1998 Grand Caravan

From : dave o

Q: just bought a new to me van 3.3l with o/d and 206000 kms and hope to get some information. its in great shape no rust runs well and gives no hint to any engine/drivability issues at all. my question is there anything that is relatively common to this type of van that i should know about any major problems or recalls that i should check in to any replies will be appreciated dave .

Replies:

From : tbone

my understanding is that this was the result of iacocca informing the engineers that the 604 was going to be offered in the fall and not listening to any nonsense about it not being ready. and yet 15 years later its still not a terrific transmission. how is it going to magically get any better -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote no thanks i still have my electrical engineering handbook. if only you knew how to read it. im quite sure it has ohms law spelled out correctly. matt .

From : tbone

ok im confused . . . . yea this we know - .

From : adam krackenberger

watch out for your tranny. i know the 1991-95 dodge vans had major tranny issues. i am not sure if they got them fixed or not. i knew someone who put 3 trannies in thiers before they traded it off. .

From : gary glaenzer

great combination we had the 3.3 / 604 in a 91 dynasty and now in a 93 voyager check belt tensioner regularly for seizing of the pivot change transmission fluid religiously; make sure theres an o-ring on the new filter keep an eye on transmission cooler lines for leaks at the clamps just bought a new to me van 3.3l with o/d and 206000 kms and hope to get some information. its in great shape no rust runs well and gives no hint to any engine/drivability issues at all. my question is there anything that is relatively common to this type of van that i should know about any major problems or recalls that i should check in to any replies will be appreciated dave .

From : newman

most of the nasty tranny problems from the early 90s were fixed by this time. the main thing is change that fluid! take it to a competant tranny shop and have the fluid changed. depending upon the amount of driving i would say every couple of years. this service is one where they drop the pan and replace the internal filter. do not let them pressure flush the tranny. do not let any shop lay a hand on that transmission if they want to put anything other than atf +4 fluid in it. dexron iii with lube-guard does not cut it. make sure they drop the pan. do not let them just drain and refill with new fluid. the only other problem i have heard of in the late 90s was that there is a main pin inside which can wear and come loose. the car will run fine until the pin completely falls out. if this happens at highway speeds then the force of the pin will cause it to blast through the side of the transmission casing. this is a very expensive repair. i do not know if it is possible for the trans shop to inspect this pin when the pan is dropped but if it is possible then you might want to have it checked. i have a 94 gc with that trans. when mine was rebuilt a special bracket was installed which absolutely prevents this from happening. the pin may come lose and rattle but it is not possible for it to cause any significant damage as reported above. dc knows full well of the problem and is not prepared to assist customers unless the van is fairly new and within some mileage limit 110000 kms i think. after that you are on your own. the 3.3 engine is a total work horse. periodically check the belt tensioner. with mine the bearing for the tensioning wheel was starting to go and squeeking quite loudly. that was around 165000 kms. replacing the tensioner is a fairly inexpensive repair. probably cheaper than a tow! if the tensioner fails you will be stranded and need a tow. have the front end checked periodically. one fellow locally had ball joints wear out prematurely which caused him a lot of grief. i have had mine regularly inspected and have yet to come even close to replacing them - so i think this guy was just unlucky. in any case better safe than sorry. other than that enjoy the ride! i love my mini-van. it holds all my kids all our stuff has power to spare and - touch wood - has never left me stranded. happy motoring. on wed 8 mar 2006 133103 -0500 dave o dollivier@sympatico.ca wrote just bought a new to me van 3.3l with o/d and 206000 kms and hope to get some information. its in great shape no rust runs well and gives no hint to any engine/drivability issues at all. my question is there anything that is relatively common to this type of van that i should know about any major problems or recalls that i should check in to any replies will be appreciated dave .

From : gary glaenzer

most of the nasty tranny problems from the early 90s were fixed by this time. the main thing is change that fluid! take it to a competant tranny shop and have the fluid changed. depending upon the amount of driving i would say every couple of years. this service is one where they drop the pan and replace the internal filter. do not let them pressure flush the tranny. do not let any shop lay a hand on that transmission if they want to put anything other than atf +4 fluid in it. dexron iii with lube-guard does not cut it. make sure they drop the pan. do not let them just drain and refill with new fluid. atf +4 did not arrive till 2000 atf +3 is specified you can use +4 but its needless expense the only other problem i have heard of in the late 90s was that there is a main pin inside which can wear and come loose. the car will run fine until the pin completely falls out. if this happens at highway speeds then the force of the pin will cause it to blast through the side of the transmission casing. this is a very expensive repair. i do not know if it is possible for the trans shop to inspect this pin when the pan is dropped but if it is possible then you might want to have it checked. nope; unless they take the differential cover off usually caused by spinning one wheel if on snowy / icy pavement do not allow wheels to start spinning when they catch it will shear off the underdrive hub i have a 94 gc with that trans. when mine was rebuilt a special bracket was installed which absolutely prevents this from happening. the pin may come lose and rattle but it is not possible for it to cause any significant damage as reported above. dc knows full well of the problem and is not prepared to assist customers unless the van is fairly new and within some mileage limit 110000 kms i think. after that you are on your own. the 3.3 engine is a total work horse. periodically check the belt tensioner. with mine the bearing for the tensioning wheel was starting to go and squeeking quite loudly. that was around 165000 kms. replacing the tensioner is a fairly inexpensive repair. probably cheaper than a tow! if the tensioner fails you will be stranded and need a tow. you need a 15 mm deep socket 6 extension swivel and long extension go at it from underneath have the front end checked periodically. one fellow locally had ball joints wear out prematurely which caused him a lot of grief. i have had mine regularly inspected and have yet to come even close to replacing them - so i think this guy was just unlucky. in any case better safe than sorry. other than that enjoy the ride! i love my mini-van. it holds all my kids all our stuff has power to spare and - touch wood - has never left me stranded. when descending steep grades put selector in 3 this locks torque converter and provides engine braking happy motoring. on wed 8 mar 2006 133103 -0500 dave o dollivier@sympatico.ca wrote just bought a new to me van 3.3l with o/d and 206000 kms and hope to get some information. its in great shape no rust runs well and gives no hint to any engine/drivability issues at all. my question is there anything that is relatively common to this type of van that i should know about any major problems or recalls that i should check in to any replies will be appreciated dave .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

ok im confused . . . . gary we ended up buying a rebuilt 604 and installing it after i started having some chest pains again. no heart attack just a warning. now were like that guy in the home loan commercials in debt up to our eyeballs. btw found out the one we took out was a rebuilt unit probably from aamco. . . but it lasted 40000 miles with a 25 year old lead foot driving it in sunny florida for 25000 of those miles. i got it programmed pretty easily out on a back road and it seems to be fine. most of the nasty tranny problems from the early 90s were fixed by this time. the main thing is change that fluid! take it to a competant tranny shop and have the fluid changed. depending upon the amount of driving i would say every couple of years. this service is one where they drop the pan and replace the internal filter. do not let them pressure flush the tranny. do not let any shop lay a hand on that transmission if they want to put anything other than atf +4 fluid in it. dexron iii with lube-guard does not cut it. make sure they drop the pan. do not let them just drain and refill with new fluid. atf +4 did not arrive till 2000 atf +3 is specified you can use +4 but its needless expense i have to either order atf+4 by the case or go to grand juction co to get it as no one will stock it locally. i can get atf+3 locally. is there a way to tell if the rebuilt needs the expensive stuff the mopar tag on the case says it was originally built in 95. the only other problem i have heard of in the late 90s was that there is a main pin inside which can wear and come loose. the car will run fine until the pin completely falls out. if this happens at highway speeds then the force of the pin will cause it to blast through the side of the transmission casing. this is a very expensive repair. i do not know if it is possible for the trans shop to inspect this pin when the pan is dropped but if it is possible then you might want to have it checked. nope; unless they take the differential cover off usually caused by spinning one wheel if on snowy / icy pavement do not allow wheels to start spinning when they catch it will shear off the underdrive hub is this something my car can have trouble with i dont spin tires much anymore but is it something i should avoid at all costs i have a 94 gc with that trans. when mine was rebuilt a special bracket was installed which absolutely prevents this from happening. the pin may come lose and rattle but it is not possible for it to cause any significant damage as reported above. dc knows full well of the problem and is not prepared to assist customers unless the van is fairly new and within some mileage limit 110000 kms i think. after that you are on your own. the 3.3 engine is a total work horse. periodically check the belt tensioner. with mine the bearing for the tensioning wheel was starting to go and squeeking quite loudly. that was around 165000 kms. replacing the tensioner is a fairly inexpensive repair. probably cheaper than a tow! if the tensioner fails you will be stranded and need a tow. you need a 15 mm deep socket 6 extension swivel and long extension go at it from underneath have the front end checked periodically. one fellow locally had ball joints wear out prematurely which caused him a lot of grief. i have had mine regularly inspected and have yet to come even close to replacing them - so i think this guy was just unlucky. in any case better safe than sorry. other than that enjoy the ride! i love my mini-van. it holds all my kids all our stuff has power to spare and - touch wood - has never left me stranded. when descending steep grades put selector in 3 this locks torque converter and provides engine braking i wish i had this kind of control with my lebaron. the detents on the transmission shift shaft figure out to be the same as for the vans but the shifter inside has only p-r-n-d-3-1 positions.3 is a sport mode that wont shift into direct until over 50 mph. budd *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : gary glaenzer

ok im confused . . . . gary we ended up buying a rebuilt 604 and installing it after i started having some chest pains again. no heart attack just a warning. now were like that guy in the home loan commercials in debt up to our eyeballs. btw found out the one we took out was a rebuilt unit probably from aamco. . . but it lasted 40000 miles with a 25 year old lead foot driving it in sunny florida for 25000 of those miles. i got it programmed pretty easily out on a back road and it seems to be fine. most of the nasty tranny problems from the early 90s were fixed by this time. the main thing is change that fluid! take it to a competant tranny shop and have the fluid changed. depending upon the amount of driving i would say every couple of years. this service is one where they drop the pan and replace the internal filter. do not let them pressure flush the tranny. do not let any shop lay a hand on that transmission if they want to put anything other than atf +4 fluid in it. dexron iii with lube-guard does not cut it. make sure they drop the pan. do not let them just drain and refill with new fluid. atf +4 did not arrive till 2000 atf +3 is specified you can use +4 but its needless expense i have to either order atf+4 by the case or go to grand juction co to get it as no one will stock it locally. i can get atf+3 locally. is there a way to tell if the rebuilt needs the expensive stuff the mopar tag on the case says it was originally built in 95. what did the paperwork with the reman say the only other problem i have heard of in the late 90s was that there is a main pin inside which can wear and come loose. the car will run fine until the pin completely falls out. if this happens at highway speeds then the force of the pin will cause it to blast through the side of the transmission casing. this is a very expensive repair. i do not know if it is possible for the trans shop to inspect this pin when the pan is dropped but if it is possible then you might want to have it checked. nope; unless they take the differential cover off usually caused by spinning one wheel if on snowy / icy pavement do not allow wheels to start spinning when they catch it will shear off the underdrive hub is this something my car can have trouble with i dont spin tires much anymore but is it something i should avoid at all costs yes i have a 94 gc with that trans. when mine was rebuilt a special bracket was installed which absolutely prevents this from happening. the pin may come lose and rattle but it is not possible for it to cause any significant damage as reported above. dc knows full well of the problem and is not prepared to assist customers unless the van is fairly new and within some mileage limit 110000 kms i think. after that you are on your own. the 3.3 engine is a total work horse. periodically check the belt tensioner. with mine the bearing for the tensioning wheel was starting to go and squeeking quite loudly. that was around 165000 kms. replacing the tensioner is a fairly inexpensive repair. probably cheaper than a tow! if the tensioner fails you will be stranded and need a tow. you need a 15 mm deep socket 6 extension swivel and long extension go at it from underneath have the front end checked periodically. one fellow locally had ball joints wear out prematurely which caused him a lot of grief. i have had mine regularly inspected and have yet to come even close to replacing them - so i think this guy was just unlucky. in any case better safe than sorry. other than that enjoy the ride! i love my mini-van. it holds all my kids all our stuff has power to spare and - touch wood - has never left me stranded. when descending steep grades put selector in 3 this locks torque converter and provides engine braking i wish i had this kind of control with my lebaron. the detents on the transmission shift shaft figure out to be the same as for the vans but the shifter inside has only p-r-n-d-3-1 positions.3 is a sport mode that wont shift into direct until over 50 mph. 3 is direct just use 3 when descending long grades and save your brakes budd *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

ok im confused . . . . gary we ended up buying a rebuilt 604 and installing it after i started having some chest pains again. no heart attack just a warning. now were like that guy in the home loan commercials in debt up to our eyeballs. btw found out the one we took out was a rebuilt unit probably from aamco. . . but it lasted 40000 miles with a 25 year old lead foot driving it in sunny florida for 25000 of those miles. i got it programmed pretty easily out on a back road and it seems to be fine. most of the nasty tranny problems from the early 90s were fixed by this time. the main thing is change that fluid! take it to a competant tranny shop and have the fluid changed. depending upon the amount of driving i would say every couple of years. this service is one where they drop the pan and replace the internal filter. do not let them pressure flush the tranny. do not let any shop lay a hand on that transmission if they want to put anything other than atf +4 fluid in it. dexron iii with lube-guard does not cut it. make sure they drop the pan. do not let them just drain and refill with new fluid. atf +4 did not arrive till 2000 atf +3 is specified you can use +4 but its needless expense i have to either order atf+4 by the case or go to grand juction co to get it as no one will stock it locally. i can get atf+3 locally. is there a way to tell if the rebuilt needs the expensive stuff the mopar tag on the case says it was originally built in 95. what did the paperwork with the reman say dexron iii / atf+3 thats why it concerned me. the date of original manufacture for the transwas 95 an atf+4 unit but the rebuilder says otherwise. its got atf+4 in it and the upshifts are smooth and kickdowns clean and solid. the only other problem i have heard of in the late 90s was that there is a main pin inside which can wear and come loose. the car will run fine until the pin completely falls out. if this happens at highway speeds then the force of the pin will cause it to blast through the side of the transmission casing. this is a very expensive repair. i do not know if it is possible for the trans shop to inspect this pin when the pan is dropped but if it is possible then you might want to have it checked. nope; unless they take the differential cover off usually caused by spinning one wheel if on snowy / icy pavement do not allow wheels to start spinning when they catch it will shear off the underdrive hub is this something my car can have trouble with i dont spin tires much anymore but is it something i should avoid at all costs yes i was afraid youd say that. darn. my wife has decided to start driving again so ill have to teach her to avoid tire spin. i have a 94 gc with that trans. when mine was rebuilt a special bracket was installed which absolutely prevents this from happening. the pin may come lose and rattle but it is not possible for it to cause any significant damage as reported above. dc knows full well of the problem and is not prepared to assist customers unless the van is fairly new and within some mileage limit 110000 kms i think. after that you are on your own. the 3.3 engine is a total work horse. periodically check the belt tensioner. with mine the bearing for the tensioning wheel was starting to go and squeeking quite loudly. that was around 165000 kms. replacing the tensioner is a fairly inexpensive repair. probably cheaper than a tow! if the tensioner fails you will be stranded and need a tow. you need a 15 mm deep socket 6 extension swivel and long extension go at it from underneath have the front end checked periodically. one fellow locally had ball joints wear out prematurely which caused him a lot of grief. i have had mine regularly inspected and have yet to come even close to replacing them - so i think this guy was just unlucky. in any case better safe than sorry. other than that enjoy the ride! i love my mini-van. it holds all my kids all our stuff has power to spare and - touch wood - has never left me stranded. when descending steep grades put selector in 3 this locks torque converter and provides engine braking i wish i had this kind of control with my lebaron. the detents on the transmission shift shaft figure out to be the same as for the vans but the shifter inside has only p-r-n-d-3-1 positions.3 is a sport mode that wont shift into direct until over 50 mph. 3 is direct just use 3 when descending long grades and save your brakes my concern was for when i tow a small boat trailer in these mountains or a 1/2 ton trailer load of rubbish out to the transfer station thanks. budd *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : matt whiting

newman wrote even though the torque converter is locked in to the mechanical system this just makes it perform like the trannys did in the old days before the lock-out torque converter. there will be some breaking but it will be minimal. automatic tranmissions are not designed to provide engine braking like a manual tranmission is. wrong. have you ever read your owners manual matt .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

snip i wish i had this kind of control with my lebaron. the detents on the transmission shift shaft figure out to be the same as for the vans but the shifter inside has only p-r-n-d-3-1 positions.3 is a sport mode that wont shift into direct until over 50 mph.. i always thought this mode was for towing. i know i laugh everytime i consider towing with the 41te tranny. actually the owners manual says to use d as you normally would. as has been said in the thread many times take care of that transmission. i have an awd 94 grand caravan that weve had for 4 years.... and it has had 3 transmissions in it.... and it is sitting right now with a bad transmission. thats what worries me. my son had the good intention of trying to get me and his mom a car that would last until . . . . the other day he told me he wished hed bought the 73 dart with slant six and auto that needed some pretty extensive body work instead. i also have a 1990 with the a-604 ultradrive now called the 41te. it has developed the same screaming whine and would be sitting as well if i hadnt only paid $100 for it. g mine never whined it would just shift normal until the trans fluid warmed up then limp home mode. be gentle on the transmission or youll be sorry. yeah i know. i think i need to find another old dart/valiant . . . . budd *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : newman

on thu 9 mar 2006 064611 -0700 budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom spam.net wrote ok im confused . . . . gary we ended up buying a rebuilt 604 and installing it after i started having some chest pains again. no heart attack just a warning. now were like that guy in the home loan commercials in debt up to our eyeballs. btw found out the one we took out was a rebuilt unit probably from aamco. . . but it lasted 40000 miles with a 25 year old lead foot driving it in sunny florida for 25000 of those miles. i got it programmed pretty easily out on a back road and it seems to be fine. most of the nasty tranny problems from the early 90s were fixed by this time. the main thing is change that fluid! take it to a competant tranny shop and have the fluid changed. depending upon the amount of driving i would say every couple of years. this service is one where they drop the pan and replace the internal filter. do not let them pressure flush the tranny. do not let any shop lay a hand on that transmission if they want to put anything other than atf +4 fluid in it. dexron iii with lube-guard does not cut it. make sure they drop the pan. do not let them just drain and refill with new fluid. atf +4 did not arrive till 2000 atf +3 is specified you can use +4 but its needless expense i have to either order atf+4 by the case or go to grand juction co to get it as no one will stock it locally. i can get atf+3 locally. is there a way to tell if the rebuilt needs the expensive stuff the mopar tag on the case says it was originally built in 95. what did the paperwork with the reman say dexron iii / atf+3 thats why it concerned me. the date of original manufacture for the transwas 95 an atf+4 unit but the rebuilder says otherwise. its got atf+4 in it and the upshifts are smooth and kickdowns clean and solid. with a transmission that age you could probably use atf +3. what i found is that most trans shops dont want to stock different kinds of fluid. most shops in my area only have dexron iii and they add lubeguard for chrysler trannys. i have onyl found one or two shops that have atf and they refuse to stock both +3 and +4 so have decided to buy atf +4. not sure if they buy it in bulk or not. my experience is similar to yours! i have a 94gc. the original rebuild had dexron iii + lubeguard in it. it ran ok but not great. when i recently had the solenoid pack replaced i had them drop the pan and replace the internal filter and refill with atf +4. my trans now shifts like and absolute dream. smoother than ever. no more thump when dropping into low gear while slowing to a stop. all running perfectly. from my experience you cant go wrong with atf +4. how expensive is it really when compared with the cost of pre-mature transmission failure ; the only other problem i have heard of in the late 90s was that there is a main pin inside which can wear and come loose. the car will run fine until the pin completely falls out. if this happens at highway speeds then the force of the pin will cause it to blast through the side of the transmission casing. this is a very expensive repair. i do not know if it is possible for the trans shop to inspect this pin when the pan is dropped but if it is possible then you might want to have it checked. nope; unless they take the differential cover off usually caused by spinning one wheel if on snowy / icy pavement do not allow wheels to start spinning when they catch it will shear off the underdrive hub is this something my car can have trouble with i dont spin tires much anymore but is it something i should avoid at all costs yes i was afraid youd say that. darn. my wife has decided to start driving again so ill have to teach her to avoid tire spin. i have a 94 gc with that trans. when mine was rebuilt a special bracket was installed which absolutely prevents this from happening. the pin may come lose and rattle but it is not possible for it to cause any significant damage as reported above. dc knows full well of the problem and is not prepared to assist customers unless the van is fairly new and within some mileage limit 110000 kms i think. after that you are on your own. the 3.3 engine is a total work horse. periodically check the belt tensioner. with mine the bearing for the tensioning wheel was starting to go and squeeking quite loudly. that was around 165000 kms. replacing the tensioner is a fairly inexpensive repair. probably cheaper than a tow! if the tensioner fails you will be stranded and need a tow. you need a 15 mm deep socket 6 extension swivel and long extension go at it from underneath have the front end checked periodically. one fellow locally had ball joints wear out prematurely which caused him a lot of grief. i have had mine regularly inspected and have yet to come even close to replacing them - so i think this guy was just unlucky. in

From : dave o

thanks all dave just bought a new to me van 3.3l with o/d and 206000 kms and hope to get some information. its in great shape no rust runs well and gives no hint to any engine/drivability issues at all. my question is there anything that is relatively common to this type of van that i should know about any major problems or recalls that i should check in to any replies will be appreciated dave .

From : olaf

snip i wish i had this kind of control with my lebaron. the detents on the transmission shift shaft figure out to be the same as for the vans but the shifter inside has only p-r-n-d-3-1 positions.3 is a sport mode that wont shift into direct until over 50 mph.. i always thought this mode was for towing. i know i laugh everytime i consider towing with the 41te tranny. as has been said in the thread many times take care of that transmission. i have an awd 94 grand caravan that weve had for 4 years.... and it has had 3 transmissions in it.... and it is sitting right now with a bad transmission. i also have a 1990 with the a-604 ultradrive now called the 41te. it has developed the same screaming whine and would be sitting as well if i hadnt only paid $100 for it. g be gentle on the transmission or youll be sorry. budd *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

on thu 9 mar 2006 064611 -0700 budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom spam.net wrote ok im confused . . . . gary we ended up buying a rebuilt 604 and installing it after i started having some chest pains again. no heart attack just a warning. now were like that guy in the home loan commercials in debt up to our eyeballs. btw found out the one we took out was a rebuilt unit probably from aamco. . . but it lasted 40000 miles with a 25 year old lead foot driving it in sunny florida for 25000 of those miles. i got it programmed pretty easily out on a back road and it seems to be fine. most of the nasty tranny problems from the early 90s were fixed by this time. the main thing is change that fluid! take it to a competant tranny shop and have the fluid changed. depending upon the amount of driving i would say every couple of years. this service is one where they drop the pan and replace the internal filter. do not let them pressure flush the tranny. do not let any shop lay a hand on that transmission if they want to put anything other than atf +4 fluid in it. dexron iii with lube-guard does not cut it. make sure they drop the pan. do not let them just drain and refill with new fluid. atf +4 did not arrive till 2000 atf +3 is specified you can use +4 but its needless expense i have to either order atf+4 by the case or go to grand juction co to get it as no one will stock it locally. i can get atf+3 locally. is there a way to tell if the rebuilt needs the expensive stuff the mopar tag on the case says it was originally built in 95. what did the paperwork with the reman say dexron iii / atf+3 thats why it concerned me. the date of original manufacture for the transwas 95 an atf+4 unit but the rebuilder says otherwise. its got atf+4 in it and the upshifts are smooth and kickdowns clean and solid. with a transmission that age you could probably use atf +3. what i found is that most trans shops dont want to stock different kinds of fluid. most shops in my area only have dexron iii and they add lubeguard for chrysler trannys. i have onyl found one or two shops that have atf and they refuse to stock both +3 and +4 so have decided to buy atf +4. not sure if they buy it in bulk or not. garys the groups resident trans expert imho though i believe hes no longer in the business full time. hes the one that pointed out to me the symptoms i was having second gear limp mode after trans warms up was probably due to my sons use of dex iii / atf+3 when he had it before giving it to me. im in moab ut . . .that about 4 billion miles from anywhere unless its time for jeep safari fat / skinny tire festivals bicyclists!!! or half marathon. the nearest source in miles for atf+4 is grand junction co 120 miles one way unless i order it from salt lake city mopar dealerships thru a auto parts store like car quest $70 / case. im on fixed income due to diasdability and im trying to save as much $$$ as i can to pay for that consarn transmission. my experience is similar to yours! i have a 94gc. the original rebuild had dexron iii + lubeguard in it. it ran ok but not great. when i recently had the solenoid pack replaced i had them drop the pan and replace the internal filter and refill with atf +4. you may have saved yourself some grief or you may have delayed the enevitable .. it depends on how long the dex iii was in the transmission. in my case there was a total of 1 1/2 quarts added over a 15 month period while my son had the car. i never had to add any. my trans now shifts like and absolute dream. smoother than ever. no more thump when dropping into low gear while slowing to a stop. all running perfectly. from my experience you cant go wrong with atf +4. how expensive is it really when compared with the cost of pre-mature transmission failure ; gee for me its very expensive either way. to be honest i miss the solid shifts my 79 d-150 had 318 727 3.551 because the lebaron is still on the learning curve. around town normal driving i cant feel the 1-2 2-3 shifts and it doesnt hit od / lockup until 40 or better. if i give it pretty good kick off the line then i feel the shifts. the only other problem i have heard of in the late 90s was that there is a main pin inside which can wear and come loose. the car will run fine until the pin completely falls out. if this happens at highway speeds then the force of the pin will cause it to blast through the side of the transmission casing. this is a very expensive repair. i do not know if it is possible for the trans shop to inspect this pin when the pan is dropped but if it is possible then you might want to have it checked. nope; unless they take the differential cover off usually caused by spinning one wheel if on snowy / icy pavement do not allow wheels to start spinning when they catch it will shear off the underdrive hub is this something my

From : gary glaenzer

on thu 9 mar 2006 064611 -0700 budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom spam.net wrote even though the torque converter is locked in to the mechanical system this just makes it perform like the trannys did in the old days before the lock-out torque converter. there will be some breaking but it will be minimal. automatic tranmissions are not designed to provide engine braking like a manual tranmission is. oh give me a freaking break ! the a604 uses no over-running clutches therefore with the converter locked its like a manual i agree with the advice though. 3 is the appropriate slection for towing anything through mountains. it will keep the rpms up slightly and give you the torque you need. it will also prevent needless shifting of the trans under heavy load. the advice was specifically about descending grades the plain fact is that putting load on the a604 transmission is going to shorten its service life period. as refined as the design is now it still sucks when compared to the old tranmissions that were tricked-out with a shift kit. so much for progress and improvement. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : olaf

on thu 9 mar 2006 064611 -0700 budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom spam.net wrote even though the torque converter is locked in to the mechanical system this just makes it perform like the trannys did in the old days before the lock-out torque converter. there will be some breaking but it will be minimal. automatic tranmissions are not designed to provide engine braking like a manual tranmission is. oh give me a freaking break ! the a604 uses no over-running clutches therefore with the converter locked its like a manual i agree however when the accellerator is released the tcc disengages. snip .

From : olaf

snip i wish i had this kind of control with my lebaron. the detents on the transmission shift shaft figure out to be the same as for the vans but the shifter inside has only p-r-n-d-3-1 positions.3 is a sport mode that wont shift into direct until over 50 mph.. i always thought this mode was for towing. i know i laugh everytime i consider towing with the 41te tranny. actually the owners manual says to use d as you normally would. i think different vans have different settings. i have had 2 vans with the a-604. on my 1994 awd van there is also an overdrive off button on the dash which keeps the same shift points as when youre in overdrive except for not shifting to overdrive. but if you shift to drive it changes the shift points rather drastically. it hangs in the lower gears for much longer like waiting to shift to third until about 40 mph and it would downshift at about 30 when coming to a stop quite noticable. in my latest $100 beater 1990 grand caravan with 3.3 and od transmission it has normal shift points when in overdrive but it switches to the heavy duty shift points when its in drive. it certainly seems to be designed for more tough-going conditions like heavy snow or towing. i hope theyve changed on the newer vans. these transmissions are laughable anyway super heavy duty shift points is kind of inviting trouble. it makes folks think the transmissin is designed well enough for towing. as has been said in the thread many times take care of that transmission. i have an awd 94 grand caravan that weve had for 4 years.... and it has had 3 transmissions in it.... and it is sitting right now with a bad transmission. thats what worries me. my son had the good intention of trying to get me and his mom a car that would last until . . . . the other day he told me he wished hed bought the 73 dart with slant six and auto that needed some pretty extensive body work instead. i also have a 1990 with the a-604 ultradrive now called the 41te. it has developed the same screaming whine and would be sitting as well if i hadnt only paid $100 for it. g mine never whined it would just shift normal until the trans fluid warmed up then limp home mode. be gentle on the transmission or youll be sorry. yeah i know. i think i need to find another old dart/valiant . . . . now youre talkin. -d budd *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : gary glaenzer

not in 3 it doesnt on thu 9 mar 2006 064611 -0700 budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom spam.net wrote even though the torque converter is locked in to the mechanical system this just makes it perform like the trannys did in the old days before the lock-out torque converter. there will be some breaking but it will be minimal. automatic tranmissions are not designed to provide engine braking like a manual tranmission is. oh give me a freaking break ! the a604 uses no over-running clutches therefore with the converter locked its like a manual i agree however when the accellerator is released the tcc disengages. snip .

From : olaf

ill have to try that. - although none of the cv ive driven have had a 3 position. must be on the new ones mine all had and have p r n od d l iirc not in 3 it doesnt on thu 9 mar 2006 064611 -0700 budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom spam.net wrote even though the torque converter is locked in to the mechanical system this just makes it perform like the trannys did in the old days before the lock-out torque converter. there will be some breaking but it will be minimal. automatic tranmissions are not designed to provide engine braking like a manual tranmission is. oh give me a freaking break ! the a604 uses no over-running clutches therefore with the converter locked its like a manual i agree however when the accellerator is released the tcc disengages. snip .

From : daniel j stern

on mon 13 mar 2006 olaf wrote ill have to try that. - although none of the cv ive driven have had a 3 position. must be on the new ones mine all had and have p r n od d l iirc go out and look and youll probably find youre misremembering. with a 4-speed automatic the shift quadrant reads p r n d 3 l. with a 3-speed automatic the shift quadrant reads p r n d 2 1. gm does it differently with a 4-speed p r n d d 3 2 1 while ford usually gives you p r n d 3 1. .

From : Annonymous

on mon 13 mar 2006 165247 -0500 daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote go out and look and youll probably find youre misremembering. with a 4-speed automatic the shift quadrant reads p r n d 3 l. with a 3-speed automatic the shift quadrant reads p r n d 2 1. for the benefit of those who are new here and/or havent been following the various caravan transmission discussions which of those two transmissions tends to have the most maintenance problems in the early-to-mid 90s grand caravans .

From : newman

on mon 13 mar 2006 235658 -0500 me@nospam.com wrote on mon 13 mar 2006 165247 -0500 daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote go out and look and youll probably find youre misremembering. with a 4-speed automatic the shift quadrant reads p r n d 3 l. with a 3-speed automatic the shift quadrant reads p r n d 2 1. for the benefit of those who are new here and/or havent been following the various caravan transmission discussions which of those two transmissions tends to have the most maintenance problems in the early-to-mid 90s grand caravans iirc the 3 speed tranmission is a good tranmission. it has not had any particular problems that i recall reading about here. the only problem was that most vehicles were not equipped with it! ; the 4 speed automatic aka a-604 or 41te in more recent years is the one with the problems. it is also the most common trans found in the caravans. based on my experience and what i have read here i would say that earlier models early to mid 90s are the ones that had the most problems. newer versions appear to be better but you must be mindful of the high maintenence requirements compared with the older tranmissions. in the old days pretty much all you had to do was make sure the fluid was topped up and that was about it. the tranny ran until it died and that was somewhere between 150000 and 300000 miles. the a-604 is a nasty piece of work by comparision. you should change the fluid and filter every one to two years. it is not designed to do any particular amount of towing and if not properly maintained will die at an early age. my 94 gc dropped the tranny at approximately 130000 km or approximately 81000 miles and it did so before the van was 10 years old. it had to be rebuilt twice - once at charge and once on warranty before it was rebuilt correctly. touch wood i am about 30000 kms into the second rebuild and all seems well. prior to owning this vechicle i had all gms. my old 68 nova went 130000 miles before the powerglide started to have problems. the rebuild cost me $150 and another $150 to re & re. my old 79 malibu went in excess of 300000 kms before i sold it. never had a problem with the transmisison - ever. my 88 cutlass cruiser had almost 250000 kms on it when i traded it in again no tranmission problems of any kind. when you compare those numbers to the a-604 the a-604 has performed quite badly. it appears that dc released the design long before it was really ready and has been using the general driving public as part of its r&d efforts at our expense. having said that this is water under the bridge. the newer incarnations of the 41te seem to be generally more reliable and people are now acutely aware of the maintenence requirements so things tend to last longer. whether the reliability is up to snuff only time will tell. and despite all that i love driving my gc. mine has the 3.3l engine - the total opposite of the trans! it is a rock but that is another story. just stay away from the 3.0l engine. it is a great vehicle that has - touch wood - never left me stranded. .

