automatic transmission failure question
techma...@yahoo.com
driving to check a map and when I put my car back in D, the engine
just raced like it was in neutral when I gave it gas. The reverse gear
worked for a bit in the parking lot, eventually no shifter position
resulted in movement of the vehicle. In D & R and only on a small
number of throttle applications, the car started moving forward
slightly, similar to that brief moment before the clutch on a manual
transmission is fully engaged. Before I pulled over my transmission
was working absolutely perfectly. The AAA tow guy and several repair
shops told me over the phone that the auto transmission needs to be
replaced (~$2000). Not worth it with the age of the car. Its now
sitting in my driveway. Ideally, I would tow it to a mechanic and have
them verify this for sure. Im not sure its worth spending the money
just to confirm this. Is there much of a chance that this problem
would require a repair that doesnt involve replacing the entire
automatic transmission?
Thanks
One more question. It may take a while before I sell it. I plan on
starting the engine once every 2-weeks or so to keep the engine in
good order and battery charged. Should I add an oil or gasoline
preservative?
Scott Dorsey
>I have a 97 Honda Accord with 280K. Recently, I pulled over from
>driving to check a map and when I put my car back in D, the engine
>just raced like it was in neutral when I gave it gas. The reverse gear
>worked for a bit in the parking lot, eventually no shifter position
>resulted in movement of the vehicle. In D & R and only on a small
>number of throttle applications, the car started moving forward
>slightly, similar to that brief moment before the clutch on a manual
>transmission is fully engaged. Before I pulled over my transmission
>was working absolutely perfectly. The AAA tow guy and several repair
>shops told me over the phone that the auto transmission needs to be
>replaced (~$2000). Not worth it with the age of the car. Its now
>sitting in my driveway. Ideally, I would tow it to a mechanic and have
>them verify this for sure. Im not sure its worth spending the money
>just to confirm this. Is there much of a chance that this problem
>would require a repair that doesnt involve replacing the entire
>automatic transmission?
It might be a linkage issue, that the prindle has become disconnected
from the transmission. If this is the case, you might be able to fiddle
with it and find a position on it that will get you into drive.
But yes, for the most part automatic transmissions are sealed boxes
that you don't repair, you just replace them as a whole. 280k on a
slushbox is pretty good.
>One more question. It may take a while before I sell it. I plan on
>starting the engine once every 2-weeks or so to keep the engine in
>good order and battery charged. Should I add an oil or gasoline
>preservative?
If the transmission is bad and it has 280k on it, I would be very
surprised if you could sell it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
john...@hotmail.com
(when you shift, does the cable on the transmission end shifts too?),
you might just want to plug in an oil pressure gauge and read off the
line pressure. Not sure if the parts store will have these free
loaners, but may be worth a check. Not sure if an engine oil pressure
gauge will work (enough adapters and pressure range?)
The problem, I read, is that disintegrating debris plugs up the
strainer, and basically starves the transmission of fluid. If that's
the case, the ATF line pressure will be way below specs. Then just
call up a mechanic willing to put in a low miles salvage transmission
that costs < $800 installed, with a 3-month warranty from the junk
yard. If that's even worth it.
That's why later Honda retrofitted and added a transmission inline
filter. And a reason I think a remote filter would help earlier in
these cases:
http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?part=BMM-80277
On Apr 25, 5:46 pm, "techman41...@yahoo.com" <techman41...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
john...@hotmail.com
said to be as mediocre as Hyundai transmissions as far as reliability
goes I read somewhere.
On Apr 25, 5:46 pm, "techman41...@yahoo.com" <techman41...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
krp
<techma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:93cac78b-2e33-42e3...@w35g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>I have a 97 Honda Accord with 280K. Recently, I pulled over from
> driving to check a map and when I put my car back in D, the engine
> just raced like it was in neutral when I gave it gas. The reverse gear
> worked for a bit in the parking lot, eventually no shifter position
> resulted in movement of the vehicle. In D & R and only on a small
> number of throttle applications, the car started moving forward
> slightly, similar to that brief moment before the clutch on a manual
> transmission is fully engaged. Before I pulled over my transmission
> was working absolutely perfectly. The AAA tow guy and several repair
> shops told me over the phone that the auto transmission needs to be
> replaced (~$2000). Not worth it with the age of the car. Its now
> sitting in my driveway. Ideally, I would tow it to a mechanic and have
> them verify this for sure. Im not sure its worth spending the money
> just to confirm this. Is there much of a chance that this problem
> would require a repair that doesnt involve replacing the entire
> automatic transmission?
Start with this. Drain the trans fluid and change the filter. If that
doesn't do it, go to a bone yard and swap transmissions. But again change
fluid and filter on that one before driving.
jim beam
> techma...@yahoo.com <techma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I have a 97 Honda Accord with 280K. Recently, I pulled over from
>> driving to check a map and when I put my car back in D, the engine
>> just raced like it was in neutral when I gave it gas. The reverse gear
>> worked for a bit in the parking lot, eventually no shifter position
>> resulted in movement of the vehicle. In D & R and only on a small
>> number of throttle applications, the car started moving forward
>> slightly, similar to that brief moment before the clutch on a manual
>> transmission is fully engaged. Before I pulled over my transmission
>> was working absolutely perfectly. The AAA tow guy and several repair
>> shops told me over the phone that the auto transmission needs to be
>> replaced (~$2000). Not worth it with the age of the car. Its now
>> sitting in my driveway. Ideally, I would tow it to a mechanic and have
>> them verify this for sure. Im not sure its worth spending the money
>> just to confirm this. Is there much of a chance that this problem
>> would require a repair that doesnt involve replacing the entire
>> automatic transmission?
>
> It might be a linkage issue, that the prindle has become disconnected
> from the transmission. If this is the case, you might be able to fiddle
> with it and find a position on it that will get you into drive.
>
> But yes, for the most part automatic transmissions are sealed boxes
> that you don't repair, you just replace them as a whole. 280k on a
> slushbox is pretty good.
it's not a "slushbox". it's an electronically controlled automatic, and
a highly advanced piece of engineering.
>
>> One more question. It may take a while before I sell it. I plan on
>> starting the engine once every 2-weeks or so to keep the engine in
>> good order and battery charged. Should I add an oil or gasoline
>> preservative?
>
> If the transmission is bad and it has 280k on it, I would be very
> surprised if you could sell it.
no, he needs proper diagnosis. honda autos usually last pretty well.
he may have something trivial like a driveshaft disengaged.
Hachiroku ハチロク
Did you check the fluid level? That would be the first thing I'd check.
Low level will cause exactly what you're talking about.
If it's not sealed, change or clean the screen (and report back the
condition of any debris you find...) and drain as much as you can and
replace it.
If you're adventerous, you can lift the front of the car, wheels off the
ground, pull the trans cooler lines (the one that pumps to the radiator),
get a few quarts of trans fluid and 'flush' the tranny by letting the car
idle in drive and pump the fluid out the tube while you replace it through
the filler. However, on a tranny this old that sounds like it may have
never been service, this could remove the loose friction material which
may be the only thing keeping it moving!
DON'T have it powerflushed!!! It's too old, and then you really would need
to replace it.
krp
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.04.26....@e86.GTS...
Sounds like he might luck out with just a normal fluid change and new
trans filter. Not big bucks. Most shops will do it for around $100.
Hal
> would require a repair that doesnt involve replacing the entire
> automatic transmission?
> Thanks
Unlikely. Even if it was something simple, at 280k on an automatic
transaxle you are on borrowed time anyway.
If the rest of the car is pretty nice(Paint, interior, engine runs
good and has been maintained) then I'd go get a used junkyard
transaxle with a 90 day warranty and put that in the car and keep
driving. Even if you had to pay a shop to install the used transaxle
it would still be cheaper than having your current box rebuilt.
A 1997 PaidFor in good running condition beats the hell out of a new
car in my book.....
Good luck with it.
Chris
jim beam
>> just to confirm this. �Is there much of a chance that this problem
>> would require a repair that doesnt involve replacing the entire
>> automatic transmission?
>> Thanks
>
> Unlikely. Even if it was something simple, at 280k on an automatic
> transaxle you are on borrowed time anyway.
but it's a honda. what he doesn't say though is whether it was a v6 -
those had serious issues.
>
> If the rest of the car is pretty nice(Paint, interior, engine runs
> good and has been maintained) then I'd go get a used junkyard
> transaxle with a 90 day warranty and put that in the car and keep
> driving. Even if you had to pay a shop to install the used transaxle
> it would still be cheaper than having your current box rebuilt.
better yet, buy a low mileage used jdm transmission from japan.
>
> A 1997 PaidFor in good running condition beats the hell out of a new
> car in my book.....
definitely.
Hachiroku ハチロク
I do it myself for ~$35...not including 6-pack.
Kevin
wrote in news:pan.2009.04.26...@e86.GTS:
it better be cheeper than that as the honda has a drain plug and no
replaceable filter. Just did it on my son inlaws 98 accord. KB
--
THUNDERSNAKE #9
Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others
krp
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
He doesn't sound like he'd be capable of doing that. Most likely it is
either low on fluid or It has 300K on an original filter. Seen that lots
before. Change the fluid AND filter and they run another 200K. Could be he
ran it for 150K and never looked at the trans stick to see if there was ANY
fluid in it.
jim beam
wasting money on oil without a proper diagnosis is ridiculous.
E. Meyer
On 4/26/09 5:44 AM, in article eWWIl.674$fy....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, "krp"
<kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
There's no replaceable filter on a '97 Honda Automatic, just a drain plug.
E. Meyer
On 4/26/09 10:43 AM, in article 3j%Il.2927$b11...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net,
"krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
It sounds like you're not familiar with Honda Automatics of that generation.
