get in?
Every American car shop manual I have ever looked at (GM , Mopar, Ford ) has
not had one thing to say about flushing out the brake system on a regular
basis .. ever.. Not one owners manual I have owned for these cars has said
to flush the brake fluid. Is it a good idea to do so ? I'm anal about auto
maintenance anyhow and think it is a good idea but I've seen / driven 15
year old cars that have never had a flush out and the brakes still work
fine..
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may be used for commericial purposes as part of a compilation
on any type of media or as part of a collection of e-mail addresses for mass
marketing ONLY
if a $50 or more donation is made to the
Minisink Valley High School Band, P.O. Box 217, Route 6, Slate Hill, NY
10973
http://www.minisink.com
<a@b.c> wrote in message news:MPG.158b6bab5...@news.inet.net.nz...
Roger Dunk
never let me down? Maybe the fact that I regularly check brake fluid, power
booster hoses, master and slave cylinders for leaks, brake shoes for wear
etc?
I resent your judgement as to the safety of my vehicle, or at least the
perception that I don't care about safety. As far as I'm aware, you don't
know me or my vehicles, so you really can't question my stand on safety.
As far as I'm concerned, automobile safety does not involve simply taking
someone's (whether that be the manufacturers recommendation, someone you saw
on TV, a friend etc) advice. It involves having a thorough understanding of
the workings of your OWN car, consistent checking and evaluation (not just 6
monthly replacement) of anything saftey related, and a good dose of common
sense (something greatly lacking in most people nowadays it would seem).
Cheers...
Roger
"Oz1" <ozsa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:thu2it872aq764g0f...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 01:16:55 GMT, "Roger Dunk"
> <ro...@nospam.at.com.au> wrote:
>
> >I don't race my cars, so how is this relevant?
> >
> If you don't see the relevance of having safe brakes, what's the point
> of going further?
>
> Oz
Roger Dunk
was
> sealed so no water could get in?
Basically it is. But there's always going to be very small amounts of air
trapped between the top of fluid and the lid of the master cylinder (or
reservoir). And invariably, the steel brake lines, steel master/slave
cylinders etc are going to corrode to some extent, thus contaminating the
brake fluid.
> Every American car shop manual I have ever looked at (GM , Mopar, Ford )
has
> not had one thing to say about flushing out the brake system on a regular
> basis .. ever.. Not one owners manual I have owned for these cars has said
> to flush the brake fluid. Is it a good idea to do so ? I'm anal about auto
> maintenance anyhow and think it is a good idea but I've seen / driven 15
> year old cars that have never had a flush out and the brakes still work
> fine..
They don't usually mention flushing brake fluid because it isn't necessary.
Eventually you're going to have to replace a master or slave cylinder, or a
brake hose etc, and end up bleeding at least some of the old fluid out of
the system. This (in my opinion) is more than adequate, as I've NEVER
flushed the brake system simply for the purpose of changing brake fluid, and
NEVER had a brake problem as the result of it. Whether some marginal gain in
braking ability (read, require less pressure on brake pedal) might be had
due to regular flushing of brake fluid, I don't know, but anyone has yet to
convince me of the worth.
Cheers...
Roger
The Red Krawler
in and brought back out, not if it was pushed all the way in and left there?
As in..... If you push the clutch in, it wears as it passes the "friction
point" but when it's pushed all the way in it no longer touching anything to
wear ON....
BEAU BEAU YEUNG
"Hing On" <Hin...@hotmail.com> 撰寫於郵件
The Red Krawler
> mean the wheels fell off??
Herro, you speak good english yes?
In Oostralia, we are speak english, hai!
Roger Dunk
> sealing of the brake fluid from air.
So once again, you presume to know every detail about my cars. I'm sorry to
say you are once again wrong, because the master cylinders on my cars do
form an air tight seal. What makes you think I don't replace the rubber
gaskets around the lid every once in a while too?