From : ron

my wife drives a 1989 caravan. had the transmission replaced at about 95000 the second one has about 50000 on it. i do no maintence on this transmission other the check the fluid. my wife also drives it harder than i would. it is my experience that any transmission that makes it to about 100000 in phx az is doing about all it can. i had ford c-4s that only went around 75000. ford c-6 seem to go a lot longer. yes the caravan was never ment to tow anything. newman wrote on mon 13 mar 2006 235658 -0500 me@nospam.com wrote on mon 13 mar 2006 165247 -0500 daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote go out and look and youll probably find youre misremembering. with a 4-speed automatic the shift quadrant reads p r n d 3 l. with a 3-speed automatic the shift quadrant reads p r n d 2 1. for the benefit of those who are new here and/or havent been following the various caravan transmission discussions which of those two transmissions tends to have the most maintenance problems in the early-to-mid 90s grand caravans iirc the 3 speed tranmission is a good tranmission. it has not had any particular problems that i recall reading about here. the only problem was that most vehicles were not equipped with it! ; the 4 speed automatic aka a-604 or 41te in more recent years is the one with the problems. it is also the most common trans found in the caravans. based on my experience and what i have read here i would say that earlier models early to mid 90s are the ones that had the most problems. newer versions appear to be better but you must be mindful of the high maintenence requirements compared with the older tranmissions. in the old days pretty much all you had to do was make sure the fluid was topped up and that was about it. the tranny ran until it died and that was somewhere between 150000 and 300000 miles. the a-604 is a nasty piece of work by comparision. you should change the fluid and filter every one to two years. it is not designed to do any particular amount of towing and if not properly maintained will die at an early age. my 94 gc dropped the tranny at approximately 130000 km or approximately 81000 miles and it did so before the van was 10 years old. it had to be rebuilt twice - once at charge and once on warranty before it was rebuilt correctly. touch wood i am about 30000 kms into the second rebuild and all seems well. prior to owning this vechicle i had all gms. my old 68 nova went 130000 miles before the powerglide started to have problems. the rebuild cost me $150 and another $150 to re & re. my old 79 malibu went in excess of 300000 kms before i sold it. never had a problem with the transmisison - ever. my 88 cutlass cruiser had almost 250000 kms on it when i traded it in again no tranmission problems of any kind. when you compare those numbers to the a-604 the a-604 has performed quite badly. it appears that dc released the design long before it was really ready and has been using the general driving public as part of its r&d efforts at our expense. having said that this is water under the bridge. the newer incarnations of the 41te seem to be generally more reliable and people are now acutely aware of the maintenence requirements so things tend to last longer. whether the reliability is up to snuff only time will tell. and despite all that i love driving my gc. mine has the 3.3l engine - the total opposite of the trans! it is a rock but that is another story. just stay away from the 3.0l engine. it is a great vehicle that has - touch wood - never left me stranded. .

From : bill putney

ron wrote my wife drives a 1989 caravan. had the transmission replaced at about 95000 the second one has about 50000 on it. i do no maintence on this transmission other the check the fluid. hmmm - you do no maintenance and then make broad statements about life expectations of transmissions where you live i dont live in phoenix but im thinking that if you would change the fluid and filter once in a while you might get better service out of them. fluid changeouts in todays trannies are almost a must for higher mileage. ...my wife also drives it harder than i would. it is my experience that any transmission that makes it to about 100000 in phx az is doing about all it can. i had ford c-4s that only went around 75000. ford c-6 seem to go a lot longer. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : olaf

on mon 13 mar 2006 olaf wrote ill have to try that. - although none of the cv ive driven have had a 3 position. must be on the new ones mine all had and have p r n od d l iirc go out and look and youll probably find youre misremembering. with a 4-speed automatic the shift quadrant reads p r n d 3 l. with a 3-speed automatic the shift quadrant reads p r n d 2 1. i haev not checked on my 94 yet but my 1990 grand caravan has it p r n od d l.... and the tcc does disengage when the accellerator is released in d. but it does still provide pretty good engine braking in d. gm does it differently with a 4-speed p r n d d 3 2 1 while ford usually gives you p r n d 3 1. .

From : gary glaenzer

on mon 13 mar 2006 olaf wrote ill have to try that. - although none of the cv ive driven have had a 3 position. must be on the new ones mine all had and have p r n od d l iirc go out and look and youll probably find youre misremembering. with a 4-speed automatic the shift quadrant reads p r n d 3 l. with a 3-speed automatic the shift quadrant reads p r n d 2 1. i haev not checked on my 94 yet but my 1990 grand caravan has it p r n od d l.... and the tcc does disengage when the accellerator is released in d. how do you know this scan tool but it does still provide pretty good engine braking in d. gm does it differently with a 4-speed p r n d d 3 2 1 while ford usually gives you p r n d 3 1. .

From : steve

gary glaenzer wrote d l.... and the tcc does disengage when the accellerator is released in d. how do you know this scan tool my guess would be tachometer. if the tcc doesnt disengage there will be no drop in rpm when you lift your foot off the gas. its also obvious that the rpm will flare high then drop down when you get back on the gas as the tcc locks up shortly afterward. .

From : olaf

gary glaenzer wrote d l.... and the tcc does disengage when the accellerator is released in d. how do you know this scan tool my guess would be tachometer. and you would be correct. if the tcc doesnt disengage there will be no drop in rpm when you lift your foot off the gas. its also obvious that the rpm will flare high then drop down when you get back on the gas as the tcc locks up shortly afterward. absolutely correct. my guess is that the gear labels on the newer vans may not be the same as the older ones. i believe my 1990 is the first year they came out with the a-604 and 3.3 litter engine. one thing my 1990 beater does that my 1994 didnt is shift to overdrive no matter what position the accelerator is in at about 85-90 mph well while in overdrive of course. if i feel like being really mean to er and pushing it to 100+ i have to put the gearshift in drive to keep er from shifting to od. you should see the blue paint fly off then! my 1994 will always downshift to 3rd past 70 mph when the gas is floored. .

From : newman

on thu 16 mar 2006 171430 -0500 olaf noemailplease@yahoo.com wrote gary glaenzer wrote d l.... and the tcc does disengage when the accellerator is released in d. how do you know this scan tool my guess would be tachometer. and you would be correct. if the tcc doesnt disengage there will be no drop in rpm when you lift your foot off the gas. its also obvious that the rpm will flare high then drop down when you get back on the gas as the tcc locks up shortly afterward. absolutely correct. my guess is that the gear labels on the newer vans may not be the same as the older ones. i believe my 1990 is the first year they came out with the a-604 and 3.3 litter engine. one thing my 1990 beater does that my 1994 didnt is shift to overdrive no matter what position the accelerator is in at about 85-90 mph well while in overdrive of course. my 1994 had an o/d off button on the dash. if i feel like being really mean to er and pushing it to 100+ i have to put the gearshift in drive to keep er from shifting to od. you should see the blue paint fly off then! my paint got scratched up by the previous owner but in spite of that i have not had the problems that i have seen iwht other vans! damn there are some around that i swear you can watch the paint peal off af they drive in traffic! what the hell happened did chrysler have sone nasty process problem any recalls for this my 1994 will always downshift to 3rd past 70 mph when the gas is floored. .

From : bill putney

cavhbc wrote there ought to be a special warranty on lh car a.c. evaporators. why yours fail out of warranty and you had to spend some money if youre implying that im one of those people that think that cars ought to be warranteed forever im not. however for something that will cost the owner *major* expense and i say this as an engineer engineering practice says that you make sure you design that area well into the bell curve. can they be made to do a good will coverage as other auto makers often do to keep customers that deserve a little more than what they got absolutely not. can i be forced to buy product from a company that takes major expenses of their customers so lightly absolutely not. its called free market. truth is that a huge percentage of lh car evaporators fail after only a few years of normal use. there *is* such a thing as implied warranty of merchantability and if it was pushed in the legal system theyd lose the case on that one. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

newman wrote ...damn there are some around that i swear you can watch the paint peal off af they drive in traffic! what the hell happened did chrysler have sone nasty process problem any recalls for this in fact i remember seeing a link to a site that discussed secret warranties and that ia in fact one of them. anyone have that link there ought to be a special warranty on lh car a.c. evaporators. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : cavhbc

newman wrote ...damn there are some around that i swear you can watch the paint peal off af they drive in traffic! what the hell happened did chrysler have sone nasty process problem any recalls for this look up paint delamination....it wasnt just a chrysler issue... gm didnt recall the cars but we did what was called a tape test...2 inches of packing tape across the hood and rip.....if it came up you got a repaint to the first set of trim moldings on the side. they ended that one too. in fact i remember seeing a link to a site that discussed secret warranties and that ia in fact one of them. anyone have that link secret warranties..lol...aint no such thing. there are however goodwill repairs and sbs and dealers that can get a known common repair covered by the local rep...oh..thats a goodwill repair. there ought to be a special warranty on lh car a.c. evaporators. why yours fail out of warranty and you had to spend some money bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : maxpower

newman wrote ...damn there are some around that i swear you can watch the paint peal off af they drive in traffic! what the hell happened did chrysler have sone nasty process problem any recalls for this in fact i remember seeing a link to a site that discussed secret warranties and that ia in fact one of them. anyone have that link there ought to be a special warranty on lh car a.c. evaporators. is this a joke bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : cavhbc

are going to redo your computor and arent up to setting up agent cmon dont be so damn lazy use a different reader. guy or oe no muss no fuss. i mean cmon where am i going to find a new best friend with your skill g ya gotta know that this ng is therapy sorta like the gong show waiting room. somthing going on that ya might need a hand with roy lol. ok im like you i have to have some coffee before i really think about anything. but nope everything is very good right now. i just signed up for fios so i decided a new computer would be good and ill give the other one to my son. fios will be here on tuesday and the computer a day or so later. so then i started getting all the software that i need together for my new system. you know all the worthless crap that i love so much. anyway started to download agent again and just stopped. seems like all do here is to end up in an emberassing discussion with budd anymore and i just honestly cant do that anymore. i dont feel good about it but i cant let it go either. sort of like rubbing my eyes when i have allergies. i know it is bad but i cant stop. feels good at the time but feels bad later. so i decided it may be best to just give it up. im not giving arguing up though. belong to a local fishing group and there are some really interesting debates that go on there. of all places in the religion section! imagine that. oh and i still get to argue a whole lot at work as i still do the internal affairs stuff there. been plenty to work on there unfortunately. i do agree though that this place in spite of some of the wierd discussions and arguments is therapy. it can be very healthy here too. you in particular and some others have been a class act. thanks. . 222 315053 s50uf.278$gg7.743@eagle.america.net cavhbc wrote there ought to be a special warranty on lh car a.c. evaporators. why yours fail out of warranty and you had to spend some money if youre implying that im one of those people that think that cars ought to be warranteed forever im not. however for something that will cost the owner *major* expense and i say this as an engineer engineering practice says that you make sure you design that area well into the bell curve. can they be made to do a good will coverage as other auto makers often do to keep customers that deserve a little more than what they got absolutely not. can i be forced to buy product from a company that takes major expenses of their customers so lightly absolutely not. its called free market. well actually yea..you are sounding like someone that thinks that oh..wait..yer an engineer.. as someone thats seen both ends of the market and still sees the automotive end regularly now that i have gotten out of it for the most part..nothings wrong with the evaps on the lh line...altho i think many people have gotten that snow job line before..you know...charge to replace that evap but instead spend 5 hours replacing every damn o-ring on the system cause some engineer thought it would be good for business if they were all impossible to get to and failed regularly. truth is that a huge percentage of lh car evaporators fail after only a few years of normal use. there *is* such a thing as implied warranty of merchantability and if it was pushed in the legal system theyd lose the case on that one. nope. not at all. actually in practice more evaps failed on another brand of vehicle. but you know 3 years or 36000 miles is the warranty you bought it you accepted it and if it fails after that its yours. implied warranty of merchantability ok...that simply means that the car will run and the ac will cool when you buy it...thats it..nothing more. yea...take em on man...the legal definition of what you just stated is nohting but the fact that the cars gonna run...anything they add on after you just get extra. as an engineer i know its hard to understand...but just because it looks good on paper....real worlds a bit different...and yes i mean that the way it sounds. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

cavhbc wrote cavhbc wrote there ought to be a special warranty on lh car a.c. evaporators. why yours fail out of warranty and you had to spend some money if youre implying that im one of those people that think that cars ought to be warranteed forever im not. however for something that will cost the owner *major* expense and i say this as an engineer engineering practice says that you make sure you design that area well into the bell curve. can they be made to do a good will coverage as other auto makers often do to keep customers that deserve a little more than what they got absolutely not. can i be forced to buy product from a company that takes major expenses of their customers so lightly absolutely not. its called free market. well actually yea..you are sounding like someone that thinks that sounding and being are two different things. oh..wait..yer an engineer.. if anyone unbderstands real-world realities of good and bad designs its engineers. as someone thats seen both ends of the market ....and i also fall into that category. ...and still sees the automotive end regularly now that i have gotten out of it for the most part..nothings wrong with the evaps on the lh line...altho i think many people have gotten that snow job line before..you know...charge to replace that evap but instead spend 5 hours replacing every damn o-ring on the system cause some engineer thought it would be good for business if they were all impossible to get to and failed regularly. ok wise guy and i mean that in the friendliest of ways as soon as the weather warms back up when i charge my system back up and use the combination of electronic sniffer just bought it and dye put in last summer youre telling me that i should fully expect to find zero leaks in the evap. and instead should find leaks at one or more of the several o-ringed joints if thats going to be the case then this conversation will have been well worth it. tell me one thing i could answer this myself by getting back into the diagrams and procedures been a few weeks since i studied them but you can save me the trouble - can i get to all of the o-rings without taking the dash out i cant recall if the evap. joints are on the engine or passenger compartment side of the firewall. truth is that a huge percentage of lh car evaporators fail after only a few years of normal use. there *is* such a thing as implied warranty of merchantability and if it was pushed in the legal system theyd lose the case on that one. nope. not at all. actually in practice more evaps failed on another brand of vehicle. but you know 3 years or 36000 miles is the warranty you bought it you accepted it and if it fails after that its yours. implied warranty of merchantability ok...that simply means that the car will run and the ac will cool when you buy it...thats it..nothing more. yea...take em on man...the legal definition of what you just stated is nohting but the fact that the cars gonna run...anything they add on after you just get extra. and you totally missed my point about legalities and reasonableness aside - i can decide not to buy another of their vehicles for any reason - valid or not. ask ford and gm about that. as an engineer i know its hard to understand...but just because it looks good on paper....real worlds a bit different...and yes i mean that the way it sounds. if i wasnt genuinely wanting your answer on the above question id say something else - ill wait until you give me a good answer and then tell you and even then i just need to look at the fsm and other sources to figure it out - paper meets real world eh. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : cavhbc

cavhbc wrote cavhbc wrote there ought to be a special warranty on lh car a.c. evaporators. why yours fail out of warranty and you had to spend some money if youre implying that im one of those people that think that cars ought to be warranteed forever im not. however for something that will cost the owner *major* expense and i say this as an engineer engineering practice says that you make sure you design that area well into the bell curve. can they be made to do a good will coverage as other auto makers often do to keep customers that deserve a little more than what they got absolutely not. can i be forced to buy product from a company that takes major expenses of their customers so lightly absolutely not. its called free market. well actually yea..you are sounding like someone that thinks that sounding and being are two different things. oh..wait..yer an engineer.. if anyone unbderstands real-world realities of good and bad designs its engineers. aint that the truth...you guys design it and then we get to tell you how bad it sucks....lol as someone thats seen both ends of the market ...and i also fall into that category. ...and still sees the automotive end regularly now that i have gotten out of it for the most part..nothings wrong with the evaps on the lh line...altho i think many people have gotten that snow job line before..you know...charge to replace that evap but instead spend 5 hours replacing every damn o-ring on the system cause some engineer thought it would be good for business if they were all impossible to get to and failed regularly. ok wise guy and i mean that in the friendliest of ways as soon as the weather warms back up when i charge my system back up and use the combination of electronic sniffer just bought it and dye put in last summer youre telling me that i should fully expect to find zero leaks in the evap. and instead should find leaks at one or more of the several o-ringed joints if thats going to be the case then this conversation will have been well worth it. first of all i really hope you didnt get anything in the sniffer but a inficon or a cps. anything else you can throw away. in an automotive enviroment you are gonna want one you can actually trust and those are the only two unless of course you went for the 110vac h1. then....hats off to you...but inficon or cps...no tiff or other rebreanded crap. and dye.....gads....that shit exists for only one reason...to eat o-rings... kiddin kiddin about the o-rings and dye.... but yea...i expect you will find you have no leaks at the evap. at least 90% of the ones i have seen have had no leaks at the evap...most are at the expansion valve or compressor seals. tell me one thing i could answer this myself by getting back into the diagrams and procedures been a few weeks since i studied them but you can save me the trouble - can i get to all of the o-rings without taking the dash out i cant recall if the evap. joints are on the engine or passenger compartment side of the firewall. iirc yes. truth is that a huge percentage of lh car evaporators fail after only a few years of normal use. there *is* such a thing as implied warranty of merchantability and if it was pushed in the legal system theyd lose the case on that one. nope. not at all. actually in practice more evaps failed on another brand of vehicle. but you know 3 years or 36000 miles is the warranty you bought it you accepted it and if it fails after that its yours. implied warranty of merchantability ok...that simply means that the car will run and the ac will cool when you buy it...thats it..nothing more. yea...take em on man...the legal definition of what you just stated is nohting but the fact that the cars gonna run...anything they add on after you just get extra. and you totally missed my point about legalities and reasonableness aside - i can decide not to buy another of their vehicles for any reason - valid or not. ask ford and gm about that. as an engineer i know its hard to understand...but just because it looks good on paper....real worlds a bit different...and yes i mean that the way it sounds. if i wasnt genuinely wanting your answer on the above question id say something else - ill wait until you give me a good answer and then tell you and even then i just need to look at the fsm and other sources to figure it out - paper meets real world eh. lol..depends...if you are an ee or an me you can kindly gfu..lol sorry...i know there are a couple in here that hate it when i do that. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

cavhbc wrote tell me one thing i could answer this myself by getting back into the diagrams and procedures been a few weeks since i studied them but you can save me the trouble - can i get to all of the o-rings without taking the dash out i cant recall if the evap. joints are on the engine or passenger compartment side of the firewall. iirc yes. yep - i was coming back to post what a mental refresh from the fsm told me - a single flange joint on the engine side of the firewall - expansion valve-to-evap. yay!! the difficult parts will be getting into the expansion valve/filter drier area but ive had the cowling off before for windshield wiper brake booster and inner tie rod bushings before more good design eh - and the condensor connections - yeah - been partly in that area before to replace cooling fan motors - more poor engineering. but anything is better than having to pull the dash off to get to the evap. i was going to replace all o-rings and the filter/drier when i did the evap. but will forget doing the evap. unless i detect refrigerant coming thru the vents and/or see florescence out the condensate drain tube. as an engineer i know its hard to understand...but just because it looks good on paper....real worlds a bit different...and yes i mean that the way it sounds. if i wasnt genuinely wanting your answer on the above question id say something else - ill wait until you give me a good answer and then tell you and even then i just need to look at the fsm and other sources to figure it out - paper meets real world eh. lol..depends...if you are an ee or an me you can kindly gfu..lol sorry...i know there are a couple in here that hate it when i do that. hmmm - shouldnt that have been gfy thats ok - i understand if you cant spell too well. actually im sort of both me - ee and sort of neither. degree is in engineering science and mechanics esm - kind of a blend of mechanical and materials science and yet i am self-taught in electronics design am licensed and practiced as if a ee in medical aerospace and automotive for over 20 years even though my engineering degree is not ee. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : cavhbc

cavhbc wrote tell me one thing i could answer this myself by getting back into the diagrams and procedures been a few weeks since i studied them but you can save me the trouble - can i get to all of the o-rings without taking the dash out i cant recall if the evap. joints are on the engine or passenger compartment side of the firewall. iirc yes. yep - i was coming back to post what a mental refresh from the fsm told me - a single flange joint on the engine side of the firewall - expansion valve-to-evap. yay!! the difficult parts will be getting into the expansion valve/filter drier area but ive had the cowling off before for windshield wiper brake booster and inner tie rod bushings before more good design eh - and the condensor connections - yeah - been partly in that area before to replace cooling fan motors - more poor engineering. but anything is better than having to pull the dash off to get to the evap. i was going to replace all o-rings and the filter/drier when i did the evap. but will forget doing the evap. unless i detect refrigerant coming thru the vents and/or see florescence out the condensate drain tube. as an engineer i know its hard to understand...but just because it looks good on paper....real worlds a bit different...and yes i mean that the way it sounds. if i wasnt genuinely wanting your answer on the above question id say something else - ill wait until you give me a good answer and then tell you and even then i just need to look at the fsm and other sources to figure it out - paper meets real world eh. lol..depends...if you are an ee or an me you can kindly gfu..lol sorry...i know there are a couple in here that hate it when i do that. hmmm - shouldnt that have been gfy thats ok - i understand if you cant spell too well. read what i wrote again...there area a couple in here that hate it when i do that.....do what oh...use a u when it shoudl be a y... roy...wannna step in and see if sf#2009 gets it or maybe its just a bf45 that we got here....lol calm down....the humor here is well...odd. actually im sort of both me - ee and sort of neither. degree is in engineering science and mechanics esm - kind of a blend of mechanical and materials science and yet i am self-taught in electronics design am licensed and practiced as if a ee in medical aerospace and automotive for over 20 years even though my engineering degree is not ee. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

cavhbc wrote lol..depends...if you are an ee or an me you can kindly gfu..lol sorry...i know there are a couple in here that hate it when i do that. hmmm - shouldnt that have been gfy thats ok - i understand if you cant spell too well. read what i wrote again...there area a couple in here that hate it when i do that.....do what oh...use a u when it shoudl be a y... roy...wannna step in and see if sf#2009 gets it or maybe its just a bf45 that we got here....lol calm down....the humor here is well...odd. so the chip on your shoulders about engineers and people with eduation in general is an act i was beginning to think that max dodge had a new posting identity. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : steve

bill putney wrote it gets weird with the number of mechanics that have chips on their shoulders about people with education and experience to back it up. max dodge this cavhbc guy and a few others in the past. especially wierd since most of the engineers i know have a deep respect for and trust the opinions and diagnoses made by good mechanics and techs. maybe good is the operative word there.... .

From : steve

cavhbc wrote cavhbc wrote there ought to be a special warranty on lh car a.c. evaporators. why yours fail out of warranty and you had to spend some money if youre implying that im one of those people that think that cars ought to be warranteed forever im not. however for something that will cost the owner *major* expense and i say this as an engineer engineering practice says that you make sure you design that area well into the bell curve. can they be made to do a good will coverage as other auto makers often do to keep customers that deserve a little more than what they got absolutely not. can i be forced to buy product from a company that takes major expenses of their customers so lightly absolutely not. its called free market. well actually yea..you are sounding like someone that thinks that oh..wait..yer an engineer.. and youre an ass. ; theres the smiley to make the insult ok. yes im a dreaded engineer too. but i also happen to be a knuckle-bustin got grease in my thumbprints as i type this do-it-myself car guy. the two arent incompatible you know. truth is that a huge percentage of lh car evaporators fail after only a few years of normal use. there *is* such a thing as implied warranty of merchantability and if it was pushed in the legal system theyd lose the case on that one. nope. not at all. actually in practice more evaps failed on another brand of vehicle. but you know 3 years or 36000 miles is the warranty you bought it you accepted it and if it fails after that its yours. possibly true on paper and spoken just like the lawyers intended. but the background information is that that chrysler didnt have *any* common ac evaporator rot-through failures until the lh cars. im sure some did fail but not commonly. in 40+ years of having chrysler products in the family ive had to replace exactly one evaporator core- in an lh car. statistically significant taken by itself no. significant when combined with the acknowledgement by chrysler engineers that there was a problem with the early lh cores yes! now there were some valid excuses for them. the lh car was the first chrysler vehicle to get an r-134a refrigeration system and therefore the first car to get an aluminum evaporator core. im sure it even went through and passed a lot of accelerated corrosion testing... but there are cases where all the testing in the world wont catch something that happens in the real world where wall-clock/calendar time cant be simulated in the lab. mold and dirt stick to evaporators and over time do things that you cant predict in accelerated testing. but the bottom line is that once the company engineers realized that there was a design problem they really should have made it a lifetime warranty on that part one replacement per vehicle with the upgraded part trackable by the vin rather than saving a buck and losing a lot of credibilty by essentially saying yes that part is prone to corrosion failure but hey! yours lasted out the warranty so youre sol. if it had failed 1000 miles sooner sure wed have fixed it but not now! actually im about 100% certain that if the decision had been made by the engineers theyd have done just what i said. but the lawyers and accountants make those kinds of decisions. oh but i forgot. we engineers are the bad guys that never get into the real world and dont care about what happens after a design leaves our drafting boards.... sorry for not knowing my place... as an engineer i know its hard to understand...but just because it looks good on paper....real worlds a bit different...and yes i mean that the way it sounds. and yet youre the one whos saying sorry pal on paper the warranty says 3/36 or 7/70... so the real world fact that your evap core failed for a known defect outside that period is irrelevant to me i live by what it says on paper. not only are you an ass youre a two-faced ass. and i mean that the way it sounds. as for your claim about it usually being o-rings well all i can say in my case is that there aint no stinking o-rings in the big middle of the evaporator core and thats the place the oil stain was on mine. do o-rings leak yep especially those crappy green hbnr ones that ford pushed for and have kinda become standard r-134a parts get the blue-coated type when you do r-134a repair work. .

From : bill putney

budd cochran wrote well would you want to talk about engineering and common sense instead as in; overdrive transmission ratios are not efficient in comparison to lower numerical final axle drive ratios combined with a direct 11 transmission ratio. look at archimedes principles on leverage for the clue. or if it aint broke dont fix it till it is mentality coming out of detroit japan germany korea ad nauseum. . . .namely the a-604 transmission design. it had potential if . . .if .. .they hadnt gone to an od if they had given sufficient line pressures if they had given it another underdriven gear instead of the od if they had used a lower numerical drive axle ratio made it less sensitive to fluid type given it more cooling . . . . think on this bill i get 26 mpg highway out of my 95 3.0 lebaron gtc . . .not bad not great. i squeezed 37 average mpg out of a 64 225 /6 3 speed manual 3.23 axle water vapor injection and i got 21 average mpg out of a 79 d-150 318 auto 3.55 recurved vacuum advance so what happened with the gtc by common sense it should be getting near 45 mpg. imho that consarned od is sucking up the fuel. on the 300m club forums the accepted figure for the loss of power thru the 42le tranny the next generation from the a-406 is a whopping 33%! bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : newman

on tue 21 mar 2006 191323 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote cavhbc wrote cavhbc wrote there ought to be a special warranty on lh car a.c. evaporators. why yours fail out of warranty and you had to spend some money if youre implying that im one of those people that think that cars ought to be warranteed forever im not. however for something that will cost the owner *major* expense and i say this as an engineer engineering practice says that you make sure you design that area well into the bell curve. can they be made to do a good will coverage as other auto makers often do to keep customers that deserve a little more than what they got absolutely not. can i be forced to buy product from a company that takes major expenses of their customers so lightly absolutely not. its called free market. well actually yea..you are sounding like someone that thinks that sounding and being are two different things. oh..wait..yer an engineer.. if anyone unbderstands real-world realities of good and bad designs its engineers. indeed. it has been my experience that the problems usually arise when management overides engineering - usually over cost issues. in general engineers have a professional responsibility to do a good job of design. unfortuantely when marketing and management stick their fingers in the pie they often cut corners that should not be cut. if they cut deep enough you wind up with a recall. if they dig too deep then you wind up with a class action law-suit. saw it happen here a few years back. a marine engineer was asked to design a fast ferry which he did. after he completed the design a number of modifications were done as the ferries were being built. the modifications were strictly pollitically motived by the local government. once the ferries went into service they had no end of problems. there was a huge public outcry. the government sued the marine engineer. lucky for him that he documents he work fully. when it got into court he proved that the design had been modified without his consultation or permission. he also provided the analysis as to why the problems were occurring and what should have been done had he been consulted. unfortunately the ships were already built and were therefore unuseable. the case was thrown out and the government went running with their tail between their legs. it was so bad they were thrown out of office at the next election. it cost the taxpayers billions because these idiots meddled in a process they knew nothing about. they did more than cut corners. the resulting ferries were totally unsuitable and wound up being sold for little more than the value of the scrap aluminim. they still sit by the shore today - shrink-wrapped and collecting dust. if management would listen to engineering a little more often then they might spend a little more now but in the long run they would save a lot of money. but management does not see it this way. after all they when to management school to get their mbasshole degrees! why should they listen to a lowly engineer as someone thats seen both ends of the market ...and i also fall into that category. ...and still sees the automotive end regularly now that i have gotten out of it for the most part..nothings wrong with the evaps on the lh line...altho i think many people have gotten that snow job line before..you know...charge to replace that evap but instead spend 5 hours replacing every damn o-ring on the system cause some engineer thought it would be good for business if they were all impossible to get to and failed regularly. ok wise guy and i mean that in the friendliest of ways as soon as the weather warms back up when i charge my system back up and use the combination of electronic sniffer just bought it and dye put in last summer youre telling me that i should fully expect to find zero leaks in the evap. and instead should find leaks at one or more of the several o-ringed joints if thats going to be the case then this conversation will have been well worth it. tell me one thing i could answer this myself by getting back into the diagrams and procedures been a few weeks since i studied them but you can save me the trouble - can i get to all of the o-rings without taking the dash out i cant recall if the evap. joints are on the engine or passenger compartment side of the firewall. truth is that a huge percentage of lh car evaporators fail after only a few years of normal use. there *is* such a thing as implied warranty of merchantability and if it was pushed in the legal system theyd lose the case on that one. nope. not at all. actually in practice more evaps failed on another brand of vehicle. but you know 3 years or 36000 miles is the warranty you bought it you accepted it and if it fails after that its yours. implied warranty of merchantability ok...that simply means that the car wil

From : bill putney

steve wrote well actually yea..you are sounding like someone that thinks that oh..wait..yer an engineer.. and youre an ass. ; theres the smiley to make the insult ok. yes im a dreaded engineer too. but i also happen to be a knuckle-bustin got grease in my thumbprints as i type this do-it-myself car guy. the two arent incompatible you know. truth is that a huge percentage of lh car evaporators fail after only a few years of normal use. there *is* such a thing as implied warranty of merchantability and if it was pushed in the legal system theyd lose the case on that one. nope. not at all. actually in practice more evaps failed on another brand of vehicle. but you know 3 years or 36000 miles is the warranty you bought it you accepted it and if it fails after that its yours. possibly true on paper and spoken just like the lawyers intended. but the background information is that that chrysler didnt have *any* common ac evaporator rot-through failures until the lh cars. im sure some did fail but not commonly. in 40+ years of having chrysler products in the family ive had to replace exactly one evaporator core- in an lh car. statistically significant taken by itself no. significant when combined with the acknowledgement by chrysler engineers that there was a problem with the early lh cores yes! now there were some valid excuses for them. the lh car was the first chrysler vehicle to get an r-134a refrigeration system and therefore the first car to get an aluminum evaporator core. im sure it even went through and passed a lot of accelerated corrosion testing... but there are cases where all the testing in the world wont catch something that happens in the real world where wall-clock/calendar time cant be simulated in the lab. mold and dirt stick to evaporators and over time do things that you cant predict in accelerated testing. but the bottom line is that once the company engineers realized that there was a design problem they really should have made it a lifetime warranty on that part one replacement per vehicle with the upgraded part trackable by the vin rather than saving a buck and losing a lot of credibilty by essentially saying yes that part is prone to corrosion failure but hey! yours lasted out the warranty so youre sol. if it had failed 1000 miles sooner sure wed have fixed it but not now! actually im about 100% certain that if the decision had been made by the engineers theyd have done just what i said. but the lawyers and accountants make those kinds of decisions. oh but i forgot. we engineers are the bad guys that never get into the real world and dont care about what happens after a design leaves our drafting boards.... sorry for not knowing my place... as an engineer i know its hard to understand...but just because it looks good on paper....real worlds a bit different...and yes i mean that the way it sounds. and yet youre the one whos saying sorry pal on paper the warranty says 3/36 or 7/70... so the real world fact that your evap core failed for a known defect outside that period is irrelevant to me i live by what it says on paper. not only are you an ass youre a two-faced ass. and i mean that the way it sounds. as for your claim about it usually being o-rings well all i can say in my case is that there aint no stinking o-rings in the big middle of the evaporator core and thats the place the oil stain was on mine. do o-rings leak yep especially those crappy green hbnr ones that ford pushed for and have kinda become standard r-134a parts get the blue-coated type when you do r-134a repair work. couldnt have said it better myself. it gets weird with the number of mechanics that have chips on their shoulders about people with education and experience to back it up. max dodge this cavhbc guy and a few others in the past. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : cavhbc

cavhbc wrote cavhbc wrote there ought to be a special warranty on lh car a.c. evaporators. why yours fail out of warranty and you had to spend some money if youre implying that im one of those people that think that cars ought to be warranteed forever im not. however for something that will cost the owner *major* expense and i say this as an engineer engineering practice says that you make sure you design that area well into the bell curve. can they be made to do a good will coverage as other auto makers often do to keep customers that deserve a little more than what they got absolutely not. can i be forced to buy product from a company that takes major expenses of their customers so lightly absolutely not. its called free market. well actually yea..you are sounding like someone that thinks that oh..wait..yer an engineer.. and youre an ass. ; theres the smiley to make the insult ok. wow....a sense of humor...not. notice...no smiley..... yes im a dreaded engineer too. but i also happen to be a knuckle-bustin got grease in my thumbprints as i type this do-it-myself car guy. the two arent incompatible you know. nope...but being an engineer and being a fucktard are not imcompatable either as you just proved. thanks..nice to know that not all are nice guys. truth is that a huge percentage of lh car evaporators fail after only a few years of normal use. there *is* such a thing as implied warranty of merchantability and if it was pushed in the legal system theyd lose the case on that one. nope. not at all. actually in practice more evaps failed on another brand of vehicle. but you know 3 years or 36000 miles is the warranty you bought it you accepted it and if it fails after that its yours. possibly true on paper and spoken just like the lawyers intended. but the background information is that that chrysler didnt have *any* common ac evaporator rot-through failures until the lh cars. bullshit. and i mean bullshit. im sure some did fail but not commonly. in 40+ years of having chrysler products in the family ive had to replace exactly one evaporator core- in an lh car. statistically significant taken by itself no. significant when combined with the acknowledgement by chrysler engineers that there was a problem with the early lh cores yes! now there were some valid excuses for them. the lh car was the first chrysler vehicle to get an r-134a refrigeration system and therefore the first car to get an aluminum evaporator core. im sure it even went through and passed a lot of accelerated corrosion testing... but there are cases where all the testing in the world wont catch something that happens in the real world where wall-clock/calendar time cant be simulated in the lab. mold and dirt stick to evaporators and over time do things that you cant predict in accelerated testing. but the bottom line is that once the company engineers realized that there was a design problem they really should have made it a lifetime warranty on that part one replacement per vehicle with the upgraded part trackable by the vin rather than saving a buck and losing a lot of credibilty by essentially saying yes that part is prone to corrosion failure but hey! yours lasted out the warranty so youre sol. if it had failed 1000 miles sooner sure wed have fixed it but not now! actually im about 100% certain that if the decision had been made by the engineers theyd have done just what i said. but the lawyers and accountants make those kinds of decisions. oh but i forgot. we engineers are the bad guys that never get into the real world and dont care about what happens after a design leaves our drafting boards.... sorry for not knowing my place... as an engineer i know its hard to understand...but just because it looks good on paper....real worlds a bit different...and yes i mean that the way it sounds. and yet youre the one whos saying sorry pal on paper the warranty says 3/36 or 7/70... so the real world fact that your evap core failed for a known defect outside that period is irrelevant to me i live by what it says on paper. not only are you an ass youre a two-faced ass. and i mean that the way it sounds. difference is i know im a ass but two faced nope.. i can afford to replace the evap should it fail when it fails and not bitch about the warranty and lets face it thats what you are now crying about....not the fact that someone that knows more about your issue with your piddly ass evap core is calling you a wimp. as for your claim about it usually being o-rings well all i can say in my case is that there aint no stinking o-rings in the big middle of the evaporator core and thats the place the oil stain was on mine. do o-rings leak yep especially those crappy green hbnr ones that ford pushed for and have kinda become standard r-134a parts get the blue-coated type when you do r-134a repair work.