There is no filter, no pan, just a drain plug. Its easier than changing the
oil. The main thing is that you have to use Honda ATF if you want it to
work at all and Honda explicitly warns against power flushing them.
The first question I would ask is whether any of these guys quoting $2000
transmission replacements even looked at the fluid level first.
john...@hotmail.com
just replace "after dropping the pan".
The transmission case is basically two halves of an egg shell, and
requires major work just to replace the strainer. That's why Honda
added an external one, a cheaper version of Magnafine:
http://www.jcwhitney.com/Magnafine-Transmission-Filters/4294964653-600010252.jcw
Or you can go to your Honda dealer and pick on up. Make sure it's
installed in the correct direction or you'll junk the transmission in
no time.
john...@hotmail.com
krp
"jim beam" <retard...@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:gaudnX0ZdoNvWmnU...@speakeasy.net...
Maybe but it is the cheapest place to start.
krp
"E. Meyer" <epme...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:C61A41A7.8254%epme...@msn.com...
> It sounds like you're not familiar with Honda Automatics of that
> generation.
>
> There is no filter, no pan, just a drain plug. Its easier than changing
> the
> oil. The main thing is that you have to use Honda ATF if you want it to
> work at all and Honda explicitly warns against power flushing them.
>
> The first question I would ask is whether any of these guys quoting $2000
> transmission replacements even looked at the fluid level first.
I may be mistaken, I thought it had a filter. I wonder if HE checked the
trans stick???
Hachiroku ハチロク
>>> Sounds like he might luck out with just a normal fluid change and new
>>> trans filter. Not big bucks. Most shops will do it for around $100.
>>
>>
>> I do it myself for ~$35...not including 6-pack.
>
> He doesn't sound like he'd be capable of doing that. Most likely it is
> either low on fluid or It has 300K on an original filter. Seen that lots
> before. Change the fluid AND filter and they run another 200K. Could be he
> ran it for 150K and never looked at the trans stick to see if there was ANY
> fluid in it.
Toyota and Honda generally overengineer things. I had an '85 Celica with a
W58 MT that was rated for 240 HP. The engine only attained 145 at factory
spec. Even when I replaced it with a newer engine I still wasn't pushing
the limit. Plenty of headroom.
Interestingly, the same trans is (er, was) used in my 200 HP Non-Turbo
Supra, with only 40 HP headroom.
The AT in the Supra is also rated at 240, and is also used in Jeep Grand
Cherokees.
jim beam
eh? diagnosis is the cheapest place to start...
Hachiroku ハチロク
> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Tru...@e86.GTS>
> wrote in news:pan.2009.04.26...@e86.GTS:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:43:59 +0000, krp wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Hachiroku ムムãƒã‚¯" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
There must be a filter somewhere? Nothing in the cooler lines? No pan to
drop?
For a '97:
http://contentinfo.autozone.com/znetcs/product-info/en/US/bwp/044-0319/image/8/
Interesting...when you look up replacement info, it says to drop the
pan...but it HAS no pan!
L Alpert
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.04.26...@e86.GTS...
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:43:59 +0000, krp wrote:
>
>>
$5 adder per knuckle?
L Alpert
> krp wrote:
>>
>> "jim beam" <retard...@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:gaudnX0ZdoNvWmnU...@speakeasy.net...
>>> krp wrote:
>>>>
I believe he was already given a diagnosis (albeit it, probably wrong)
that was more expensive then what the car is worth. I would think
spending $30-$100 is an acceptable risk to see if it it can be
salvaged if the rest of the vehicle is in fairly sound condition. If
it doesn't work, all that is lost is a few bucks. Beyond that, it
probably isn't worth it to open the housing, as just that portion
could cost more in personal time and/or money for a proper diagnosis.
techman41973
The transmission fluid level is above the lower notch. But that is a
cold reading.
I can't get the transmission up to temperature to perform a more
accurate reading, as it won't drive.
I can't imagine that just adding fluid would magically bring it back
to life - but I am no expert.
I wish the the transmission computer had a similar interface like the
engine has OBDII
The failure seems entirely "fail safe" electrical as I had no symptoms
until I safely came to a stop.
jim beam
> Thanks to everyone who provided some advice.
> The transmission fluid level is above the lower notch. But that is a
> cold reading.
> I can't get the transmission up to temperature to perform a more
> accurate reading, as it won't drive.
> I can't imagine that just adding fluid would magically bring it back
> to life - but I am no expert.
> I wish the the transmission computer had a similar interface like the
> engine has OBDII
it does - they're connected. any error codes should be interfaced
through the same system.
> The failure seems entirely "fail safe" electrical as I had no symptoms
> until I safely came to a stop.
it could be something simple like a solenoid failure, or even cable
disconnect. again, if you can't inspect and diagnose yourself, find
someone who can.
and all this stuff about "uneconomic to repair" is grossly
underinformed. you'll lose more in depreciation on any new vehicle than
you will repairing this. and you can buy a low mileage jdm transmission
for a few hundred bucks, assuming this one is broken - and that's unproven.
Hachiroku ハチロク
A whole $25? Big deal. It's going to cost more than that for a 'diagnosis'.
Most Honda dealers charge $65 just to look at it. The OP didn't give any
timeline as to the last drain and fill, or if he bought the car new, and
filling the trans is so easy I bet even you could do it...
If it's only a quart or two low, that's a whopping $7 Yeah, it's worth a
shot, esp from the description of the problem he gave.
Hachiroku ハチロク
>> The failure seems entirely "fail safe" electrical as I had no symptoms
>> until I safely came to a stop.
>
> it could be something simple like a solenoid failure, or even cable
> disconnect. again, if you can't inspect and diagnose yourself, find
> someone who can.
Solenoid failure will cause the trans to jump into limp mode.
I've been driving a Supra that way for 5 years.
As far as cables, that's easy. Open the hood and have a look.
Hachiroku ハチロク
I give myself a 50% discount...
And use it to buy mechanic's gloves...if I ever wear them!
Here's a challenge! Want to talk about busted knuckles? Try changine the
SPARK PLUGS!!!!
jim beam
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:31:05 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> The failure seems entirely "fail safe" electrical as I had no symptoms
>>> until I safely came to a stop.
>> it could be something simple like a solenoid failure, or even cable
>> disconnect. again, if you can't inspect and diagnose yourself, find
>> someone who can.
>
> Solenoid failure will cause the trans to jump into limp mode.
but this is not a planetary transmission big guy. you're not "limping"
anywhere if you don't have a circuit engaged.
> I've been driving a Supra that way for 5 years.
>
> As far as cables, that's easy. Open the hood and have a look.
ya think???
jim beam
and be completely wasted because the probability of it being simply oil
is next to zero. you know about honda transmissions, right?
>
> Most Honda dealers charge $65 just to look at it. The OP didn't give any
> timeline as to the last drain and fill, or if he bought the car new, and
> filling the trans is so easy I bet even you could do it...
>
> If it's only a quart or two low, that's a whopping $7 Yeah, it's worth a
> shot, esp from the description of the problem he gave.
see above.
jim beam
because knuckle-draggers can handle it.
krp
Pay attention. The guy is driving a 12 year old car. Most likely he's
NOT Donald Trump. Given that - he can PAY to have it towed to a dealer or
transmission shop for a diagnosis. MAYBE free maybe cost. What can a
SHADETREE mechanic do to check stuff out? First check the trans dipstick.
Then change fluid. If it is still dead, get a different trans at the bone
yard or send it to the crusher and get an 11 year old Honda.
krp
"techman41973" <techma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:02ca92b1-2fd9-49c5...@b7g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Try draining the fluid and replacing it. It may take some time for it to
pump up. A couple minutes. If it is still dead, call a priest, it's time for
a newer car.
krp
ANY automatic transmission can shut down when the lubricant is
contaminated. At almost 300K it is quite possible depending on how it has
been driven that the fluid is bad. When you consider HOW automatic
transmissions work, with the fluid to shift, if that fluid has gone bad (at
300k???) it may not want to shift. I grant you that is more common on
American Automatics, but the same concepts apply. You could be right that it
is a waste of time and money. BUT it might not be. However SMALL the chances
are it's better than just leaving it sit in the driveway or spending $2000
to fix it. He might be able to pick up a working trans at a bone yard for a
couple hundred bucks.
jim beam
just because /you/ have been brainwashed with that detroit thinking,
doesn't mean the rest of us have to take it up the ass the same way. 11
years is nothing for a honda - unless it's rusty or crashed. repair and
get another 10 years of free motoring.
jim beam
the chances of filter clogging onset so sudden and so severe as
described is almost zero.
> BUT it might not be. However SMALL
> the chances are it's better than just leaving it sit in the driveway or
> spending $2000 to fix it. He might be able to pick up a working trans at
> a bone yard for a couple hundred bucks.
that fix is what i said - buy used low mileage jdm. great solution. a
solution not available for you detroit guys - ha ha!
krp
>> Pay attention. The guy is driving a 12 year old car. Most likely he's
>> NOT Donald Trump. Given that - he can PAY to have it towed to a dealer or
>> transmission shop for a diagnosis. MAYBE free maybe cost. What can a
>> SHADETREE mechanic do to check stuff out? First check the trans dipstick.
>> Then change fluid. If it is still dead, get a different trans at the bone
>> yard or send it to the crusher and get an 11 year old Honda.
> just because /you/ have been brainwashed with that detroit thinking,
> doesn't mean the rest of us have to take it up the ass the same way. 11
> years is nothing for a honda - unless it's rusty or crashed. repair and
> get another 10 years of free motoring.
Let's start with facts NOT in evidence here. I own a 2008 Honda CR-V.