> The resevoir lid has been removed many times to replace fluid after
> maintenance.
Fluid /maintenance/ suggests the need for extra fluid to be added to the
reservoir. This being the case, some of the old (moisture contaminated)
fluid was obviously removed, and replaced with new stuff.
> The fluids used 35years ago were renowned for their high rate of water
> absorption.
I never suggested I am /still/ using the original brake fluid (at least not
all of it). I only stated I wouldn't change it for the sake of changing it.
I have replaced slave cylinders and master cylinders etc on most of my cars,
and therefore have replaced at least a reasonable quantity of brake fluid.
> The fact that your brakes have never let you down is irelevant.
> With the lack of judgement you show in not properly maintaining your
> car, they may just.
Yes, the fact that they haven't let me down IS largely irrelevant
The fact that you chose to ignore all the preventative maintanence I do
perform on the brakes is not irrelevant. The best brake fluid in the world
is not going to stop a car when you have leaky master/slave cylinders, or a
power booster that isn't functioning etc.
> Look back that 35years and see what the fluid change intervals were
> back then. (BTW they are not some arbitrary figure, they were arrived
> at by consultation with the chemists who formulate the fluid and from
> experience and tests)
Good idea. I just consulted the service manual of my '68 Dodge Charger, and
it states that it's not necessary to replace the brake fluid, only check the
level and top up if necessary.
Next time actually research this stuff yourself before making up some crap.
> You have exceeded those by around >>>>>>>1600%.<<<<<<<<<<
Obviously not, since the service manual states that it doesn't need to be
changed.
> And you think you're a safe driver?
It's not really for me to say, but I believe I am more so than most,
including yourself no doubt.
> Seems you are correct. There is a serious lack of common sense in some
> people these days.
And you just continue to prove it, every time you open your mouth.
Cheers...
Roger
Roger Dunk
> "until clean fluid is noticed" (or something similar)
No doubt they do, but what makes you think I have to replace ALL my brake
fluid to have it come out clean, when it wasn't particularly contaminated in
the first place?
And of course you miss the point entirely, in that the main purpose of
bleeding is to remove air, and not purge the system of slightly contaminated
brake fluid.
And for what it's worth, my Valiant service manual states NOTHING about
waiting for clean fluid. What it does state, and I quote "open bleeder valve
and permit fluid to enter jar until all air has been expelled at the wheel
cylinder".
Cheers...
Roger
Roger Dunk
> air enter to contaminate.
Of course.
> >> The resevoir lid has been removed many times to replace fluid after
> >> maintenance.
> Uh huh and you do this in a vacuum?
Of course not.
> >Fluid /maintenance/ suggests the need for extra fluid to be added to the
> >reservoir. This being the case, some of the old (moisture contaminated)
> >fluid was obviously removed, and replaced with new stuff.
> Which becomes instantly contaminated. Very Good!
What's your point? That it's a waste of time to even try replacing brake
fluid, because as soon as you put it in, it's already as contaminated as the
old stuff?
> >I never suggested I am /still/ using the original brake fluid (at least
not
> >all of it). I only stated I wouldn't change it for the sake of changing
it.
> >I have replaced slave cylinders and master cylinders etc on most of my
cars,
> >and therefore have replaced at least a reasonable quantity of brake
fluid.
>
> Ahh so you don't used lubricants and fluids for 35years.
> Excellent.
Next time try actually reading the original posts before replying.
If you are still talking about my automatic transmission fluid, then yes, it
wasn't replaced for 35 years. If you are talking about brake fluid, then I
never suggested that some of the brake fluid hadn't been replaced during
regular service (replacing brake hoses, slave cylinders etc). From one of my
previous posts, that you obviously didn't bother to read, I said the
following "Certainly some of it gets replaced when changing a master/slave
cylinder etc, but I certainly wouldn't replace it all for the fun of it."
Does this imply that I said I was still using 100% of my original brake
fluid?