From : bill putney

newman wrote on tue 21 mar 2006 191323 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote cavhbc wrote cavhbc wrote there ought to be a special warranty on lh car a.c. evaporators. why yours fail out of warranty and you had to spend some money if youre implying that im one of those people that think that cars ought to be warranteed forever im not. however for something that will cost the owner *major* expense and i say this as an engineer engineering practice says that you make sure you design that area well into the bell curve. can they be made to do a good will coverage as other auto makers often do to keep customers that deserve a little more than what they got absolutely not. can i be forced to buy product from a company that takes major expenses of their customers so lightly absolutely not. its called free market. well actually yea..you are sounding like someone that thinks that sounding and being are two different things. oh..wait..yer an engineer.. if anyone unbderstands real-world realities of good and bad designs its engineers. indeed. it has been my experience that the problems usually arise when management overides engineering - usually over cost issues. in general engineers have a professional responsibility to do a good job of design. unfortuantely when marketing and management stick their fingers in the pie they often cut corners that should not be cut. if they cut deep enough you wind up with a recall. if they dig too deep then you wind up with a class action law-suit. saw it happen here a few years back. a marine engineer was asked to design a fast ferry which he did. after he completed the design a number of modifications were done as the ferries were being built. the modifications were strictly pollitically motived by the local government. once the ferries went into service they had no end of problems. there was a huge public outcry. the government sued the marine engineer. lucky for him that he documents he work fully. when it got into court he proved that the design had been modified without his consultation or permission. he also provided the analysis as to why the problems were occurring and what should have been done had he been consulted. unfortunately the ships were already built and were therefore unuseable. the case was thrown out and the government went running with their tail between their legs. it was so bad they were thrown out of office at the next election. it cost the taxpayers billions because these idiots meddled in a process they knew nothing about. they did more than cut corners. the resulting ferries were totally unsuitable and wound up being sold for little more than the value of the scrap aluminim. they still sit by the shore today - shrink-wrapped and collecting dust. if management would listen to engineering a little more often then they might spend a little more now but in the long run they would save a lot of money. but management does not see it this way. after all they when to management school to get their mbasshole degrees! why should they listen to a lowly engineer as someone thats seen both ends of the market ...and i also fall into that category. ...and still sees the automotive end regularly now that i have gotten out of it for the most part..nothings wrong with the evaps on the lh line...altho i think many people have gotten that snow job line before..you know...charge to replace that evap but instead spend 5 hours replacing every damn o-ring on the system cause some engineer thought it would be good for business if they were all impossible to get to and failed regularly. ok wise guy and i mean that in the friendliest of ways as soon as the weather warms back up when i charge my system back up and use the combination of electronic sniffer just bought it and dye put in last summer youre telling me that i should fully expect to find zero leaks in the evap. and instead should find leaks at one or more of the several o-ringed joints if thats going to be the case then this conversation will have been well worth it. tell me one thing i could answer this myself by getting back into the diagrams and procedures been a few weeks since i studied them but you can save me the trouble - can i get to all of the o-rings without taking the dash out i cant recall if the evap. joints are on the engine or passenger compartment side of the firewall. truth is that a huge percentage of lh car evaporators fail after only a few years of normal use. there *is* such a thing as implied warranty of merchantability and if it was pushed in the legal system theyd lose the case on that one. nope. not at all. actually in practice more evaps failed on another brand of vehicle. but you know 3 years or 36000 miles is the warranty you bought it you accepted it and if it fails after that its yours. implied warranty of merchantability ok...

From : bill putney

newman wrote on tue 21 mar 2006 191323 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote cavhbc wrote cavhbc wrote there ought to be a special warranty on lh car a.c. evaporators. why yours fail out of warranty and you had to spend some money if youre implying that im one of those people that think that cars ought to be warranteed forever im not. however for something that will cost the owner *major* expense and i say this as an engineer engineering practice says that you make sure you design that area well into the bell curve. can they be made to do a good will coverage as other auto makers often do to keep customers that deserve a little more than what they got absolutely not. can i be forced to buy product from a company that takes major expenses of their customers so lightly absolutely not. its called free market. well actually yea..you are sounding like someone that thinks that sounding and being are two different things. oh..wait..yer an engineer.. if anyone unbderstands real-world realities of good and bad designs its engineers. indeed. it has been my experience that the problems usually arise when management overides engineering - usually over cost issues. in general engineers have a professional responsibility to do a good job of design. unfortuantely when marketing and management stick their fingers in the pie they often cut corners that should not be cut. if they cut deep enough you wind up with a recall. if they dig too deep then you wind up with a class action law-suit. saw it happen here a few years back. a marine engineer was asked to design a fast ferry which he did. after he completed the design a number of modifications were done as the ferries were being built. the modifications were strictly pollitically motived by the local government. once the ferries went into service they had no end of problems. there was a huge public outcry. the government sued the marine engineer. lucky for him that he documents he work fully. when it got into court he proved that the design had been modified without his consultation or permission. he also provided the analysis as to why the problems were occurring and what should have been done had he been consulted. unfortunately the ships were already built and were therefore unuseable. the case was thrown out and the government went running with their tail between their legs. it was so bad they were thrown out of office at the next election. it cost the taxpayers billions because these idiots meddled in a process they knew nothing about. they did more than cut corners. the resulting ferries were totally unsuitable and wound up being sold for little more than the value of the scrap aluminim. they still sit by the shore today - shrink-wrapped and collecting dust. if management would listen to engineering a little more often then they might spend a little more now but in the long run they would save a lot of money. but management does not see it this way. after all they when to management school to get their mbasshole degrees! why should they listen to a lowly engineer i was almost the fall guy on a commercial missile design disaster. i was the electrical design lead on the missile and the way the project was being managed i could see that there was going to be a disaster due to lack of drawing controls and following the engineering design. after a warning from god to get the h--- out of there i insisted on being assigned to another project even though i was threatened with having my career wrecked if i insisted on that - but i did it anyway - gods never wrong. sure enough two years later when they launched the rocket and satellite when the command was issued to release the satellite into orbit nothing happened. seems the guy who took my place changed the wiring of the various commands in the missile and failed to inform the s

From : max dodge

his changes. on top of that when they completed the wiring and did the functional tests the tests results werent as expected - someone signed off on the failed tests results and they went on their merry way. that was a $650 million mistake. the next shuttle mission had to go retrieve the 2nd stage and satellite and litertally manually separate them and toss the satellite into orbit. paperwork in the company had been doctored to make it look like i had left the project much later than i did. the lawyers got me into a room and started grilling me on that. foruntaely i had saved enough cya to prove otherwise including the memo of agreement between the electrical section and the software group on the wiring and commands. it never went to trial. the lawyers were funny. to soften me up they started telling me a bunch of lawyer jokes - we had some good laughs. all of a sudden they got real serious and ask me how i would answer certain questions om the stand. when they saw that my answers would be very incriminating to the company they tried to twist my answers. theyd say you know - when we asked you such-and-such you said x. could you possibly say that slightly differently maybe like this.... id say no and theyd say why not and id say because that would not be true.. then theyd re-phrase it one step closer to the truth but still a lie and id still say no. then they brought out the falsified records showing that i was on the project much longer than i was i.e. when the mistakes occurred. i presented my proof otherwise and the meeting ended abruptly - never heard from those nice gentlemen again. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x . 222 315131 vgwuf.11646$vy.549@trnddc01 no new posting identity here. although obviously youve come off as a desk driver again.... -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author cavhbc wrote lol..depends...if you are an ee or an me you can kindly gfu..lol sorry...i know there are a couple in here that hate it when i do that. hmmm - shouldnt that have been gfy thats ok - i understand if you cant spell too well. read what i wrote again...there area a couple in here that hate it when i do that.....do what oh...use a u when it shoudl be a y... roy...wannna step in and see if sf#2009 gets it or maybe its just a bf45 that we got here....lol calm down....the humor here is well...odd. so the chip on your shoulders about engineers and people with eduation in general is an act i was beginning to think that max dodge had a new posting identity. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : max dodge

it gets weird with the number of mechanics that have chips on their shoulders about people with education and experience to back it up. max dodge this cavhbc guy and a few others in the past. no chip here. im sure the cavhbc doesnt either. the problem comes up when someone in the chain of important positions thinks someone else doesnt have a clue and bases it solely on the fact that they have more credentials rather than facts. hence the regular occurrance of engineers getting insulted by technicians when they plant the diploma on the desk as a defense of their position regarding a problem in the field. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author steve wrote well actually yea..you are sounding like someone that thinks that oh..wait..yer an engineer.. and youre an ass. ; theres the smiley to make the insult ok. yes im a dreaded engineer too. but i also happen to be a knuckle-bustin got grease in my thumbprints as i type this do-it-myself car guy. the two arent incompatible you know. truth is that a huge percentage of lh car evaporators fail after only a few years of normal use. there *is* such a thing as implied warranty of merchantability and if it was pushed in the legal system theyd lose the case on that one. nope. not at all. actually in practice more evaps failed on another brand of vehicle. but you know 3 years or 36000 miles is the warranty you bought it you accepted it and if it fails after that its yours. possibly true on paper and spoken just like the lawyers intended. but the background information is that that chrysler didnt have *any* common ac evaporator rot-through failures until the lh cars. im sure some did fail but not commonly. in 40+ years of having chrysler products in the family ive had to replace exactly one evaporator core- in an lh car. statistically significant taken by itself no. significant when combined with the acknowledgement by chrysler engineers that there was a problem with the early lh cores yes! now there were some valid excuses for them. the lh car was the first chrysler vehicle to get an r-134a refrigeration system and therefore the first car to get an aluminum evaporator core. im sure it even went through and passed a lot of accelerated corrosion testing... but there are cases where all the testing in the world wont catch something that happens in the real world where wall-clock/calendar time cant be simulated in the lab. mold and dirt stick to evaporators and over time do things that you cant predict in accelerated testing. but the bottom line is that once the company engineers realized that there was a design problem they really should have made it a lifetime warranty on that part one replacement per vehicle with the upgraded part trackable by the vin rather than saving a buck and losing a lot of credibilty by essentially saying yes that part is prone to corrosion failure but hey! yours lasted out the warranty so youre sol. if it had failed 1000 miles sooner sure wed have fixed it but not now! actually im about 100% certain that if the decision had been made by the engineers theyd have done just what i said. but the lawyers and accountants make those kinds of decisions. oh but i forgot. we engineers are the bad guys that never get into the real world and dont care about what happens after a design leaves our drafting boards.... sorry for not knowing my place... as an engineer i know its hard to understand...but just because it looks good on paper....real worlds a bit different...and yes i mean that the way it sounds. and yet youre the one whos saying sorry pal on paper the warranty says 3/36 or 7/70... so the real world fact that your evap core failed for a known defect outside that period is irrelevant to me i live by what it says on paper. not only are you an ass youre a two-faced ass. and i mean that the way it sounds. as for your claim about it usually being o-rings well all i can say in my case is that there aint no stinking o-rings in the big middle of the evaporator core and thats the place the oil stain was on mine. do o-rings leak yep especially those crappy green hbnr ones that ford pushed for and have kinda become standard r-134a parts get the blue-coated type when you do r-134a repair work. couldnt have said it better myself. it gets weird with the number of mechanics that have chips on their shoulders about people with education and experience to back it up. max dodge this cavhbc guy and a few others in the past. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

well would you want to talk about engineering and common sense instead as in; overdrive transmission ratios are not efficient in comparison to lower numerical final axle drive ratios combined with a direct 11 transmission ratio. look at archimedes principles on leverage for the clue. or if it aint broke dont fix it till it is mentality coming out of detroit japan germany korea ad nauseum. . . .namely the a-604 transmission design. it had potential if . . .if .. .they hadnt gone to an od if they had given sufficient line pressures if they had given it another underdriven gear instead of the od if they had used a lower numerical drive axle ratio made it less sensitive to fluid type given it more cooling . . . . think on this bill i get 26 mpg highway out of my 95 3.0 lebaron gtc . . ..not bad not great. i squeezed 37 average mpg out of a 64 225 /6 3 speed manual 3.23 axle water vapor injection and i got 21 average mpg out of a 79 d-150 318 auto 3.55 recurved vacuum advance so what happened with the gtc by common sense it should be getting near 45 mpg. imho that consarned od is sucking up the fuel. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams cavhbc wrote lol..depends...if you are an ee or an me you can kindly gfu..lol sorry...i know there are a couple in here that hate it when i do that. hmmm - shouldnt that have been gfy thats ok - i understand if you cant spell too well. read what i wrote again...there area a couple in here that hate it when i do that.....do what oh...use a u when it shoudl be a y... roy...wannna step in and see if sf#2009 gets it or maybe its just a bf45 that we got here....lol calm down....the humor here is well...odd. so the chip on your shoulders about engineers and people with eduation in general is an act i was beginning to think that max dodge had a new posting identity. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

well said!!!!! bravo!!!!! -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams it gets weird with the number of mechanics that have chips on their shoulders about people with education and experience to back it up. max dodge this cavhbc guy and a few others in the past. no chip here. im sure the cavhbc doesnt either. the problem comes up when someone in the chain of important positions thinks someone else doesnt have a clue and bases it solely on the fact that they have more credentials rather than facts. hence the regular occurrance of engineers getting insulted by technicians when they plant the diploma on the desk as a defense of their position regarding a problem in the field. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author steve wrote well actually yea..you are sounding like someone that thinks that oh..wait..yer an engineer.. and youre an ass. ; theres the smiley to make the insult ok. yes im a dreaded engineer too. but i also happen to be a knuckle-bustin got grease in my thumbprints as i type this do-it-myself car guy. the two arent incompatible you know. truth is that a huge percentage of lh car evaporators fail after only a few years of normal use. there *is* such a thing as implied warranty of merchantability and if it was pushed in the legal system theyd lose the case on that one. nope. not at all. actually in practice more evaps failed on another brand of vehicle. but you know 3 years or 36000 miles is the warranty you bought it you accepted it and if it fails after that its yours. possibly true on paper and spoken just like the lawyers intended. but the background information is that that chrysler didnt have *any* common ac evaporator rot-through failures until the lh cars. im sure some did fail but not commonly. in 40+ years of having chrysler products in the family ive had to replace exactly one evaporator core- in an lh car. statistically significant taken by itself no. significant when combined with the acknowledgement by chrysler engineers that there was a problem with the early lh cores yes! now there were some valid excuses for them. the lh car was the first chrysler vehicle to get an r-134a refrigeration system and therefore the first car to get an aluminum evaporator core. im sure it even went through and passed a lot of accelerated corrosion testing... but there are cases where all the testing in the world wont catch something that happens in the real world where wall-clock/calendar time cant be simulated in the lab. mold and dirt stick to evaporators and over time do things that you cant predict in accelerated testing. but the bottom line is that once the company engineers realized that there was a design problem they really should have made it a lifetime warranty on that part one replacement per vehicle with the upgraded part trackable by the vin rather than saving a buck and losing a lot of credibilty by essentially saying yes that part is prone to corrosion failure but hey! yours lasted out the warranty so youre sol. if it had failed 1000 miles sooner sure wed have fixed it but not now! actually im about 100% certain that if the decision had been made by the engineers theyd have done just what i said. but the lawyers and accountants make those kinds of decisions. oh but i forgot. we engineers are the bad guys that never get into the real world and dont care about what happens after a design leaves our drafting boards.... sorry for not knowing my place... as an engineer i know its hard to understand...but just because it looks good on paper....real worlds a bit different...and yes i mean that the way it sounds. and yet youre the one whos saying sorry pal on paper the warranty says 3/36 or 7/70... so the real world fact that your evap core failed for a known defect outside that period is irrelevant to me i live by what it says on paper. not only are you an ass youre a two-faced ass. and i mean that the way it sounds. as for your claim about it usually being o-rings well all i can say in my case is that there aint no stinking o-rings in the big middle of the evaporator core and thats the place the oil stain was on mine. do o-rings leak yep especially those crappy green hbnr ones that ford pushed for and have kinda become standard r-134a parts get the blue-coated type when you do r-134a repair work. couldnt have said it better myself. it gets weird with the number of mechanics that have chips on their shoulders about people with education and experience to back it up. max dodge this cavhbc guy and a few others in the past. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

then you do not know all engineers do you -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams bill putney wrote it gets weird with the number of mechanics that have chips on their shoulders about people with education and experience to back it up. max dodge this cavhbc guy and a few others in the past. especially wierd since most of the engineers i know have a deep respect for and trust the opinions and diagnoses made by good mechanics and techs. maybe good is the operative word there.... *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote then you do not know all engineers do you and you do not know the difference between most and all. matt .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote well would you want to talk about engineering and common sense instead as in; overdrive transmission ratios are not efficient in comparison to lower numerical final axle drive ratios combined with a direct 11 transmission ratio. look at archimedes principles on leverage for the clue. id like to hear your explanation on this. if the overall ratio from engine to wheel is the same why does it matter where reduction comes into play or if it aint broke dont fix it till it is mentality coming out of detroit japan germany korea ad nauseum. . . .namely the a-604 transmission design. it had potential if . . .if .. .they hadnt gone to an od if they had given sufficient line pressures if they had given it another underdriven gear instead of the od if they had used a lower numerical drive axle ratio made it less sensitive to fluid type given it more cooling . . . . think on this bill i get 26 mpg highway out of my 95 3.0 lebaron gtc . . .not bad not great. i squeezed 37 average mpg out of a 64 225 /6 3 speed manual 3.23 axle water vapor injection and i got 21 average mpg out of a 79 d-150 318 auto 3.55 recurved vacuum advance so what happened with the gtc by common sense it should be getting near 45 mpg. imho that consarned od is sucking up the fuel. i dont care about your opinion but i am very curious to see your technical explanation as to why you believe this to be true. use archimedes or anyone else for that matter but tell us your technical explanation. matt .

From : max dodge

on the 300m club forums the accepted figure for the loss of power thru the 42le tranny the next generation from the a-406 is a whopping 33%! thats acceptable -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author budd cochran wrote well would you want to talk about engineering and common sense instead as in; overdrive transmission ratios are not efficient in comparison to lower numerical final axle drive ratios combined with a direct 11 transmission ratio. look at archimedes principles on leverage for the clue. or if it aint broke dont fix it till it is mentality coming out of detroit japan germany korea ad nauseum. . . .namely the a-604 transmission design. it had potential if . . .if .. .they hadnt gone to an od if they had given sufficient line pressures if they had given it another underdriven gear instead of the od if they had used a lower numerical drive axle ratio made it less sensitive to fluid type given it more cooling . . . . think on this bill i get 26 mpg highway out of my 95 3.0 lebaron gtc . . .not bad not great. i squeezed 37 average mpg out of a 64 225 /6 3 speed manual 3.23 axle water vapor injection and i got 21 average mpg out of a 79 d-150 318 auto 3.55 recurved vacuum advance so what happened with the gtc by common sense it should be getting near 45 mpg. imho that consarned od is sucking up the fuel. on the 300m club forums the accepted figure for the loss of power thru the 42le tranny the next generation from the a-406 is a whopping 33%! bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

so you claim to know most of the engineers in the world or just most of them in your little world ive known 11 personally and 6 of those couldnt pour water out of a boot with directions on the heel. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams budd cochran wrote then you do not know all engineers do you and you do not know the difference between most and all. matt *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : bill putney

max dodge wrote on the 300m club forums the accepted figure for the loss of power thru the 42le tranny the next generation from the a-406 is a whopping 33%! thats acceptable uhh - to you maybe but everyone else considers it atrocious oh - sorry - thats a word that means bad. or are you just trying to play another shell game with words morphing the word accepted into acceptable bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : max dodge

id like to hear your explanation on this. if the overall ratio from engine to wheel is the same why does it matter where reduction comes into play i dont agree entirely with budd but..... if you put the engine first at a mechanical disadvantage od ratio then back to an advantage rear axle ratio you are sacrificing energy in the od ratio more effort to move a load due to mechanical disadvantage. this is i suppose subject to mathematical calculations and would vary due to ratio amount of power input load on the output end etc. and could be extremely variable. but you wont get out of the parasitic loss encountered when you convert rpm/torque once and then twice between engine and tire. a direct ratio would eliminate one of the losses. as such youve effectively lowered useable hp at the wheel by using an od ratio. thus it could be assumed that you would use more fuel to make up for the loss in power dropping mpg figures. so it doesnt matter where reduction comes into play as much as it matters how many times you change the reduction in a drivetrain. an interesting example would be my lebaron gtc where the 4th ratio is in fact a mild od 0.94 and the 5th ratio a normal od ratio 0.69. mpg between the two is not significantly different....at least in several checks over the years the mpg indicator on the dash never changed significantly 2 mpg or more despite a ratio change with driving conditions remaining constant including road speed. otoh a shift down to 3rd would significantly lower mpg figures on the dash display. take from that what you will ill not claim any scientific structure. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author budd cochran wrote well would you want to talk about engineering and common sense instead as in; overdrive transmission ratios are not efficient in comparison to lower numerical final axle drive ratios combined with a direct 11 transmission ratio. look at archimedes principles on leverage for the clue. id like to hear your explanation on this. if the overall ratio from engine to wheel is the same why does it matter where reduction comes into play or if it aint broke dont fix it till it is mentality coming out of detroit japan germany korea ad nauseum. . . .namely the a-604 transmission design. it had potential if . . .if .. .they hadnt gone to an od if they had given sufficient line pressures if they had given it another underdriven gear instead of the od if they had used a lower numerical drive axle ratio made it less sensitive to fluid type given it more cooling . . . . think on this bill i get 26 mpg highway out of my 95 3.0 lebaron gtc . . .not bad not great. i squeezed 37 average mpg out of a 64 225 /6 3 speed manual 3.23 axle water vapor injection and i got 21 average mpg out of a 79 d-150 318 auto 3.55 recurved vacuum advance so what happened with the gtc by common sense it should be getting near 45 mpg. imho that consarned od is sucking up the fuel. i dont care about your opinion but i am very curious to see your technical explanation as to why you believe this to be true. use archimedes or anyone else for that matter but tell us your technical explanation. matt .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

have you ever heard of a guy by the name of archimedes look up his information on levers. the same rules apply to gearing. an underdrive ration is like a prybar with a long handle and a short span from pivot to load a small force moves a large mass. otoh an overdrive is like a short handle and a longer span from pivot to load and requires much more force to move a small mass. to make a od work the axle ratio has to be lowered and it doesnt quite make up the losses in the drive train . . .it cant as that would violate the laws of levers and physics. give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and i shall move the world. archimedes if i remember the quote correctly -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams budd cochran wrote well would you want to talk about engineering and common sense instead as in; overdrive transmission ratios are not efficient in comparison to lower numerical final axle drive ratios combined with a direct 11 transmission ratio. look at archimedes principles on leverage for the clue. id like to hear your explanation on this. if the overall ratio from engine to wheel is the same why does it matter where reduction comes into play or if it aint broke dont fix it till it is mentality coming out of detroit japan germany korea ad nauseum. . . .namely the a-604 transmission design. it had potential if . . .if .. .they hadnt gone to an od if they had given sufficient line pressures if they had given it another underdriven gear instead of the od if they had used a lower numerical drive axle ratio made it less sensitive to fluid type given it more cooling . . . . think on this bill i get 26 mpg highway out of my 95 3.0 lebaron gtc . . .not bad not great. i squeezed 37 average mpg out of a 64 225 /6 3 speed manual 3.23 axle water vapor injection and i got 21 average mpg out of a 79 d-150 318 auto 3.55 recurved vacuum advance so what happened with the gtc by common sense it should be getting near 45 mpg. imho that consarned od is sucking up the fuel. i dont care about your opinion but i am very curious to see your technical explanation as to why you believe this to be true. use archimedes or anyone else for that matter but tell us your technical explanation. matt *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote well would you want to talk about engineering and common sense instead as in; overdrive transmission ratios are not efficient in comparison to lower numerical final axle drive ratios combined with a direct 11 transmission ratio. look at archimedes principles on leverage for the clue. or if it aint broke dont fix it till it is mentality coming out of detroit japan germany korea ad nauseum. . . .namely the a-604 transmission design. it had potential if . . .if .. .they hadnt gone to an od if they had given sufficient line pressures if they had given it another underdriven gear instead of the od if they had used a lower numerical drive axle ratio made it less sensitive to fluid type given it more cooling . . . . think on this bill i get 26 mpg highway out of my 95 3.0 lebaron gtc . . .not bad not great. i squeezed 37 average mpg out of a 64 225 /6 3 speed manual 3.23 axle water vapor injection and i got 21 average mpg out of a 79 d-150 318 auto 3.55 recurved vacuum advance so what happened with the gtc by common sense it should be getting near 45 mpg. imho that consarned od is sucking up the fuel. on the 300m club forums the accepted figure for the loss of power thru the 42le tranny the next generation from the a-406 is a whopping 33%! exactly the point im making!!!! if thats the loss in od then its 1.65 times the loss of a 727 or 904 in direct with a 2.76 - 3.55 1 axle. thats gotta hurt economy. thats not traditional chrysler engineering. the 8.75 8 3/4 axle had the lowest internal friction losses in the industry and itll make someone mad ford had the highest with the early 9 that would burn up if run too hard. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : bill putney

budd cochran wrote so you claim to know most of the engineers in the world or just most of them in your little world ive known 11 personally and 6 of those couldnt pour water out of a boot with directions on the heel. so are you going to apply the same analysis to everyone who works as a mechanic hate to tell you but the ratios of bad mechanics are a lot worse. lets start with walmart jiffie lube independent shops dealer shops shops in the back of napa stores etc. etc. etc. - youve gotta throw all those into the mix - i.e. you cant skew the results by eliminating certain categories first before you apply the analysis. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : ken weitzel

bill putney wrote budd cochran wrote well would you want to talk about engineering and common sense instead as in; overdrive transmission ratios are not efficient in comparison to lower numerical final axle drive ratios combined with a direct 11 transmission ratio. look at archimedes principles on leverage for the clue. or if it aint broke dont fix it till it is mentality coming out of detroit japan germany korea ad nauseum. . . .namely the a-604 transmission design. it had potential if . . .if .. .they hadnt gone to an od if they had given sufficient line pressures if they had given it another underdriven gear instead of the od if they had used a lower numerical drive axle ratio made it less sensitive to fluid type given it more cooling . . . . think on this bill i get 26 mpg highway out of my 95 3.0 lebaron gtc . . .not bad not great. i squeezed 37 average mpg out of a 64 225 /6 3 speed manual 3.23 axle water vapor injection and i got 21 average mpg out of a 79 d-150 318 auto 3.55 recurved vacuum advance so what happened with the gtc by common sense it should be getting near 45 mpg. imho that consarned od is sucking up the fuel. on the 300m club forums the accepted figure for the loss of power thru the 42le tranny the next generation from the a-406 is a whopping 33%! hi bill... find it terrible terrible hard to believe thats an incredible amount of heat to get rid of; stand well back before the whole thing melts! take care. ken .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

since a drivetrain is a proven to lose power to begin with regardless of ratios adding a gear ratio that aggravates the situation is just plain dumb. i had three transmission choices on my cushman scooter simple centrifugal clutch / jackshaft single overall ratio a three speed low/direct/od that would have required either gearing the final drive quite high numerically not feasible or using a 13 underdrive input ratio or a two speed low / direct with a 11 input ratio . . . .i went with the latter since i only have 7 hp to work with and my estimated top speed is about 62 mph at 4200 rpm. choice number one gave a top speed of 41 and yet have good acceleration. choice number two gave a estimated 70 mph with a 11 primary belt ratio but that would have been only on paper. in reality i dont believe i had enough power to get over 30 mph in od. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams id like to hear your explanation on this. if the overall ratio from engine to wheel is the same why does it matter where reduction comes into play i dont agree entirely with budd but..... if you put the engine first at a mechanical disadvantage od ratio then back to an advantage rear axle ratio you are sacrificing energy in the od ratio more effort to move a load due to mechanical disadvantage. this is i suppose subject to mathematical calculations and would vary due to ratio amount of power input load on the output end etc. and could be extremely variable. but you wont get out of the parasitic loss encountered when you convert rpm/torque once and then twice between engine and tire. a direct ratio would eliminate one of the losses. as such youve effectively lowered useable hp at the wheel by using an od ratio. thus it could be assumed that you would use more fuel to make up for the loss in power dropping mpg figures. so it doesnt matter where reduction comes into play as much as it matters how many times you change the reduction in a drivetrain. an interesting example would be my lebaron gtc where the 4th ratio is in fact a mild od 0.94 and the 5th ratio a normal od ratio 0.69. mpg between the two is not significantly different....at least in several checks over the years the mpg indicator on the dash never changed significantly 2 mpg or more despite a ratio change with driving conditions remaining constant including road speed. otoh a shift down to 3rd would significantly lower mpg figures on the dash display. take from that what you will ill not claim any scientific structure. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author budd cochran wrote well would you want to talk about engineering and common sense instead as in; overdrive transmission ratios are not efficient in comparison to lower numerical final axle drive ratios combined with a direct 11 transmission ratio. look at archimedes principles on leverage for the clue. id like to hear your explanation on this. if the overall ratio from engine to wheel is the same why does it matter where reduction comes into play or if it aint broke dont fix it till it is mentality coming out of detroit japan germany korea ad nauseum. . . .namely the a-604 transmission design. it had potential if . . .if .. .they hadnt gone to an od if they had given sufficient line pressures if they had given it another underdriven gear instead of the od if they had used a lower numerical drive axle ratio made it less sensitive to fluid type given it more cooling . . . . think on this bill i get 26 mpg highway out of my 95 3.0 lebaron gtc . . .not bad not great. i squeezed 37 average mpg out of a 64 225 /6 3 speed manual 3.23 axle water vapor injection and i got 21 average mpg out of a 79 d-150 318 auto 3.55 recurved vacuum advance so what happened with the gtc by common sense it should be getting near 45 mpg. imho that consarned od is sucking up the fuel. i dont care about your opinion but i am very curious to see your technical explanation as to why you believe this to be true. use archimedes or anyone else for that matter but tell us your technical explanation. matt *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : ken weitzel

bill putney wrote budd cochran wrote so you claim to know most of the engineers in the world or just most of them in your little world ive known 11 personally and 6 of those couldnt pour water out of a boot with directions on the heel. so are you going to apply the same analysis to everyone who works as a mechanic hate to tell you but the ratios of bad mechanics are a lot worse. lets start with walmart jiffie lube independent shops dealer shops shops in the back of napa stores etc. etc. etc. - youve gotta throw all those into the mix - i.e. you cant skew the results by eliminating certain categories first before you apply the analysis. hi... about twenty years ago had 4 dealership mechanics. defining mechanics all these four were well experienced all worked together in the same dealership and at *least* one was fully licensed. worked on brakes steering etc they told me argued with me that they had found the cure of all energy problems. all they needed to do was attach an electric motor to each wheel and an alternator to each wheel. start it going with the gas engine and from then on it would keep going forever. they were dead serious. sent in one of those rip-off applications to one of the usa patent companies who told them their idea was wonderful and to send their cheque for further investigation. they sent their cheque. nothing would convince them not to ken .