280,000 miles is a great deal EVEN FOR a Civic. My bet is the car has been
neglected. Almost nobody changes the fluids or filters in their automatics
until it stops. With proper maintenance a modern automatic transmission
should last almost indefinitely with normal use. However IF you are pulling
a 65 foot boat with your Civic, it may not last that long. It's nice playing
the role of a SMUG SMART ASS on the internet. With a problem like this you
start with the obvious of checking the trans stick which may not tell you
much. If you feel the fluid and feel no grit than you do stage 2, put it
back on and then let it drip on a paper towel and look. What color is it?
How does it smell? Burned? In any event for the average guy, draining the
fluid and replacing it with fresh Honda ATF is the next cheapest. (While
under the car check for damage and leaks.) If it is still dead - they you
are faced with repair or replace. You are right, the Honda transmissions are
very durable, which means it should not be very hard to find a serviceable
trans in a bone yard. Or you can take it to a trans shop.
krp
I am told that the 96 Honda has NO filter. However ANY auto can sludge
up and quit. Most folks pay no attention to warning signs until a car just
quits.
>> BUT it might not be. However SMALL the chances are it's better than just
>> leaving it sit in the driveway or spending $2000 to fix it. He might be
>> able to pick up a working trans at a bone yard for a couple hundred
>> bucks.
> that fix is what i said - buy used low mileage jdm. great solution. a
> solution not available for you detroit guys - ha ha!
First of all I am NOT a "detroit guy." I own a Honda CR-V. Second of all
depending on what transmission you are talking about, American automatics
are VERY durable, with some GM transmissions being a rather notorious
exception. GM went through period when their automatics were pure SHIT!
(Late 80's) For the most part if you maintained a trans, changing the fluid
and filter about every 24,000 miles they'd run forever. Chrysler had some
problems with the transmissions on some minivans. Ford has had fairly
reliable if unspectacular automatics.
Steve
> I have a 97 Honda Accord with 280K. <snip> Is there much of a chance that this problem
> would require a repair that doesnt involve replacing the entire
> automatic transmission?
Well, did you even check the fluid level? Or the linkage?
If you checked the fluid and linkage and they're OK, I guess there's
still a *chance* that the transmission isn't gone... But on a 97 HONDA?
with 280k on an automatic? That chance is a near-perfect approximation
to "zero."
A good option to get a little more value out of the car (whether you
keep it or sell it) would be a low-mileage automatic from a wrecking
yard. If you sell it as-is, you're selling so much scrap and you'll get
essentially nothing for it.
Steve
> Toyota and Honda generally overengineer things.
Yeah. The price they charge for new cars is *highly* engineered....
Seriously, Toyota and Honda build very solid *engines*, no question.
But Honda automatic transmissions are the dregs of the industry,
especially back in the late 90s. The mere fact that they have no filter
should tell you a lot. Toyota buys their automatics from Aisin-Seiki,
(which they partially own) and they are quite good.
Vic Smith
>
>
> First of all I am NOT a "detroit guy." I own a Honda CR-V. Second of all
>depending on what transmission you are talking about, American automatics
>are VERY durable, with some GM transmissions being a rather notorious
>exception. GM went through period when their automatics were pure SHIT!
>(Late 80's) For the most part if you maintained a trans, changing the fluid
>and filter about every 24,000 miles they'd run forever.
Baloney. I had an '88 Celebrity, '85 Cav, and still drive a 90
Corsica. Those are the most common GM cars of the era.
No trans problems.
You might find a specific GM bad trans, but they weren't common.
Baloney on a trans lasting forever too. They wear out just like
anything else, no matter what brand.
And they can all be abused.
> Chrysler had some
>problems with the transmissions on some minivans. Ford has had fairly
>reliable if unspectacular automatics.
>
Baloney on Ford trans. The Taurus were notorious for that plastic
piece breaking. My brother had 2 Taurus. Paid big money to get both
trans fixed. Both the same plastic piece.
Biggest bitches I've heard about transmissions for years is the Taurus
and Accord. But Honda at least made an attempt to do something for
their customers.
Now I'm going to get me a sandwich. Baloney.
--Vic
Steve
>
> The AT in the Supra is also rated at 240, and is also used in Jeep Grand
> Cherokees.
>
>
>
The AT in the old Cherokee was the Aisin-Warner AW-4, and yes its
related to the Aisin-Sekei automatics used in rear-drive Toyotas. But it
was ONLY used behind the 4.0 six cylinder in the Grand Cherokee (190
HP), never behind the v8 (220 HP for the 5.2 starting in 1992-3). The
early 5.2 Grand Cherokee v8s got the Chrysler 43RH, and then starting
with the 4.7L and later the Hemi, they the 45RFE and ultimately the
545RFE which is also used in Ram pickups.
The AW-4 was pretty solid and reliable, very well suited to serious
off-roading in the Cherokee if you give it a big enough fluid cooler.
But it was a bit weak in the knees for the added weight of the Grand
Cherokee, and in all forms it shifted like the true definition of a
sludgebox. Its the reason I went out of my way to find a Cherokee with a
5-speed (AX-15, also built by Aisin, but its on its last legs and will
be replaced by an NV3550 from a 2000 or newer Jeep).
Steve
> wasting money on oil without a proper diagnosis is ridiculous.
I'm sure its nothing that straight 30-weight wouldn't cure, Jim.
:-p
Steve
>
> just because /you/ have been brainwashed with that detroit thinking,
> doesn't mean the rest of us have to take it up the ass the same way. 11
> years is nothing for a honda - unless it's rusty or crashed. repair and
> get another 10 years of free motoring.
>
Who's "brainwashed" here? Detroit iron used to be built so that you
could repair it inexpensively and keep it working at top notch
indefinitely (my daily driver is 43 years old). Nothing Japanese has
ever been like that except the Land Cruiser (because its original
engine was bought from GM after WWII). But most modern sedans are built
like "driving appliances." They reach an end-of-life point where its not
practical to keep fixing them. He should fix it for as little as
possible and then UNLOAD it ASAP. Its going to be a money pit from now on.
krp
"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rtebv4hmqi4lr324s...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:16:37 GMT, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>
>> First of all I am NOT a "detroit guy." I own a Honda CR-V. Second of
>> all
>>depending on what transmission you are talking about, American automatics
>>are VERY durable, with some GM transmissions being a rather notorious
>>exception. GM went through period when their automatics were pure SHIT!
>>(Late 80's) For the most part if you maintained a trans, changing the
>>fluid
>>and filter about every 24,000 miles they'd run forever.
>
> Baloney. I had an '88 Celebrity, '85 Cav, and still drive a 90
> Corsica. Those are the most common GM cars of the era.
> No trans problems.
> You might find a specific GM bad trans, but they weren't common.
> Baloney on a trans lasting forever too. They wear out just like
> anything else, no matter what brand.
> And they can all be abused.
Front wheel drive. Need I explain the difference?
>> Chrysler had some
>>problems with the transmissions on some minivans. Ford has had fairly
>>reliable if unspectacular automatics.
> Baloney on Ford trans. The Taurus were notorious for that plastic
> piece breaking. My brother had 2 Taurus. Paid big money to get both
> trans fixed. Both the same plastic piece.
> Biggest bitches I've heard about transmissions for years is the Taurus
> and Accord. But Honda at least made an attempt to do something for
> their customers.
> Now I'm going to get me a sandwich. Baloney.
What "plastic piece?"
krp
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:QsednVznmI9ZX2jU...@texas.net...
Let me remind the newsgroup ASSHOLE you and I are arguing with that he might
want to look at that "detroit iron" from the 40's and 50's on the streets
EVERY DAY in Cuba.
Vic Smith
>
>"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:rtebv4hmqi4lr324s...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:16:37 GMT, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> First of all I am NOT a "detroit guy." I own a Honda CR-V. Second of
>>> all
>>>depending on what transmission you are talking about, American automatics
>>>are VERY durable, with some GM transmissions being a rather notorious
>>>exception. GM went through period when their automatics were pure SHIT!
>>>(Late 80's) For the most part if you maintained a trans, changing the
>>>fluid
>>>and filter about every 24,000 miles they'd run forever.
>>
>> Baloney. I had an '88 Celebrity, '85 Cav, and still drive a 90
>> Corsica. Those are the most common GM cars of the era.
>> No trans problems.
>
>> You might find a specific GM bad trans, but they weren't common.
>> Baloney on a trans lasting forever too. They wear out just like
>> anything else, no matter what brand.
>> And they can all be abused.
>
> Front wheel drive. Need I explain the difference?
>
Just explain which late '80's GM auto trans were pure shit.
I don't care if it's attached to a transaxle or a drive shaft.
>>> Chrysler had some
>>>problems with the transmissions on some minivans. Ford has had fairly
>>>reliable if unspectacular automatics.
>
>> Baloney on Ford trans. The Taurus were notorious for that plastic
>> piece breaking. My brother had 2 Taurus. Paid big money to get both
>> trans fixed. Both the same plastic piece.
>> Biggest bitches I've heard about transmissions for years is the Taurus
>> and Accord. But Honda at least made an attempt to do something for
>> their customers.
>> Now I'm going to get me a sandwich. Baloney.
>
> What "plastic piece?"
>
Might have been the VSS gear. Ask a trans expert. I'm not one.
The AXOD trans had a real bad rep. That's what my brother had.
--Vic
Hachiroku ハチロク
>> that fix is what i said - buy used low mileage jdm. great solution. a
>> solution not available for you detroit guys - ha ha!
>
> First of all I am NOT a "detroit guy." I own a Honda CR-V. Second of all
> depending on what transmission you are talking about, American automatics
> are VERY durable, with some GM transmissions being a rather notorious
> exception. GM went through period when their automatics were pure SHIT!
It wasn't the tranny being shit.
It was taking a modified 2-speed Chevette transmission and attaching it to
an Olds V6 or a Caddy V8-6-4 that was the problem.