> Next you'll be telling me that you replaced a leaking sump gasket last
> week and put new oil in the engine or would you save the old and reuse
> it?
Umm, I don't quite follow you here. But no, I would never dream of reusing
old engine oil.
Nor would I reuse old brake fluid, transmission oil or coolant etc. What's
your point?
> Yep, and when you are faced with that really long hill with a set of
> traffic lights at the bottom when fully loaded or towing, your 35yo
> fluid stands a very good chance of letting you down.
Again, this come down to me knowing my cars a lot better than you. I can
tell you (from experience) that I will encounter brake fade (due to four
wheel drums) long before my brake fluid boils!
> Oh no but wait, its not 35YO, you did a complete brake overhaul last
> week and replaced all the fluid.
Already answered above, but in case you didn't bother to read it, I never
suggested that 100% of my brake fluid was original.
> >Good idea. I just consulted the service manual of my '68 Dodge Charger,
and
> >it states that it's not necessary to replace the brake fluid, only check
the
> >level and top up if necessary.
> Maybe you should read it more thoroughly, or even consult Castrol or
> whatever company formulated your fluid.
No need to do either, because I know when such things needs replacing.
> Maybe you should open your eyes or retract the claim that you use 35YO
> lubricants and fluids.
Why should I? I stated that I used the same auto trans oil for 35 years.
This is not a false statement. I stated that I've never bothered to fully
replace my brake fluid for the hell of it. I've only replaced what needed to
be replaced during the course of normal service.
> Check with the fluid manufacturer before you shoot that foot right
> off!
Why would I care what they say? If they say that it never needs replacing,
they aren't going to sell anywhere near as much as if they say it needs
replacing every 2 years. I'd prefer to trust my judgement than advertising.
> >> And you think you're a safe driver?
> >It's not really for me to say, but I believe I am more so than most,
> >including yourself no doubt.
> No doubt?
> So now you presume to know all about me. Tut tut tut!
Ok, got me there :)
> Ahh Roger, you really need to look back over your rantings.
> Do you actually use those 35YO lubricants and fluids or do you in fact
> replace them during regular maintenance?
> You have stated the you do BOTH.
Once again, already answered above.
Cheers...
Roger
Roger Dunk
> >bleeding is to remove air, and not purge the system of slightly
contaminated
> >brake fluid.
> Bwaahahaaaa!
> Why do you think they recommend bleeding till clean fluid is evident?
> By that time the air should be well gone.
But I can also have all the air removed without seeing the fresh fluid, and
I can also see clean fluid that still has air bubbles in it. I'm afraid the
two don't go together hand in hand.
Cheers...
Roger
a@b.c
nate...@junkmail.nvbell.net says...
Metal conducts heat, so the heat from the brake rotors is transferred to
the brake lines and therefore the fluid. If the brake fluid boils you get
vapour lock, i.e. no brakes.
a@b.c
ro...@nospam.at.com.au says...
> > > Brake fluid on the other hand I wouldn't ever dream of changing.
> >
> > You've got to be joking?! Brake fluid is supposed to be replaced every
> > two years.
>
> Why? Have you done tests yourself and come to the conclusion that after two
> years sufficient moisture will have entered the average brake system to
> cause a significant degredation in the performance of the brakes? I doubt
> it.
No need, the manufacturers have done the testing for you. Check the
owners manual of just about any car (obviously not yours). It'll tell you
to replace it every 2 years.
> Boiling brake fluid? In race cars, no doubt. In modern cars with four wheel
> disc brakes and women drivers with abs brakes, a slight possibility. In my
> '60's Dodges with four wheel drum brakes and less than effective power
> boosters, you've gotta be kidding :)
Um, wouldn't four drum brakes produce more heat than four disc brakes?
Therefore the brake fluid temperature would be higher in your old Dodge
than a car with more modern brakes.