From : bill putney

budd cochran wrote have you ever heard of a guy by the name of archimedes look up his information on levers. the same rules apply to gearing. an underdrive ration is like a prybar with a long handle and a short span from pivot to load a small force moves a large mass. otoh an overdrive is like a short handle and a longer span from pivot to load and requires much more force to move a small mass. to make a od work the axle ratio has to be lowered and it doesnt quite make up the losses in the drive train . . .it cant as that would violate the laws of levers and physics. give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and i shall move the world. archimedes if i remember the quote correctly your argument isnt very convincing in that in your lever examples you appear to be equating force and mechanical advantage with energy loss and that just isnt inherently the case the same being true with gear ratios which i know you correctly related to levers. the energy loss heat generated has nothing to do with the mechanical advantage the distance/force trade-offs but has everything to do with the friction in the transfer of motion - nothing to do with the lengths of the levers size of the gears and everything to do with the reduction of friction at the points of sliding pivoting etc. no offense but this is exactly the kind of technically incorrect discussion that seems to crop up with those who consider themselves technically savvy in a *hands-on* sense but who put down those with technical in a *theoretical* sense expertise. in the same way that you would correctly invoke archimedes i would say yes but you also need to consider the law of the conservation of energy which you seem to be ignoring in your lever examples. you could move the world with archimedes lever but not very rapidly. you could use an opposite lever to move a pea and move it very rapidly. the energy put into the system to accomplish both may be the same - one has a lot of mass moving very slowly the other has a tiny mass moving very rapidly - the energy calculations are the same - energy applied minus friction losses = energy out. now - one implementation of the gears or levers may be more efficient than the other but its all in how the friction losses are managed and not in the mechanical advantage per-se. theres a place for both hands on and theroetical - and results are best when they co-exist. real world follows the laws of physics - what some here disdainfully call theoretical; but what many are sarcastically or disdainfully calling the theoretical *is/are* the real world laws of physics. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

ken weitzel wrote bill putney wrote budd cochran wrote so you claim to know most of the engineers in the world or just most of them in your little world ive known 11 personally and 6 of those couldnt pour water out of a boot with directions on the heel. so are you going to apply the same analysis to everyone who works as a mechanic hate to tell you but the ratios of bad mechanics are a lot worse. lets start with walmart jiffie lube independent shops dealer shops shops in the back of napa stores etc. etc. etc. - youve gotta throw all those into the mix - i.e. you cant skew the results by eliminating certain categories first before you apply the analysis. hi... about twenty years ago had 4 dealership mechanics. defining mechanics all these four were well experienced all worked together in the same dealership and at *least* one was fully licensed. worked on brakes steering etc they told me argued with me that they had found the cure of all energy problems. all they needed to do was attach an electric motor to each wheel and an alternator to each wheel. start it going with the gas engine and from then on it would keep going forever. they were dead serious. sent in one of those rip-off applications to one of the usa patent companies who told them their idea was wonderful and to send their cheque for further investigation. they sent their cheque. nothing would convince them not to ken yep - just like a week or so ago someone here claiming that an alternator with a working regulator would provide fully regulated voltage no matter what - another perpetual motion machine. these are the same guys who will out of hand reject engineers for spouting their laws of physics. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

ken weitzel wrote bill putney wrote budd cochran wrote well would you want to talk about engineering and common sense instead as in; overdrive transmission ratios are not efficient in comparison to lower numerical final axle drive ratios combined with a direct 11 transmission ratio. look at archimedes principles on leverage for the clue. or if it aint broke dont fix it till it is mentality coming out of detroit japan germany korea ad nauseum. . . .namely the a-604 transmission design. it had potential if . . .if .. .they hadnt gone to an od if they had given sufficient line pressures if they had given it another underdriven gear instead of the od if they had used a lower numerical drive axle ratio made it less sensitive to fluid type given it more cooling . . . . think on this bill i get 26 mpg highway out of my 95 3.0 lebaron gtc . . .not bad not great. i squeezed 37 average mpg out of a 64 225 /6 3 speed manual 3.23 axle water vapor injection and i got 21 average mpg out of a 79 d-150 318 auto 3.55 recurved vacuum advance so what happened with the gtc by common sense it should be getting near 45 mpg. imho that consarned od is sucking up the fuel. on the 300m club forums the accepted figure for the loss of power thru the 42le tranny the next generation from the a-406 is a whopping 33%! hi bill... find it terrible terrible hard to believe thats an incredible amount of heat to get rid of; stand well back before the whole thing melts! take care. ken youre right. it has been proposed by some that the losses are not real and are purely a result of the manufacturers overstated engine output blindly plugged into the efficiency equations with the dynamometer-measured horsepower at the wheels. on the other hand maybe thats why the atf properties are so critical. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote have you ever heard of a guy by the name of archimedes look up his information on levers. the same rules apply to gearing. an underdrive ration is like a prybar with a long handle and a short span from pivot to load a small force moves a large mass. otoh an overdrive is like a short handle and a longer span from pivot to load and requires much more force to move a small mass. to make a od work the axle ratio has to be lowered and it doesnt quite make up the losses in the drive train . . .it cant as that would violate the laws of levers and physics. give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and i shall move the world. archimedes if i remember the quote correctly methinks you are making the common confusion between power and force torque. a lever multiplies or divides force or torque but it doesnt multiply or divide work or power. you are the one proposing a violation of the laws of physics. look up the definition of work and then apply it to both ends of your lever and report back your results. matt .

From : max dodge

yep - just like a week or so ago someone here claiming that an alternator with a working regulator would provide fully regulated voltage no matter what - another perpetual motion machine. thats another lie. but keep going im beginning to to see a pattern here. the context was at any rpm which when speaking of an automobile is anything from idle on up and nothing below. but of course instead of using facts you and others stretched things out of context. nothing new there. these are the same guys who will out of hand reject engineers for spouting their laws of physics. i dont out of hand reject engineers i reject those that wont follow good diagnostic method rely on something other than facts to prove themselves correct and generally lack the basic sense to realize that while they are rejecting proven method they are describing how they would take six extra steps to find the same info the proven method would reveal. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author ken weitzel wrote bill putney wrote budd cochran wrote so you claim to know most of the engineers in the world or just most of them in your little world ive known 11 personally and 6 of those couldnt pour water out of a boot with directions on the heel. so are you going to apply the same analysis to everyone who works as a mechanic hate to tell you but the ratios of bad mechanics are a lot worse. lets start with walmart jiffie lube independent shops dealer shops shops in the back of napa stores etc. etc. etc. - youve gotta throw all those into the mix - i.e. you cant skew the results by eliminating certain categories first before you apply the analysis. hi... about twenty years ago had 4 dealership mechanics. defining mechanics all these four were well experienced all worked together in the same dealership and at *least* one was fully licensed. worked on brakes steering etc they told me argued with me that they had found the cure of all energy problems. all they needed to do was attach an electric motor to each wheel and an alternator to each wheel. start it going with the gas engine and from then on it would keep going forever. they were dead serious. sent in one of those rip-off applications to one of the usa patent companies who told them their idea was wonderful and to send their cheque for further investigation. they sent their cheque. nothing would convince them not to ken yep - just like a week or so ago someone here claiming that an alternator with a working regulator would provide fully regulated voltage no matter what - another perpetual motion machine. these are the same guys who will out of hand reject engineers for spouting their laws of physics. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote well would you want to talk about engineering and common sense instead as in; overdrive transmission ratios are not efficient in comparison to lower numerical final axle drive ratios combined with a direct 11 transmission ratio. look at archimedes principles on leverage for the clue. or if it aint broke dont fix it till it is mentality coming out of detroit japan germany korea ad nauseum. . . .namely the a-604 transmission design. it had potential if . . .if .. .they hadnt gone to an od if they had given sufficient line pressures if they had given it another underdriven gear instead of the od if they had used a lower numerical drive axle ratio made it less sensitive to fluid type given it more cooling . . . . think on this bill i get 26 mpg highway out of my 95 3.0 lebaron gtc . . .not bad not great. i squeezed 37 average mpg out of a 64 225 /6 3 speed manual 3.23 axle water vapor injection and i got 21 average mpg out of a 79 d-150 318 auto 3.55 recurved vacuum advance so what happened with the gtc by common sense it should be getting near 45 mpg. imho that consarned od is sucking up the fuel. on the 300m club forums the accepted figure for the loss of power thru the 42le tranny the next generation from the a-406 is a whopping 33%! exactly the point im making!!!! if thats the loss in od then its 1.65 times the loss of a 727 or 904 in direct with a 2.76 - 3.55 1 axle. thats gotta hurt economy. thats not traditional chrysler engineering. the 8.75 8 3/4 axle had the lowest internal friction losses in the industry and itll make someone mad ford had the highest with the early 9 that would burn up if run too hard. i wonder where they got the 33% loss figure. frankly that sounds like bs to me. if the transmission really is dissipating 1/3 of the engine power input as heat then youd need a transmission cooler bigger than the radiator to cool it when running the car hard at all. matt .

From : max dodge

thats acceptable uhh - to you maybe but everyone else considers it atrocious oh - sorry - thats a word that means bad. or are you just trying to play another shell game with words morphing the word accepted into acceptable once again an engineer talking down to someone knowing nothing of the other persons credentials... and you wonder why we common folk get tired of your crap. i dont consider it acceptable. in fact despite my dedicated following of chrysler i would never buy something with an a604/41te etc in it. will you next be defining is i ask because you seem to think accepted and acceptable are terribly different. if you choose to do so make it succinct that means cut the bullshit out and get to the point -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote on the 300m club forums the accepted figure for the loss of power thru the 42le tranny the next generation from the a-406 is a whopping 33%! thats acceptable uhh - to you maybe but everyone else considers it atrocious oh - sorry - thats a word that means bad. or are you just trying to play another shell game with words morphing the word accepted into acceptable bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote since a drivetrain is a proven to lose power to begin with regardless of ratios adding a gear ratio that aggravates the situation is just plain dumb. the gear ratio has virtually nothing to do with it. sure more gears will consume power due to the frictional losses but this has little to do with the ratios. if you want to change the overall ratio by 61 it doesnt matter if you do 31 first and then 21 or 21 followed by 31. matt .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote so you claim to know most of the engineers in the world or just most of them in your little world nope never made any such claim nor did bill. read again what he wrote more slowly this time and see if you can figure out what he said. ive known 11 personally and 6 of those couldnt pour water out of a boot with directions on the heel. you must hang around with a bunch of ignorant people then. i know a couple hundred or more personally i manager a group with nearly 40 and i dont think 5 of the ones i know could be categorized as you suggest. matt .

From : cavhbc

steve wrote well actually yea..you are sounding like someone that thinks that oh..wait..yer an engineer.. and youre an ass. ; theres the smiley to make the insult ok. yes im a dreaded engineer too. but i also happen to be a knuckle-bustin got grease in my thumbprints as i type this do-it-myself car guy. the two arent incompatible you know. truth is that a huge percentage of lh car evaporators fail after only a few years of normal use. there *is* such a thing as implied warranty of merchantability and if it was pushed in the legal system theyd lose the case on that one. nope. not at all. actually in practice more evaps failed on another brand of vehicle. but you know 3 years or 36000 miles is the warranty you bought it you accepted it and if it fails after that its yours. possibly true on paper and spoken just like the lawyers intended. but the background information is that that chrysler didnt have *any* common ac evaporator rot-through failures until the lh cars. im sure some did fail but not commonly. in 40+ years of having chrysler products in the family ive had to replace exactly one evaporator core- in an lh car. statistically significant taken by itself no. significant when combined with the acknowledgement by chrysler engineers that there was a problem with the early lh cores yes! now there were some valid excuses for them. the lh car was the first chrysler vehicle to get an r-134a refrigeration system and therefore the first car to get an aluminum evaporator core. im sure it even went through and passed a lot of accelerated corrosion testing... but there are cases where all the testing in the world wont catch something that happens in the real world where wall-clock/calendar time cant be simulated in the lab. mold and dirt stick to evaporators and over time do things that you cant predict in accelerated testing. but the bottom line is that once the company engineers realized that there was a design problem they really should have made it a lifetime warranty on that part one replacement per vehicle with the upgraded part trackable by the vin rather than saving a buck and losing a lot of credibilty by essentially saying yes that part is prone to corrosion failure but hey! yours lasted out the warranty so youre sol. if it had failed 1000 miles sooner sure wed have fixed it but not now! actually im about 100% certain that if the decision had been made by the engineers theyd have done just what i said. but the lawyers and accountants make those kinds of decisions. oh but i forgot. we engineers are the bad guys that never get into the real world and dont care about what happens after a design leaves our drafting boards.... sorry for not knowing my place... as an engineer i know its hard to understand...but just because it looks good on paper....real worlds a bit different...and yes i mean that the way it sounds. and yet youre the one whos saying sorry pal on paper the warranty says 3/36 or 7/70... so the real world fact that your evap core failed for a known defect outside that period is irrelevant to me i live by what it says on paper. not only are you an ass youre a two-faced ass. and i mean that the way it sounds. as for your claim about it usually being o-rings well all i can say in my case is that there aint no stinking o-rings in the big middle of the evaporator core and thats the place the oil stain was on mine. do o-rings leak yep especially those crappy green hbnr ones that ford pushed for and have kinda become standard r-134a parts get the blue-coated type when you do r-134a repair work. couldnt have said it better myself. it gets weird with the number of mechanics that have chips on their shoulders about people with education and experience to back it up. max dodge this cavhbc guy and a few others in the past. mechanic he calls me..lol... no....im just a low life could have been mech e that instead of sticking with mbb.....thats an aircraft firm you now call airbus btw or sticking with the familys business...thats a dodge dealership on dads side and some higher ups with chrysler over the years on moms just owns a fairly busy hvac outfit thats going commercial and knows what damn idiots most overschooled engineers can be... of course you assume as well that i just walked in here..and you cant be farther from the truth...but its ok...its normal for you to assume as thats the way you are taught. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : budd cochran

matt i am not confusing the two. i am discussing the efficiency of od ratios in real world scenarios in regards to input torque and output torque. otoh i believe you are trying to confuse the discussion. budd matt whiting wrote budd cochran wrote have you ever heard of a guy by the name of archimedes look up his information on levers. the same rules apply to gearing. an underdrive ration is like a prybar with a long handle and a short span from pivot to load a small force moves a large mass. otoh an overdrive is like a short handle and a longer span from pivot to load and requires much more force to move a small mass. to make a od work the axle ratio has to be lowered and it doesnt quite make up the losses in the drive train . . .it cant as that would violate the laws of levers and physics. give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and i shall move the world. archimedes if i remember the quote correctly methinks you are making the common confusion between power and force torque. a lever multiplies or divides force or torque but it doesnt multiply or divide work or power. you are the one proposing a violation of the laws of physics. look up the definition of work and then apply it to both ends of your lever and report back your results. matt .

From : budd cochran

bill putney wrote budd cochran wrote so you claim to know most of the engineers in the world or just most of them in your little world ive known 11 personally and 6 of those couldnt pour water out of a boot with directions on the heel. so are you going to apply the same analysis to everyone who works as a mechanic hate to tell you but the ratios of bad mechanics are a lot worse. lets start with walmart jiffie lube independent shops dealer shops shops in the back of napa stores etc. etc. etc. - youve gotta throw all those into the mix - i.e. you cant skew the results by eliminating certain categories first before you apply the analysis. independent shops are often the best source for outside the box repairs for items that according to engineers cant be repaired. ive done it few times myself. now i can agree readily that i dont consider most of the technician staff in wal-mart jiffy lube et al to be skilled mechanics. many were hired off the street im sure. ive never dealt with a napa shop except to have brake rotors and drums turned and they older gentleman did an excellent job. as for dealer shops . . .ive worked in one dealership and only one mechanic in that dealership the head mechanic was worth his salt. btw no i was not working there as a mechanic fyi. so yes certain categories can be excluded as they are not trained or experienced mechanics. now should we include medical equipment engineers railroad engineers ships engineers combat engineers hey all are engineeers arent they budd .

From : budd cochran

bill putney wrote budd cochran wrote have you ever heard of a guy by the name of archimedes look up his information on levers. the same rules apply to gearing. an underdrive ration is like a prybar with a long handle and a short span from pivot to load a small force moves a large mass. otoh an overdrive is like a short handle and a longer span from pivot to load and requires much more force to move a small mass. to make a od work the axle ratio has to be lowered and it doesnt quite make up the losses in the drive train . . .it cant as that would violate the laws of levers and physics. give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and i shall move the world. archimedes if i remember the quote correctly your argument isnt very convincing in that in your lever examples you appear to be equating force and mechanical advantage with energy loss and that just isnt inherently the case the same being true with gear ratios which i know you correctly related to levers. the energy loss heat generated has nothing to do with the mechanical advantage the distance/force trade-offs but has everything to do with the friction in the transfer of motion - nothing to do with the lengths of the levers size of the gears and everything to do with the reduction of friction at the points of sliding pivoting etc. transmissions 101 frictional losses are a given in any transmission design as are heat losses and parasitic losses. so why mention the obvious that as an engineer you should know about already in an overdrive ratio do you have more or less usable torque on the output shaft of the gearset energy torque in divided od remember by the ratio equals output torque minus parasitic losses of course!!!! proportionally reduced according to the leverage . . er ratio of the gearset. no offense but this is exactly the kind of technically incorrect discussion that seems to crop up with those who consider themselves technically savvy in a *hands-on* sense but who put down those with technical in a *theoretical* sense expertise. sorry it seems i stepped on a toe or two . . . in the same way that you would correctly invoke archimedes i would say yes but you also need to consider the law of the conservation of energy which you seem to be ignoring in your lever examples. you assume they are ignored because they are unmetioned. name a transmission design that generates no friction heat or parasitic losses now since there is no such thing these losses are common and may be set asiode for a discussion of ratios and their efficiency. you could move the world with archimedes lever but not very rapidly. true i dont deny that and i didnt deny it. it was a metaphor. you could use an opposite lever to move a pea and move it very rapidly. yaes as in a trebuchet for example ... nope i didnt deny this either bith both of your exaples are fine evdence of the effectiveness of ratios dependent of course on whether you want to lift a locomotive or throw rocks. gear ratios parallel that law. the energy put into the system to accomplish both may be the same - one has a lot of mass moving very slowly the other has a tiny mass moving very rapidly - the energy calculations are the same - energy applied minus friction losses = energy out. agreed but why are you adding given and common known factors into a discussion on the effectiveness of ratios if not to cloud the topic to save your butt now - one implementation of the gears or levers may be more efficient than the other but its all in how the friction losses are managed and not in the mechanical advantage per-se. rotflmbo!!!!!!!!!!! assume a 20% loss in either transmission to parasitical loss for sake of discussion a 11 direct drive with a 100 ft.lb. input torque has 80 ft.lb.available from the output shaft out of a theoretical maximum of 100 ft.lb. a 12 overdrive with a 100 ft.lb. input torque has only 40 ft.lb. left out of a theoretical maximum of 50 ft.lb. this is still theoretical because it doesnt allow for the increased torque loss due to poor mechanical advantage now tell us again which has the best torque output to run 75 mph with theres a place for both hands on and theroetical - and results are best when they co-exist. real world follows the laws of physics - what some here disdainfully call theoretical; but what many are sarcastically or disdainfully calling the theoretical *is/are* the real world laws of physics. math is real life bill. 1+1=2 and as long as math is a true science it can prove physics. budd .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote since a drivetrain is a proven to lose power to begin with regardless of ratios adding a gear ratio that aggravates the situation is just plain dumb. the gear ratio has virtually nothing to do with it. sure more gears will consume power due to the frictional losses but this has little to do with the ratios. if you want to change the overall ratio by 61 it doesnt matter if you do 31 first and then 21 or 21 followed by 31. matt excuse me but have the laws of physics been repealed btw ive only added the parasitic back in because you guys were in tears over their absence. if you cut available torque by 2/3+ frictional losses too then try to multiply it back by doubling minus frictional losses youve got x * ..66*2- 2fl. otoh x/6-fl saves a power loss because one less power robbing loss is avoided. and the other situation is just as bad. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote so you claim to know most of the engineers in the world or just most of them in your little world nope never made any such claim nor did bill. read again what he wrote more slowly this time and see if you can figure out what he said. im sorry didnt mean to speak over your head. it was a reply to the implication of the supposed superiority of the overly educated over that of lowly high school graduates. oh and it was as sarcastic as it reads. ive known 11 personally and 6 of those couldnt pour water out of a boot with directions on the heel. you must hang around with a bunch of ignorant people then. well lets see. . . they were the engineers for an automotive muffler factory and one of them came out of his air conditioned office measured and took notes on a machine built by a member of the millwright crew then went in his office drew up a set of blueprints and took full credit and the monetary bonus for the machine. two weeks later he ordered extra steel added which took the machine outside design parametres and nearly made it useless. the rest of what you called ignorant were good ol boys from ky and tn that simply lacked a high school education . . but they werent stupid. i know a couple hundred or more personally i manager a group with nearly 40 send me an email to remind impressed with this later ok and i dont think 5 of the ones i know could be categorized as you suggest. gee whiz ill just bet there aint a single automotive engineering major in the lot of them. and if there is hes not employed in tha automotive industry. . . .and that makes me wonder why -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : bill putney

matt whiting wrote budd cochran wrote on the 300m club forums the accepted figure for the loss of power thru the 42le tranny the next generation from the a-406 is a whopping 33%! i wonder where they got the 33% loss figure. frankly that sounds like bs to me. if the transmission really is dissipating 1/3 of the engine power input as heat... i suspect at least some of that 33% is not true loss but as i said in another post some have speculated that a seemingly excessive loss figure is due to dcs possible exaggerated engine output claims being eplugged into the efficiency formula as the input. then youd need a transmission cooler bigger than the radiator to cool it when running the car hard at all. matt well you just shot your argument in the foot because lh cars do in fact have *two* coolers the radiator tank of course acting more as a temp. stabilizer or buffer plus an air coil hung out in front of the radiator. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

matt whiting wrote budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote well would you want to talk about engineering and common sense instead as in; overdrive transmission ratios are not efficient in comparison to lower numerical final axle drive ratios combined with a direct 11 transmission ratio. look at archimedes principles on leverage for the clue. or if it aint broke dont fix it till it is mentality coming out of detroit japan germany korea ad nauseum. . . .namely the a-604 transmission design. it had potential if . . .if .. .they hadnt gone to an od if they had given sufficient line pressures if they had given it another underdriven gear instead of the od if they had used a lower numerical drive axle ratio made it less sensitive to fluid type given it more cooling . . . . think on this bill i get 26 mpg highway out of my 95 3.0 lebaron gtc . . .not bad not great. i squeezed 37 average mpg out of a 64 225 /6 3 speed manual 3.23 axle water vapor injection and i got 21 average mpg out of a 79 d-150 318 auto 3.55 recurved vacuum advance so what happened with the gtc by common sense it should be getting near 45 mpg. imho that consarned od is sucking up the fuel. on the 300m club forums the accepted figure for the loss of power thru the 42le tranny the next generation from the a-406 is a whopping 33%! exactly the point im making!!!! if thats the loss in od then its 1.65 times the loss of a 727 or 904 in direct with a 2.76 - 3.55 1 axle. thats gotta hurt economy. thats not traditional chrysler engineering. the 8.75 8 3/4 axle had the lowest internal friction losses in the industry and itll make someone mad ford had the highest with the early 9 that would burn up if run too hard. i wonder where they got the 33% loss figure. frankly that sounds like bs to me. if the transmission really is dissipating 1/3 of the engine power input as heat then youd need a transmission cooler bigger than the radiator to cool it when running the car hard at all. matt -- bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

max dodge wrote thats acceptable uhh - to you maybe but everyone else considers it atrocious oh - sorry - thats a word that means bad. or are you just trying to play another shell game with words morphing the word accepted into acceptable once again an engineer talking down to someone knowing nothing of the other persons credentials... and you wonder why we common folk get tired of your crap. i dont consider it acceptable. in fact despite my dedicated following of chrysler i would never buy something with an a604/41te etc in it. will you next be defining is i ask because you seem to think accepted and acceptable are terribly different. if you choose to do so make it succinct that means cut the bullshit out and get to the point youve just proven your ignorance of the english language. wow - i was only halfway kidding that you would be equating accepted and acceptable - i didnt think anyone could be that ignorant but i guess i was wrong see - i can admit mistakes on my part. but i guess to you someone stating facts is talking down to you. im starting to understand your inferiority complex. i could explain the difference between accepted and acceptable but something tells me that you still wouldnt get it and/or would want to continue arguing against the obvious. i bet my teenage daughter understands the difference. i try to avoid such imbecilic discussion - though with you it is difficult. i have said before that sometimes it is difficult to separate out dishonesty and stupidity and youre illustrating why you have to make up explanations to justify an erroneous position that you dont even understand but dont even realize. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote your argument isnt very convincing in that in your lever examples you appear to be equating force and mechanical advantage with energy loss and that just isnt inherently the case the same being true with gear ratios which i know you correctly related to levers. the energy loss heat generated has nothing to do with the mechanical advantage the distance/force trade-offs but has everything to do with the friction in the transfer of motion - nothing to do with the lengths of the levers size of the gears and everything to do with the reduction of friction at the points of sliding pivoting etc. transmissions 101 frictional losses are a given in any transmission design as are heat losses and parasitic losses. so why mention the obvious that as an engineer you should know about already in an overdrive ratio do you have more or less usable torque on the output shaft of the gearset energy torque in divided od remember by the ratio equals output torque minus parasitic losses of course!!!! proportionally reduced according to the leverage . . er ratio of the gearset. less torque yes but not less power. efficiency is related to energy/work/power not force/torque. now - one implementation of the gears or levers may be more efficient than the other but its all in how the friction losses are managed and not in the mechanical advantage per-se. rotflmbo!!!!!!!!!!! assume a 20% loss in either transmission to parasitical loss for sake of discussion a 11 direct drive with a 100 ft.lb. input torque has 80 ft.lb.available from the output shaft out of a theoretical maximum of 100 ft.lb. a 12 overdrive with a 100 ft.lb. input torque has only 40 ft.lb. left out of a theoretical maximum of 50 ft.lb. this is still theoretical because it doesnt allow for the increased torque loss due to poor mechanical advantage now tell us again which has the best torque output to run 75 mph with i see the problem now. you are talking about engine efficiency not gear ratio efficiency whatever that is. keeping the engine in an efficient rpm range is a different discussion altogether but again it doesnt matter how you keep it there whether od tranny and numerically higher rear end ratio or 11 transmission and a lower numerically rear end ratio. i thought that was your original argument but youve now changed horses mid-stream. im still waiting to see how moving the point of reduction from the rear axle to the transmission makes a fundamental change in efficiency of power transmission. matt .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote since a drivetrain is a proven to lose power to begin with regardless of ratios adding a gear ratio that aggravates the situation is just plain dumb. the gear ratio has virtually nothing to do with it. sure more gears will consume power due to the frictional losses but this has little to do with the ratios. if you want to change the overall ratio by 61 it doesnt matter if you do 31 first and then 21 or 21 followed by 31. matt excuse me but have the laws of physics been repealed btw ive only added the parasitic back in because you guys were in tears over their absence. if you cut available torque by 2/3+ frictional losses too then try to multiply it back by doubling minus frictional losses youve got x * .66*2- 2fl. otoh x/6-fl saves a power loss because one less power robbing loss is avoided. but that has nothing to do with the gear ratio. it has to do with how you achieve the overall reduction ratio but it isnt related to the ratio itself that is the point. sure if you use 10 sets of gears to achieve a 21 reduction that will have more parastic loss than using one gear set. however it doesnt matter what the reduction ratio is. it could be 101 or 1001. what matters for frictional loss is how many mechanisms you traverse not what the ratio is. matt .

From : matt whiting

bill putney wrote well you just shot your argument in the foot because lh cars do in fact have *two* coolers the radiator tank of course acting more as a temp. stabilizer or buffer plus an air coil hung out in front of the radiator. wouldnt be the first time. - is the cooling capacity of these two equal to the engine radiator if it is then maybe the 33% loss is closer to reality but i still highly doubt it. is the fuel economy of this car much worse than similar weight and horsepower cars matt .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

aha so you do want to be selective but will not allow me the same privilege. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams budd cochran wrote now should we include medical equipment engineers railroad engineers ships engineers combat engineers hey all are engineeers arent they they are if they have an engineering degree from an abet accredited university. if they dont then they arent unless they hold the pe license. matt *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : bill putney

budd cochran wrote bill putney wrote budd cochran wrote have you ever heard of a guy by the name of archimedes look up his information on levers. the same rules apply to gearing. an underdrive ration is like a prybar with a long handle and a short span from pivot to load a small force moves a large mass. otoh an overdrive is like a short handle and a longer span from pivot to load and requires much more force to move a small mass. to make a od work the axle ratio has to be lowered and it doesnt quite make up the losses in the drive train . . .it cant as that would violate the laws of levers and physics. give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and i shall move the world. archimedes if i remember the quote correctly your argument isnt very convincing in that in your lever examples you appear to be equating force and mechanical advantage with energy lossand that just isnt inherently the case the same being true with gear ratios which i know you correctly related to levers. the energy loss heat generated has nothing to do with the mechanical advantage the distance/force trade-offs but has everything to do with the friction in the transfer of motion - nothing to do with the lengths of the levers size of the gears and everything to do with the reduction of friction at the points of sliding pivoting etc. transmissions 101 frictional losses are a given in any transmission design as are heat losses and parasitic losses. so why mention the obvious that as an engineer you should know about already in an overdrive ratio do you have more or less usable torque on the output shaft of the gearset energy torque in divided od remember by the ratio equals output torque minus parasitic losses of course!!!! proportionally reduced according to the leverage . . er ratio of the gearset. no offense but this is exactly the kind of technically incorrect discussion that seems to crop up with those who consider themselves technically savvy in a *hands-on* sense but who put down those with technical in a *theoretical* sense expertise. sorry it seems i stepped on a toe or two . . . in the same way that you would correctly invoke archimedes i would say yes but you also need to consider the law of the conservation of energy which you seem to be ignoring in your lever examples. you assume they are ignored because they are unmetioned. name a transmission design that generates no friction heat or parasitic losses now since there is no such thing these losses are common and may be set asiode for a discussion of ratios and their efficiency. you could move the world with archimedes lever but not very rapidly. true i dont deny that and i didnt deny it. it was a metaphor. you could use an opposite lever to move a pea and move it very rapidly. yaes as in a trebuchet for example ... nope i didnt deny this either bith both of your exaples are fine evdence of the effectiveness of ratios dependent of course on whether you want to lift a locomotive or throw rocks. gear ratios parallel that law. the energy put into the system to accomplish both may be the same - one has a lot of mass moving very slowly the other has a tiny mass moving very rapidly - the energy calculations are the same - energy applied minus friction losses = energy out. agreed but why are you adding given and common known factors into a discussion on the effectiveness of ratios if not to cloud the topic to save your butt now - one implementation of the gears or levers may be more efficient than the other but its all in how the friction losses are managed and not in the mechanical advantage per-se. rotflmbo!!!!!!!!!!! assume a 20% loss in either transmission to parasitical loss for sake of discussion a 11 direct drive with a 100 ft.lb. input torque has 80 ft.lb.available from the output shaft out of a theoretical maximum of 100 ft.lb. a 12 overdrive with a 100 ft.lb. input torque has only 40 ft.lb. left out of a theoretical maximum of 50 ft.lb. this is still theoretical because it doesnt allow for the increased torque loss due to poor mechanical advantage now tell us again which has the best torque output to run 75 mph with theres a place for both hands on and theroetical - and results are best when they co-exist. real world follows the laws of physics - what some here disdainfully call theoretical; but what many are sarcastically or disdainfully calling the theoretical *is/are* the real world laws of physics. math is real life bill. 1+1=2 and as long as math is a true science it can prove physics. budd budd - ill say this in the least offensive way i know how matt said it and i said it before torque and energy are different units - losing torque thru levering or gearing is not in itself energy loss. energy is work x speed x time. in your lever and gear examples what you lose in torque you gain i