At least when Toyota puts in a transmission, it usually has about 65HP
overhead when rated against the motor. Not a 40HP 'deficit'!
Hachiroku ハチロク
Aw, c'mon! Why pay $20 when you can spend $65-90 for a 'diagnosis' and
keep a Honda mechanic employed!? We all have to do what we can to keep the
economy up and keep people working!
12 year old car with that many miles is approaching 'beater' status.
Hachiroku ハチロク
> He should fix it for as little as
> possible and then UNLOAD it ASAP. Its going to be a money pit from now on.
If he takes Jim's advice and brings it to the dealer every time it hiccups!
I have an '88 Supra with about 225,000 miles. Want to talk about a money
pit? If I brought it to the dealer I couldn't afford to own it.
I had the same thing happen last year. No go in any direction. But, the
A340H has a pan and a screen. Drain, clean the screen and bolt it back
together and we're off terrorizing the neighborhood again!
Hachiroku ハチロク
Yeah! Beats towing it to the dealer!
Hachiroku ハチロク
> and in all forms it shifted like the true definition of a
> sludgebox. Its the reason I went out of my way to find a Cherokee with a
> 5-speed (AX-15, also built by Aisin, but its on its last legs and will
> be replaced by an NV3550 from a 2000 or newer Jeep).
You got that right. Funny thing is, first thing in the morning the shifts
are nice and crisp, but then get sloppy as the trans warms up.
I have the LAST trans cooler line in the WORLD for the MKIII Supra. It was
shipped from a dealer in Japan. Add that to the list of things to do...
Unless...will your 5-speed fit a 7M-GE???
krp
>>>> First of all I am NOT a "detroit guy." I own a Honda CR-V. Second of
>>>> all
>>>>depending on what transmission you are talking about, American
>>>>automatics
>>>>are VERY durable, with some GM transmissions being a rather notorious
>>>>exception. GM went through period when their automatics were pure SHIT!
>>>>(Late 80's) For the most part if you maintained a trans, changing the
>>>>fluid
>>>>and filter about every 24,000 miles they'd run forever.
>>>
>>> Baloney. I had an '88 Celebrity, '85 Cav, and still drive a 90
>>> Corsica. Those are the most common GM cars of the era.
>>> No trans problems.
>>
>>> You might find a specific GM bad trans, but they weren't common.
>>> Baloney on a trans lasting forever too. They wear out just like
>>> anything else, no matter what brand.
>>> And they can all be abused.
>>
>> Front wheel drive. Need I explain the difference?
> Just explain which late '80's GM auto trans were pure shit.
> I don't care if it's attached to a transaxle or a drive shaft.
The TH_400 is a good start. The ones they used in the Blazers and Jimmy
were TERRIBLE transmissions. Miine failed the day I bought in in 1989. It
was towed back to the dealership before I coulkd make it home wigth the new
cehicle. It took 6 months to get a new trans because GM was that backlogged
with replacements. When I got it back, it failed again within 3 months. I
gave it back to GM and bought a Dodge. Also the dash kept falling out and
the paint peeled. The 89 Jimmy was a DOG in every respect.
>>>> Chrysler had some
>>>>problems with the transmissions on some minivans. Ford has had fairly
>>>>reliable if unspectacular automatics.
>>
>>> Baloney on Ford trans. The Taurus were notorious for that plastic
>>> piece breaking. My brother had 2 Taurus. Paid big money to get both
>>> trans fixed. Both the same plastic piece.
>>> Biggest bitches I've heard about transmissions for years is the Taurus
>>> and Accord. But Honda at least made an attempt to do something for
>>> their customers.
>>> Now I'm going to get me a sandwich. Baloney.
>>
>> What "plastic piece?"
> Might have been the VSS gear. Ask a trans expert. I'm not one.
> The AXOD trans had a real bad rep. That's what my brother had.
Everyone for years had problems with the trans in front wheel drive
cars.
krp
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
I was thinking of that 4 speed monstrosity they put in the Blazers and
Jimmys. 3+ overdrive 4th. The damn thing was constantly shifting in the
city. Put it in 3 and your gas mileage went to shit. When mine failed, I was
always WAY back in line to get mine fixed under warranty. The owners would
hang out in the waiting room will the service manager came back and said the
trans was a gonner and they were getting a rental car for us. Often there
were anywhere from 6 to 10 of is waiting. NONE of us had even one kind word
for the cars. Rear main seals, paint sheeting off, transmission problems,
and the dashboards falling apart. Oh and on a hit Florida day you were lucky
IF the A/C could get the car below 90 degrees. Nice looking trucks but HELL
to own.
krp
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.04.27....@e86.GTS...
NO COMMENT.
Steve Austin
> The AXOD trans had a real bad rep. That's what my brother had.
>
> --Vic
So bad they had to rename it. To AX4S
Steve Austin
>
> I was thinking of that 4 speed monstrosity they put in the Blazers and
> Jimmys. 3+ overdrive 4th. The damn thing was constantly shifting in the
> city. Put it in 3 and your gas mileage went to shit. When mine failed, I
> was always WAY back in line to get mine fixed under warranty. The
> owners would hang out in the waiting room will the service manager came
> back and said the trans was a gonner and they were getting a rental car
> for us. Often there were anywhere from 6 to 10 of is waiting. NONE of us
> had even one kind word for the cars. Rear main seals, paint sheeting
> off, transmission problems, and the dashboards falling apart. Oh and on
> a hit Florida day you were lucky IF the A/C could get the car below 90
> degrees. Nice looking trucks but HELL to own.
>
If you think that trans (4L60E) was bad in a Blazer, think of all the
3/4 ton trucks stuck with it.
Vic Smith
Fair enough. Never even considered a Blazer or other SUV.
Never heard anything good about them.
Except now and then a chick saying "I just love my Blazer!"
Or some feller saying he needed 4WD (yeah, allow GM to double your
drivetrain complexity) to prevent getting stuck on roads where I never
came close to getting stuck with my old RWD sedans.
Thought those SUV's were sucker plays from day 1.
GM fanatics term SUV popularity "Giving people what they want."
But GM marketing knows there's a sucker born every minute.
--Vic
Hachiroku ハチロク
I have an '88 Supra w/+220,000 on it. I have no idea, since for one it's
in Kilometers (Canadian model) and the speedo cable broke (SURPRISE!)
before I got it. Nice looking, bad trans, good engine, Sport Roof and JUST
starting to rust. Classy beater.
1989 Subaru GL coupe. Try to find parts! I double dog dare ya! Looks good,
rust just more than er, 'noticable', electronic AWD, nice driving car. Two
steps below the Supra.
1988 Mazda 626, as low a model as you can get, 5-speed, 183,000 miles.
From Florida. Oiled every year I've owned it. Wouldn't really be a beater
if there were still paint on the roof...(A guy I know has the EXACT same
car....his doesn't have paint on the roof, either...)
1997 Subaru Legacy L wagon. 335,000 miles, and a blown head gasket to
boot. I'll let you know if I fix it...
My favorite: 1985 Corolla GT-S 'hachiroku'. 10,000 when I bought it in
1986, 260,000 'retired' in my back yard. Slowly returning to the elements
(faster when I close a door...) A modern classic. One day I'll fix the
body...
2005 Scion tC. Never seen snow. FASSSSSSSSSSST!!! ;)
(Most uncomfortable seats I ever sat in. Know anyone with a wrecked
Celica?)
jim beam
jeepers, you guys /really/ don't get it do you? with a honda, it's not
whether the thing can be rebuilt 50 times like in cuba, it's whether the
thing runs perfectly for the first 500k miles or not. no rebuilds.
i love it when clowns stand in line to bleat about how "reliable" their
ford turnip truck is. but it's amazing how quickly they vaporize again
when the specifics of broken half-shafts, stub axles, springs, kingpins,
transmissions and engines that piece of crap has needed. yeehaw! mah
truck is /that/ reliable folks!
krp
"Steve Austin" <sau...@northnet.org> wrote in message
news:49f634a4$0$19521$38ce...@news.westelcom.com...
Like I said, every time I had to take it back in (3X) I was at the end of a
LONG LINE of other owners and NONE of us had anything kind to say about
those dogs. The piece of shit was constantly shifting. If you were in a 30
MPH zone it would shift thousands of times in a 10 mile stretch. Stop and go
traffic - that piece of SHIT would shift more times than the car I traded in
did in 10 years of driving. GM never DID figure out how to make that work.
krp
>>> Just explain which late '80's GM auto trans were pure shit.
>>> I don't care if it's attached to a transaxle or a drive shaft.
>
>> The TH_400 is a good start. The ones they used in the Blazers and
>> Jimmy
>>were TERRIBLE transmissions. Miine failed the day I bought in in 1989. It
>>was towed back to the dealership before I coulkd make it home wigth the
>>new
>>cehicle. It took 6 months to get a new trans because GM was that
>>backlogged
>>with replacements. When I got it back, it failed again within 3 months. I
>>gave it back to GM and bought a Dodge. Also the dash kept falling out and
>>the paint peeled. The 89 Jimmy was a DOG in every respect.
> Fair enough. Never even considered a Blazer or other SUV.
> Never heard anything good about them.
The earlier models with the OLD 4 speed worked fairly well. The later
ones in the later 90's worked. Just that period with the one transmission
with was at least the VERY WORST transmission ever made in America. Even the
old DYNASLUSH was better. It wated 99.(% of the engine's horsepower - BUT it
always worked. Eben tghe old Chrysler fluid drive was better. You could not
keep those things working. (Some of anything work, but by and large they
were shit.)
> Except now and then a chick saying "I just love my Blazer!"
> Or some feller saying he needed 4WD (yeah, allow GM to double your
> drivetrain complexity) to prevent getting stuck on roads where I never
> came close to getting stuck with my old RWD sedans.