Roger Dunk
wheel
> > disc brakes and women drivers with abs brakes, a slight possibility. In
my
> > '60's Dodges with four wheel drum brakes and less than effective power
> > boosters, you've gotta be kidding :)
>
> Um, wouldn't four drum brakes produce more heat than four disc brakes?
> Therefore the brake fluid temperature would be higher in your old Dodge
> than a car with more modern brakes.
I doubt it. Drum brakes certainly lose their effectiveness when hot, but I
think even that amount of heat is less than that often experienced with disc
brakes (especially when used they way modern drivers use their brakes, which
was more what I was getting at than differences between drum and disc
brakes). Having said that, my drum brakes would fade way before the brake
fluid would boil!
Cheers...
Roger
Jeremy
http://www.howstuffworks.com/torque-converter.htm
Jeremy.
"Hing On" <Hin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9fnb3r$s1c$1...@dahlia.singnet.com.sg>...
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for reply! I also heard of this torque convertor.Can you tell me more
> about it or point me to some of the web site that I can get more info.
> Thanks!
Roger Dunk
> "Every 2 years or 24,000 miles,completely drain all hydraulic fluid
> from the braking system"
> The Lancia manual states the same but at 40,000km.
> They probably req changes more often in the Val because it had drums
> all round and was hard on fluid (overheating it )
Why do you think I only mentioned what my Dodge Charger service manual had
to say about brake fluid, and not my Valiant manuals :) My VJ manual says it
should be replaced every 30,000k's, which I tend to think is a little bit
often. Mind you, seeing as how I drive several cars and don't clock up very
many miles in a year, it takes me quite a few years to clock up 30,000k's in
any given car.
> Oh and drum brakes don't disipate heat as well as discs, that's why
> they fade.
> The heat is trapped inside the drum (that's where the slave cylinder
> is) so it's quite likely that fluid can overheat and boil in that
> slave.
> That's when the fade goes to severe fade ie no brakes.
But the boiling fluid inside the slave cylinder inside the drum is not the
usual
cause of brake fade in such vehicles. As you suggest, that might be a case
of
severe fade, but there's only ever been one occaision where I've noticed any
fade at all,
and it definately wasn't related to boiling brake fluid. In normal driving
conditions, there's no reason why any brake fade would be experienced at
all, and thus I consider boiling brake fluid to be a non-issue in my cars.
However, corrosion of brake parts due to moisture in the fluid is perhaps a
good enough reason to change fluid every once in a while. I just pulled out
the old master cylinder from my VJ Valo that I changed a few years back, to
try and remember why I changed it. As it turns out, it has a pitted bore, no
doubt due to corrosion caused by moisture in the fluid (err.. whoops). So, I
suppose changing the brake fluid a couple of times in the past 25 years
might have avoided that - bearing it mind however that I've got cars 35
years old with their original master and slave cylinders that haven't (as
yet) corroded due to my (perhaps somewhat unique) maintanence schedule :)
> Oh just had a quick peek at the Mitsubishi Triton workshop manual
> (spied it on the shelf) "drain and renew hyrdaulic fluid" 50,000k
So that's about every 10 years in my case. I suppose that's fair enough.
Cheers...
Roger
Roger Dunk
products
> and break down just as easily. Your average manual gearbox or differential
> relies on a good quality lubricant just as much as your crankshaft does.
Just found this tid-bit of information from my 1975 Valiant (VJ) Operators
Manual.
And I quote "The rear axle oil in your vehicle has been developed to last
the life
of your vehicle under normal operating conditions. If the vehicle has been
subject to severe operating conditions or water contamination, oil changes
will be necessary."
and in the section regarding the manual transmission - "the oil in the
transmission of your vehicle has been developed to last the life of your
vehicle" etc etc.
I also note that although the Valiant service manual states that brake fluid
should be changed every 30,000k's, the Chrysler Australia Certified Car Care
Plan (which covered up to 96,000k's) did not contain a change of brake fluid
(only the normal checks on brake parts and top-up if necessary).