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote matt i am not confusing the two. i am discussing the efficiency of od ratios in real world scenarios in regards to input torque and output torque. otoh i believe you are trying to confuse the discussion. no im not. look up any definition of efficiency. i will not involve forces or torques just force in a rotational form. it will involve energy or work or power. gear ratios dont have efficiencies that is the point. you are confused. you need to refresh your memory on some basic physics definitions. and again i say you need to look up the definition of work and apply it to both sides of your transmission. assume for the moment that there are no frictional losses since the discussion here is the gear ratio itself. now try different gear ratios and compute the work at the output vs. the input and divide to get the efficiency. show us how different ratios change the efficiency. the only requirement is that you must use the correct definition of efficiency which you havent thus far. look it up it is in any high school physics book or easily available via google. matt .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote now should we include medical equipment engineers railroad engineers ships engineers combat engineers hey all are engineeers arent they they are if they have an engineering degree from an abet accredited university. if they dont then they arent unless they hold the pe license. matt .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote since a drivetrain is a proven to lose power to begin with regardless of ratios adding a gear ratio that aggravates the situation is just plain dumb. the gear ratio has virtually nothing to do with it. sure more gears will consume power due to the frictional losses but this has little to do with the ratios. if you want to change the overall ratio by 61 it doesnt matter if you do 31 first and then 21 or 21 followed by 31. matt excuse me but have the laws of physics been repealed btw ive only added the parasitic back in because you guys were in tears over their absence. if you cut available torque by 2/3+ frictional losses too then try to multiply it back by doubling minus frictional losses youve got x * .66*2- 2fl. otoh x/6-fl saves a power loss because one less power robbing loss is avoided. but that has nothing to do with the gear ratio. yes it does. od ratios are inefficient like it or not. it has to do with how you achieve the overall reduction ratio but it isnt related to the ratio itself that is the point. sure if you use 10 sets of gears to achieve a 21 reduction that will have more parastic loss than using one gear set. however it doesnt matter what the reduction ratio is. it could be 101 or 1001. what matters for frictional loss is how many mechanisms you traverse not what the ratio is. the lower the efficiency of the ratio plus the extra parasitic losses from extra gearsets equals a stupid design. kiss principle. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd - ill say this in the least offensive way i know how matt said it and i said it before torque and energy are different units - losing torque thru levering or gearing is not in itself energy loss. energy is work x speed x time. in your lever and gear examples what you lose in torque you gain in speed - the product of the two is proportional to energy and will be the same - except - yes - for some energy loss due to friction but that friction is not inherent in the lever or gear multiplication or division factor. hold it!!! hold the presses!! you just contradicted yourself. first you say there is no energy loss then there is . . you dont know squat. think about this example situation 1 - the fulcrum point is on a sliding friction bushing. situation 2 - the fulcrum point is on a roller bearing of some sort. if you truly think it thru you will realize that there are friction losses in both cases but it is not directly related to the ratios. you will also have sliding friction between the gear teeth - but its amount is not a given relation to the torque multiplication factor - it can be varied all over the place depending on wheter it is lubed or not and if lubed what lube is used. what the fixation with friction losses is it some thrill for you how many times must i agree that there is parasitic losses before you set them aside and discuss ratios i will give you that simplisitically speaking if you have two meshed gears for one multiplication factor you will have half the friction losses than if you have a series of two pairs of meshed gears to achieve the same final ratio the difference between the od and direct drive scenarios. but *thats* where the added losses are coming from that youre talking about - not in the ratios themselves. reading comprhension isnt your strong point is it again how many times will i hacve to tell you that i agree with this before it gets thru your thick skull no i am not a politically correct person thank you in a nutshell as i and matt have already pointed out your fallacy in your explanation is in trying to equate torque multiplication with energy multiplication. you trade off torque and speed and energy being the product of the two with time factored in well - you do the math. i did the math and the net effect is a major measurable loss of efficiency. the same kind of arguments occur about torque and horsepower because of the same failure on peoples part to understand what they are mathematically and in reality. no the same arguments happen because overeducated idiots like yourself have the misconception you know everything. the only reason you think im in error is because you added parasitic losses into a discussion about ratios. so you failed to discuss the topic. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote your argument isnt very convincing in that in your lever examples you appear to be equating force and mechanical advantage with energy loss and that just isnt inherently the case the same being true with gear ratios which i know you correctly related to levers. the energy loss heat generated has nothing to do with the mechanical advantage the distance/force trade-offs but has everything to do with the friction in the transfer of motion - nothing to do with the lengths of the levers size of the gears and everything to do with the reduction of friction at the points of sliding pivoting etc. transmissions 101 frictional losses are a given in any transmission design as are heat losses and parasitic losses. so why mention the obvious that as an engineer you should know about already in an overdrive ratio do you have more or less usable torque on the output shaft of the gearset energy torque in divided od remember by the ratio equals output torque minus parasitic losses of course!!!! proportionally reduced according to the leverage . . er ratio of the gearset. less torque yes but not less power. efficiency is related to energy/work/power not force/torque. then how come cars running north of me at the bonneville salt flats run faster with low numerical axles and direct trans ratios than cars with higher numericals and od case in point summers brothers goldenrod. a still standing land speed record with a car that could not pull in 4th gear that is od. now - one implementation of the gears or levers may be more efficient than the other but its all in how the friction losses are managed and not in the mechanical advantage per-se. rotflmbo!!!!!!!!!!! assume a 20% loss in either transmission to parasitical loss for sake of discussion a 11 direct drive with a 100 ft.lb. input torque has 80 ft.lb.available from the output shaft out of a theoretical maximum of 100 ft.lb. a 12 overdrive with a 100 ft.lb. input torque has only 40 ft.lb. left out of a theoretical maximum of 50 ft.lb. this is still theoretical because it doesnt allow for the increased torque loss due to poor mechanical advantage now tell us again which has the best torque output to run 75 mph with i see the problem now. you are talking about engine efficiency not gear ratio efficiency whatever that is. no im talking ratio efficiency but you keep avoiding / clouding the topic. keeping the engine in an efficient rpm range is a different discussion altogether but again it doesnt matter how you keep it there whether od tranny and numerically higher rear end ratio or 11 transmission and a lower numerically rear end ratio. i thought that was your original argument but youve now changed horses mid-stream. im still waiting to see how moving the point of reduction from the rear axle to the transmission makes a fundamental change in efficiency of power transmission. youll never find it. your head is buried in the sands of overeducation. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote matt i am not confusing the two. i am discussing the efficiency of od ratios in real world scenarios in regards to input torque and output torque. otoh i believe you are trying to confuse the discussion. no im not. look up any definition of efficiency. i will not involve forces or torques just force in a rotational form. it will involve energy or work or power. gear ratios dont have efficiencies that is the point. rotflmbo!!!! spoken like a well trained engineer. matt ive worked on gear trains that make automotive even semi truck transmissions look like toys and gear ratios do have efficiency quotients. you are confused. you need to refresh your memory on some basic physics definitions. no that would be you. and again i say you need to look up the definition of work and apply it to both sides of your transmission. assume for the moment that there are no frictional losses since the discussion here is the gear ratio itself. make up your mind . . .parasitic losses or no parasitic losses . . .never mind. the fact you keep changing the rules means youve lost the discussion. now try different gear ratios and compute the work at the output vs. the input and divide to get the efficiency. show us how different ratios change the efficiency. the only requirement is that you must use the correct definition of efficiency which you havent thus far. look it up it is in any high school physics book or easily available via google. why youre not using the laws of physics why should i -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : roy

budd cochran wrote youll never find it. your head is buried in the sands of overeducation. can i get some of that overeducation roy -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : newman

ah bill you-da-man! good job. i hate lawyers after the crap that happend in my divorce. nice to hear that you managed no pun intended to avoid some nasty legal crap. but do tell message from god a dream perhaps e-mail privately if you wish. on thu 23 mar 2006 064445 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote newman wrote on tue 21 mar 2006 191323 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote cavhbc wrote cavhbc wrote there ought to be a special warranty on lh car a.c. evaporators. why yours fail out of warranty and you had to spend some money if youre implying that im one of those people that think that cars ought to be warranteed forever im not. however for something that will cost the owner *major* expense and i say this as an engineer engineering practice says that you make sure you design that area well into the bell curve. can they be made to do a good will coverage as other auto makers often do to keep customers that deserve a little more than what they got absolutely not. can i be forced to buy product from a company that takes major expenses of their customers so lightly absolutely not. its called free market. well actually yea..you are sounding like someone that thinks that sounding and being are two different things. oh..wait..yer an engineer.. if anyone unbderstands real-world realities of good and bad designs its engineers. indeed. it has been my experience that the problems usually arise when management overides engineering - usually over cost issues. in general engineers have a professional responsibility to do a good job of design. unfortuantely when marketing and management stick their fingers in the pie they often cut corners that should not be cut. if they cut deep enough you wind up with a recall. if they dig too deep then you wind up with a class action law-suit. saw it happen here a few years back. a marine engineer was asked to design a fast ferry which he did. after he completed the design a number of modifications were done as the ferries were being built. the modifications were strictly pollitically motived by the local government. once the ferries went into service they had no end of problems. there was a huge public outcry. the government sued the marine engineer. lucky for him that he documents he work fully. when it got into court he proved that the design had been modified without his consultation or permission. he also provided the analysis as to why the problems were occurring and what should have been done had he been consulted. unfortunately the ships were already built and were therefore unuseable. the case was thrown out and the government went running with their tail between their legs. it was so bad they were thrown out of office at the next election. it cost the taxpayers billions because these idiots meddled in a process they knew nothing about. they did more than cut corners. the resulting ferries were totally unsuitable and wound up being sold for little more than the value of the scrap aluminim. they still sit by the shore today - shrink-wrapped and collecting dust. if management would listen to engineering a little more often then they might spend a little more now but in the long run they would save a lot of money. but management does not see it this way. after all they when to management school to get their mbasshole degrees! why should they listen to a lowly engineer i was almost the fall guy on a commercial missile design disaster. i was the electrical design lead on the missile and the way the project was being managed i could see that there was going to be a disaster due to lack of drawing controls and following the engineering design. after a warning from god to get the h--- out of there i insisted on being assigned to another project even though i was threatened with having my career wrecked if i insisted on that - but i did it anyway - gods never wrong. sure enough two years later when they launched the rocket and satellite when the command was issued to release the satellite into orbit nothing happened. seems the guy who took my place changed the wiring of the various commands in the missile and failed to inform the software group that programmed the computer to issue said commands of his changes. on top of that when they completed the wiring and did the functional tests the tests results werent as expected - someone signed off on the failed tests results and they went on their merry way. that was a $650 million mistake. the next shuttle mission had to go retrieve the 2nd stage and satellite and litertally manually separate them and toss the satellite into orbit. paperwork in the company had been doctored to make it look like i had left the project much later than i did. the lawyers got me into a room and started grilling me on that. foruntaely i had saved enough cya to prove otherwise including the memo of ag

From : max dodge

im starting to understand your inferiority complex. the only inferiority complex around here is those who feel they need to wave diplomas and position at others in order to win an otherwise factual discussion. i could explain the difference between accepted and acceptable but something tells me that you still wouldnt get it and/or would want to continue arguing against the obvious. i could explain thats its merely a matter of tense... main entry acceptable pronunciation ik-sep-t&-b&l ak- also ek- function adjective 1 capable or worthy of being accepted no compromise would be acceptable main entry accepted function adjective generally approved or used - acceptedly adverb but id bet you would argue with merriam webster about it so ill just let it be at that. i bet my teenage daughter understands the difference. yeah i bet she does... she likely does things to be accepted that you dont find acceptable. i try to avoid such imbecilic discussion - except that you engage in it almost every time you post..... though with you it is difficult. not really drop the pretentious attitude and youll find that most people will like you better. i have said before that sometimes it is difficult to separate out dishonesty and stupidity and youre illustrating why you have to make up explanations to justify an erroneous position that you dont even understand but dont even realize ya see i knew ya couldnt do it. i asked you to be succinct and you failed. you instead resorted to personal attack as a means of reply. and that after i tried to explain to you why you get perceived a certain way. so go ahead continue your acrimonious behavior and stop asking why people think of engineers as pretentious and egotistical. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote thats acceptable uhh - to you maybe but everyone else considers it atrocious oh - sorry - thats a word that means bad. or are you just trying to play another shell game with words morphing the word accepted into acceptable once again an engineer talking down to someone knowing nothing of the other persons credentials... and you wonder why we common folk get tired of your crap. i dont consider it acceptable. in fact despite my dedicated following of chrysler i would never buy something with an a604/41te etc in it. will you next be defining is i ask because you seem to think accepted and acceptable are terribly different. if you choose to do so make it succinct that means cut the bullshit out and get to the point youve just proven your ignorance of the english language. wow - i was only halfway kidding that you would be equating accepted and acceptable - i didnt think anyone could be that ignorant but i guess i was wrong see - i can admit mistakes on my part. but i guess to you someone stating facts is talking down to you. im starting to understand your inferiority complex. i could explain the difference between accepted and acceptable but something tells me that you still wouldnt get it and/or would want to continue arguing against the obvious. i bet my teenage daughter understands the difference. i try to avoid such imbecilic discussion - though with you it is difficult. i have said before that sometimes it is difficult to separate out dishonesty and stupidity and youre illustrating why you have to make up explanations to justify an erroneous position that you dont even understand but dont even realize. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x begin 666 audio.gif m1te&.#ea$ ++xp mp$ +$c#&0@f-hk=yi8&68d 3itik9=c*r!l8j&4s.t4.p end .

From : max dodge

they are if they have an engineering degree from an abet accredited university. if they dont then they arent unless they hold the pe license. another fine example of how engineers have little time for those without better credentials than their own. those mentioned by budd are in fact engineers just not the same type as your exalted number crunching know-it-alls. most of those named by budd probably know more about their respective equipment than the engineers that created the equipment on paper. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author budd cochran wrote now should we include medical equipment engineers railroad engineers ships engineers combat engineers hey all are engineeers arent they they are if they have an engineering degree from an abet accredited university. if they dont then they arent unless they hold the pe license. matt .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote budd - ill say this in the least offensive way i know how matt said it and i said it before torque and energy are different units - losing torque thru levering or gearing is not in itself energy loss. energy is work x speed x time. in your lever and gear examples what you lose in torque you gain in speed - the product of the two is proportional to energy and will be the same - except - yes - for some energy loss due to friction but that friction is not inherent in the lever or gear multiplication or division factor. hold it!!! hold the presses!! you just contradicted yourself. first you say there is no energy loss then there is . . you dont know squat. think about this example situation 1 - the fulcrum point is on a sliding friction bushing. situation 2 - the fulcrum point is on a roller bearing of some sort. if you truly think it thru you will realize that there are friction losses in both cases but it is not directly related to the ratios. you will also have sliding friction between the gear teeth - but its amount is not a given relation to the torque multiplication factor - it can be varied all over the place depending on wheter it is lubed or not and if lubed what lu

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote since a drivetrain is a proven to lose power to begin with regardless of ratios adding a gear ratio that aggravates the situation is just plain dumb. the gear ratio has virtually nothing to do with it. sure more gears will consume power due to the frictional losses but this has little to do with the ratios. if you want to change the overall ratio by 61 it doesnt matter if you do 31 first and then 21 or 21 followed by 31. matt excuse me but have the laws of physics been repealed btw ive only added the parasitic back in because you guys were in tears over their absence. if you cut available torque by 2/3+ frictional losses too then try to multiply it back by doubling minus frictional losses youve got x * .66*2- 2fl. otoh x/6-fl saves a power loss because one less power robbing loss is avoided. but that has nothing to do with the gear ratio. yes it does. od ratios are inefficient like it or not. it doesnt matter if i life it or if you like it. it is simply a dumb statement. a gear ratio is neither inherently efficient or inefficent. a given engine runs efficiently within a certain rpm range. a given gear ratio may or may not keep the engine in that range but it doesnt matter if the ratio is an od ratio or not. some diesel engines are most efficient between 1500 and 2000 rpm and often an od ratio is just the ticket to keep them in that range. it has to do with how you achieve the overall reduction ratio but it isnt related to the ratio itself that is the point. sure if you use 10 sets of gears to achieve a 21 reduction that will have more parastic loss than using one gear set. however it doesnt matter what the reduction ratio is. it could be 101 or 1001. what matters for frictional loss is how many mechanisms you traverse not what the ratio is. the lower the efficiency of the ratio plus the extra parasitic losses from extra gearsets equals a stupid design. kiss principle. there is no efficiency to a ratio so it cant be lower or higher as it simply doesnt exist. for one who keeps referencing math and physics you have a very meager comprehension of either. matt .

From : matt whiting

what the fixation with friction losses is it some thrill for you how many times must i agree that there is parasitic losses before you set them aside and discuss ratios i will give you that simplisitically speaking if you have two meshed gears for one multiplication factor you will have half the friction losses than if you have a series of two pairs of meshed gears to achieve the same final ratio the difference between the od and direct drive scenarios. but *thats* where the added losses are coming from that youre talking about - not in the ratios themselves. reading comprhension isnt your strong point is it again how many times will i hacve to tell you that i agree with this before it gets thru your thick skull no i am not a politically correct person thank you in a nutshell as i and matt have already pointed out your fallacy in your explanation is in trying to equate torque multiplication with energy multiplication. you trade off torque and speed and energy being the product of the two with time factored in well - you do the math. i did the math and the net effect is a major measurable loss of efficiency. show us the math then. first though you need to look up efficiency and post that definition and then work from there. the same kind of arguments occur about torque and horsepower because of the same failure on peoples part to understand what they are mathematically and in reality. no the same arguments happen because overeducated idiots like yourself have the misconception you know everything. no were more than happy to have you post some data calculations references to others who have done the calculations etc. the fact is that you cant. matt . 222 315252 rfuf.7454$lb.665311@1.epix.net budd cochran wrote aha so you do want to be selective but will not allow me the same privilege. i never said you had to be selective. matt .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote matt i am not confusing the two. i am discussing the efficiency of od ratios in real world scenarios in regards to input torque and output torque. otoh i believe you are trying to confuse the discussion. no im not. look up any definition of efficiency. i will not involve forces or torques just force in a rotational form. it will involve energy or work or power. gear ratios dont have efficiencies that is the point. rotflmbo!!!! spoken like a well trained engineer. matt ive worked on gear trains that make automotive even semi truck transmissions look like toys and gear ratios do have efficiency quotients. ok post just one technical reference to them. just one and ill admit here in print that i was wrong and you were right. just one... matt .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote your argument isnt very convincing in that in your lever examples you appear to be equating force and mechanical advantage with energy loss and that just isnt inherently the case the same being true with gear ratios which i know you correctly related to levers. the energy loss heat generated has nothing to do with the mechanical advantage the distance/force trade-offs but has everything to do with the friction in the transfer of motion - nothing to do with the lengths of the levers size of the gears and everything to do with the reduction of friction at the points of sliding pivoting etc. transmissions 101 frictional losses are a given in any transmission design as are heat losses and parasitic losses. so why mention the obvious that as an engineer you should know about already in an overdrive ratio do you have more or less usable torque on the output shaft of the gearset energy torque in divided od remember by the ratio equals output torque minus parasitic losses of course!!!! proportionally reduced according to the leverage . . er ratio of the gearset. less torque yes but not less power. efficiency is related to energy/work/power not force/torque. then how come cars running north of me at the bonneville salt flats run faster with low numerical axles and direct trans ratios than cars with higher numericals and od case in point summers brothers goldenrod. a still standing land speed record with a car that could not pull in 4th gear that is od. because the overall gear ratio wasnt correct for the power curve of the engine. ideally you want the overall ratio to be such that the engine hits its peak horsepower rpm at exactly the same time that the car hits its maximum aerodynamic drag speed. if the car is geared too tall which this one obviously is then the aero drag on the car is increasing faster than the power curve of the engine and once they cross the car will no longer gain speed. this could easily be fixed by using a numerically higher rear axle ratio. it has nothing to do with the transmission having a ratio less than 11 it has everything to do with the overall reduction ratio of the driveline being incorrectly matched to the engine for this particular situation top speed on the level. now - one implementation of the gears or levers may be more efficient than the other but its all in how the friction losses are managed and not in the mechanical advantage per-se. rotflmbo!!!!!!!!!!! assume a 20% loss in either transmission to parasitical loss for sake of discussion a 11 direct drive with a 100 ft.lb. input torque has 80 ft.lb.available from the output shaft out of a theoretical maximum of 100 ft.lb. a 12 overdrive with a 100 ft.lb. input torque has only 40 ft.lb. left out of a theoretical maximum of 50 ft.lb. this is still theoretical because it doesnt allow for the increased torque loss due to poor mechanical advantage now tell us again which has the best torque output to run 75 mph with i see the problem now. you are talking about engine efficiency not gear ratio efficiency whatever that is. no im talking ratio efficiency but you keep avoiding / clouding the topic. that is because the topic simply doesnt exist. find us even one reference that talks about a gear ratio efficiency. just one... keeping the engine in an efficient rpm range is a different discussion altogether but again it doesnt matter how you keep it there whether od tranny and numerically higher rear end ratio or 11 transmission and a lower numerically rear end ratio. i thought that was your original argument but youve now changed horses mid-stream. im still waiting to see how moving the point of reduction from the rear axle to the transmission makes a fundamental change in efficiency of power transmission. youll never find it. your head is buried in the sands of overeducation. i wont find it because it doesnt exist. and that is the same reason that you cant find it and post a reference to it. matt .

From : maxpower

-- ken weitzel wrote bill putney wrote budd cochran wrote so you claim to know most of the engineers in the world or just most of them in your little world ive known 11 personally and 6 of those couldnt pour water out of a boot with directions on the heel. so are you going to apply the same analysis to everyone who works as a mechanic hate to tell you but the ratios of bad mechanics are a lot worse. lets start with walmart jiffie lube independent shops dealer shops shops in the back of napa stores etc. etc. etc. - youve gotta throw all those into the mix - i.e. you cant skew the results by eliminating certain categories first before you apply the analysis. hi... about twenty years ago had 4 dealership mechanics. defining mechanics all these four were well experienced all worked together in the same dealership and at *least* one was fully licensed. worked on brakes steering etc they told me argued with me that they had found the cure of all energy problems. all they needed to do was attach an electric motor to each wheel and an alternator to each wheel. start it going with the gas engine and from then on it would keep going forever. they were dead serious. sent in one of those rip-off applications to one of the usa patent companies who told them their idea was wonderful and to send their cheque for further investigation. they sent their cheque. nothing would convince them not to ken yep - just like a week or so ago someone here claiming that an alternator with a working regulator would provide fully regulated voltage no matter what - another perpetual motion machine. these are the same guys who will out of hand reject engineers for spouting their laws of physics. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x reading all this reminds me of when i was a kid fighting with my sisters and brothers always wanting to get the last word in. i got you last doesnt it get boring after awhile .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote since a drivetrain is a proven to lose power to begin with regardless of ratios adding a gear ratio that aggravates the situation is just plain dumb. the gear ratio has virtually nothing to do with it. sure more gears will consume power due to the frictional losses but this has little to do with the ratios. if you want to change the overall ratio by 61 it doesnt matter if you do 31 first and then 21 or 21 followed by 31. matt excuse me but have the laws of physics been repealed btw ive only added the parasitic back in because you guys were in tears over their absence. if you cut available torque by 2/3+ frictional losses too then try to multiply it back by doubling minus frictional losses youve got x * .66*2- 2fl. otoh x/6-fl saves a power loss because one less power robbing loss is avoided. but that has nothing to do with the gear ratio. yes it does. od ratios are inefficient like it or not. it doesnt matter if i life it or if you like it. it is simply a dumb statement. a gear ratio is neither inherently efficient or inefficent. rotflmbo!!!!! gawd you are sure full of funny statements. if a ratio results in a reduced ability to perform an operation or function for a given input the ratio is less efficient. lever anaology the longer the handle side of a lever the more efficiently a person can do a job for a given input force. a given engine runs efficiently within a certain rpm range. a given gear ratio may or may not keep the engine in that range but it doesnt matter if the ratio is an od ratio or not. some diesel engines are most efficient between 1500 and 2000 rpm and often an od ratio is just the ticket to keep them in that range. and changing final drive ratios and adding underdriven transmission ratios results in greaterr efficiency. it has to do with how you achieve the overall reduction ratio but it isnt related to the ratio itself that is the point. sure if you use 10 sets of gears to achieve a 21 reduction that will have more parastic loss than using one gear set. however it doesnt matter what the reduction ratio is. it could be 101 or 1001. what matters for frictional loss is how many mechanisms you traverse not what the ratio is. the lower the efficiency of the ratio plus the extra parasitic losses from extra gearsets equals a stupid design. kiss principle. there is no efficiency to a ratio so it cant be lower or higher as it simply doesnt exist. for one who keeps referencing math and physics you have a very meager comprehension of either. for someone that keeps putting me down you have very little grasp of reality. obviously you are set in the ways you were brainwashed into. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote budd - ill say this in the least offensive way i know how matt said it and i said it before torque and energy are different units - losing torque thru levering or gearing is not in itself energy loss. energy is work x speed x time. in your lever and gear examples what you lose in torque you gain in speed - the product of the two is proportional to energy and will be the same - except - yes - for some energy loss due to friction but that friction is not inherent in the lever or gear multiplication or division factor. hold it!!! hold the presses!! you just contradicted yourself. first you say there is no energy loss then there is . . you dont know squat. think about this example situation 1 - the fulcrum point is on a sliding friction bushing. situation 2 - the fulcrum point is on a roller bearing of some sort. if you truly think it thru you will realize that there are friction losses in both cases but it is not directly related to the ratios. you will also have sliding friction between the gear teeth - but its amount is not a given relation to the torque multiplication factor - it can be varied all over the place depending on wheter it is lubed or not and if lubed what lube is used. what the fixation with friction losses is it some thrill for you how many times must i agree that there is parasitic losses before you set them aside and discuss ratios i will give you that simplisitically speaking if you have two meshed gears for one multiplication factor you will have half the friction losses than if you have a series of two pairs of meshed gears to achieve the same final ratio the difference between the od and direct drive scenarios. but *thats* where the added losses are coming from that youre talking about - not in the ratios themselves. reading comprhension isnt your strong point is it again how many times will i hacve to tell you that i agree with this before it gets thru your thick skull no i am not a politically correct person thank you in a nutshell as i and matt have already pointed out your fallacy in your explanation is in trying to equate torque multiplication with energy multiplication. you trade off torque and speed and energy being the product of the two with time factored in well - you do the math. i did the math and the net effect is a major measurable loss of efficiency. show us the math then. first though you need to look up efficiency and post that definition and then work from there. no i dont have to post anything. efficiency the ratio of input to reslutant output. if your output isnt within the design parameter its either more or less efficient than required. overdrive ratios are inheriently inefficient. the proof is the almost mandatory need to shift down to a lower ratio to climb a hill unless youre traveling at a speed far above the posted speed limit. the same kind of arguments occur about torque and horsepower because of the same failure on peoples part to understand what they are mathematically and in reality. no the same arguments happen because overeducated idiots like yourself have the misconception you know everything. no were more than happy to have you post some data calculations references to others who have done the calculations etc. the fact is that you cant. the true fact is it wouldnt matter if i did. youd just wave your wallpaper around and find some fault with it most likely my high school education. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

sure roy just follow these two around. its dripping off them like sweat off a rabbit in hunting season. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams budd cochran wrote youll never find it. your head is buried in the sands of overeducation. can i get some of that overeducation roy -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote matt i am not confusing the two. i am discussing the efficiency of od ratios in real world scenarios in regards to input torque and output torque. otoh i believe you are trying to confuse the discussion. no im not. look up any definition of efficiency. i will not involve forces or torques just force in a rotational form. it will involve energy or work or power. gear ratios dont have efficiencies that is the point. rotflmbo!!!! spoken like a well trained engineer. matt ive worked on gear trains that make automotive even semi truck transmissions look like toys and gear ratios do have efficiency quotients. ok post just one technical reference to them. just one and ill admit here in print that i was wrong and you were right. just one... sorry i didnt write any technical manuals at the time. . . i was too deep in grease and oil. of course i also didnt think i was going to have to finish your education for you. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

no you didnt but you did try to deny me the option to be selective. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams budd cochran wrote aha so you do want to be selective but will not allow me the same privilege. i never said you had to be selective. matt *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote your argument isnt very convincing in that in your lever examples you appear to be equating force and mechanical advantage with energy loss and that just isnt inherently the case the same being true with gear ratios which i know you correctly related to levers. the energy loss heat generated has nothing to do with the mechanical advantage the distance/force trade-offs but has everything to do with the friction in the transfer of motion - nothing to do with the lengths of the levers size of the gears and everything to do with the reduction of friction at the points of sliding pivoting etc. transmissions 101 frictional losses are a given in any transmission design as are heat losses and parasitic losses. so why mention the obvious that as an engineer you should know about already in an overdrive ratio do you have more or less usable torque on the output shaft of the gearset energy torque in divided od remember by the ratio equals output torque minus parasitic losses of course!!!! proportionally reduced according to the leverage . . er ratio of the gearset. less torque yes but not less power. efficiency is related to energy/work/power not force/torque. then how come cars running north of me at the bonneville salt flats run faster with low numerical axles and direct trans ratios than cars with higher numericals and od case in point summers brothers goldenrod. a still standing land speed record with a car that could not pull in 4th gear that is od. because the overall gear ratio wasnt correct for the power curve of the engine. ideally you want the overall ratio to be such that the engine hits its peak horsepower rpm at exactly the same time that the car hits its maximum aerodynamic drag speed. if the car is geared too tall which this one obviously is then the aero drag on the car is increasing faster than the power curve of the engine and once they cross the car will no longer gain speed. rotflmbo!!!! well you just stuck your foot in it. according to the summers brothers the car was wind tunnel designed to handle 500 mph then the engineers determined the engine outputs and ratios needed. and they blew it. this could easily be fixed by using a numerically higher rear axle ratio. it has nothing to do with the transmission having a ratio less than 11 it has everything to do with the overall reduction ratio of the driveline being incorrectly matched to the engine for this particular situation top speed on the level. the real life facts call you a liar. besides lowering the final drive ratios would have resulted in an unusable first gear due to the slick salt conditions a slower acceleration and no speed record. now - one implementation of the gears or levers may be more efficient than the other but its all in how the friction losses are managed and not in the mechanical advantage per-se. rotflmbo!!!!!!!!!!! assume a 20% loss in either transmission to parasitical loss for sake of discussion a 11 direct drive with a 100 ft.lb. input torque has 80 ft.lb.available from the output shaft out of a theoretical maximum of 100 ft.lb. a 12 overdrive with a 100 ft.lb. input torque has only 40 ft.lb. left out of a theoretical maximum of 50 ft.lb. this is still theoretical because it doesnt allow for the increased torque loss due to poor mechanical advantage now tell us again which has the best torque output to run 75 mph with i see the problem now. you are talking about engine efficiency not gear ratio efficiency whatever that is. no im talking ratio efficiency but you keep avoiding / clouding the topic. that is because the topic simply doesnt exist. find us even one reference that talks about a gear ratio efficiency. just one... no. keeping the engine in an efficient rpm range is a different discussion altogether but again it doesnt matter how you keep it there whether od tranny and numerically higher rear end ratio or 11 transmission and a lower numerically rear end ratio. i thought that was your original argument but youve now changed horses mid-stream. im still waiting to see how moving the point of reduction from the rear axle to the transmission makes a fundamental change in efficiency of power transmission. youll never find it. your head is buried in the sands of overeducation. i wont find it because it doesnt exist. and that is the same reason that you cant find it and post a reference to it. like i said and your attitude continues to prove it it wouldnt matter if i did mr bigot engineer. btw how about you explain how the marvelous inventions of the past 6000 years came about before your ilk contaminated the earth -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free accoun

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote rotflmbo!!!!! gawd you are sure full of funny statements. yes im sure correct statements are pretty funny to someone without a clue about physics. if a ratio results in a reduced ability to perform an operation or function for a given input the ratio is less efficient. lever anaology the longer the handle side of a lever the more efficiently a person can do a job for a given input force. no it isnt more efficient at all as you have to move the lever farther to accomplish the same amount of work on the other end. the longer the handle the less force is required but more distance is required in direct proportion to the reduced force. since work is a force acting through a distance the end result is no change in efficiency at all. since you arent able to show the math or physics as you several times claimed you could heres a really simple example using a lever which you claim to understand. i wont complicate things with gears but they are just two levers touching each other but that adds a little complexity and you dont deal well with that. definition efficiency = work out/work in the / means divided by heres a reference simple enough that you should be able to understand it http//www.s-cool.co.uk/topicquicklearn.asploc=ql&topicid=34&quicklearnid=1&subjectid=68&ebt=435&ebn=&ebs=&ebl=&elc=13 definition work = force * distance the * means multiplied by again heres a pretty simple reference high school level http//www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/class/energy/u5l1a.html now we have a lever that is 10 feet long with the fulcrum in the middle. lets say we put a 100 lb. weight on one end. if we move the other end of the lever down by 1 ft we will lift the weight 1 ft. the work out is the work done on the weight which is 100 ft-lbs. the work in is the work done by whatever pushed down on the lever and this is also 100 ft-lbs since we had a force of 100 lbs acting through a distance of 1 ft. thus the efficiency is 100/100 or 1. now shift the fulcrum such that it is 9 feet from the weight and 1 foot from whatever or whoever is pushing on the lever. now to lift the 100 lb weight we will have to push down with a force of 900 lb. you keep claiming that we have now lost efficiency since it now requires more force on the lever than before. however lets do the math. again lets raise the weight 1 ft to keep the work out the same as before at 100 ft-lbs. how far does the lever have to be pushed down to raise the weight 1 ft since the ratio is 19 we have to push the lever down only 1/9th of a foot to raise the weight one foot. so how much work does this require it requires force * distance or 900 lbs * 1/9 ft which equals ... drum roll please ... 100 ft-lbs. now lets calculate our efficiency again. it is equal to 100/100 or 1. doesnt this sound familiar lets see why yes it is the same as when the ratio of the lever was 11. imagine that the lever ratio doesnt change the efficiency at all. - it has to do with how you achieve the overall reduction ratio but it isnt related to the ratio itself that is the point. sure if you use 10 sets of gears to achieve a 21 reduction that will have more parastic loss than using one gear set. however it doesnt matter what the reduction ratio is. it could be 101 or 1001. what matters for frictional loss is how many mechanisms you traverse not what the ratio is. the lower the efficiency of the ratio plus the extra parasitic losses from extra gearsets equals a stupid design. kiss principle. there is no efficiency to a ratio so it cant be lower or higher as it simply doesnt exist. for one who keeps referencing math and physics you have a very meager comprehension of either. for someone that keeps putting me down you have very little grasp of reality. obviously you are set in the ways you were brainwashed into. if you equate understanding basic physics and math with being brainwashed then im guilty as charged. ok i demonstrated pretty clearly above that changing the ratio of a lever has no affect on the efficiency of the lever. it changes the ratio of forces but has zero affect on the efficiency of work/power transfer. now it is your turn to show a clear example that supports your assertion that changing a ratio does change the efficency. matt .

From : bill putney

cavhbc wrote no....im just a low life could have been mech e that instead of sticking with mbb.....thats an aircraft firm you now call airbus btw or sticking with the familys business...thats a dodge dealership on dads side and some higher ups with chrysler over the years on moms just owns a fairly busy hvac outfit thats going commercial and knows what damn idiots most overschooled engineers can be... of course you assume as well that i just walked in here..and you cant be farther from the truth...but its ok...its normal for you to assume as thats the way you are taught. ok - so some of these guys maybe have the valid excuse that they didnt have the educational opportunities. you on the other hand apparently had the means to learn and better yourself but thru laziness or having everything handed to you or whatever chose not to cure the gross ignorance that you have displayed. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote no i dont have to post anything. efficiency the ratio of input to reslutant output. if your output isnt within the design parameter its either more or less efficient than required. overdrive ratios are inheriently inefficient. the proof is the almost mandatory need to shift down to a lower ratio to climb a hill unless youre traveling at a speed far above the posted speed limit. right you dont have to but you also cant. the need to shift down has nothing to do with efficiency and has everything to do with torque multiplication which is an entirely separate topic. the same kind of arguments occur about torque and horsepower because of the same failure on peoples part to understand what they are mathematically and in reality. no the same arguments happen because overeducated idiots like yourself have the misconception you know everything. no were more than happy to have you post some data calculations references to others who have done the calculations etc. the fact is that you cant. the true fact is it wouldnt matter if i did. youd just wave your wallpaper around and find some fault with it most likely my high school education. that is where you are wrong. you post one single reputable reference that supports your claim and ill concede that im wrong and you are right. i dont care what your education level is. i only care that you are claiming physics support for an argument that isnt based on physics. i wouldnt care if you had a ph.d. id still point out the fallacy of your argument. this is the classic i lost the logical argument and now need to bail out statement. no matter what i do you will just keep picking on me. i havent heard that since grade school. matt .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote matt i am not confusing the two. i am discussing the efficiency of od ratios in real world scenarios in regards to input torque and output torque. otoh i believe you are trying to confuse the discussion. no im not. look up any definition of efficiency. i will not involve forces or torques just force in a rotational form. it will involve energy or work or power. gear ratios dont have efficiencies that is the point. rotflmbo!!!! spoken like a well trained engineer. matt ive worked on gear trains that make automotive even semi truck transmissions look like toys and gear ratios do have efficiency quotients. ok post just one technical reference to them. just one and ill admit here in print that i was wrong and you were right. just one... sorry i didnt write any technical manuals at the time. . . i was too deep in grease and oil. i didnt say you had to have written the reference yourself. feel free to post any link book citation sae paper whatever you like. it just has to clearly say that gear or lever ratios change the efficiency of power transfer. of course i also didnt think i was going to have to finish your education for you. yep another ive lost and now how do i save face and get out of this predicament statement. there is no shame in being ignorant but being unwilling to learn is very shameful. matt .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote rotflmbo!!!! well you just stuck your foot in it. according to the summers brothers the car was wind tunnel designed to handle 500 mph then the engineers determined the engine outputs and ratios needed. and they blew it. this could easily be fixed by using a numerically higher rear axle ratio. it has nothing to do with the transmission having a ratio less than 11 it has everything to do with the overall reduction ratio of the driveline being incorrectly matched to the engine for this particular situation top speed on the level. the real life facts call you a liar. besides lowering the final drive ratios would have resulted in an unusable first gear due to the slick salt conditions a slower acceleration and no speed record. you have yet to show a real life fact. that is why most cars are pushed several hundred yards down the run by another vehicle. have you ever actually been to bonneville that is because the topic simply doesnt exist. find us even one reference that talks about a gear ratio efficiency. just one... no. i knew you couldnt but it has been fun watching you try to weasel out of the hole youve dug. like i said and your attitude continues to prove it it wouldnt matter if i did mr bigot engineer. you mean the attitude that simply is asking you to provide even one fact to back up your claim since youve conceded above that you are wrong and unable to support your claim my work here is finished. however bill is usually more persistent than me so hell probably entertain your ignorance a little longer. - matt .