> Thought those SUV's were sucker plays from day 1.
> GM fanatics term SUV popularity "Giving people what they want."
> But GM marketing knows there's a sucker born every minute.
I drive an SUV now. A Honda CR-V. Great car!'
krp
>> Let me remind the newsgroup ASSHOLE you and I are arguing with that he
>> might want to look at that "detroit iron" from the 40's and 50's on the
>> streets EVERY DAY in Cuba.
> jeepers, you guys /really/ don't get it do you? with a honda, it's not
> whether the thing can be rebuilt 50 times like in cuba, it's whether the
> thing runs perfectly for the first 500k miles or not. no rebuilds.
Don't let me break this to you. NAPA doesn't have a BIG operation in
Havana. There is no Auto Zone stores with ring sets. You don't seem to GET
that whatever they had in parts in 1959 were the LAST parts Cuba saw. If you
think they are constantly rebuilding the cars you are nuts. Sure they fix
things. Know what they use for brake fluid? A combination of shampoo and
cooking oil. Don't even ASK how they make brake shoes.
> i love it when clowns stand in line to bleat about how "reliable" their
> ford turnip truck is. but it's amazing how quickly they vaporize again
> when the specifics of broken half-shafts, stub axles, springs, kingpins,
> transmissions and engines that piece of crap has needed. yeehaw! mah
> truck is /that/ reliable folks!
Guy there were many extremely reliable old cars. I know people with old
Kaisers with that old Continental Read Seal 6 that are well on their way for
the second 500K with the original rings etc. Some folks with the old BIG 6
Nashes report the same longevity. It was later in the 60's that SELF
DESTRUCT (planned obsolescence) reared its ugly head on American cars. By
the 70's the cars were DNF.
Did I start in on Ford's? I had some really nice Chryslers. A 66 Dodge
Coronet with a 318 and torqeflight. GREAT CAR. I also had a 68 AMX with a
390 + 4 speed. PHENOMENAL CAR!
From there it was downhill. I did have a 85 Dodge Caravan that I had 250K
on. Loved it. I was a 4 banger. WAY underpowered but ran forever. You
measured zero to 60 times with a calendar.
Steve
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:35:48 -0500, Steve wrote:
>
>> He should fix it for as little as
>> possible and then UNLOAD it ASAP. Its going to be a money pit from now on.
>
> If he takes Jim's advice and brings it to the dealer every time it hiccups!
>
> I have an '88 Supra with about 225,000 miles. Want to talk about a money
> pit? If I brought it to the dealer I couldn't afford to own it.
>
A supra is *not* an Accord or Civic or Camry or Escort or Neon or other
generic front-drive transportation appliance. Its not exactly a '69
Charger either, but its a very overbuilt and relatively simple
rear-drive vehicle that can be maintained pretty much indefinitely, and
is interesting enough to be WORTH maintaining indefinitely. Front-drive
Hondas are not.
Steve
Have a hydraulic parts supplier make you any hose you want. It usually
runs less than $30. Some A/C shops are set up to assemble new hoses and
fittings for you also. If you're gonna play the keep-it-forever game,
gotta learn the tricks of the trade ;-)
>
> Unless...will your 5-speed fit a 7M-GE???
>
I think that just as the AW-4 has a cousin that Toyota used in automatic
applications, the AX-15 has a cousin that they used in MT applications.
In fact it might just be no more than finding a 7M-GE bellhousing and
clutch that works. AX-15s are common as dirt, people are looking for
NV3550s more these days but the problem is that Jeep only used the
NV3550 starting in 2000, and the percentage of MTs in Jeeps was lower
after 2000 than before (demand shifted to 2wd/automatic in competition
with the flood of "SUVs" never intended to go offroad from other
manufacturers).
Steve
>> Just explain which late '80's GM auto trans were pure shit.
>> I don't care if it's attached to a transaxle or a drive shaft.
>
> The TH_400 is a good start. The ones they used in the Blazers and
> Jimmy were TERRIBLE transmissions. Miine failed the day I bought in in
> 1989. It was towed back to the dealership before I coulkd make it home
> wigth the new cehicle. It took 6 months to get a new trans because GM
> was that backlogged with replacements. When I got it back, it failed
> again within 3 months. I gave it back to GM and bought a Dodge. Also the
> dash kept falling out and the paint peeled. The 89 Jimmy was a DOG in
> every respect
I'm certainly no fan of GM from the late 80s... but I find that hard to
believe of a TH-400. That transmission was a rock just like the Chrysler
727 and Ford C6. I didn't remember GM using a 3-speed like the TH400
quite that late, except in extreme HD applications maybe. Are you sure
it wasn't a 700R4? Those were utter crap in the early years (well into
the 90s, actually) but today's 4L80E is basically the same thing, just
updated and electronically controlled.
Steve
Eben tghe old Chrysler fluid
> drive was better. You could not keep those things working. (Some of
> anything work, but by and large they were shit.)
>
Now you're talking out your ear. The Fluid Drive was just a manual
transmission with a clutch and a fluid clutch in series. This allowed
you to NOT use the clutch from a dead stop. Press clutch, put in gear,
hold brake, release clutch. Wait for light to turn green, release the
brake, step on the gas and go. Then shift normally. You could also just
put it in 2nd or 3rd and leave it there all the time if you didn't mind
s-l-o-w acceleration from a standstill. It never broke, at least no any
more than any other manual transmission.
There was also a dual-range semi-automatic from that era that was a
little more complicated, but generally worked OK.
The first Chrysler true automatic was the Powerflite 2-speed circa 1951,
then the Torquefite 727 in '56. They never had a problem transmission
again until the 41TE in 1989.
Steve
>
> I was thinking of that 4 speed monstrosity they put in the Blazers and
> Jimmys. 3+ overdrive 4th.
That's a 700R4 alright. The TH400 was a simple, big, heavy-duty 3-speed.
Vic Smith
Here's an article on the 700R4 evolution. Doesn't look out of bounds
for GM RWD V-8's, but then I'm not sure. Maybe my '76 Impala had one.
That one died but it had a lot of miles. The rebuild failed too but I
got the second rebuild adjusted down. Still cost me though.
Had a '78 Beauville van (G20) too that might have had it, but that one
never peeped, and I put a lot of miles on it. Both those were 350's.
Went to an 88 Celebrity and it's been FWD from there.
I don't argue with anybody who lost money on junk. Once burned, twice
shy is something I go by too.
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/113_0704_700_r4_transmission/index.html
--Vic
krp
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
The trans in the late 80's Blazer and Jimmy was a 4 speed. The 4th speed
being slightly overdriven. The thing was constantly shifting in city
driving. I don't recall the exact designation. It probably was the 700R4.
It was still called in the manual a TH 400. It was a 4 speed. It would shift
itself to death.
krp
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> Even the old Chrysler fluid drive was better. You could not keep those
> things working. (Some of
>> anything work, but by and large they were shit.)
> Now you're talking out your ear. The Fluid Drive was just a manual
> transmission with a clutch and a fluid clutch in series. This allowed you
> to NOT use the clutch from a dead stop. Press clutch, put in gear, hold
> brake, release clutch. Wait for light to turn green, release the brake,
> step on the gas and go. Then shift normally. You could also just put it
> in 2nd or 3rd and leave it there all the time if you didn't mind s-l-o-w
> acceleration from a standstill. It never broke, at least no any more than
> any other manual transmission.
Despite tremendopus energy loss, the Fluid drive WORKED reliably as did
Dynaslush. They didn't break all the time.
> There was also a dual-range semi-automatic from that era that was a little
> more complicated, but generally worked OK.
> The first Chrysler true automatic was the Powerflite 2-speed circa 1951,
> then the Torquefite 727 in '56. They never had a problem transmission
> again until the 41TE in 1989.
Everyone had transmission problems in the late 80's, even the venerable
Ford "C" transmissions were a bit shakey. The front drive Chrysler minivans
either worked or didn't. Lots of people had loads of grief, others like me
had NONE. Hit and miss. Even though there has not been significant problems
since the mid-90's in the Chrysler minivans the rumor persists of trans
problems. It is very rare today.
I am very happy with my CR-V. Although Honda is on mu shit list because
they messed with my wife on her 2007 Civic. The back tires wore like mad.
The dealer sold her 2 new tires, didn't check WHY the tires were bad at only
10K miles, and the new tires started showing wear, so they did a rotation
and the car chewed up the other two tires before Honda did a recall on the
rear control arms. They fixed the car but left her with 4 BAD tires. Honda's
solution? Is she buys 3 new tires they will magnanimously give her the 4th
tire free! I told off the service manager, by stating, I could go to ANY
tire store in the country and get a 4th tire for free. Pick the brand. Good
Year, Bridgestone, Michelin, Cooper ANYTHING! I didn't expect a "SCREW -YOU"
attitude from Honda of all companies. She never took it anywhere else but
the dealers for service, meticulously kept the records. We have 3 late model
Hondas. Her 2007, by step-son's 2008 SI, and my CR-V. I don't think I'll get
another Honda.
krp
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
I guess the 700R4 was the one they stuffed a 4th gear overdrive in. What a
piece of SHIT!
GM ate the car. I got out of the car and bought another Dodge minivan.
Steve
>
>
> Despite tremendopus energy loss, the Fluid drive WORKED reliably as
> did Dynaslush. They didn't break all the time.
>
OK, I get your point. If I can split hairs, the fluid drive's hydraulic
clutch was less lossy than a Dynaflow.
> Everyone had transmission problems in the late 80's, even the
> venerable Ford "C" transmissions were a bit shakey. The front drive
> Chrysler minivans either worked or didn't. Lots of people had loads of
> grief, others like me had NONE. Hit and miss. Even though there has not
> been significant problems since the mid-90's in the Chrysler minivans
> the rumor persists of trans problems. It is very rare today.