At least someone agrees with me :)
Cheers...
Roger
Noddy
"Roger Dunk" <ro...@nospam.at.com.au> wrote in message news:vNeU6.27770
> And while you're on brake wear, it works the other way as well. If I am
> stopped on a flat surface with the car in drive, it requires more pressure
> on the pedal to keep the car from moving forward, than it does in netural
> (which requires no pressure). So, my brake booster and master/slave
> cylinders are going to thank me for shifting into netural, even if my
brake
> shoes/pads are not.
You could switch your car off and take the bus, and then it wouldn't wear at
all.
> Even if did move just as much, does that necessarily mean it causes the
same
> amount of wear than a faster 'clunk' would? I doubt it. And with a slower
> idle, the input of the torque convertor is not spinning as quickly,
> therefore the output is not going to spin as quickly (if at all), so
again,
> it may or may not move as much.
It moves just the same. Backlash is backlash and it *doesn't* vary according
to rpm...
> No arguement there. But from my experience, with the use the trans oil had
> got, it lasted 35 years without breaking down to the extend that it really
> needed replacing.
Can I ask one question? How many times in that 35 years did you have to top
up the transmission? If you answer none and are telling me that the thing
ran for 35 years on the same trans fluid and didn't even require a band
adjustment, then I'd have to say that you should give up rebuilding
transmissions for a living and consider a career in politics or used car
sales :)
> Ok, yes, it does absorb moisture. But where is this moisture getting into
> the (sealed) system? Presumably only when you open the reservoir to check
> the fluid level (unless you have a clear reservoir, which I'm assuming all
> new cars do, so it's not an issue) or top it up (in which case, something
is
> leaking, and probably needs replacing anyway). Again from my experience,
the
> bore and rubbers in slave cylinders wear out long before anything starts
> corroding due to moisture content. The same goes for master cylinders
(I've
> had plenty that look rusty, but it's always the bore and rubbers that wear
> out before anything else). The only part of the brake system that has
> corroded on me is the power booster, and only because the master cylinder
> was leaking and brake fluid entering the power booster.
Moisture enters the system because most brake fluid reserviors are vented.
The fluid system only becomes "sealed" when you press the pedal and the
piston moves past the inlet port to block off the reservior and build
pressure. Next time you pull a wheel or master cylinder apart to replace the
cups or seals, take a peek into the bore and check out the condition of it's
surface. Ever wondered why re-kitted cylinders don't have a terribly long
life compared to new ones?
> However I agree that if moisture does enter the brake system, it's
obviously
> going to reduce the effectiveness of brakes, and for that reason alone it
> would make sense to change it. I only question how much moisture enters
the
> brake system over any given period of time? Meaning how long does it take
> before the moisture entering the system is sufficient to cause a
significant
> degredation in the performance of the brakes?
It depends largely on the system in question and the enviroment it's subject
to. This gets back to the preventative maintenance thing. Better to change
the fluid at regular intervals than find out the hard way just how long you
can go before it has a detrimental effect.
> > Gear oils, like engine oil and transmission fluid, are crude based
> products
> > and break down just as easily. Your average manual gearbox or
differential
> > relies on a good quality lubricant just as much as your crankshaft does.
>
> Yes, very true, but avioding what I said. While both engines and
> gearboxes/diffs require a good lubricant, gearboxes/diffs are not doing
> anywhere near as much work as engine oil (and aren't being diluted with
> petrol etc). Also in most cases gearboxes/diffs use a higher grade (ie
> thicker) oil, which is going to take longer to lose its lubricating
> properties anyway.
There is as much, if not more, load between the teeth of your diff's
crownwheel and pinion when they come into contact with each other as there
is on your engine's main bearings. They use a heavier weight oil largely for
it's "cling" ability and because there is no oil pump. Some manual
transmissions use either regular engine oil or ATF as a lubricant.
