Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Position N or D

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Hing On

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 2:50:28 AM6/7/01
to
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!


Patrick

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 3:28:25 AM6/7/01
to
Just stay at D will be OK.
"Hing On" <Hin...@hotmail.com> 撰寫於郵件
news:9fn875$19$1...@dahlia.singnet.com.sg...

Roger Dunk

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 3:36:23 AM6/7/01
to
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

"Hing On" <Hin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fn875$19$1...@dahlia.singnet.com.sg...

Hing On

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 3:39:55 AM6/7/01
to
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...

Greg Stewart

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 3:51:40 AM6/7/01
to
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.

"Hing On" <Hin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fn875$19$1...@dahlia.singnet.com.sg...

Phil Bruce

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 4:05:54 AM6/7/01
to

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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 4:22:58 AM6/7/01
to
how does this work with a manual??/

--


Luke Farrugia

Greg Stewart wrote in message ...

Super

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 4:38:14 AM6/7/01
to
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?


"Greg Stewart" <gjst...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:goGT6
.111464$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Luke Farrugia

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 4:43:11 AM6/7/01
to
i agree

--


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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 4:48:44 AM6/7/01
to
> how does this work with a manual??/

If you managed to find a "D" or an "N" on your manual, then three cheers for
you.

Roger Dunk

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 4:54:44 AM6/7/01
to
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.

Cheers...
Roger

"Greg Stewart" <gjst...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:goGT6.111464$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Luke Farrugia

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 4:56:43 AM6/7/01
to
lol no i mean does swapping the aorund the gears in a manual tooo much kill
the damn thing??

btw how does the quickshift autos work in that case???

--


Luke Farrugia

The Red Krawler wrote in message ...

Tim

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 5:01:17 AM6/7/01
to
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

"Hing On" <Hin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fn875$19$1...@dahlia.singnet.com.sg...

Noddy

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 6:16:50 AM6/7/01
to

"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.

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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 6:43:44 AM6/7/01
to
> If you managed to find a "D" or an "N" on your manual, then three cheers
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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 6:46:25 AM6/7/01
to
> 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 :)


Roger Dunk

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 7:05:49 AM6/7/01
to
> > 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.

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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 7:17:21 AM6/7/01
to
you're so gonna get owned by noddy and the other mechanics here...


"Roger Dunk" <ro...@nospam.at.com.au> wrote in message

news:heJT6.27610$BU4....@news1.blktn1.nsw.optushome.com.au...

Roger Dunk

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 7:26:24 AM6/7/01
to
And do you think I care?

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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 8:25:37 AM6/7/01
to

"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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 8:11:31 AM6/7/01
to
> 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

I do that.

--------- BoganMan
[[ ICQ 32988117 ]]


*-n i c k-*

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 8:44:41 AM6/7/01
to
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.....


Greg Stewart <gjst...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:goGT6.111464$ff.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Milky

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 10:56:38 AM6/7/01
to

"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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 11:15:46 AM6/7/01
to

Imat...@mailcity.com

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 11:42:16 AM6/7/01
to
If you are interested in fuel economy don't even buy an automatic.
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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 11:54:09 AM6/7/01
to
嘩, 原來呢度咁多外藉人仕架!

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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 2:45:46 PM6/7/01
to
These particular cars are putting extreme force on the torque converters in
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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 2:49:58 PM6/7/01
to
Dude...get a job, get off welfare and give the government a break...maybe
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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 3:56:39 PM6/7/01
to
Did you actually read that post or the posters name???????

Happy Hunter

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 6:38:08 PM6/7/01
to
Hey man...I'm here for entertainment as much as I am for education. I read
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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 7:19:54 PM6/7/01
to
www.burnouts.8m.net/technical
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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 8:33:52 PM6/7/01
to
Is it totally inconceivable that someone could ask a question like this?

No... so how about posting something useful...

<BobCa...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:3ADC10BB...@mailcity.com...

Roger Dunk

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 8:44:28 PM6/7/01
to
> To be more accurate, the harder you spin the converter the more strain it,
> 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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 8:38:50 PM6/7/01
to
The thing to watch in a manual is not to sit with your foot on the clutch.
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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 8:48:48 PM6/7/01
to
> I think we all guessed you ain't a mechanic :)

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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 8:52:23 PM6/7/01
to
Just sounds like something else to go wrong. Even I certainly wouldn't want
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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 10:16:46 PM6/7/01
to
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!

Leave it in D - Won't be a problem.

Michael


Michael

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 10:19:18 PM6/7/01
to
Hi...

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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 10:22:45 PM6/7/01
to
Hi...

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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 10:25:54 PM6/7/01
to
"The Red Krawler" <hamspamkra...@hoontown.com> wrote in message
news:MdHT6.4779$l_3....@news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au...

> > how does this work with a manual??/
>
> If you managed to find a "D" or an "N" on your manual, then three cheers
for
> you.
>

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAA!

Michael

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 10:27:51 PM6/7/01
to
Hi...

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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 10:29:00 PM6/7/01
to
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�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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 10:38:49 PM6/7/01
to
"Michael" <g.re...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 10:41:55 PM6/7/01
to
Hi...

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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 10:43:29 PM6/7/01
to
"Michael" <g.re...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:kKWT6.53235$hV3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...

>
> 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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 11:03:26 PM6/7/01
to
Well.........I ask if there is something wrong in my gearbox. What do you
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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 11:04:21 PM6/7/01
to
Well....."you got it in one"...do you mean there is something wrong in my
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

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 11:06:57 PM6/7/01
to
D外藉人仕係回答緊aus.cars.alt.autos個新聞組咋,不過唔覺意copy埋hk.rec.cars之


"Casey" <ca...@casey.com> wrote in message
news:9fo82d$8f...@imsp212.netvigator.com...

Gavin Cato

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 11:10:21 PM6/7/01
to
> 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?

Go to a racetrack and you'll notice interesting things with brake fluid :)

Gav

Mike...@mailcity.com

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 11:30:24 PM6/7/01