Very true. Up through the 80s, everyone said "Chrysler transmissions
never break" even if they hated Chrysler products. After the 41TE
fiasco, the rumor is "Chrysler transmissions always break." People even
said that about the truck transmissions that were still the same old
design that "never broke" from before.
Steve
Both the GM 700R4 and the Chrysler 41TE (minivan transmission of the
90s) are case studies in what happens when accountants "go over"
engineers' work and find ways to "save money." I'm sure you can find a
similar story at all manufacturers. In both cases, the basic designs are
fine- as witnessed by the fact that the 700R4 (and its electronic
version, the 4L60E) as well as the 41TE are now reliable... once all the
"cost cuts" were undone.... Hot rodders and muscle car guys even build
up 700R4s with updated parts and put them behind HUGE engines and they
don't break. The 41TE is still in use by Chrysler, and you never hear
problems about it anymore. In the case of the 41TE, it was also a bit
ahead of its time. The first fluids for it didn't work well, and also
since its small and light it really benefits from putting the throttle
under computer control (most current cars are "throttle by wire") so
that the computer can throttle back during shifts, saving the abuse of
dumping engine power into the clutch packs while they're slipping during
a shift. That change alone has HUGELY improved transmission reliability
all across the automotive industry.
krp
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
>> Despite tremendopus energy loss, the Fluid drive WORKED reliably as
>> did Dynaslush. They didn't break all the time.
> OK, I get your point. If I can split hairs, the fluid drive's hydraulic
> clutch was less lossy than a Dynaflow.
Both were lopusy transmissions. But neither had service problems.
>> Everyone had transmission problems in the late 80's, even the
>> venerable Ford "C" transmissions were a bit shakey. The front drive
>> Chrysler minivans either worked or didn't. Lots of people had loads of
>> grief, others like me had NONE. Hit and miss. Even though there has not
>> been significant problems since the mid-90's in the Chrysler minivans the
>> rumor persists of trans problems. It is very rare today.
> Very true. Up through the 80s, everyone said "Chrysler transmissions never
> break" even if they hated Chrysler products. After the 41TE fiasco, the
> rumor is "Chrysler transmissions always break." People even said that
> about the truck transmissions that were still the same old design that
> "never broke" from before.
The Torquflite was a GREAT transmission., "WAS." You forget in the 70's
came "PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE" and the rise of the BEAN COUNTERS running the
big 3. Of the 3 CEO's only Lee Iacocca knew ANYTHING about cars and he
didn't know much. The focus on building cars at all 3 companies was to make
them as CHEAPLY as possible, if they came off the line all fukkked up, have
the dealers fix them. Look at 1975. Can you find a car that even qualifies
as a "BAD" car from that year? When you made a terrible car, BAD was a step
UP. Again it was the age of the BEAN COUNTERS - MBA's designing cars. One
asshole ENDED the Fisher body Craftsman's guild. He didn't want to hear from
Engineers who he found "ANNOYING." That's when in the board room they
decided it was cheaper to pay off lawsuits than FIX their shitty cars. It
was more than just a time of greed. It was arrogance in their belief that
the American public would accept ANY shit they dished out. What were they
going to do, after all, buy a Volkswagen or a Rice Burner???? SCREW EM!
krp
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> Both the GM 700R4 and the Chrysler 41TE (minivan transmission of the 90s)
> are case studies in what happens when accountants "go over" engineers'
> work and find ways to "save money."
Harvard MBA's to be exact. If it were up to me? I'd have a big meeting
at a outdoor pavilian in the middle of the Nevada desert and get EVERY MBA
in the country there for a seminar. Then I'd detonate a 50 megaton nuke and
get rid of them. I would pass a law imposing the death penalty for any MBA
we missed.
> I'm sure you can find a similar story at all manufacturers.
Look at electronics. RCA was offered the exclusine on flat panel
displays. Said it was "SHIT" and that nobody would ever want one. They were
HAPPY with their CRT TV's and minotors. Same with every other American
company. BTW - how is RCA doing today with making stuff in the U.S.?
Zenith? Maganox? Sylvania? ANYONE? The last of the computers. Dell. Where
are Dell's made today?
> In both cases, the basic designs are fine- as witnessed by the fact that
> the 700R4 (and its electronic version, the 4L60E) as well as the 41TE are
> now reliable... once all the "cost cuts" were undone.... Hot rodders and
> muscle car guys even build up 700R4s with updated parts and put them
> behind HUGE engines and they don't break. The 41TE is still in use by
> Chrysler, and you never hear problems about it anymore. In the case of the
> 41TE, it was also a bit ahead of its time. The first fluids for it didn't
> work well, and also since its small and light it really benefits from
> putting the throttle under computer control (most current cars are
> "throttle by wire") so that the computer can throttle back during shifts,
> saving the abuse of dumping engine power into the clutch packs while
> they're slipping during a shift. That change alone has HUGELY improved
> transmission reliability all across the automotive industry.
Did you hear the story (I am told it is TRUE) of a GM CEO that at one
meeting asked; "why the hell do we need 5 bolts on a wheel, won't ONE work?"
The problem with American industry is that we have had too many IDIOTS
running companies who have ZERO knowledge of their industry. They are
shocked when they hire a guy who was in wholesale food business and he comes
to an auto company and immediately puts it in the shitter! Same kind of goof
balls went to airlines. Delta's CEO was trying to get things done his way
and the pilots TRIED to tell the asshole, "Planes won't FLY that way!" "WHY
NOT?" No company can work well when the guy at the top is 100% clueless
about the business.
Hachiroku ハチロク
I've had a Caravan and 2 Grand Voyager LEs, one w/AWD.
GREAT vehicles, as long as yuou feed the tranny the correct sauce!
Hachiroku ハチロク
Gee, I liked my Accord! It was a decent car. Um, I also bought it NEW, not
17 years old...
jim beam
indeed. and it wasn't just simple fix stuff, it was fatality stuff like
ford and their exploder rolling and killing people just because it had a
flat tire. executives should be in jail, and that company should be
fined billions in punantives for that kind of deliberate calculated
slaughter.
krp
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
Simple rule. Change fluid and filter every 24K. They last just fine. UNLESS
you are hauling a 65 foot boat. Had a friend who constantly bitched about
his Caravan. I asked him what he expected when he was hauling a boat and
trailer several times the car's rated towing capacity? I asked him if he
added an extra Trans cooler. He asked, WHY?
Reminds me of a story. One of the guys on our stunt driving team had worked
as service manager for a Cadillac dealer, and every year this old fart would
trade in his cars, and after the first one he'd tell the sales manager to
give him low bucks. The guy was angry and asked why. The sales manager told
him that the reason was that he put on lots of miles and never checked or
changed the oil. The old man came back; "What? You have to change the oil on
these? If they are built that poorly I don't want to own one again." He
started doing it to Lincolns. The engines were SHOT. He'd put on 75K to
100K a year. Run them almost dry on oil. Ignore the oil light. Traded it
when the oil light wouldn't go off any more. PEOPLE and cars.
krp
> indeed. and it wasn't just simple fix stuff, it was fatality stuff like
> ford and their exploder rolling and killing people just because it had a
> flat tire. executives should be in jail, and that company should be fined
> billions in punantives for that kind of deliberate calculated slaughter.
The CEO of Ford - KNEW - of the defect. It got there because of HIM
ordering cutting corners. The engineers were frantic. But he had an MBA. It
was calculated the the costs of lawsuits would be less than the cost to
eliminate the problem. Only trouble is that the plaintiff's in one case got
ahold of the proof that it WAS calculated by Ford and the jury PUNISHED Ford
big time to make sure they got the message that it was NOT cheaper to screw
over people. And Firestone was complicit in it. Those were BAD tires. Damn
near dragged Bridgestone under.
Like I said, I'd LOVE to see MBA's on death row. Look at our economy.
Look at the ruins of so many companies. Then look at the dicks who are the
CEO's.. Harvard MBAs! You know, I am a big fan of Obama, BUT the idea of
allowing the SAME clowns who ran the companies into the ground to stay on
with taxpayer money is INSANE! But worse - to bring over Jeff Imelt of GE to
be an "economic advisor" is absurd. Imelt is the guy who took GE and ran it
into the ground. Turned the entire company into shit! Stock was valued at
almost $200 at one time when he started, NOW it is worth LESS than $10 a
share and they keep posting losses. GE was making tons on a great line of
major appliances. Imelt turned that into shit. Same with defense contracts
and the jet engines. There is NOTHING at GE that he hasn't screwed up. He
has taken the NBC franchise into the toilet. Trying to prove that you can
take a primetime lineup and have ratings LOWER than ZERO.
Look at whole industries that have disappeared. Office equipment
including computers, TOTALLY GONE offshore. American brands for the most
part are owned by foreign companies. If something doesn't happen - you will
not be able to buy an AMERICAN car in another couple years. All of the Big
Three are like horses that need to be taken out to the back 40 and SHOT.
Ford is the least totaled of the 3, but is screwed. There is NO point trying
to save Chrysler or GM. They both NEED to go. GM - NEEDS to be in the
category of Nash,, Hudson, Kaiser, Studebaker, Packard etc except those guys
built some good cars.GM specializes in building SHIT. Chrysler has flashes
that MAYBE they could build a good car IF they got rid of the MBA's that run
it. Get some CAR people in there. At least somebody who has SOME knowledge
of what makes a car GO..... Somebody who has a clue as to what the market
needs. Someone who can see past the tip of his nose.