From : ken weitzel

budd cochran wrote snip if a ratio results in a reduced ability to perform an operation or function for a given input the ratio is less efficient. lever anaology the longer the handle side of a lever the more efficiently a person can do a job for a given input force. snip hi... heres the answer for you all. youre simply using the word efficient differently. to the engineer its simply a mathematical formula. ie; 12 volts in and 11 volts out equals blah blah blah. to the mechanic; its more practical. ie; if you cant reach the ignition key to crank the starter then its blah blah blah there it is now all of you sit down have a beer or whatever and get back to helping others and each other fix your cars efficiently ken .

From : matt whiting

ken weitzel wrote budd cochran wrote snip if a ratio results in a reduced ability to perform an operation or function for a given input the ratio is less efficient. lever anaology the longer the handle side of a lever the more efficiently a person can do a job for a given input force. snip hi... heres the answer for you all. youre simply using the word efficient differently. to the engineer its simply a mathematical formula. ie; 12 volts in and 11 volts out equals blah blah blah. to the mechanic; its more practical. ie; if you cant reach the ignition key to crank the starter then its blah blah blah there it is now all of you sit down have a beer or whatever and get back to helping others and each other fix your cars efficiently exactly that is what weve been trying to show budd. he claimed his argument was based on physics so i used the physics definition of efficiency. he then started making up his own definitions but continued to claim they were based on physics. maybe his definition of physics is also other-worldly. - matt .

From : bill putney

max dodge wrote i could explain the difference between accepted and acceptable but something tells me that you still wouldnt get it and/or would want to continue arguing against the obvious. i could explain thats its merely a matter of tense... keep your thumb here - youll need to come back to that sentence of yours. main entry acceptable pronunciation ik-sep-t&-b&l ak- also ek- function adjective 1 capable or worthy of being accepted no compromise would be acceptable oh really what tense of the adjective is that sorry - adjectives do not have tense. main entry accepted function adjective generally approved or used - acceptedly adverb again - adjectives do not have tense. looks like you could have used some more of that there book-learning that you despise so much. but id bet you would argue with merriam webster about it so ill just let it be at that. no - no problem with merriam. whats really sad is you think youre in agreement but are not. here - ill use the two words in a sentence though not sure why im wasting my time 33% is the *accepted* power loss figure on the 300m club for the 42le transmission but those same people complain about that huge amount of inefficiency and think that it is not *acceptable*. if the two words mean the same thing then you have to not believe that it is possible for the same person to accept the 33% figure yet consider it as unaccpetable inefficiency in a transmission. if you cant understand that then there is no hope for you. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

max dodge wrote yep - just like a week or so ago someone here claiming that an alternator with a working regulator would provide fully regulated voltage no matter what - another perpetual motion machine. thats another lie. but keep going im beginning to to see a pattern here. the context was at any rpm which when speaking of an automobile is anything from idle on up and nothing below. but of course instead of using facts you and others stretched things out of context. nothing new there. it *was* in the context of idle and on up. heres part of the dialogue from that thread http//groups.google.com/group/alt.autos/browsefrm/thread/f787fc5ec44ac422/5822519de5a6e323lnk=st&q=amps+volts+increase+group%3arec.autos.makers.chrysler&rnum=1&hl=en#5822519de5a6e323 me a regulator cannot force an alternator to put out full regulated voltage if the alternator is not turning fast enough - often the case at idle on vehicles with typical loads turned on. see how i was talking about real world cars at idle your response false. voltage will be at whatever the vr sets it to be regardless of rpm. current on the other hand may vary due to load and rpm. there are at least two problems with what you said 1 it disagrees with the inarguable fact that the voltage in many cars will drop a little at idle as the engineers designed the alternator speed at the edge of its capability to produce the voltage that the regulator is demanding for the idle speed and nominal loads. 2 you say that voltage will not vary with rpm yet current will. a denial of ohms law. another place in the same thread you said revving the engine will do nothing to increase alternator output voltage; amperage maybe a little. again - an ignorance/denial of the laws of physics primarily and fundamentally ohms law. you made a real world observation but failed to make the real world connection to the laws of physics that control the real world see next paragraph. some of you guys seem to think that laws of physics are an inconvenience that get in the way of understanding real world observations. for one if you had an understanding of the theory the first time you caught your brain thinking i didnt vary the electrical load - i know voltage was constant - the regulator will ensure that. yet i saw the ammeter change when i reved the engine. hmmm - constant load constant voltage yet current changed - that seems to violate ohms law - which i know to be true. i better check this out! so you get your voltmeter out and discover that - ...lo and behold - the voltage actually does increase a little when i rev the engine above idle. well whatdya know - it doesnt violate ohms law - ohms law said that if the load is constant and the current changes the voltage must be changing too. i guess my assumption that the voltage will be fully regulated even at idle speeds was incorrect. so you see how knowing the theory helped you fine tune your erroneous real world understanding i mean the generic you in that sentence - you probably still wont see it and will resent my even illustrating this absolute truth to you. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : steve

matt whiting wrote is the cooling capacity of these two equal to the engine radiator if it is then maybe the 33% loss is closer to reality not even close... but i still highly doubt it. is the fuel economy of this car much worse than similar weight and horsepower cars matt actually i think there is some good evidence that the dc electronic transmission family does have an inefficiency issue compared to others. i havent ever really researched it hard but heres my hunch about why its a bit on the lossy side like all automatic transmissions its gears are in constant mesh so in various different drive ratios by which i mean first gear versus 4th gear etc. some of the whirly bits are spinning at various speeds but arent actually in use. all automatics do that... but what all automatics *dont* do that the a-604 derivatives do is have multi-plate clutches that are released but the drive and driven plates are spinning at different speeds while in cruising gear. i think the shearing of the fluid due to the driving and driven plates spinning at different speeds is a loss mechanism that other transmission designs for example the old rear-drive torqueflites in both 3-speed and 4-speed models do not have. in high gear with an a-904 or a-727 both of the multi-plate clutches are engaged and the whole gear-train is locked into what amounts to a solid shaft and only the bands are released. bands dont exert a lot of shear force on fluid when released- multi-plate clutches do. in the case of the 4-speed versions a500 and a518 the o/d clutch is released in 3rd gear but in 4th its locked and the gears in the od unit are working but the main transmission section is still locked into a solid shaft. .

From : cavhbc

cavhbc wrote no....im just a low life could have been mech e that instead of sticking with mbb.....thats an aircraft firm you now call airbus btw or sticking with the familys business...thats a dodge dealership on dads side and some higher ups with chrysler over the years on moms just owns a fairly busy hvac outfit thats going commercial and knows what damn idiots most overschooled engineers can be... of course you assume as well that i just walked in here..and you cant be farther from the truth...but its ok...its normal for you to assume as thats the way you are taught. ok - so some of these guys maybe have the valid excuse that they didnt have the educational opportunities. you on the other hand apparently had the means to learn and better yourself but thru laziness or having everything handed to you or whatever chose not to cure the gross ignorance that you have displayed. or i chose to keep it all simple for you to understand since most mes i know cant understand the simple fact that two objects can not occupy the same space at the same time. or.... i just wanted to see how easy it was to pull someones strings that was trying to show the world how educated he wasnt...worked well. oh....btw...through laz..what im sorry i cant even begin to spell the word.....lazy you say sure man..whatever. already proved that we knew what direction this would take and how to get it there...you just were not involved in that conversation... never know when you are getting played...so continue at will. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

cavhbc wrote ...since most mes i know cant understand the simple fact that two objects can not occupy the same space at the same time. suggest you start your self-improvement by taking some writing classes. two unnecessary commas cant has an apostrophe. of course youll claim here that you were playing dumb - except its obvious that youre not playing. or.... i just wanted to see how easy it was to pull someones strings that was trying to show the world how educated he wasnt...worked well. someones = possesive - requires apostrophe. wasnt - a contraction - needs an apostrophe. oh....btw...through laz..what im sorry i cant even begin to spell the word.....lazy you say sure man..whatever. already proved that we knew what... you obviously dont understand the meaning of the word proved and i guess thats the proverbial queens we. ...direction this would take and how to get it there...you just were not involved in that conversation... whatever your royal weirdness. never know when you are getting played...so continue at will. you can probably catch some summer classes or if too late to sign up now certainly in the fall. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

cavhbc wrote ...since most mes i know cant understand the simple fact that two objects can not occupy the same space at the same time. suggest you start your self-improvement by taking some writing classes. two unnecessary commas cant has an apostrophe. of course youll claim here that you were playing dumb - except its obvious that youre not playing. or.... i just wanted to see how easy it was to pull someones strings that was trying to show the world how educated he wasnt...worked well. someones = possesive - requires apostrophe. wasnt - a contraction - needs an apostrophe. oh-h-h-h the final insult ... correcting cbhvacs spelling and grammar. thank you for nailing the lid on your coffin. oh....btw...through laz..what im sorry i cant even begin to spell the word.....lazy you say sure man..whatever. already proved that we knew what... you obviously dont understand the meaning of the word proved and i guess thats the proverbial queens we. say heres a thought ... could it be a case of we refuse to play your game and prefer stick with our own ya know like in my threads where you and matt tried to change / confuse the topic in an effort to discredit me but only proved your own bigotries towards what you call the uneducated. before you continue your bigotries remember that the great philosophers scientists artists and inventors of antiquity never had the education you worship. heck the next time you fly remeber it was two uneducated by your standards bicycle mechanics that solved the problems that plauged the great engineers of the era. ...direction this would take and how to get it there...you just were not involved in that conversation... whatever your royal weirdness. never know when you are getting played...so continue at will. you can probably catch some summer classes or if too late to sign up now certainly in the fall. sorry cant speak for cbhvac but personally id rather be a human being and not a lloyd r.parker clone. i have to mention a scene from a movie that always reminds me of so many engineers in the movie the navigator the alien probe ship tries to fill the brain of the navigator completely. when the boy asks what happened the ship replies it leaked. do come back when you cant stay as long will you -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote say heres a thought ... could it be a case of we refuse to play your game and prefer stick with our own ya know like in my threads where you and matt tried to change / confuse the topic in an effort to discredit me but only proved your own bigotries towards what you call the uneducated. you mean the game of showing you an actual examply including the math as i did with the lever example when are you going to post your fact-based counter example that proves your claim this has nothing to do with level of education. post a mathematically and physically correct example that proves your claim and well all admit you are right. still waiting... matt .

From : tbone

budd cochran wrote say heres a thought ... could it be a case of we refuse to play your game and prefer stick with our own ya know like in my threads where you and matt tried to change / confuse the topic in an effort to discredit me but only proved your own bigotries towards what you call the uneducated. you mean the game of showing you an actual examply including the math as i did with the lever example when are you going to post your fact-based counter example that proves your claim this has nothing to do with level of education. post a mathematically and physically correct example that proves your claim and well all admit you are right. still waiting... and if you actually expect him to back his crap up you will continue to wait for a looooooooooonnng time. after all it is much easier to just call you and anyone else who disagrees with him and actually backs it up a bigot. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : bill putney

matt whiting wrote budd cochran wrote say heres a thought ... could it be a case of we refuse to play your game and prefer stick with our own ya know like in my threads where you and matt tried to change / confuse the topic in an effort to discredit me but only proved your own bigotries towards what you call the uneducated. you mean the game of showing you an actual examply including the math as i did with the lever example when are you going to post your fact-based counter example that proves your claim this has nothing to do with level of education. post a mathematically and physically correct example that proves your claim and well all admit you are right. still waiting... matt hey matt - whens the next meeting of the pwaddpwed people who absolutely despise and detest people without engineering degrees club can we do it at your house this time bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

budd cochran wrote cavhbc wrote ...since most mes i know cant understand the simple fact that two objects can not occupy the same space at the same time. suggest you start your self-improvement by taking some writing classes. two unnecessary commas cant has an apostrophe. of course youll claim here that you were playing dumb - except its obvious that youre not playing. or.... i just wanted to see how easy it was to pull someones strings that was trying to show the world how educated he wasnt...worked well. someones = possesive - requires apostrophe. wasnt - a contraction - needs an apostrophe. oh-h-h-h the final insult ... correcting cbhvacs spelling and grammar. thank you for nailing the lid on your coffin. whatever. he reminds me of a friend i had in high school - a bunch of us were standing around one day we see a cop sitting beside the road with a radar gun in a 35 mph zone and this friend - lets call him bubba - says to us hey guys - i can make that cop behave any way i want. watch this - ill bet i can make him pull me over and give me a ticket! so bubba hops on his honda bike and goes flying by the cop at 50 mph with his middle finger held high in the air. sure enough the cop pulls him and gives him a ticket. after it was over bubba comes over to us all grinning and acting the fool and says see! i told ya i could make that cop do what i wanted him to! what a real idiot he was that he allowed me to make him do that! and were all standing around going bubba - youre really the idiot! another time bubba says hey guys - that man over there is so dumb - i bet i can make him punch me in the nose! so he goes over to the guy and says something about the guys sister. then bubba comes back with his hand cupped under his nose dripping blood and says see - whatdi tell ya! what an idiot that guy was! actually i made those stories up but they illustrate the point. ...say heres a thought ... could it be a case of we refuse to play your game and prefer stick with our own ya know like in my threads where you and matt tried to change / confuse the topic in an effort to discredit me but only proved your own bigotries towards what you call the uneducated. in all candidness budd i dont think anyone could really follow your train of thought in that post. we were giving you the benefit of the doubt and making our best attempt at making the proverbial silk purse out of a sows ear by responding to it and trying to bring it back into reality. i dont think it was a coincidence that matt and i guessed our way to the same conclusions about what the hell you were trying to say in relation to the real world about levers gear ratios and transmission efficiency. and of course your buddy bubba - err - i mean - cavhbc decides to make a word game out of it. you may in fact have had a valid point but your poor way of expressing it and relating it to reality was hardly coherent. thats the straight up. before you continue your bigotries remember that the great philosophers scientists artists and inventors of antiquity never had the education you worship. heck the next time you fly remeber it was two uneducated by your standards bicycle mechanics that solved the problems that plauged the great engineers of the era. so let me see if i follow your logic here athe great philosophers scientists wright bros. etc. of antiquity did not have modern engineering education. b budd cochran cavhbc and max dodge do not have a modern engineering education. c therefore since budd cochran cavhbc and max dodge also dont have a modern engineering education they are all great philosophers scientists and possibly even the wright bros. themselves only problem - there are only two wright bros. of kitty hawk fame. while you guys are signing up for your english and engineering classes dont be frustrated - you can start out at a junior or commnuity college and if you can keep up and maintain your grades you can transfer to a 4 year degree college in a short while - just keep at it check out the courses in logic - you can probably fit them into your electives. ...i have to mention a scene from a movie that always reminds me of so many engineers in the movie the navigator the alien probe ship tries to fill the brain of the navigator completely. when the boy asks what happened the ship replies it leaked. i guess thats one of those things where you had to be there to appreciate it. what movie am i thinking of that reminds me of the three of you hint - jim carey is in it strange - once again as with the wright bros. there are only two main characters in that but three of you. some kind of pattern i guess. well there *was* this comedy team of 3 in the 40s and 50s... bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : steve

bill putney wrote hey matt - whens the next meeting of the pwaddpwed people who absolutely despise and detest people without engineering degrees club can we do it at your house this time if you let me join you can have it at my place -p i cant believe the size of the boulder these two have on their shoulders. im starting to wonder if they both are engineering flunk-outs. .

From : max dodge

i cant believe the size of the boulder these two have on their shoulders. im starting to wonder if they both are engineering flunk-outs. nope were both engineering revisionists because the engineers didnt build it right in the first place. then we see engineers claiming they know it all recommending poor procedure. its not about the boulders on our shoulders its about the attitude in your skulls. depending on your level of education its very possible i have more than you do but thats not an issue. maybe youll get pissed i even mentioned it.... and if ya do you might actually understand where were coming from. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author bill putney wrote hey matt - whens the next meeting of the pwaddpwed people who absolutely despise and detest people without engineering degrees club can we do it at your house this time if you let me join you can have it at my place -p i cant believe the size of the boulder these two have on their shoulders. im starting to wonder if they both are engineering flunk-outs. .

From : tbone

budd cochran wrote cavhbc wrote ...since most mes i know cant understand the simple fact that two objects can not occupy the same space at the same time. suggest you start your self-improvement by taking some writing classes. two unnecessary commas cant has an apostrophe. of course youll claim here that you were playing dumb - except its obvious that youre not playing. or.... i just wanted to see how easy it was to pull someones strings that was trying to show the world how educated he wasnt...worked well. someones = possesive - requires apostrophe. wasnt - a contraction - needs an apostrophe. oh-h-h-h the final insult ... correcting cbhvacs spelling and grammar. thank you for nailing the lid on your coffin. whatever. he reminds me of a friend i had in high school - a bunch of us were standing around one day we see a cop sitting beside the road with a radar gun in a 35 mph zone and this friend - lets call him bubba - says to us hey guys - i can make that cop behave any way i want. watch this - ill bet i can make him pull me over and give me a ticket! so bubba hops on his honda bike and goes flying by the cop at 50 mph with his middle finger held high in the air. sure enough the cop pulls him and gives him a ticket. after it was over bubba comes over to us all grinning and acting the fool and says see! i told ya i could make that cop do what i wanted him to! what a real idiot he was that he allowed me to make him do that! and were all standing around going bubba - youre really the idiot! another time bubba says hey guys - that man over there is so dumb - i bet i can make him punch me in the nose! so he goes over to the guy and says something about the guys sister. then bubba comes back with his hand cupped under his nose dripping blood and says see - whatdi tell ya! what an idiot that guy was! actually i made those stories up but they illustrate the point. ...say heres a thought ... could it be a case of we refuse to play your game and prefer stick with our own ya know like in my threads where you and matt tried to change / confuse the topic in an effort to discredit me but only proved your own bigotries towards what you call the uneducated. in all candidness budd i dont think anyone could really follow your train of thought in that post. we were giving you the benefit of the doubt and making our best attempt at making the proverbial silk purse out of a sows ear by responding to it and trying to bring it back into reality. i dont think it was a coincidence that matt and i guessed our way to the same conclusions about what the hell you were trying to say in relation to the real world about levers gear ratios and transmission efficiency. and of course your buddy bubba - err - i mean - cavhbc decides to make a word game out of it. you may in fact have had a valid point but your poor way of expressing it and relating it to reality was hardly coherent. thats the straight up. before you continue your bigotries remember that the great philosophers scientists artists and inventors of antiquity never had the education you worship. heck the next time you fly remeber it was two uneducated by your standards bicycle mechanics that solved the problems that plauged the great engineers of the era. so let me see if i follow your logic here athe great philosophers scientists wright bros. etc. of antiquity did not have modern engineering education. b budd cochran cavhbc and max dodge do not have a modern engineering education. c therefore since budd cochran cavhbc and max dodge also dont have a modern engineering education they are all great philosophers scientists and possibly even the wright bros. themselves only problem - there are only two wright bros. of kitty hawk fame. while you guys are signing up for your english and engineering classes dont be frustrated - you can start out at a junior or commnuity college and if you can keep up and maintain your grades you can transfer to a 4 year degree college in a short while - just keep at it check out the courses in logic - you can probably fit them into your electives. ...i have to mention a scene from a movie that always reminds me of so many engineers in the movie the navigator the alien probe ship tries to fill the brain of the navigator completely. when the boy asks what happened the ship replies it leaked. i guess thats one of those things where you had to be there to appreciate it. what movie am i thinking of that reminds me of the three of you hint - jim carey is in it strange - once again as with the wright bros. there are only two main characters in that but three of you. some kind of pattern i guess. well there *was* this comedy team of 3 in the 40s and 50s... lol lol lol!!! -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

then you do not know all engineers do you well budd unless you do what exactly is your point -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : joe pfeiffer

bill putney bptn@kinez.net writes hey matt - whens the next meeting of the pwaddpwed people who absolutely despise and detest people without engineering degrees club can we do it at your house this time hmmm... im not sure whether im despised here or not. i dont have an engineering degree but i am in tau beta pi.... -- joseph j. pfeiffer jr. ph.d. phone -- 505 646-1605 department of computer science fax -- 505 646-1002 new mexico state university http//www.cs.nmsu.edu/pfeiffer .

From : tbone

budd cochran wrote matt i am not confusing the two. i am discussing the efficiency of od ratios in real world scenarios in regards to input torque and output torque. otoh i believe you are trying to confuse the discussion. no im not. look up any definition of efficiency. i will not involve forces or torques just force in a rotational form. it will involve energy or work or power. gear ratios dont have efficiencies that is the point. rotflmbo!!!! spoken like a well trained engineer. i guess thats because unlike you he is correct. matt ive worked on gear trains that make automotive even semi truck transmissions look like toys and gear ratios do have efficiency quotients. funny how you claim to be this great author and cant even figure this out. applications of gear ratios have efficiencies not gear ratios themselves. you are confused. you need to refresh your memory on some basic physics definitions. no that would be you. denial is a wonderful thing. unfortunately the cost is that it tends to make the one using it look foolish. and again i say you need to look up the definition of work and apply it to both sides of your transmission. assume for the moment that there are no frictional losses since the discussion here is the gear ratio itself. make up your mind . . .parasitic losses or no parasitic losses . . .never mind. the fact you keep changing the rules means youve lost the discussion. it this just another desperate act on your part it must be as it makes no sense otherwise. now try different gear ratios and compute the work at the output vs. the input and divide to get the efficiency. show us how different ratios change the efficiency. the only requirement is that you must use the correct definition of efficiency which you havent thus far. look it up it is in any high school physics book or easily available via google. why youre not using the laws of physics why should i get real budd this is a complete copout. he has supplied actual numbers and proven formulas. wheres yours -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

lol lol lol!!! -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving the funny part is that tbne is trying to cozy up to the engineers while at the same time thinking that helium has no weight. discuss amongst yourselves. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author budd cochran wrote cavhbc wrote ...since most mes i know cant understand the simple fact that two objects can not occupy the same space at the same time. suggest you start your self-improvement by taking some writing classes. two unnecessary commas cant has an apostrophe. of course youll claim here that you were playing dumb - except its obvious that youre not playing. or.... i just wanted to see how easy it was to pull someones strings that was trying to show the world how educated he wasnt...worked well. someones = possesive - requires apostrophe. wasnt - a contraction - needs an apostrophe. oh-h-h-h the final insult ... correcting cbhvacs spelling and grammar. thank you for nailing the lid on your coffin. whatever. he reminds me of a friend i had in high school - a bunch of us were standing around one day we see a cop sitting beside the road with a radar gun in a 35 mph zone and this friend - lets call him bubba - says to us hey guys - i can make that cop behave any way i want. watch this - ill bet i can make him pull me over and give me a ticket! so bubba hops on his honda bike and goes flying by the cop at 50 mph with his middle finger held high in the air. sure enough the cop pulls him and gives him a ticket. after it was over bubba comes over to us all grinning and acting the fool and says see! i told ya i could make that cop do what i wanted him to! what a real idiot he was that he allowed me to make him do that! and were all standing around going bubba - youre really the idiot! another time bubba says hey guys - that man over there is so dumb - i bet i can make him punch me in the nose! so he goes over to the guy and says something about the guys sister. then bubba comes back with his hand cupped under his nose dripping blood and says see - whatdi tell ya! what an idiot that guy was! actually i made those stories up but they illustrate the point. ...say heres a thought ... could it be a case of we refuse to play your game and prefer stick with our own ya know like in my threads where you and matt tried to change / confuse the topic in an effort to discredit me but only proved your own bigotries towards what you call the uneducated. in all candidness budd i dont think anyone could really follow your train of thought in that post. we were giving you the benefit of the doubt and making our best attempt at making the proverbial silk purse out of a sows ear by responding to it and trying to bring it back into reality. i dont think it was a coincidence that matt and i guessed our way to the same conclusions about what the hell you were trying to say in relation to the real world about levers gear ratios and transmission efficiency. and of course your buddy bubba - err - i mean - cavhbc decides to make a word game out of it. you may in fact have had a valid point but your poor way of expressing it and relating it to reality was hardly coherent. thats the straight up. before you continue your bigotries remember that the great philosophers scientists artists and inventors of antiquity never had the education you worship. heck the next time you fly remeber it was two uneducated by your standards bicycle mechanics that solved the problems that plauged the great engineers of the era. so let me see if i follow your logic here athe great philosophers scientists wright bros. etc. of antiquity did not have modern engineering education. b budd cochran cavhbc and max dodge do not have a modern engineering education. c therefore since budd cochran cavhbc and max dodge also dont have a modern engineering education they are all great philosophers scientists and possibly even the wright bros. themselves only problem - there are only two wright bros. of kitty hawk fame. while you guys are signing up for your english and engineering classes dont be frustrated - you can start out at a junior or commnuity college and if you can keep up and maintain your grades you can transfer to a 4 year degree college in a short while - just keep at it check out the courses in logic - you can probably fit them into your electives. ...i have to mention a scene from a movie that always reminds me of so many engineers in the movie the navigator the alien probe ship tries to fill the brain of the navigator completely. when the boy asks what happened the ship replies it leaked. i guess thats one of those things where you had to be there to appreciate it. what movie am i thinking of that reminds me of the three

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

gee tom what could your purpose in replying to my post be except a childish attempt to start an argument which isnt going to happen. now go play somewhere else. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams budd cochran wrote matt i am not confusing the two. i am discussing the efficiency of od ratios in real world scenarios in regards to input torque and output torque. otoh i believe you are trying to confuse the discussion. no im not. look up any definition of efficiency. i will not involve forces or torques just force in a rotational form. it will involve energy or work or power. gear ratios dont have efficiencies that is the point. rotflmbo!!!! spoken like a well trained engineer. i guess thats because unlike you he is correct. matt ive worked on gear trains that make automotive even semi truck transmissions look like toys and gear ratios do have efficiency quotients. funny how you claim to be this great author and cant even figure this out. applications of gear ratios have efficiencies not gear ratios themselves. you are confused. you need to refresh your memory on some basic physics definitions. no that would be you. denial is a wonderful thing. unfortunately the cost is that it tends to make the one using it look foolish. and again i say you need to look up the definition of work and apply it to both sides of your transmission. assume for the moment that there are no frictional losses since the discussion here is the gear ratio itself. make up your mind . . .parasitic losses or no parasitic losses . . .never mind. the fact you keep changing the rules means youve lost the discussion. it this just another desperate act on your part it must be as it makes no sense otherwise. now try different gear ratios and compute the work at the output vs. the input and divide to get the efficiency. show us how different ratios change the efficiency. the only requirement is that you must use the correct definition of efficiency which you havent thus far. look it up it is in any high school physics book or easily available via google. why youre not using the laws of physics why should i get real budd this is a complete copout. he has supplied actual numbers and proven formulas. wheres yours -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : matt whiting

steve wrote bill putney wrote hey matt - whens the next meeting of the pwaddpwed people who absolutely despise and detest people without engineering degrees club can we do it at your house this time if you let me join you can have it at my place -p i cant believe the size of the boulder these two have on their shoulders. im starting to wonder if they both are engineering flunk-outs. your guess is as good as mine. im guessing that budd simply got caught spouting this my argument is based on physics and math and is now embarrassed by the fact that i showed him quite clearly i think and with references that his argument was faulty from a physics perspective. sure if you want to make up your own definition of efficiency then you can argue any conclusion your heart desires. and im perfectly ok with that. just dont claim that your argument is based on physics when your definitions arent based on physics. it is probably too bad that he didnt go to school for engineering. he certainly has a large enough ego and is argumentative enough to possibly be engineer material. - matt .

From : bill putney

matt whiting wrote steve wrote bill putney wrote hey matt - whens the next meeting of the pwaddpwed people who absolutely despise and detest people without engineering degrees club can we do it at your house this time if you let me join you can have it at my place -p i cant believe the size of the boulder these two have on their shoulders. im starting to wonder if they both are engineering flunk-outs. your guess is as good as mine. im guessing that budd simply got caught spouting this my argument is based on physics and math and is now embarrassed by the fact that i showed him quite clearly i think and with references that his argument was faulty from a physics perspective. sure if you want to make up your own definition of efficiency then you can argue any conclusion your heart desires. and im perfectly ok with that. just dont claim that your argument is based on physics when your definitions arent based on physics. when you call them on it then they just claim that the laws of physics have nothing to do with reality and how dare you lord your education over them by hitting them over the head with said worthless laws. so i guess were back to the boulders on the shoulders. hell - ive got a 4-year engineering degree and a professional licenes and for that im accused of throwing all my high and mighty degrees and qualifications in their face. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : matt whiting

joe pfeiffer wrote bill putney bptn@kinez.net writes hey matt - whens the next meeting of the pwaddpwed people who absolutely despise and detest people without engineering degrees club can we do it at your house this time hmmm... im not sure whether im despised here or not. i dont have an engineering degree but i am in tau beta pi.... but you have a ph.d. which is even worse than an engineering degree!! however well accept you as an honorary member anyway. - matt .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

just out of curiosity what are yours and matts engineering degrees in not that i believe for one minute either of you would tell the truth but just curiosity. oh btw i backed out of the conversation because it was no longer the topic i started thanks to you two not because im wrong. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams matt whiting wrote steve wrote bill putney wrote hey matt - whens the next meeting of the pwaddpwed people who absolutely despise and detest people without engineering degrees club can we do it at your house this time if you let me join you can have it at my place -p i cant believe the size of the boulder these two have on their shoulders. im starting to wonder if they both are engineering flunk-outs. your guess is as good as mine. im guessing that budd simply got caught spouting this my argument is based on physics and math and is now embarrassed by the fact that i showed him quite clearly i think and with references that his argument was faulty from a physics perspective. sure if you want to make up your own definition of efficiency then you can argue any conclusion your heart desires. and im perfectly ok with that. just dont claim that your argument is based on physics when your definitions arent based on physics. when you call them on it then they just claim that the laws of physics have nothing to do with reality and how dare you lord your education over them by hitting them over the head with said worthless laws. so i guess were back to the boulders on the shoulders. hell - ive got a 4-year engineering degree and a professional licenes and for that im accused of throwing all my high and mighty degrees and qualifications in their face. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : max dodge

hell - ive got a 4-year engineering degree and a professional licenes and for that im accused of throwing all my high and mighty degrees and qualifications in their face. when you use that fact as a defense of your inadequate troubleshooting technique yes thats exactly what it is. i have a degree so i must know how to fix it. only four years -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author matt whiting wrote steve wrote bill putney wrote hey matt - whens the next meeting of the pwaddpwed people who absolutely despise and detest people without engineering degrees club can we do it at your house this time if you let me join you can have it at my place -p i cant believe the size of the boulder these two have on their shoulders. im starting to wonder if they both are engineering flunk-outs. your guess is as good as mine. im guessing that budd simply got caught spouting this my argument is based on physics and math and is now embarrassed by the fact that i showed him quite clearly i think and with references that his argument was faulty from a physics perspective. sure if you want to make up your own definition of efficiency then you can argue any conclusion your heart desires. and im perfectly ok with that. just dont claim that your argument is based on physics when your definitions arent based on physics. when you call them on it then they just claim that the laws of physics have nothing to do with reality and how dare you lord your education over them by hitting them over the head with said worthless laws. so i guess were back to the boulders on the shoulders. hell - ive got a 4-year engineering degree and a professional licenes and for that im accused of throwing all my high and mighty degrees and qualifications in their face. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : cavhbc

matt whiting wrote steve wrote bill putney wrote hey matt - whens the next meeting of the pwaddpwed people who absolutely despise and detest people without engineering degrees club can we do it at your house this time if you let me join you can have it at my place -p i cant believe the size of the boulder these two have on their shoulders. im starting to wonder if they both are engineering flunk-outs. your guess is as good as mine. im guessing that budd simply got caught spouting this my argument is based on physics and math and is now embarrassed by the fact that i showed him quite clearly i think and with references that his argument was faulty from a physics perspective. sure if you want to make up your own definition of efficiency then you can argue any conclusion your heart desires. and im perfectly ok with that. just dont claim that your argument is based on physics when your definitions arent based on physics. when you call them on it then they just claim that the laws of physics have nothing to do with reality and how dare you lord your education over them by hitting them over the head with said worthless laws. so i guess were back to the boulders on the shoulders. hell - ive got a 4-year engineering degree and a professional licenes and for that im accused of throwing all my high and mighty degrees and qualifications in their face. alas with all that you still cant hit f7 or something to check that spellin after you went after mine....lol sexual intellectuals... spelling errors left in on purpose bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote just out of curiosity what are yours and matts engineering degrees in not that i believe for one minute either of you would tell the truth but just curiosity. i have undergraduate degrees in cs and ee and am currently in a graduate program in structural engineering. im a licensed engineer in ny a fact which you can easily verify at their web site if you are really interested. the only one not telling the truth around here has been you. you claimed that gear ratios possess an attribute called efficiency and you said it was based on physics and mathematics. you have done nothing to show that is true and ive showed that it is not true so who is telling the truth so now what is your educational background oh btw i backed out of the conversation because it was no longer the topic i started thanks to you two not because im wrong. you missed your true calling ... as a comedian. - matt .