> Quite possibly, but for someone without a good sense of smell, it's next
to
> useless :)
Colour is good too, but not of much value if you're blind either :)
> I'd definately go 35 years with the same air in my tyres, it they made
tyres
> as well as they made Torqueflite 727 transmissions. Unfortunately tyres
leak
> and wear out, unlike my transmission :)
I've had a *little* bit to do with the old Torqueflite's in my day, and
they're a good strong auto. Not quite in the Powerglide's class, but a good
auto just the same. Never seen one that doesn't leak from the pan gasket or
the extension housing seal but... :)
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"Roger Dunk" <ro...@nospam.at.com.au> wrote in message news:3hfU6.27777>
> As far as I'm concerned, automobile safety does not involve simply taking
> someone's (whether that be the manufacturers recommendation, someone you
saw
> on TV, a friend etc) advice. It involves having a thorough understanding
of
> the workings of your OWN car, consistent checking and evaluation (not just
6
> monthly replacement) of anything saftey related, and a good dose of common
> sense (something greatly lacking in most people nowadays it would seem).
So you know better than the people who actually *build* the cars do you?
What you're saying is that in order to drive a "safe" vehicle, you need to
have a thorough understanding of it's workings. Jeez, you're getting a bit
extreme. My mum knows jack shit about cars but she drives a very safe one
everyday...
It's a pretty good theory really. By that logic, you couldn't really take a
Panadol correctly unless you knew how to perform brain surgery :)
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"Roger Dunk" <ro...@nospam.at.com.au> wrote in message news:nrgU6.27783
>
> Yes, the fact that they haven't let me down IS largely irrelevant
> The fact that you chose to ignore all the preventative maintanence I do
> perform on the brakes is not irrelevant. The best brake fluid in the world
> is not going to stop a car when you have leaky master/slave cylinders, or
a
> power booster that isn't functioning etc.
That's a very good point, but it's important to realise that the use, and
regular replacement, of high quality brake fluid will go a long way to
preventing faulty components.
You said you've replaced your share of master and wheel cylinders. Why do
you suppose that is?
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"Roger Dunk" <ro...@nospam.at.com.au> wrote in message news:YKmU6.27840
> Just found this tid-bit of information from my 1975 Valiant (VJ) Operators
> Manual.
Oh goody. Words of wisdom from the long dead Chrysler Australia. :)
> And I quote "The rear axle oil in your vehicle has been developed to last
> the life
> of your vehicle under normal operating conditions. If the vehicle has been
> subject to severe operating conditions or water contamination, oil changes
> will be necessary."
> and in the section regarding the manual transmission - "the oil in the
> transmission of your vehicle has been developed to last the life of your
> vehicle" etc etc.
Interesting...
> I also note that although the Valiant service manual states that brake
fluid
> should be changed every 30,000k's, the Chrysler Australia Certified Car
Care
> Plan (which covered up to 96,000k's) did not contain a change of brake
fluid
> (only the normal checks on brake parts and top-up if necessary).
Again, interesting. Service manual states changes every 30k, but the dealer
service plan doesn't want to know about it. I wonder why Chrysler ain't
around anymore...:)
> At least someone agrees with me :)
Well Rodge, I think you would find it hard to find anyone to agree with you.
On the one hand you're saying that manufacturer's & other people's advice on
servicing should be ignored, yet here you're quoting manufacturer's advice
and using it to support your theory!
I still think you're a troll, but I'm having fun anyway :)
Regards,
Noddy.
Happy Hunter
<Ilene...@lycos.com> wrote in message news:3ADC7F31...@lycos.com...
> I would suggest you go down to your local library and get yourself
> an engineering text book on Hydraulics, for a definitive explanation
> of you intuitive questions on thermodynamics and latent heat.
I Don't like the library...it requires too much reading. I'd rather go with
hearsay...thankyouverymuch.