You know - when Henry Ford built the first model "T" there were NO gas
stations. But Ford built the cars. Almost everyone with a brain knows that
we will HAVE to have electric cars, and that batteries are just a short
haul. So HOW do we power these electric cars? Think back to the old trolley
cars and trackless trolley buses. Now - we are NOT going to go back to
overhead wires. Can't we come up with something for the 21st century? If we
build it right, we won't even have to "drive" the cars. Computers will take
us where we need to go. Safely. Can't we figure all this out???
Hachiroku ハチロク
There was a girl stuck at a gas station with a pretty decent '66 Mustang,
6 cylinder 'secretary special'. Wouldn't start. We had her crank the key,
the starter ground, no-go. Spark, yup...gas, yup...couldn't tell the
timing without a light, but everything seemed right.
Then my buddy pulled the dipstick...almost right up to the top!!!
We asked the girl when she last had the oil changed. "Oh, I don't think
it's been changed...I tell the guy at the full-service station to fill it
up and add a quart of oil..."
I maintained my composure, but we had to pick my friend up from the
ground, holding on to his sides and almost turning blue cause he was
laughing so much...she said her father told her to do that.
Hal
> > piece breaking. My brother had 2 Taurus. Paid big money to get both
> > trans fixed. Both the same plastic piece.
> > Biggest bitches I've heard about transmissions for years is the Taurus
> > and Accord. But Honda at least made an attempt to do something for
> > their customers.
> > Now I'm going to get me a sandwich. Baloney.
>
> What "plastic piece?"
AXOD Forward piston, and it wasn't plastic, it was aluminum. It had a
nasty tendency to crack. Ford's engineers revised the design several
times before it was replaced with a steel part.
Chris
mako...@yahoo.com
> since its small and light it really benefits from putting the throttle
> under computer control (most current cars are "throttle by wire") so
> that the computer can throttle back during shifts, saving the abuse of
> dumping engine power into the clutch packs while they're slipping during
> a shift. That change alone has HUGELY improved transmission reliability
>
Yep, I think Fords do this by retarding the timing during shift, not
actually controlling the throttle, but still cutting back engine
power. You can actually hear this happen. And I have learned to
drive my Toyota that way too, letting up on the gas a bit to force the
shift to occur during lower power..
There has to be some period of slippage during every shift and the
friction parts wil llast longer if that happens with less power
flowing through..
Mark
john...@hotmail.com
back"? Maybe that's why some do well and others are staring bankruptcy
in the eye.
Steve
> The first fluids for it didn't work well, and also
>> since its small and light it really benefits from putting the throttle
>> under computer control (most current cars are "throttle by wire") so
>> that the computer can throttle back during shifts, saving the abuse of
>> dumping engine power into the clutch packs while they're slipping during
>> a shift. That change alone has HUGELY improved transmission reliability
>> all across the automotive industry.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> Yep, I think Fords do this by retarding the timing during shift, not
> actually controlling the throttle, but still cutting back engine
> power. You can actually hear this happen.
Its done various ways. They may not have been the first, but the first
cars that I knew of that had these "torque management" schemes were the
1993 Chrysler LH series with the 42LE and 3.5L v6, and the same year
Cadillacs with the Northstar. I don't know the details on how the
Northstar did it but the Chrysler LH only applied torque management on
wide-open-throttle 1-2 shifts. It was done by cutting alternate fuel
injector pulses (basically running on 3 during the upshift). It was
pretty much undetectable.
Later vehicles that still had a direct cable linkage to the throttle
used various "torque management" features involving both retarding the
timing and cutting injector pulses. My wife's 05 PT does this and it
feels for all the world like the throttle is being closed.
Finally there are the throttle-by-wire vehicles, which just frickin'
close the throttle slightly- much cleaner and less noticeble in the feel
of the car, although I find them more audible. Under hard acceleration,
these systems sound very much like a good driver power-shifting a manual
transmission. I *think* that TBW vehicles cut power until the
transmission's input and output sensors show the correct ratio, meaning
that the clutch pack is no longer slipping. The computer then fully
applies the clutch and re-opens the throttle. There's virtually no wear
on the clutch packs this way since the only load on them while the shift
is occurring is the inertia of the crankshaft.
And I have learned to
> drive my Toyota that way too, letting up on the gas a bit to force the
> shift to occur during lower power..
>
> There has to be some period of slippage during every shift and the
> friction parts wil llast longer if that happens with less power
> flowing through..
And with the computer watching the input and output speeds, there really
doesn't have to be much or any real slippage. The computer can just
quickly apply the clutch a few milliseconds before or after the ratio is
perfectly matched as the engine winds down after the computer closes the
throttle and disengages the previous gear.
Steve
> You would think car companies want to keep their customers "coming
> back"? Maybe that's why some do well and others are staring bankruptcy
> in the eye.
>
>
The sentiment may be right, but the logic doesn't follow- For is "doing
well" despite the alleged problems with the Explorer. (I say 'alleged'
because there's a lot of evidence that the only real problem was/is
idiot drivers that drove Explorers like Miatas, and crappy Firestone tires).
L Alpert
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.04.27....@e86.GTS...
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:34:37 -0700, L Alpert wrote:
>
>>
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2009.04.26...@e86.GTS...
>>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:43:59 +0000, krp wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>>>> news:pan.2009.04.26....@e86.GTS...
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:46:31 -0700, techma...@yahoo.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a 97 Honda Accord with 280K. Recently, I pulled over
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> driving to check a map and when I put my car back in D, the
>>>>>> engine
>>>>>> just raced like it was in neutral when I gave it gas. The
>>>>>> reverse
>>>>>> gear
>>>>>> worked for a bit in the parking lot, eventually no shifter
>>>>>> position
>>>>>> resulted in movement of the vehicle. In D & R and only on a
>>>>>> small
>>>>>> number of throttle applications, the car started moving forward
>>>>>> slightly, similar to that brief moment before the clutch on a
>>>>>> manual
>>>>>> transmission is fully engaged. Before I pulled over my
>>>>>> transmission
>>>>>> was working absolutely perfectly. The AAA tow guy and several
>>>>>> repair
>>>>>> shops told me over the phone that the auto transmission needs
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> replaced (~$2000). Not worth it with the age of the car. Its
>>>>>> now
>>>>>> sitting in my driveway. Ideally, I would tow it to a mechanic
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> them verify this for sure. Im not sure its worth spending the
>>>>>> money
>>>>>> just to confirm this. Is there much of a chance that this
>>>>>> problem
>>>>>> would require a repair that doesnt involve replacing the entire
>>>>>> automatic transmission?
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One more question. It may take a while before I sell it. I plan
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> starting the engine once every 2-weeks or so to keep the engine
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> good order and battery charged. Should I add an oil or gasoline
>>>>>> preservative?
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you check the fluid level? That would be the first thing I'd
>>>>> check.
>>>>> Low level will cause exactly what you're talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's not sealed, change or clean the screen (and report back
>>>>> the
>>>>> condition of any debris you find...) and drain as much as you
>>>>> can
>>>>> and
>>>>> replace it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're adventerous, you can lift the front of the car, wheels
>>>>> off the
>>>>> ground, pull the trans cooler lines (the one that pumps to the
>>>>> radiator),
>>>>> get a few quarts of trans fluid and 'flush' the tranny by
>>>>> letting
>>>>> the car
>>>>> idle in drive and pump the fluid out the tube while you replace
>>>>> it
>>>>> through
>>>>> the filler. However, on a tranny this old that sounds like it
>>>>> may
>>>>> have
>>>>> never been service, this could remove the loose friction
>>>>> material
>>>>> which
>>>>> may be the only thing keeping it moving!
>>>>>
>>>>> DON'T have it powerflushed!!! It's too old, and then you really
>>>>> would need
>>>>> to replace it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like he might luck out with just a normal fluid change
>>>> and new
>>>> trans filter. Not big bucks. Most shops will do it for around
>>>> $100.
>>>
>>>
>>> I do it myself for ~$35...not including 6-pack.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> $5 adder per knuckle?
>
> I give myself a 50% discount...
Ah, but what about an aquintence..!
>
> And use it to buy mechanic's gloves...if I ever wear them!
>
> Here's a challenge! Want to talk about busted knuckles? Try changine
> the
> SPARK PLUGS!!!!
Haven't had to in years, but I did have an old 60's firebird that I
had to use a breaker bar on once....
>
> http://www.supradreams.com/images/1988-turbo-engine.jpg
>
> http://www.dragtimes.com/images/7613-1988-Toyota-Supra.jpg
>
>
>
jim beam
rubbish. that's pure gullibility if you believe that. there are
absolutely no conditions, ever, under which it's acceptable for a
vehicle to roll just because of a flat. AND there are no conditions
ever where it's acceptable for the roof to collapse killing the
occupants. the exploder had both from inception. they were known
problems, and ford chose to proceed on the basis that the exploder was
quick and cheap to bring that market, and the margins exceeded their
calculated losses from wrongful death lawsuits.
it was a cold blooded bastard that made that call. nothing less than
jail time for manslaughter is appropriate for the individual[s] and
deeply punitive damages for the company and board that condoned it.
it's also a sad indictment when politicians allow themselves to be
bought off on this issue too - they decided to sacrifice innocent
americans to wall street. the whole thing is an utter disgrace.
Steve
> Steve wrote:
>> john...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> You would think car companies want to keep their customers "coming
>>> back"? Maybe that's why some do well and others are staring bankruptcy
>>> in the eye.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The sentiment may be right, but the logic doesn't follow- For is
>> "doing well" despite the alleged problems with the Explorer. (I say
>> 'alleged' because there's a lot of evidence that the only real problem
>> was/is idiot drivers that drove Explorers like Miatas, and crappy
>> Firestone tires).
>
> rubbish. that's pure gullibility if you believe that. there are
> absolutely no conditions, ever, under which it's acceptable for a
> vehicle to roll just because of a flat.