From : steve

max dodge wrote i cant believe the size of the boulder these two have on their shoulders. im starting to wonder if they both are engineering flunk-outs. nope were both engineering revisionists because the engineers didnt build it right in the first place. ive revised a lot of sh*tty engineering in products ive bought also. i would never claim that it doesnt happen. but if youve actually worked in engineering you quickly learn that a lot of the sh*tty engineering that gets loose in the world isnt due to engineers its due to accountants saying thats great. now go redesign it so itll still pretty much work but cost half as much. and the result of management backing them up. then we see engineers claiming they know it all recommending poor procedure. its not about the boulders on our shoulders its about the attitude in your skulls. riiiiight.... suuuuuure..... depending on your level of education its very possible i have more than you do but thats not an issue. maybe youll get pissed i even mentioned it.... and if ya do you might actually understand where were coming from. education really doesnt matter. innate common sense is worth as much or more than education alone. saying you wouldnt understand it youre an engineer... displays a complete lack of innate common sense. .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote just out of curiosity what are yours and matts engineering degrees in not that i believe for one minute either of you would tell the truth but just curiosity. i have undergraduate degrees in cs and ee and am currently in a graduate program in structural engineering. im a licensed engineer in ny a fact which you can easily verify at their web site if you are really interested. the only one not telling the truth around here has been you. you claimed that gear ratios possess an attribute called efficiency and you said it was based on physics and mathematics. you have done nothing to show that is true and ive showed that it is not true so who is telling the truth many times ive been informed that nothing posted in groups by anyone is to be completely believed even with a claim of a website for verification. so ... you dont have any automotive degrees at all if your claim is true and that means youre no better educated on automotive engineering than i am though i do have the advantage of grease stained hands. so now what is your educational background i studied hard and passed kindergarten after 15 years and dad was right there beside me to get his degree as well. iow ive mentioned it and you insulted me for it. oh btw i backed out of the conversation because it was no longer the topic i started thanks to you two not because im wrong. you missed your true calling ... as a comedian. - thank you for the compliment i do try to bring a smile to at least one face a day even yours. now i wonder if your cohort will admit to his education. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : bill putney

cavhbc wrote spelling errors left in on purpose oh man! you baited me. well you win. i am forced to admit that you are a master-baiter bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote just out of curiosity what are yours and matts engineering degrees in not that i believe for one minute either of you would tell the truth but just curiosity. i have undergraduate degrees in cs and ee and am currently in a graduate program in structural engineering. im a licensed engineer in ny a fact which you can easily verify at their web site if you are really interested. the only one not telling the truth around here has been you. you claimed that gear ratios possess an attribute called efficiency and you said it was based on physics and mathematics. you have done nothing to show that is true and ive showed that it is not true so who is telling the truth many times ive been informed that nothing posted in groups by anyone is to be completely believed even with a claim of a website for verification. you can easily verify what i wrote using any college level high school level even physics text book. are you claiming they are all wrong also and only you are right talk about an ego. so ... you dont have any automotive degrees at all if your claim is true and that means youre no better educated on automotive engineering than i am though i do have the advantage of grease stained hands. ive never heard of an automotive degree. what university offers that and this discussion doesnt require anything other than basic physics knowledge. nothing uniquely automotive about it. how does grease on ones hands contribute to a discussion based on physics i have greasy hands fairly often but the grease while making my skin less dry in the winter hasnt seemed to contribute much to my understanding of physics. and it doesnt seem to have contributed much to yours either. so now what is your educational background i studied hard and passed kindergarten after 15 years and dad was right there beside me to get his degree as well. iow ive mentioned it and you insulted me for it. i never insulted you regarding your education. oh btw i backed out of the conversation because it was no longer the topic i started thanks to you two not because im wrong. you missed your true calling ... as a comedian. - thank you for the compliment i do try to bring a smile to at least one face a day even yours. now i wonder if your cohort will admit to his education. he has in the past so i suspect he will again. now if you would just do the same. im still waiting for your physics based analysis of the efficiency of a gear ratio.... matt .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

max dodge wrote i cant believe the size of the boulder these two have on their shoulders. im starting to wonder if they both are engineering flunk-outs. nope were both engineering revisionists because the engineers didnt build it right in the first place. ive revised a lot of sh*tty engineering in products ive bought also. i would never claim that it doesnt happen. but if youve actually worked in engineering you quickly learn that a lot of the sh*tty engineering that gets loose in the world isnt due to engineers its due to accountants saying thats great. now go redesign it so itll still pretty much work but cost half as much. and the result of management backing them up. while that may be true there are also engineers out there that insist on fixing things till theyre broken like the a-604 transmission. then we see engineers claiming they know it all recommending poor procedure. its not about the boulders on our shoulders its about the attitude in your skulls. riiiiight.... suuuuuure..... take another look at the slams directed at those with high school educations in this thread. i know maxs educational background and he and i have enjoyed a few excellent discussions without anyone holding a diploma over anyones head. depending on your level of education its very possible i have more than you do but thats not an issue. maybe youll get pissed i even mentioned it.... and if ya do you might actually understand where were coming from. education really doesnt matter. innate common sense is worth as much or more than education alone. saying you wouldnt understand it youre an engineer... displays a complete lack of innate common sense. not all of the engineers that i have met are willing to admit one of their ilk could screw up or worse admit that they screwed up. some are so full of their diplomas theres no room for common sense and therfore they cant understand basic concepts or non-technical explanations. hence the phrase you wouldnt understand youre an engineer. personally i use it only on those that have the misbelief that god should ask them for advice. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : matt whiting

max dodge wrote no kidding so common sense says you need to find a voltage from which to drop if in fact you are looking for a voltage drop over a circuit. now lets assume you know there is a voltage drop in the circuit but you dont know if its the battery or the circuit itself. do you repeatedly test the circuit or do you test the battery under load to see if it has the voltage drop the engineers decided there was no reason to set a baseline voltage or a baseline drop at the battery with which to compare the circuit voltage drop. id call that lacking in common sense. you are really into this revisionist thing arent you none of us said that there was no reason to determine the voltage at the battery. we simply said that wasnt the most logical place to start troubleshooting. you seem to lack logic as well as common sense. saying you wouldnt understand it youre an engineer... displays a complete lack of innate common sense. sincei never said that maybe you ought to go back and see what i really wrote. and likewise you should go back and read what we really wrote. you wont find a statement that says that there is no reason to ever test the battery voltage. matt .

From : matt whiting

bill putney wrote max dodge wrote ...the engineers decided there was no reason to set a baseline voltage or a baseline drop at the battery with which to compare the circuit voltage drop. id call that lacking in common sense. and you would be right if that were only true. please stop the lying. lying and whining are easy and that is why max and budd seem to fall back on those techniques. actually researching a subject and learning are much harder. matt .

From : max dodge

my understanding is that this was the result of iacocca informing the engineers that the 604 was going to be offered in the fall and not listening to any nonsense about it not being ready. and yet 15 years later its still not a terrific transmission. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom spam.net writes while that may be true there are also engineers out there that insist on fixing things till theyre broken like the a-604 transmission. my understanding is that this was the result of iacocca informing the engineers that the 604 was going to be offered in the fall and not listening to any nonsense about it not being ready. -- joseph j. pfeiffer jr. ph.d. phone -- 505 646-1605 department of computer science fax -- 505 646-1002 new mexico state university http//www.cs.nmsu.edu/pfeiffer .

From : max dodge

lying and whining are easy and that is why max and budd seem to fall back on those techniques. actually researching a subject and learning are much harder. which might be why you gentlemen are perceived as you are; you havent actually done the work in the field on a scale which would qualify you as having done the research and repetitive learning that expedites these solutions. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author bill putney wrote max dodge wrote ...the engineers decided there was no reason to set a baseline voltage or a baseline drop at the battery with which to compare the circuit voltage drop. id call that lacking in common sense. and you would be right if that were only true. please stop the lying. lying and whining are easy and that is why max and budd seem to fall back on those techniques. actually researching a subject and learning are much harder. matt .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote just out of curiosity what are yours and matts engineering degrees in not that i believe for one minute either of you would tell the truth but just curiosity. i have undergraduate degrees in cs and ee and am currently in a graduate program in structural engineering. im a licensed engineer in ny a fact which you can easily verify at their web site if you are really interested. the only one not telling the truth around here has been you. you claimed that gear ratios possess an attribute called efficiency and you said it was based on physics and mathematics. you have done nothing to show that is true and ive showed that it is not true so who is telling the truth many times ive been informed that nothing posted in groups by anyone is to be completely believed even with a claim of a website for verification. you can easily verify what i wrote using any college level high school level even physics text book. are you claiming they are all wrong also and only you are right talk about an ego. no i was talking about verifying your claimed education you know the one you lord over all lesser in your opinion creatures. so ... you dont have any automotive degrees at all if your claim is true and that means youre no better educated on automotive engineering than i am though i do have the advantage of grease stained hands. ive never heard of an automotive degree. theres a lot youve never heard of. what university offers that and this discussion doesnt require anything other than basic physics knowledge. nothing uniquely automotive about it. how does grease on ones hands contribute to a discussion based on physics i have greasy hands fairly often but the grease while making my skin less dry in the winter hasnt seemed to contribute much to my understanding of physics. that kind of grease doesnt improve your knowledge of what works and doesnt work either. and it doesnt seem to have contributed much to yours either. apparently it given me a more realistic education than yours. so now what is your educational background i studied hard and passed kindergarten after 15 years and dad was right there beside me to get his degree as well. iow ive mentioned it and you insulted me for it. i never insulted you regarding your education. yes you slammed high school education . . .ya know that school you had to somehow get thru so you could go to wherever it is went. oh btw i backed out of the conversation because it was no longer the topic i started thanks to you two not because im wrong. you missed your true calling ... as a comedian. - thank you for the compliment i do try to bring a smile to at least one face a day even yours. now i wonder if your cohort will admit to his education. he has in the past so i suspect he will again. now if you would just do the same. i have but you lack the common sense to understand. im still waiting for your physics based analysis of the efficiency of a gear ratio.... im still waiting for you to get back on the original topic but thatll never happen. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote just out of curiosity what are yours and matts engineering degrees in not that i believe for one minute either of you would tell the truth but just curiosity. i have undergraduate degrees in cs and ee and am currently in a graduate program in structural engineering. im a licensed engineer in ny a fact which you can easily verify at their web site if you are really interested. the only one not telling the truth around here has been you. you claimed that gear ratios possess an attribute called efficiency and you said it was based on physics and mathematics. you have done nothing to show that is true and ive showed that it is not true so who is telling the truth many times ive been informed that nothing posted in groups by anyone is to be completely believed even with a claim of a website for verification. you can easily verify what i wrote using any college level high school level even physics text book. are you claiming they are all wrong also and only you are right talk about an ego. no i was talking about verifying your claimed education you know the one you lord over all lesser in your opinion creatures. show even one post where i did that. oh i forgot you are the one that makes wild claims and then cant back any of them up. so ... you dont have any automotive degrees at all if your claim is true and that means youre no better educated on automotive engineering than i am though i do have the advantage of grease stained hands. ive never heard of an automotive degree. theres a lot youve never heard of. true but much less than what youve not heard of apparently. again post one piece of information that shows this automotiv degree that you talk about. what university offers that and this discussion doesnt require anything other than basic physics knowledge. nothing uniquely automotive about it. how does grease on ones hands contribute to a discussion based on physics i have greasy hands fairly often but the grease while making my skin less dry in the winter hasnt seemed to contribute much to my understanding of physics. that kind of grease doesnt improve your knowledge of what works and doesnt work either. yes youve aptly demonstrated that. and it doesnt seem to have contributed much to yours either. apparently it given me a more realistic education than yours. so now what is your educational background i studied hard and passed kindergarten after 15 years and dad was right there beside me to get his degree as well. iow ive mentioned it and you insulted me for it. i never insulted you regarding your education. yes you slammed high school education . . .ya know that school you had to somehow get thru so you could go to wherever it is went. sorry but i didnt. you again are making a claim that is a lie and which you cant back up. oh btw i backed out of the conversation because it was no longer the topic i started thanks to you two not because im wrong. you missed your true calling ... as a comedian. - thank you for the compliment i do try to bring a smile to at least one face a day even yours. now i wonder if your cohort will admit to his education. he has in the past so i suspect he will again. now if you would just do the same. i have but you lack the common sense to understand. im still waiting for your physics based analysis of the efficiency of a gear ratio.... im still waiting for you to get back on the original topic but thatll never happen. why dont you remind us what that original topic was matt .

From : joe pfeiffer

budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom spam.net writes while that may be true there are also engineers out there that insist on fixing things till theyre broken like the a-604 transmission. my understanding is that this was the result of iacocca informing the engineers that the 604 was going to be offered in the fall and not listening to any nonsense about it not being ready. -- joseph j. pfeiffer jr. ph.d. phone -- 505 646-1605 department of computer science fax -- 505 646-1002 new mexico state university http//www.cs.nmsu.edu/pfeiffer .

From : max dodge

ive revised a lot of sh*tty engineering in products ive bought also. i would never claim that it doesnt happen. but if youve actually worked in engineering you quickly learn that a lot of the sh*tty engineering that gets loose in the world isnt due to engineers its due to accountants saying thats great. now go redesign it so itll still pretty much work but cost half as much. and the result of management backing them up. no argument here. but it wasnt what i objected about either. then we see engineers claiming they know it all recommending poor procedure. its not about the boulders on our shoulders its about the attitude in your skulls. riiiiight.... suuuuuure..... well im sure if you cared to do so youd find that at least one engineer on here posted his credentials in a i should know im an.... sort of way. i dont really care what you hold on your walls sayinh where you went to school. if your troubleshooting process is wrong its wrong and no credentials will save your ass. education really doesnt matter. innate common sense is worth as much or more than education alone. no kidding so common sense says you need to find a voltage from which to drop if in fact you are looking for a voltage drop over a circuit. now lets assume you know there is a voltage drop in the circuit but you dont know if its the battery or the circuit itself. do you repeatedly test the circuit or do you test the battery under load to see if it has the voltage drop the engineers decided there was no reason to set a baseline voltage or a baseline drop at the battery with which to compare the circuit voltage drop. id call that lacking in common sense. saying you wouldnt understand it youre an engineer... displays a complete lack of innate common sense. sincei never said that maybe you ought to go back and see what i really wrote. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote i cant believe the size of the boulder these two have on their shoulders. im starting to wonder if they both are engineering flunk-outs. nope were both engineering revisionists because the engineers didnt build it right in the first place. ive revised a lot of sh*tty engineering in products ive bought also. i would never claim that it doesnt happen. but if youve actually worked in engineering you quickly learn that a lot of the sh*tty engineering that gets loose in the world isnt due to engineers its due to accountants saying thats great. now go redesign it so itll still pretty much work but cost half as much. and the result of management backing them up. then we see engineers claiming they know it all recommending poor procedure. its not about the boulders on our shoulders its about the attitude in your skulls. riiiiight.... suuuuuure..... depending on your level of education its very possible i have more than you do but thats not an issue. maybe youll get pissed i even mentioned it.... and if ya do you might actually understand where were coming from. education really doesnt matter. innate common sense is worth as much or more than education alone. saying you wouldnt understand it youre an engineer... displays a complete lack of innate common sense. .

From : bill putney

max dodge wrote ...the engineers decided there was no reason to set a baseline voltage or a baseline drop at the battery with which to compare the circuit voltage drop. id call that lacking in common sense. and you would be right if that were only true. please stop the lying. measuring the two voltageas at the same time was sufficient. if perhaps youre referring to the load test that you kept insisting on - no - that was not necessary. all the inverter cared about at any given time in deciding to turn off was the voltatge it was seeing and obviously it was low enough to do so at some point in time. to determine if it the low voltage at the socket was due to low batt. or line drop one would measure the two batt. and socket under the conditions/at the time at which the cutoff occurred - not during a load test of the battery itself where the inverter wasnt involved. besides as i have said several times with engine on if it was confirmed that the alternator was working except in the case of a shorted cell of which there was no indication in this case the battery would absolutely not be a factor in a low voltage condition at the source end of the system - and that was verified. the inverter was cutting off with engine on and source at proper voltage which you also continually denied but which is documented by the original poster. instead you would continually point to the fact that it cut off with engine off as if that over-rode the fact that it also cut off with engine on system source at full proper running voltage. now - anyone who wants to argue with the above is either plain ignorant or dishonest - perhaps both. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : max dodge

...the engineers decided there was no reason to set a baseline voltage or a baseline drop at the battery with which to compare the circuit voltage drop. id call that lacking in common sense. and you would be right if that were only true. please stop the lying. no lying about it you refuted my suggestion time and time again. sure you substituted your own cobbled tests but none that would be a clear indicator. most involved use of the equipment that might have been failing of its own accord. measuring the two voltageas at the same time was sufficient. if perhaps youre referring to the load test that you kept insisting on - no - that was not necessary. lol wasnt necessary although claire whom you claimed was the one to follow described his own version of a load test using the suspect equipment. too bad it meant using the suspect port as well. all the inverter cared about at any given time in deciding to turn off was the voltatge it was seeing and obviously it was low enough to do so at some point in time. to determine if it the low voltage at the socket was due to low batt. or line drop one would measure the two batt. and socket under the conditions/at the time at which the cutoff occurred - not during a load test of the battery itself where the inverter wasnt involved. unfortunately the reasoning against the load test you put forth here is not the reason which i had suggested a load test. i suggested it because other indications put the battery as hitting the borderline in its lifetime expectancy. one of those indications was the voltage drop another was age and yet another was its nominal state just after being actively charged. a load test would have been easier than checking both voltages simaltaneously and would have squelched any questions about its ability thus directly indicating the wiring. two minutes proving the battery versus twenty conducting various tests to prove what was already known about the port. besides as i have said several times with engine on if it was confirmed that the alternator was working except in the case of a shorted cell of which there was no indication in this case the battery would absolutely not be a factor in a low voltage condition at the source end of the system - and that was verified. unfortuinately the problem only occurred once with the engine on. it repeated with the engine off. the inverter was cutting off with engine on and source at proper voltage which you also continually denied but which is documented by the original poster. it was documented exactly once. four times he noted it happened with engine off. instead you would continually point to the fact that it cut off with engine off as if that over-rode the fact that it also cut off with engine on system source at full proper running voltage. when the one time appears as an anomoly the repeating condition does override the one time incident. now - anyone who wants to argue with the above is either plain ignorant or dishonest - perhaps both. or simply has better troubleshooting technique than someone who waves a diploma over the problem demanding it be fixed of its own accord. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote ...the engineers decided there was no reason to set a baseline voltage or a baseline drop at the battery with which to compare the circuit voltage drop. id call that lacking in common sense. and you would be right if that were only true. please stop the lying. measuring the two voltageas at the same time was sufficient. if perhaps youre referring to the load test that you kept insisting on - no - that was not necessary. all the inverter cared about at any given time in deciding to turn off was the voltatge it was seeing and obviously it was low enough to do so at some point in time. to determine if it the low voltage at the socket was due to low batt. or line drop one would measure the two batt. and socket under the conditions/at the time at which the cutoff occurred - not during a load test of the battery itself where the inverter wasnt involved. besides as i have said several times with engine on if it was confirmed that the alternator was working except in the case of a shorted cell of which there was no indication in this case the battery would absolutely not be a factor in a low voltage condition at the source end of the system - and that was verified. the inverter was cutting off with engine on and source at proper voltage which you also continually denied but which is documented by the original poster. instead you would continually point to the fact that it cut off with engine off as if that over-rode the fact that it also cut off with engine on system source at full proper running voltage. now - anyone who wants to argue with the above is either pla

From : max dodge

and likewise you should go back and read what we really wrote. you wont find a statement that says that there is no reason to ever test the battery voltage. except i suggested a load test not simply dropping probes on the posts and saying wow its got 12v+ it should be ok!! -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote no kidding so common sense says you need to find a voltage from which to drop if in fact you are looking for a voltage drop over a circuit. now lets assume you know there is a voltage drop in the circuit but you dont know if its the battery or the circuit itself. do you repeatedly test the circuit or do you test the battery under load to see if it has the voltage drop the engineers decided there was no reason to set a baseline voltage or a baseline drop at the battery with which to compare the circuit voltage drop. id call that lacking in common sense. you are really into this revisionist thing arent you none of us said that there was no reason to determine the voltage at the battery. we simply said that wasnt the most logical place to start troubleshooting. you seem to lack logic as well as common sense. saying you wouldnt understand it youre an engineer... displays a complete lack of innate common sense. sincei never said that maybe you ought to go back and see what i really wrote. and likewise you should go back and read what we really wrote. you wont find a statement that says that there is no reason to ever test the battery voltage. matt .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

the design wasnt properly thought out to begin with. it was over-engineered. the dream was to eliminate a pair of bands which worked efficiently and take up less space then replace them with bulky clutches that create oil shear which heats up the fluid. then they added an unnecessary od instead of an extra underdriven gear and a lower numerical axle ratio. in a spur gear design like that in the differential lower numerical ratio designs are simplified so theres no excuse in that area. iow it was fixed until it was broken. something to think about as a corollary the current design of the anvil didnt just happen it developed over many centuries from a flat rock to a complex tool but it is not over-engineered. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom spam.net writes while that may be true there are also engineers out there that insist on fixing things till theyre broken like the a-604 transmission. my understanding is that this was the result of iacocca informing the engineers that the 604 was going to be offered in the fall and not listening to any nonsense about it not being ready. -- joseph j. pfeiffer jr. ph.d. phone -- 505 646-1605 department of computer science fax -- 505 646-1002 new mexico state university http//www.cs.nmsu.edu/pfeiffer *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote just out of curiosity what are yours and matts engineering degrees in not that i believe for one minute either of you would tell the truth but just curiosity. i have undergraduate degrees in cs and ee and am currently in a graduate program in structural engineering. im a licensed engineer in ny a fact which you can easily verify at their web site if you are really interested. the only one not telling the truth around here has been you. you claimed that gear ratios possess an attribute called efficiency and you said it was based on physics and mathematics. you have done nothing to show that is true and ive showed that it is not true so who is telling the truth many times ive been informed that nothing posted in groups by anyone is to be completely believed even with a claim of a website for verification. you can easily verify what i wrote using any college level high school level even physics text book. are you claiming they are all wrong also and only you are right talk about an ego. no i was talking about verifying your claimed education you know the one you lord over all lesser in your opinion creatures. show even one post where i did that. oh i forgot you are the one that makes wild claims and then cant back any of them up. my god matt are you so dense and full of yourself to not see how rediculously pompous you are your very attitude towards others because of a few slips of paper i could duplicate on my computer is the insult towards those with out your lauded wallpaper. so ... you dont have any automotive degrees at all if your claim is true and that means youre no better educated on automotive engineering than i am though i do have the advantage of grease stained hands. ive never heard of an automotive degree. theres a lot youve never heard of. true but much less than what youve not heard of apparently. again post one piece of information that shows this automotiv degree that you talk about. no. what university offers that and this discussion doesnt require anything other than basic physics knowledge. nothing uniquely automotive about it. how does grease on ones hands contribute to a discussion based on physics i have greasy hands fairly often but the grease while making my skin less dry in the winter hasnt seemed to contribute much to my understanding of physics. that kind of grease doesnt improve your knowledge of what works and doesnt work either. yes youve aptly demonstrated that. thank you for the compliment. i agree the grease you use doesnt increase knowledge and im glad to have demonstrated the fact. the grease on my hands is from designing and building gear / pulley systems and hands-on knowledge of what works and where and not some skin softening substance. and it doesnt seem to have contributed much to yours either. apparently it given me a more realistic education than yours. so now what is your educational background i studied hard and passed kindergarten after 15 years and dad was right there beside me to get his degree as well. iow ive mentioned it and you insulted me for it. i never insulted you regarding your education. yes you slammed high school education . . .ya know that school you had to somehow get thru so you could go to wherever it is went. sorry but i didnt. you again are making a claim that is a lie and which you cant back up. ah denial the placebo of the irresponsible. oh btw i backed out of the conversation because it was no longer the topic i started thanks to you two not because im wrong. you missed your true calling ... as a comedian. - thank you for the compliment i do try to bring a smile to at least one face a day even yours. now i wonder if your cohort will admit to his education. he has in the past so i suspect he will again. now if you would just do the same. i have but you lack the common sense to understand. im still waiting for your physics based analysis of the efficiency of a gear ratio.... im still waiting for you to get back on the original topic but thatll never happen. why dont you remind us what that original topic was try re-reading my original post on the topic. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : rachel easson

gary glaenzer wrote snip the only other problem i have heard of in the late 90s was that there is a main pin inside which can wear and come loose. the car will run fine until the pin completely falls out. if this happens at highway speeds then the force of the pin will cause it to blast through the side of the transmission casing. this is a very expensive repair. snip usually caused by spinning one wheel if on snowy / icy pavement do not allow wheels to start spinning when they catch it will shear off the underdrive hub interesting info i didnt know -- just knew to avoid these cars because their trannys are notorious -- just curious if positrak could be installed on them and if this would reduce the problem assuming driver still does his best to eliminate spinning snip the 3.3 engine is a total work horse. periodically check the belt tensioner. with mine the bearing for the tensioning wheel was starting to go and squeeking quite loudly. that was around 165000 kms. replacing the tensioner is a fairly inexpensive repair. probably cheaper than a tow! if the tensioner fails you will be stranded and need a tow. you need a 15 mm deep socket 6 extension swivel and long extension go at it from underneath i heard the engines were good -- i know nothing about them but is the belt tensioner like the idler pulley in older motors -- to keep the fan cooling down the engine snip rach .

From : tbone

and likewise you should go back and read what we really wrote. you wont find a statement that says that there is no reason to ever test the battery voltage. except i suggested a load test not simply dropping probes on the posts and saying wow its got 12v+ it should be ok!! just because you keep saying it doesnt make it any more true. the battery was load tested despite your constant denial of such!!!! -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

lying and whining are easy and that is why max and budd seem to fall back on those techniques. actually researching a subject and learning are much harder. which might be why you gentlemen are perceived as you are; you havent actually done the work in the field on a scale which would qualify you as having done the research and repetitive learning that expedites these solutions. perceived as what and by who max the only ones whining about either one of them are you and budd imagine that. i think that you should be more worried about how you are perceived by others before worrying about anyone else. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote just out of curiosity what are yours and matts engineering degrees in not that i believe for one minute either of you would tell the truth but just curiosity. i have undergraduate degrees in cs and ee and am currently in a graduate program in structural engineering. im a licensed engineer in ny a fact which you can easily verify at their web site if you are really interested. the only one not telling the truth around here has been you. you claimed that gear ratios possess an attribute called efficiency and you said it was based on physics and mathematics. you have done nothing to show that is true and ive showed that it is not true so who is telling the truth many times ive been informed that nothing posted in groups by anyone is to be completely believed even with a claim of a website for verification. you can easily verify what i wrote using any college level high school level even physics text book. are you claiming they are all wrong also and only you are right talk about an ego. no i was talking about verifying your claimed education you know the one you lord over all lesser in your opinion creatures. show even one post where i did that. oh i forgot you are the one that makes wild claims and then cant back any of them up. my god matt are you so dense and full of yourself to not see how rediculously pompous you are your very attitude towards others because of a few slips of paper i could duplicate on my computer is the insult towards those with out your lauded wallpaper. why because god forbid he said you were wrong so ... you dont have any automotive degrees at all if your claim is true and that means youre no better educated on automotive engineering than i am though i do have the advantage of grease stained hands. ive never heard of an automotive degree. theres a lot youve never heard of. true but much less than what youve not heard of apparently. again post one piece of information that shows this automotiv degree that you talk about. no. because you cant. what university offers that and this discussion doesnt require anything other than basic physics knowledge. nothing uniquely automotive about it. how does grease on ones hands contribute to a discussion based on physics i have greasy hands fairly often but the grease while making my skin less dry in the winter hasnt seemed to contribute much to my understanding of physics. that kind of grease doesnt improve your knowledge of what works and doesnt work either. yes youve aptly demonstrated that. thank you for the compliment. i agree the grease you use doesnt increase knowledge and im glad to have demonstrated the fact. the grease on my hands is from designing and building gear / pulley systems and hands-on knowledge of what works and where and not some skin softening substance. lol yea like in your fork lift clutch stories. and it doesnt seem to have contributed much to yours either. apparently it given me a more realistic education than yours. so now what is your educational background i studied hard and passed kindergarten after 15 years and dad was right there beside me to get his degree as well. iow ive mentioned it and you insulted me for it. i never insulted you regarding your education. yes you slammed high school education . . .ya know that school you had to somehow get thru so you could go to wherever it is went. sorry but i didnt. you again are making a claim that is a lie and which you cant back up. ah denial the placebo of the irresponsible pretty much what you have been doing in this entire thread. well that and wild false accusations. .. oh btw i backed out of the conversation because it was no longer the topic i started thanks to you two not because im wrong. you missed your true calling ... as a comedian. - thank you for the compliment i do try to bring a smile to at least one face a day even yours. now i wonder if your cohort will admit to his education. he has in the past so i suspect he will again. now if you would just do the same. i have but you lack the common sense to understand. im still waiting for your physics based analysis of the efficiency of a gear ratio.... im still waiting for you to get back on the original topic but thatll never happen. why dont you remind us what that original topic was try re-reading my original post on the topic. iow more smoke and mirrors. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

...the engineers decided there was no reason to set a baseline voltage or a baseline drop at the battery with which to compare the circuit voltage drop. id call that lacking in common sense. and you would be right if that were only true. please stop the lying. no lying about it you refuted my suggestion time and time again. sure you substituted your own cobbled tests but none that would be a clear indicator. most involved use of the equipment that might have been failing of its own accord. there are no symptoms to indicate that there is anything wrong with the battery at all and it was load tested or did you forget the 629 cca tha the battery provided during the test but even if it were not if a 10a load is enough to pull the battery down to 10.5v it would not have enough power to start the car. measuring the two voltageas at the same time was sufficient. if perhaps youre referring to the load test that you kept insisting on - no - that was not necessary. lol wasnt necessary although claire whom you claimed was the one to follow described his own version of a load test using the suspect equipment. too bad it meant using the suspect port as well. lol you need to work on that reading comprehention. all the inverter cared about at any given time in deciding to turn off was the voltatge it was seeing and obviously it was low enough to do so at some point in time. to determine if it the low voltage at the socket was due to low batt. or line drop one would measure the two batt. and socket under the conditions/at the time at which the cutoff occurred - not during a load test of the battery itself where the inverter wasnt involved. unfortunately the reasoning against the load test you put forth here is not the reason which i had suggested a load test. i suggested it because other indications put the battery as hitting the borderline in its lifetime expectancy. these conditions are only in your head. one of those indications was the voltage drop unless the drop was measured directly at the battery and it wasnt it is no indication of battery failure. another was age while age is a factor it is the least important one unless it is really old and this one wasnt. and yet another was its nominal state just after being actively charged. does this have to do with your fictitious cell voltage a load test would have been easier than checking both voltages simaltaneously and would have squelched any questions about its ability thus directly indicating the wiring. two minutes proving the battery versus twenty conducting various tests to prove what was already known about the port. the battery was load tested as indicated by that odd cca rating he gave. besides as i have said several times with engine on if it was confirmed that the alternator was working except in the case of a shorted cell of which there was no indication in this case the battery would absolutely not be a factor in a low voltage condition at the source end of the system - and that was verified. unfortuinately the problem only occurred once with the engine on. it repeated with the engine off. but once is all that is needed to disprove your battery bs. the inverter was cutting off with engine on and source at proper voltage which you also continually denied but which is documented by the original poster. it was documented exactly once. four times he noted it happened with engine off. who cares once is all that is needed to eliminate the battery as the source of the problem. instead you would continually point to the fact that it cut off with engine off as if that over-rode the fact that it also cut off with engine on system source at full proper running voltage. when the one time appears as an anomoly the repeating condition does override the one time incident. it does no such thing no matter how desperate you are that it does. all it shows is a significant voltage drop in the wiring. the fact that it happened only once simply proves you wrong on your constant voltage at any speed statement as the voltage had to be low enough that one time for it to cut out. now - anyone who wants to argue with the above is either plain ignorant or dishonest - perhaps both. or simply has better troubleshooting technique than someone who waves a diploma over the problem demanding it be fixed of its own accord. just because you do the same thing over and over again doesnt mean that you are doing it right. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

hell - ive got a 4-year engineering degree and a professional licenes and for that im accused of throwing all my high and mighty degrees and qualifications in their face. when you use that fact as a defense of your inadequate troubleshooting technique yes thats exactly what it is. i have a degree so i must know how to fix it. just because his troubleshooting doesnt agree with yours doesnt make it wrong. the fact that you do exactly the same thing over and over shows who really doesnt understand. only four years and your education is useful in your career for what purpose -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

just out of curiosity what are yours and matts engineering degrees in not that i believe for one minute either of you would tell the truth but just curiosity. oh btw i backed out of the conversation because it was no longer the topic i started thanks to you two not because im wrong. if that were true then why are you here now -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

there are no symptoms to indicate that there is anything wrong with the battery at all and it was load tested or did you forget the 629 cca tha the battery provided during the test but even if it were not if a 10a load is enough to pull the battery down to 10.5v it would not have enough power to start the car. so what you are now saying is that a load test was done. i guess i wasnt so wrong about it being a good test to do. i saw that it had been done but you all argued it wasnt necessary. thats simply incorrect. thats what makes this even funnier... you experts are arguing that its not necessary yet youll sit and quote about it being done as though it was never a question as to whether it was a good idea. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author ...the engineers decided there was no reason to set a baseline voltage or a baseline drop at the battery with which to compare the circuit voltage drop. id call that lacking in common sense. and you would be right if that were only true. please stop the lying. no lying about it you refuted my suggestion time and time again. sure you substituted your own cobbled tests but none that would be a clear indicator. most involved use of the equipment that might have been failing of its own accord. there are no symptoms to indicate that there is anything wrong with the battery at all and it was load tested or did you forget the 629 cca tha the battery provided during the test but even if it were not if a 10a load is enough to pull the battery down to 10.5v it would not have enough power to start the car. measuring the two voltageas at the same time was sufficient. if perhaps youre referring to the load test that you kept insisting on - no - that was not necessary. lol wasnt necessary although claire whom you claimed was the one to follow described his own version of a load test using the suspect equipment. too bad it meant using the suspect port as well. lol you need to work on that reading comprehention. all the inverter cared about at any given time in deciding to turn off was the voltatge it was seeing and obviously it was low enough to do so at some point in time. to determine if it the low voltage at the socket was due to low batt. or line drop one would measure the two batt. and socket under the conditions/at the time at which the cutoff occurred - not during a load test of the battery itself where the inverter wasnt involved. unfortunately the reasoning against the load test you put forth here is not the reason which i had suggested a load test. i suggested it because other indications put the battery as hitting the borderline in its lifetime expectancy. these conditions are only in your head. one of those indications was the voltage drop unless the drop was measured directly at the battery and it wasnt it is no indication of battery failure. another was age while age is a factor it is the least important one unless it is really old and this one wasnt. and yet another was its nominal state just after being actively charged. does this have to do with your fictitious cell voltage a load test would have been easier than checking both voltages simaltaneously and would have squelched any questions about its ability thus directly indicating the wiring. two minutes proving the battery versus twenty conducting various tests to prove what was already known about the port. the battery was load tested as indicated by that odd cca rating he gave. besides as i have said several times with engine on if it was confirmed that the alternator was working except in the case of a shorted cell of which there was no indication in this case the battery would absolutely not be a factor in a low voltage condition at the source end of the system - and that was verified. unfortuinately the problem only occurred once with the engine on. it repeated with the engine off. but once is all that is needed to disprove your battery bs. the inverter was cutting off with engine on and source at proper voltage which you also continually denied but which is documented by the original poster. it was documented exactly once. four times he noted it happened with engine off. who cares once is all that is needed to eliminate the battery as the source of the problem. instead you would continually point to the fact that it cut off with engine off as if that over-rode the fact that it also cut off with engine on system source at full proper running voltage. when the one time appears as an anomoly the repeating condition does override the one time incident. it does no such thing no matter how desperate you are that it does. all it shows is a significant voltage drop in the wiring. the fact that it happened only once simply proves y