HH
Happy Hunter
"Greg Stewart" <gjst...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:n0dU6.116414$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> What happens when something boils.. it changes from something that can't
be
> compressed (liquid) to something that can be compressed (gas), air is gas,
> and what happens when you have that in your brake lines.. no brakes!!...
> same problem when you fluid boils!!
> Brakes get very hot, especially when they are used a lot, I have heard
> stories of disk rotors glowing red after excessive use down hills etc..
And
> since your wheel cylinders are part of your calliper, heat will transfer
> from the pad to the cylinder very quickly!
>
> Greg.
>
Thank you, Greg, for the serious reply. In the 16 years I wroked on cars,
this subject never came up. I have had soft pedal when trailering boats
down long grades. Now I think I understand it better.
One question though...don't they make break linings to absorb the heat so as
not to transfer it to a point where the cylinders get hot enough to boil the
fluid? If not, why?
HH
Happy Hunter
"Patrick" <pkh...@hongkong.com> wrote in message
news:9fr991$lg...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> Its the longest thread I've seen here :P
And so far, I have picked up 2 peices of valuable information...LOL Lot's
of giggles, though.
HH
""mikehunt\"@@lycose.com"aim/index.html?cp=hop06ft3
Well you SURE came to the right place for that.
Daniel J. Stern
> Thank you, Greg, for the serious reply. In the 16 years I wroked on cars,
> this subject never came up. I have had soft pedal when trailering boats
> down long grades. Now I think I understand it better.
Two main causes of soft pedal under severe brake use:
1) Brake friction material (pad or shoe) outgassing. When the friction
material gets hot, it begins to outgas. When the pad or shoe is hard up
against the drum or rotor, the gas forms a cushion between the pad or shoe
and the rotor or drum, and softens the brake pedal feel.
2) Fluid boiling, as described in the previous post.
> One question though...don't they make break linings to absorb the heat
> so as not to transfer it to a point where the cylinders get hot enough
> to boil the fluid? If not, why?
No, it does NOT work this way. It's the drums or rotors that are meant as
the primary "heat reservoirs". But both of the friction surfaces (the
drum or rotor AS WELL AS the shoe or pad) is going to heat up. The
friction material heats up and, as a result, some heat is transferred to
the pad backing plate or the shoe web. And from there, some heat is
transferred via the hydraulic piston(s) to the fluid. The total heat load
has to be relatively large for this to happen, but it WILL happen.
This thread was, at one time, concerned with Valiant braking
systems. Many of the early Valiants had 229mm drums at all four
wheels. This system was marginally adequate in the 1960s. It is WOEFULLY
inadequate in today's traffic conditions unless one only putt-putts around
town. Because the drums are so small, heat load builds rapidly and the
small drums are not very quick to dissipate the heat to the surrounding
air, so brake fluid will heat up fast. On hardworking systems (that work
hard because either the car demands extreme performance or because the
brake system is undersized), high-boilpoint fluid is a tremendously good
idea.
Bigger brakes are an even better idea. I put later front discs on my '65
Valiant, and 254mm drums on the rear. Best upgrade I ever made.
--Daniel
"Television is a medium.
It is a medium because it is neither rare, nor well-done."
--
NBCS b6f+wg++rp
--
Stewart <gjstewart@bigpond.com
They did, up until a few years ago, but they can no longer use
asbestos.
They have been working on that problem by expanding the types and
amounts
of metal used in the brake components. So far the results are still
mixed.
Putting much bigger heat sinks is the obvious answer, but the added
weight becomes a problem vis a v CAFE. They tried aluminum calipers
but
it has long term wear problems compared to iron or steel. They tried
sintered lining, like used on race cars, but then people complained
about the occasional squeal when a high percentage of the sinter was
in contact with the rotor. People equated the noise with a brake
problem.
They are using organic materials in some but they have a relive short
life.
Every time the government decides to 'help' us it ends up costing us
more money. Look at the head gasket and peeling paint problems
recently
foisted on the car buy public by government regulations.