OK, smart guy... then tell me exactly what in the Explorer's engineering
design is responsible for the problem. I mean if it exists and could
have been remedied, then it must be precisely definable and must be a
particular engineering quirk or deficiency that other trucks don't have.
So what is it? I've never heard any explanation that was satisfactory yet.
krp
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
A slightly wider stance, better spring loading and a few other things
eventually done to the newer Ford SUV front suspension.
jim beam
well, you're not addressing the cabin crush problem with this question -
kind of important if the vehicle rolls in the first place.
but moving on, it's a suspension dynamics problem. part of the problem
with leaf springs is that they can have side-to-side movement, not just
up and down. add to that a high center of gravity, narrow wheel base
and soggy damping, and you have a vehicle that will kick on recovery
from one sideways movement /into/ the lunge of the next. the two
combined tip the vehicle. and that brings us back the cabin crush
problem again...
Steve
>
> well, you're not addressing the cabin crush problem with this question -
> kind of important if the vehicle rolls in the first place.
Granted.
>
> but moving on, it's a suspension dynamics problem. part of the problem
> with leaf springs is that they can have side-to-side movement, not just
> up and down.
Uhhhh.... NO. Leaf springs have LESS lateral movement than trailing-arm
suspensions, typically. They also have inherent anti-roll forces because
they don't like being twisted when one side of the car compresses more
than the other.
And besides, there weren't ever complaints of Jeep Grand Wagoneers
flipping, and they have leaf spring suspensions front and rear.
Cherokees have leading arms front and leafs rear, but they do have solid
axles front and rear which place the roll center in a less
rollover-prone position than independent suspensions do for the most part.
I don't know much about the dynamics of the oddball independent front
suspension that 4x4 Explorers of that vintage used, but it didn't seem
to cause a problem on full-size Fords.
>add to that a high center of gravity, narrow wheel base
> and soggy damping, and you have a vehicle that will kick on recovery
> from one sideways movement /into/ the lunge of the next. the two
> combined tip the vehicle.
The old Mitsu Montero had a higher CG and narrower track- where are the
complaints there.
"Soggy damping" might be a valid complaint, but I still don't see
anything that makes the Explorer distinctly different than countless
other similar vehicles with essenstially the same layout- Jeeps, the
midsize GM (Trailblazer/Envoy), first-gen Durangos, Pathfinders,
Foreskinners, Xterribles, FJ Poseurs, etc. etc. etc.
jim beam
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>
>> well, you're not addressing the cabin crush problem with this question
>> - kind of important if the vehicle rolls in the first place.
>
> Granted.
>>
>> but moving on, it's a suspension dynamics problem. part of the
>> problem with leaf springs is that they can have side-to-side movement,
>> not just up and down.
>
> Uhhhh.... NO. Leaf springs have LESS lateral movement than trailing-arm
> suspensions, typically. They also have inherent anti-roll forces because
> they don't like being twisted when one side of the car compresses more
> than the other.
sorry, that's a misconception. look under the vehicle. see the dampers
set at 45 degrees. that's to try adding a damping component to the
known sideways problem.
>
> And besides, there weren't ever complaints of Jeep Grand Wagoneers
> flipping, and they have leaf spring suspensions front and rear.
sorry, they can roll too.
> Cherokees have leading arms front and leafs rear, but they do have solid
> axles front and rear which place the roll center in a less
> rollover-prone position than independent suspensions do for the most part.
>
> I don't know much about the dynamics of the oddball independent front
> suspension that 4x4 Explorers of that vintage used, but it didn't seem
> to cause a problem on full-size Fords.
>
>> add to that a high center of gravity, narrow wheel base and soggy
>> damping, and you have a vehicle that will kick on recovery from one
>> sideways movement /into/ the lunge of the next. the two combined tip
>> the vehicle.
>
> The old Mitsu Montero had a higher CG and narrower track- where are the
> complaints there.
>
> "Soggy damping" might be a valid complaint, but I still don't see
> anything that makes the Explorer distinctly different than countless
> other similar vehicles with essenstially the same layout- Jeeps, the
> midsize GM (Trailblazer/Envoy), first-gen Durangos, Pathfinders,
> Foreskinners, Xterribles, FJ Poseurs, etc. etc. etc.
and most of those vehicles fail modern roll tests. we use a "j" bend
stability test which specifically avoids, the kick back problem i
described. in europe, more rigorously and safely, they use an "s" bend
stability test, and that's where the problems get revealed. our tests
are a fudge. and we fudge our laws in favor of producers, not consumers.
Steve
> Steve wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> well, you're not addressing the cabin crush problem with this
>>> question - kind of important if the vehicle rolls in the first place.
>>
>> Granted.
>>>
>>> but moving on, it's a suspension dynamics problem. part of the
>>> problem with leaf springs is that they can have side-to-side
>>> movement, not just up and down.
>>
>> Uhhhh.... NO. Leaf springs have LESS lateral movement than
>> trailing-arm suspensions, typically. They also have inherent anti-roll
>> forces because they don't like being twisted when one side of the car
>> compresses more than the other.
>
> sorry, that's a misconception. look under the vehicle. see the dampers
> set at 45 degrees. that's to try adding a damping component to the
> known sideways problem.
>
I don't have an explorer to look under, but other leaf-spring designs
are EXTREMELY stiff side-to-side. There's no "damper set at 45 degrees"
whatsoever in 90% of leaf spring designs... You're talking about trying
to deflect a 3" wide stack of spring-steel plates.... AINT gonna happen.
Conversely, 4-link systems have to have panhard rods to alleviate
sideways deflection, and most passenger applications have pretty thick
bushings that allow significant axle shift left-to-right, which is why
there are aftermarket Heim joints and delrin alternatives.
>
>>
>> And besides, there weren't ever complaints of Jeep Grand Wagoneers
>> flipping, and they have leaf spring suspensions front and rear.
>
> sorry, they can roll too.
Well of course... ANY vehicle CAN roll, even a Viper under the wrong
conditions. And high CG vehicles are more likely to do so... which is
why it all comes back to the loose nut behind the wheel more than the
vehicle, unless there's a proven, specific design defect. I suppose it
could be a "synergy" of a lot of little deficiencies, and that may well
be the case with the Explorer. I never drove one, so I really don't know
if they handle far worse than my Cherokee, which will take any corner
far faster than anyone should take it out of consideration for others on
the road. My 190 horsepower high-sitting, (relatively)
skinny-tire-equipped SUV gets me to and from work *exactly* as fast as
my 400-horsepower, urethane-suspended and sway-bar upgraded muscle car.
And it takes me places the car couldn't go even with 800 horsepower.
>> The old Mitsu Montero had a higher CG and narrower track- where are
>> the complaints there.
>>
>> "Soggy damping" might be a valid complaint, but I still don't see
>> anything that makes the Explorer distinctly different than countless
>> other similar vehicles with essenstially the same layout- Jeeps, the
>> midsize GM (Trailblazer/Envoy), first-gen Durangos, Pathfinders,
>> Foreskinners, Xterribles, FJ Poseurs, etc. etc. etc.
>
> and most of those vehicles fail modern roll tests.
Nice hat you pulled that "fact" out of. Got one in felt? Or would you
care to answer the question that was asked: where are the complaints
about those cars compared to the Explorer?
I don't drink pop-culture Kool-aid easily, and the whole Explorer
rollover thing smells a *lot* like a probable handling deficiency not
unlike *many* mediocre vehicles on the road, which then grew into a
media feeding frenzy when the paparazzi smelled a story. It will
continue to do so until someone can give me some engineering-based
reasoning, not silliness like "leaf springs deflect sideways."
jim beam
> jim beam wrote:
>> Steve wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> well, you're not addressing the cabin crush problem with this
>>>> question - kind of important if the vehicle rolls in the first place.
>>>
>>> Granted.
>>>>
>>>> but moving on, it's a suspension dynamics problem. part of the
>>>> problem with leaf springs is that they can have side-to-side
>>>> movement, not just up and down.
>>>
>>> Uhhhh.... NO. Leaf springs have LESS lateral movement than
>>> trailing-arm suspensions, typically. They also have inherent
>>> anti-roll forces because they don't like being twisted when one side
>>> of the car compresses more than the other.
>>
>> sorry, that's a misconception. look under the vehicle. see the
>> dampers set at 45 degrees. that's to try adding a damping component
>> to the known sideways problem.
>>
>
> I don't have an explorer to look under,
er, you don't need to /have/ an explorer - you simply need to look at one.
> but other leaf-spring designs
> are EXTREMELY stiff side-to-side.
untrue, both as a matter of fact and as a matter of comparison.
> There's no "damper set at 45 degrees"
> whatsoever in 90% of leaf spring designs...
untrue.
> You're talking about trying
> to deflect a 3" wide stack of spring-steel plates.... AINT gonna happen.
<...>
there's a fundamental knowledge gap with everything you're saying. i
don't see you being able to bridge it, so i'm done. have a nice day.
Steve
>
> there's a fundamental knowledge gap with everything you're saying. i
> don't see you being able to bridge it, so i'm done. have a nice day.
This from the guy who doesn't understand the concept of viscosity index
and thinks that 30-weight oil is "always thicker" than 10w30 oil at high
temperatures.
You really need to get a clue. Lots of clues, actually.
krp
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>
>> there's a fundamental knowledge gap with everything you're saying. i
>> don't see you being able to bridge it, so i'm done. have a nice day.
>
> This from the guy who doesn't understand the concept of viscosity index
> and thinks that 30-weight oil is "always thicker" than 10w30 oil at high
> temperatures.
Generally speaking it IS. Not by any great amount, but it is slightly
thicker. At least the lab tests at Texaco showed that. Maybe liquids flow
differently in YOUR lab?