From : tbone

there are no symptoms to indicate that there is anything wrong with the battery at all and it was load tested or did you forget the 629 cca tha the battery provided during the test but even if it were not if a 10a load is enough to pull the battery down to 10.5v it would not have enough power to start the car. so what you are now saying is that a load test was done. i guess i wasnt so wrong about it being a good test to do. i saw that it had been done but you all argued it wasnt necessary. thats simply incorrect. no the op said that the load test was done and i dont recall anyone saying that it was a bad idea only that it was not needed. the point is that it is unnecessary in this situation because if a small 10a load could cause such a massive voltage drop in a few seconds there would be no way the battery could start the engine. thats what makes this even funnier... you experts are arguing that its not necessary yet youll sit and quote about it being done as though it was never a question as to whether it was a good idea. that might be because it was done even though you insisted that it be done again denied that it was and in this situation it was unnecessary and no point that you have made so far showed that it was. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

no the op said that the load test was done and i dont recall anyone saying that it was a bad idea only that it was not needed. the point is that it is unnecessary in this situation because if a small 10a load could cause such a massive voltage drop in a few seconds there would be no way the battery could start the engine. the point is when the following facts are mentioned 1 inverter shuts down due to low voltage 2 battery is 3 years old and is factory issue 3 voltage test immediately after being in charge mode is less than 13v residual should be over 13v for a few moments at least 4 load is small under 10a as you keep repeating yet voltage drops rapidly a few seconds to drop under 11v 5 port voltage starts out at over 12v line drop is not a sudden thing. load of under 10a is not a big load. battery is reaching life expectancy for the brand. battery doesnt hold a residual charge very well but instead drops to nominal quickly. everything points to battery condition while #1 also points to port design. load test is cheap and easy taking less than 2 minutes. it also eliminates the bulk of the problem indicators. it makes accurate testing of the port possible. fact is all you smart guys wanted to look at was the inverter symptoms when there were others mentioned that had an effect on the problem an could easily be checked in one easy step. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author there are no symptoms to indicate that there is anything wrong with the battery at all and it was load tested or did you forget the 629 cca tha the battery provided during the test but even if it were not if a 10a load is enough to pull the battery down to 10.5v it would not have enough power to start the car. so what you are now saying is that a load test was done. i guess i wasnt so wrong about it being a good test to do. i saw that it had been done but you all argued it wasnt necessary. thats simply incorrect. no the op said that the load test was done and i dont recall anyone saying that it was a bad idea only that it was not needed. the point is that it is unnecessary in this situation because if a small 10a load could cause such a massive voltage drop in a few seconds there would be no way the battery could start the engine. thats what makes this even funnier... you experts are arguing that its not necessary yet youll sit and quote about it being done as though it was never a question as to whether it was a good idea. that might be because it was done even though you insisted that it be done again denied that it was and in this situation it was unnecessary and no point that you have made so far showed that it was. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

no the op said that the load test was done and i dont recall anyone saying that it was a bad idea only that it was not needed. the point is that it is unnecessary in this situation because if a small 10a load could cause such a massive voltage drop in a few seconds there would be no way the battery could start the engine. the point is when the following facts are mentioned 1 inverter shuts down due to low voltage which could be and is being caused by a voltage drop in the lines and / or socket. 2 battery is 3 years old and is factory issue mine lasted over 6 and i have yet to have one not last at least 5. 3 voltage test immediately after being in charge mode is less than 13v residual should be over 13v for a few moments at least this is not a new battery and i have yet to see your over 13v on a standard battery. while the pos voltage gauge in the truck says over 13v engine not running my $200 meter directly connected to the battery says different around 12.6v. i wonder which one is more accurate. 4 load is small under 10a as you keep repeating yet voltage drops rapidly a few seconds to drop under 11v actually i was incorrect the voltage drops immediately according to the op which completely indicates a wiring problem. 5 port voltage starts out at over 12v this is the part that get you in trouble max because it indicates that you dont have a clue as to what a voltage drop is. if there is no load and a good meter has a very high impedence and puts virtually no load on the circuit it is testing then the voltage on the port has to be the same as the battery. it is this simple max no current draw no voltage drop. line drop is not a sudden thing. load of under 10a is not a big load. battery is reaching life expectancy for the brand. battery doesnt hold a residual charge very well but instead drops to nominal quickly. you have yet to provide anything to say this factory battery could ever be pushed up to 13v+ on its residual charge. just because you say it doesnt make it so. it could be that the voltage drop in the lines drops the voltage at top residual level of that battery to just above the minimum requirements of the inverter and even a loss of 1/10 of a volt on its residual charge in 30 seconds which is still pretty good is enough to cause the inverter to alarm and shut down. everything points to battery condition while #1 also points to port design. load test is cheap and easy taking less than 2 minutes. it also eliminates the bulk of the problem indicators. it makes accurate testing of the port possible. only if you dont look at the big bicture max. read above. fact is all you smart guys wanted to look at was the inverter symptoms when there were others mentioned that had an effect on the problem an could easily be checked in one easy step. the symptoms did not warrant a battery load test because like many have said and you continue to ignore if the battery was so weak as to be the cause of this problem it would not be able to start the vehicle and the op stated many times it started with no problems. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : steve

budd cochran wrote the design wasnt properly thought out to begin with. it was over-engineered. the dream was to eliminate a pair of bands which worked efficiently and take up less space then replace them with bulky clutches that create oil shear which heats up the fluid. actually budd the dream was to give the computer full authority over shift rate and quality plus a diagnostic capability. to do that necessitated clutch-to-clutch shifting and eliminated the ability to use overrunning clutches which in turn made bands pretty useless. and fwiw although the old rear-drive a-904 and a-727 were far more rugged than any automatic transmission short of an allison do you know what their weakest point is yep. the bands. more 727s get pulled for broken reverse or kickdown bands than any other part. clutches are inherently stronger although they are less efficient when released. not that im a great defender of the 41te- its a classic example of management wanting to be able to crow about worlds first computer-controlled transmission! before the engineering was fully baked. but lets at least stay on the right page in the debate. the engineers didnt wake up and say duh i like clutches better than bands! it was a compromise in one area to allow what was hoped to be an improvement in another area and facilitate computer control. .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

max admittedly ive not followed the inverter thread . . .it didnt interest me but... 1 as it should to protect electronics plugged in like laptops. 2 if the battery has been given real world normal maintenance its on its last legs. 3 should be over 13 v and less than 14v 4 small load fast v drop = low voltage reserve capacity . . .iow the battery is on its last legs. 5 if port voltage drops rapidly under small load battery is on its last legs. so were in agreement on this appears and the experts are overlooking the kiss factor. budd no the op said that the load test was done and i dont recall anyone saying that it was a bad idea only that it was not needed. the point is that it is unnecessary in this situation because if a small 10a load could cause such a massive voltage drop in a few seconds there would be no way the battery could start the engine. the point is when the following facts are mentioned 1 inverter shuts down due to low voltage 2 battery is 3 years old and is factory issue 3 voltage test immediately after being in charge mode is less than 13v residual should be over 13v for a few moments at least 4 load is small under 10a as you keep repeating yet voltage drops rapidly a few seconds to drop under 11v 5 port voltage starts out at over 12v line drop is not a sudden thing. load of under 10a is not a big load. battery is reaching life expectancy for the brand. battery doesnt hold a residual charge very well but instead drops to nominal quickly. everything points to battery condition while #1 also points to port design. load test is cheap and easy taking less than 2 minutes. it also eliminates the bulk of the problem indicators. it makes accurate testing of the port possible. fact is all you smart guys wanted to look at was the inverter symptoms when there were others mentioned that had an effect on the problem an could easily be checked in one easy step. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author there are no symptoms to indicate that there is anything wrong with the battery at all and it was load tested or did you forget the 629 cca tha the battery provided during the test but even if it were not if a 10a load is enough to pull the battery down to 10.5v it would not have enough power to start the car. so what you are now saying is that a load test was done. i guess i wasnt so wrong about it being a good test to do. i saw that it had been done but you all argued it wasnt necessary. thats simply incorrect. no the op said that the load test was done and i dont recall anyone saying that it was a bad idea only that it was not needed. the point is that it is unnecessary in this situation because if a small 10a load could cause such a massive voltage drop in a few seconds there would be no way the battery could start the engine. thats what makes this even funnier... you experts are arguing that its not necessary yet youll sit and quote about it being done as though it was never a question as to whether it was a good idea. that might be because it was done even though you insisted that it be done again denied that it was and in this situation it was unnecessary and no point that you have made so far showed that it was. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote dont you think youve been insulting enough for one day fyi i do know some very good engineers and they neither slam a persons educational levels nor lord their toilet paper over others like bill and matt. except that were never done that. this is just another of your fabrications. i only posted my credentials after you asked about them. are you a born liar or has it taken you many years to develop your skill to this level. find even one post made by me or bill that supports your assertion above. just one. im sure youll find as many as you found physics laws that supported your ludicrous claim about gear ratios having an inherent efficiency. matt .

From : steve

budd cochran wrote ive revised a lot of sh*tty engineering in products ive bought also. i would never claim that it doesnt happen. but if youve actually worked in engineering you quickly learn that a lot of the sh*tty engineering that gets loose in the world isnt due to engineers its due to accountants saying thats great. now go redesign it so itll still pretty much work but cost half as much. and the result of management backing them up. while that may be true there are also engineers out there that insist on fixing things till theyre broken like the a-604 transmission. like i said there are idiot engineers just like there are idiots without engineering degrees. idiocy knows no boundaries and the percentage of idiots in any given profession is pretty much the same as the percentage of idiots in the population at large. then we see engineers claiming they know it all recommending poor procedure. its not about the boulders on our shoulders its about the attitude in your skulls. riiiiight.... suuuuuure..... take another look at the slams directed at those with high school educations in this thread. thats the point. i didnt see anyone say you dont know dick because you only have a high school education. not once. however i did see plenty of oh well of course youd think that... youre an engineer. not all of the engineers that i have met are willing to admit one of their ilk could screw up or worse admit that they screwed up. not all of the mechanics ive met are willing to admit that one of their ilk could screw up or worse admit that they screwed up. some are so full of their diplomas theres no room for common sense and therfore they cant understand basic concepts or non-technical explanations. hence the phrase you wouldnt understand youre an engineer. some are so full of their working man image and feel so superior to ivory tower engineers that theres no room for common sense and therefore they cant understand and accept correct technical explanations of something that theyve cooked up an intuitive but incorrect explanation for. which is a long-winded way of saying that the percentage of idiots in all walks of life is pretty constant. get over the anti-engineer bs. personally i use it only on those that have the misbelief that god should ask them for advice. .

From : steve

max dodge wrote education really doesnt matter. innate common sense is worth as much or more than education alone. no kidding so common sense says you need to find a voltage from which to drop if in fact you are looking for a voltage drop over a circuit. now lets assume you know there is a voltage drop in the circuit but you dont know if its the battery or the circuit itself. do you repeatedly test the circuit or do you test the battery under load to see if it has the voltage drop the engineers decided there was no reason to set a baseline voltage or a baseline drop at the battery with which to compare the circuit voltage drop. id call that lacking in common sense. good god max. im not going to go back and re-trace the whole freakish thread but my recollection of the assertions made is not what you said above. what was said is that knowing what we know about the whole car including that it started normally and that wiring to cigarette lighters and auxiliary outlets tends to be under-sized that the *first* thing to do is probably *not* remove the battery from the vehicle and take it somewhere to have a load test on it. the first thing that makes sense for a guy with a garage and a voltmter is just measure the voltage drop under load between the battery and the cigarette lighter. whether the battery is fresh as a daisy or half a volt down from where a new battery would be is less important than whether or not youre losing 2.3 volts between the battery and the cigarette lighter! saying you wouldnt understand it youre an engineer... displays a complete lack of innate common sense. sincei never said that maybe you ought to go back and see what i really wrote. you didnt say that. the idiot who started the anti-engineer tirade said that. .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote the design wasnt properly thought out to begin with. it was over-engineered. the dream was to eliminate a pair of bands which worked efficiently and take up less space then replace them with bulky clutches that create oil shear which heats up the fluid. actually budd the dream was to give the computer full authority over shift rate and quality plus a diagnostic capability. to do that necessitated clutch-to-clutch shifting and eliminated the ability to use overrunning clutches which in turn made bands pretty useless. did it bands can be released cleanly and as shown in the 727-904 series by using accumulators like those in the 604/41te applied smoothly. the overunning sprag in the case is unneccessary as the l/r band can be applied and is when low range is selected. a valve body change and you eliminate the weak link spun sprag and fwiw although the old rear-drive a-904 and a-727 were far more rugged than any automatic transmission short of an allison do you know what their weakest point is yep. the bands. more 727s get pulled for broken reverse or kickdown bands than any other part. clutches are inherently stronger although they are less efficient when released. really ive seen more spun sprag clutches than bands broken. . .generally in 904s being neutral started. not that im a great defender of the 41te- its a classic example of management wanting to be able to crow about worlds first computer-controlled transmission! before the engineering was fully baked. but lets at least stay on the right page in the debate. the engineers didnt wake up and say duh i like clutches better than bands! it was a compromise in one area to allow what was hoped to be an improvement in another area and facilitate computer control. i am offended you think im not on the right page mister. i stated my beliefs and opinions on that transmission based on my experience. the trans sucks because it is over-engineered. again if it aint broke dont fix it till it is. which is what i see as having happened. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : tbone

max admittedly ive not followed the inverter thread . . .it didnt interest me but... 1 as it should to protect electronics plugged in like laptops. not necessary and it has no way to know what is plugged into it. 2 if the battery has been given real world normal maintenance its on its last legs. and you have proof of this where 3 should be over 13 v and less than 14v and you base this on what we are talking about a factory battery here and a dc at that. 4 small load fast v drop = low voltage reserve capacity . . .iow the battery is on its last legs. no it indicates a high drop in the wiring and a small drop from the battery. 5 if port voltage drops rapidly under small load battery is on its last legs. and would not be able to start the car and like magic it still does even after the load test. i guess thats strike 5. so were in agreement on this appears and the experts are overlooking the kiss factor. of course you are in agreement. you two are about the only ones that agree with each other on most issues because like this one you are w r o n g ! ! ! -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

so were in agreement on this appears and the experts are overlooking the kiss factor. bingo. the only two problems ive ever had with engineers is that some are arrogant pricks relying on their credentials instead of knowledge and some dont like to look at the simple problems first. more often than not ill stand by their work. in this case all of our resident engineers got it wrong. whats even more amusing is that as engineers they dont have enough confidence in their comrades over at chrysler to believe that an engineer would never allow too small a wire to be used in getting the job done. i can hear the bs now well thats what the fuse is for etc etc etc. terrific if the fuse never blew then they werent drawing too much power from the circuit and thus the voltage drop is due to something other than the design of the vehicle. that leaves two things the inverter is pulling too much amperage and the voltage drops as the fuse blows...... or.... the battery isnt able to supply the circuit and thus the fuse is never overloaded and never blows. so while they think we dont like engineers my entire reply was based on engineers doing their work correctly. conclusion either our resident engineers were incorrect about the cause of the problem assumed to be wiring and the need for a load test to check the battery or chryslers resident engineers were wrong and failed to put the appropriate size fuse on the circuit along with the correct guage of wire. somewhere in this mess a bunch of engineers screwed up its either in design or diagnosis. i dont know about you budd but ill take the word of the chrysler engineers over the word these self proclaimed experts on the systems in question. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max admittedly ive not followed the inverter thread . . .it didnt interest me but... 1 as it should to protect electronics plugged in like laptops. 2 if the battery has been given real world normal maintenance its on its last legs. 3 should be over 13 v and less than 14v 4 small load fast v drop = low voltage reserve capacity . . .iow the battery is on its last legs. 5 if port voltage drops rapidly under small load battery is on its last legs. so were in agreement on this appears and the experts are overlooking the kiss factor. budd no the op said that the load test was done and i dont recall anyone saying that it was a bad idea only that it was not needed. the point is that it is unnecessary in this situation because if a small 10a load could cause such a massive voltage drop in a few seconds there would be no way the battery could start the engine. the point is when the following facts are mentioned 1 inverter shuts down due to low voltage 2 battery is 3 years old and is factory issue 3 voltage test immediately after being in charge mode is less than 13v residual should be over 13v for a few moments at least 4 load is small under 10a as you keep repeating yet voltage drops rapidly a few seconds to drop under 11v 5 port voltage starts out at over 12v line drop is not a sudden thing. load of under 10a is not a big load. battery is reaching life expectancy for the brand. battery doesnt hold a residual charge very well but instead drops to nominal quickly. everything points to battery condition while #1 also points to port design. load test is cheap and easy taking less than 2 minutes. it also eliminates the bulk of the problem indicators. it makes accurate testing of the port possible. fact is all you smart guys wanted to look at was the inverter symptoms when there were others mentioned that had an effect on the problem an could easily be checked in one easy step. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author there are no symptoms to indicate that there is anything wrong with the battery at all and it was load tested or did you forget the 629 cca tha the battery provided during the test but even if it were not if a 10a load is enough to pull the battery down to 10.5v it would not have enough power to start the car. so what you are now saying is that a load test was done. i guess i wasnt so wrong about it being a good test to do. i saw that it had been done but you all argued it wasnt necessary. thats simply incorrect. no the op said that the load test was done and i dont recall anyone saying that it was a bad idea only that it was not needed. the point is that it is unnecessary in this situation because if a small 10a load could cause such a massive voltage drop in a few seconds there would be no way the battery could start the engine. thats what makes this even funnier... you experts are arguing that its not necessary yet youll s

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

dont you think youve been insulting enough for one day fyi i do know some very good engineers and they neither slam a persons educational levels nor lord their toilet paper over others like bill and matt. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams budd cochran wrote ive revised a lot of sh*tty engineering in products ive bought also. i would never claim that it doesnt happen. but if youve actually worked in engineering you quickly learn that a lot of the sh*tty engineering that gets loose in the world isnt due to engineers its due to accountants saying thats great. now go redesign it so itll still pretty much work but cost half as much. and the result of management backing them up. while that may be true there are also engineers out there that insist on fixing things till theyre broken like the a-604 transmission. like i said there are idiot engineers just like there are idiots without engineering degrees. idiocy knows no boundaries and the percentage of idiots in any given profession is pretty much the same as the percentage of idiots in the population at large. then we see engineers claiming they know it all recommending poor procedure. its not about the boulders on our shoulders its about the attitude in your skulls. riiiiight.... suuuuuure..... take another look at the slams directed at those with high school educations in this thread. thats the point. i didnt see anyone say you dont know dick because you only have a high school education. not once. however i did see plenty of oh well of course youd think that... youre an engineer. not all of the engineers that i have met are willing to admit one of their ilk could screw up or worse admit that they screwed up. not all of the mechanics ive met are willing to admit that one of their ilk could screw up or worse admit that they screwed up. some are so full of their diplomas theres no room for common sense and therfore they cant understand basic concepts or non-technical explanations. hence the phrase you wouldnt understand youre an engineer. some are so full of their working man image and feel so superior to ivory tower engineers that theres no room for common sense and therefore they cant understand and accept correct technical explanations of something that theyve cooked up an intuitive but incorrect explanation for. which is a long-winded way of saying that the percentage of idiots in all walks of life is pretty constant. get over the anti-engineer bs. personally i use it only on those that have the misbelief that god should ask them for advice. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : max dodge

good god max. im not going to go back and re-trace the whole freakish thread but my recollection of the assertions made is not what you said above. then your recollection is faulty. what was said is that knowing what we know about the whole car including that it started normally and that wiring to cigarette lighters and auxiliary outlets tends to be under-sized that the *first* thing to do is probably *not* remove the battery from the vehicle and take it somewhere to have a load test on it. given that removal of the battery is not necessary and that a load test is a simple two minute includes time to remove tool from storage and stow it again test it most certainly is the first test a tech should do since the rest of the diagnosis involves creating a load at the port. but given that the load an inverter at the port already indicated a low voltage condition at the port the next place to check is... the battery. so you are advocating another check of the obvious before proceeding to check the variables the first thing that makes sense for a guy with a garage and a voltmter is just measure the voltage drop under load between the battery and the cigarette lighter. except that we already know from what the inverter did that the voltage is low. no need to check again. whether the battery is fresh as a daisy or half a volt down from where a new battery would be is less important than whether or not youre losing 2.3 volts between the battery and the cigarette lighter! how do you know you are losing 2.3 volts if you havent checked the battery under load maybe the entire system including the battery is dropping that 2.3 volts. as i said in a previous post the only way you are losing that voltage without popping a fuse is if the battery cant supply the voltage. unless you are willing to agree that there is a significant hazard in the wiring catching fire which would be an engineers fault for not specing the right wire guage. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote education really doesnt matter. innate common sense is worth as much or more than education alone. no kidding so common sense says you need to find a voltage from which to drop if in fact you are looking for a voltage drop over a circuit. now lets assume you know there is a voltage drop in the circuit but you dont know if its the battery or the circuit itself. do you repeatedly test the circuit or do you test the battery under load to see if it has the voltage drop the engineers decided there was no reason to set a baseline voltage or a baseline drop at the battery with which to compare the circuit voltage drop. id call that lacking in common sense. good god max. im not going to go back and re-trace the whole freakish thread but my recollection of the assertions made is not what you said above. what was said is that knowing what we know about the whole car including that it started normally and that wiring to cigarette lighters and auxiliary outlets tends to be under-sized that the *first* thing to do is probably *not* remove the battery from the vehicle and take it somewhere to have a load test on it. the first thing that makes sense for a guy with a garage and a voltmter is just measure the voltage drop under load between the battery and the cigarette lighter. whether the battery is fresh as a daisy or half a volt down from where a new battery would be is less important than whether or not youre losing 2.3 volts between the battery and the cigarette lighter! saying you wouldnt understand it youre an engineer... displays a complete lack of innate common sense. sincei never said that maybe you ought to go back and see what i really wrote. you didnt say that. the idiot who started the anti-engineer tirade said that. .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

so were in agreement on this appears and the experts are overlooking the kiss factor. bingo. how much did i win the only two problems ive ever had with engineers is that some are arrogant pricks relying on their credentials instead of knowledge and some dont like to look at the simple problems first. agreed. ive mentioned before about having worked with a few big four at the time gm ford chysler amc on developing the cat converters back in the early 70s. i was impressed that not a one of them was like matt or bill. more often than not ill stand by their work. in this case all of our resident engineers got it wrong. you noticed that too ; the bad part one has an electrical degree. whats even more amusing is that as engineers they dont have enough confidence in their comrades over at chrysler to believe that an engineer would never allow too small a wire to be used in getting the job done. i can hear the bs now well thats what the fuse is for etc etc etc. its curious also that mopars have never been known for electrical problems to the extent of ford or gm. terrific if the fuse never blew then they werent drawing too much power from the circuit and thus the voltage drop is due to something other than the design of the vehicle. that leaves two things the inverter is pulling too much amperage and the voltage drops as the fuse blows...... the simplest description of a fuse is a load sensing automatic non-auto resetting switch. it blows it stops current into everything downstream. or.... the battery isnt able to supply the circuit and thus the fuse is never overloaded and never blows. and the undervoltage limiter shuts it all down. so while they think we dont like engineers my entire reply was based on engineers doing their work correctly. agreed. conclusion either our resident engineers were incorrect about the cause of the problem assumed to be wiring and the need for a load test to check the battery or chryslers resident engineers were wrong and failed to put the appropriate size fuse on the circuit along with the correct guage of wire. there is the third variable . . .the owner installed an oversized fuse and/ or a factory assembler screw up and installed an oversize fuse. quick check read the fuse rating and then see what the fuse is rated at. somewhere in this mess a bunch of engineers screwed up its either in design or diagnosis. max as we both know too often idiocy or ego is considered to be more important than common sense or applied education. i dont know about you budd but ill take the word of the chrysler engineers over the word these self proclaimed experts on the systems in question. my friend there is no doubt that chrysler engineering has its act together but our resident engineers are just poor actors. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author -- budd cochran our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : bill putney

max dodge wrote ...that leaves two things the inverter is pulling too much amperage and the voltage drops as the fuse blows...... or.... the battery isnt able to supply the circuit and thus the fuse is never overloaded and never blows. you later go with the second choice therefore... as has been pointed out several times if you are correct the battery cant maintain voltage with a 10 amp load but it can start the car without any problem wich requires several times the 10 amp load. not plausible. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

budd cochran wrote ...if port voltage drops rapidly under small load battery is on its last legs. but yet it has plenty of power to start the car - an order of magnitude larger load - oh - im sorry - thats secret engineering talk for at least ten times as much ...line drop is not a sudden thing. load of under 10a is not a big load... ok - so you both are totally ignorant of resistive drops and the real world effects of ohms law. line drop is resistive drop over wire. with increase in current its effects in voltage change are for all practical purposes instantaneous on the order of nanoseconds or even quicker - throw in some parasitic inductance and capacitance and you might get into the high microsecond range - so like i said - for our discussion its instantaneous. so im left with the dilemma of figuring out if you guys are truly this dumb or if its an act just to see how long you can keep this stupid conversation going you did talk about playing people to get your jollies earlier so maybe thats it. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : max dodge

you later go with the second choice therefore... as has been pointed out several times if you are correct the battery cant maintain voltage with a 10 amp load but it can start the car without any problem wich requires several times the 10 amp load. not plausible. an as ive stated numerous times the inverter shut down due to voltage drop. the starter motor is too dumb to care; it will continue to crank at less than 9volts not very well but it will crank. as such if the voltage dropped to 11v nominal and held long enough to spin the engine for one firing stroke and the ecm fired one injector the engine is starting on 11v start and running on 13.5+ after alternator reaches idle speed. weve all heard this happen in our youth while in the cold and with a near dead battery while uttering words similar to f*** my is gonna kill me if i cant get home. this could easily happen in the time mentioned as that which it took the inverter to shut down. as was noted he had better than 11v at the port under this load. since there is some drop in the line its almost sure that he had more at the battery but not by much. as such your engineering which says it cannot happen and id agree on first glance is overridden by reality where imperfect voltage doesnt necessarily mean things come to a dead stop. remember there is no switch on the starter that is operated by a voltage sensor. the only thing switched is the injector needing 11v nominal to fire. iow the engine needs 11v to start the inverter needs 12v to operate. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote ...that leaves two things the inverter is pulling too much amperage and the voltage drops as the fuse blows...... or.... the battery isnt able to supply the circuit and thus the fuse is never overloaded and never blows. you later go with the second choice therefore... as has been pointed out several times if you are correct the battery cant maintain voltage with a 10 amp load but it can start the car without any problem wich requires several times the 10 amp load. not plausible. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

max dodge wrote ...that leaves two things the inverter is pulling too much amperage and the voltage drops as the fuse blows...... or.... the battery isnt able to supply the circuit and thus the fuse is never overloaded and never blows. you later go with the second choice therefore... as has been pointed out several times if you are correct the battery cant maintain voltage with a 10 amp load but it can start the car without any problem wich requires several times the 10 amp load. not plausible. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x and what are your degrees in what gauge wire carries the starting current the power outlet current the pilot current for engaging the solenoid is a mere fraction of the current required to crank the engine . . .your argument is false. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote ...if port voltage drops rapidly under small load battery is on its last legs. but yet it has plenty of power to start the car - an order of magnitude larger load - oh - im sorry - thats secret engineering talk for at least ten times as much and your ego is writing checks of a magnitude above what your education can pay. primary control circuit current for a starter is more than a magnitude less than the cranking current. ...line drop is not a sudden thing. load of under 10a is not a big load... ok - so you both are totally ignorant of resistive drops and the real world effects of ohms law. line drop is resistive drop over wire. with increase in current its effects in voltage change are for all practical purposes instantaneous on the order of nanoseconds or even quicker - throw in some parasitic inductance and capacitance and you might get into the high microsecond range - so like i said - for our discussion its instantaneous. naw i aint got no axperance a-tol. i jes werked on 36 and 48 volt lift truck control and power circuits fer ten yars. you know the kind where a current of a couple amps regulates the speed of a motor requiring half a thousand amps at full speed and 4 thousand amps at stall. the kind with individual battery cells weighing 200 lbs each. the kind where you can plug in a set of welding cables and burn 1 steel in a single pass. ya wanna talk orders of magnitude hows that for magnitude bill it is you that is confusing primary circuit current with high amp starting current. and failing to mention that as current amps rises voltage loss decreases in a circuit. and i believe youre doing it deliberately to save face. so im left with the dilemma of figuring out if you guys are truly this dumb or if its an act just to see how long you can keep this stupid conversation going you did talk about playing people to get your jollies earlier so maybe thats it. well ive come to the decision your diplomas arent in automotive fields or anything resembling them. which makes you no more an authority than parker was with his sociology phd. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote it is you that is confusing primary circuit current with high amp starting current. and failing to mention that as current amps rises voltage loss decreases in a circuit. and i believe youre doing it deliberately to save face. more of that new physics eh i learned that the voltage drop across a resistance was related to current by v=ir commonly called ohms law. a circuit is a resistance maybe a small one if the wire is large enough but a resistance nonetheless. so as current increases with resistance remaining the same the voltage drop around the circuit will increase not decrease. can you explain how you have found a way around ohms law matt .

From : bill putney

budd cochran wrote max dodge wrote ...that leaves two things the inverter is pulling too much amperage and the voltage drops as the fuse blows...... or.... the battery isnt able to supply the circuit and thus the fuse is never overloaded and never blows. you later go with the second choice therefore... as has been pointed out several times if you are correct the battery cant maintain voltage with a 10 amp load but it can start the car without any problem wich requires several times the 10 amp load. not plausible. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x and what are your degrees in 1 i already answered that. 2 you already stated that you wouldnt believe me no matter what i told you. what gauge wire carries the starting current the power outlet current the pilot current for engaging the solenoid is a mere fraction of the current required to crank the engine . . .your argument is false. except even though you dont realize it what youve been arguing is that the drop is coming from within the battery internal resistance - and that drop will be due to *total* current it is supplying at any given moment again you illustrate your gross ignorance of reality as dictated by ohms law. so when engaging and cranking the starter the drop in the battery will primarily be determined by the current that the starter is sucking. even with zero drop across the solenoid supply wire the voltage it sees will be no higher than what the battery can provide at the heavy current draw of the starter. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

max dodge wrote iow the engine needs 11v to start the inverter needs 12v to operate. i thought the cutoff voltage of the inverter was 10.5. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

budd cochran wrote ok - so you both are totally ignorant of resistive drops and the real world effects of ohms law. ...and failing to mention that as current amps rises voltage loss decreases in a circuit. and i believe youre doing it deliberately to save face. ok - so i was right - you are in fact totally ignorant of ohms law thats the thing that says that as current rises voltage drop *increases* system voltage decreases - you got it exactly backwards. take your above statement as current amps rises voltage loss decreases in a circuit and show it to one of your technically competent buddies maybe one of the few engineers for whom you have respect and see what he says. if he truly is competent he will tell you that you are making a fool of yourself. oh - and have him explain ohms law to you - have him show you what happens to voltage drop across a resistor as current increases. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

matt whiting wrote budd cochran wrote it is you that is confusing primary circuit current with high amp starting current. and failing to mention that as current amps rises voltage loss decreases in a circuit. and i believe youre doing it deliberately to save face. more of that new physics eh i learned that the voltage drop across a resistance was related to current by v=ir commonly called ohms law. a circuit is a resistance maybe a small one if the wire is large enough but a resistance nonetheless. so as current increases with resistance remaining the same the voltage drop around the circuit will increase not decrease. can you explain how you have found a way around ohms law matt to paraphrase the banditos in blazing saddles ohms law!! we dont need no stinking ohms law!! bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : ken weitzel

matt whiting wrote budd cochran wrote it is you that is confusing primary circuit current with high amp starting current. and failing to mention that as current amps rises voltage loss decreases in a circuit. and i believe youre doing it deliberately to save face. more of that new physics eh i learned that the voltage drop across a resistance was related to current by v=ir commonly called ohms law. a circuit is a resistance maybe a small one if the wire is large enough but a resistance nonetheless. so as current increases with resistance remaining the same the voltage drop around the circuit will increase not decrease. can you explain how you have found a way around ohms law hi... perhaps its been repealed not to fuel the fire but in a perhaps futile attempt to make you fellows come to some kind of a consensus... i have a 1500 watt electric heater in my garage for when i work a bit on my chrysler during a winnipeg winter... everytime i plug this heater in it gets nice and toasty warm which is good. but - the durned wire gets very very warm and concers me a bit. i wonder how and why and where that bit of energy comes from. again not to fan the flames but just food for thought. take care. ken ps. i coulda spelt ohm backwards and really messed the conversation up .

From : tbone

so were in agreement on this appears and the experts are overlooking the kiss factor. bingo. how much did i win nothing because as long as you keep this up you are being a loser. the only two problems ive ever had with engineers is that some are arrogant pricks relying on their credentials instead of knowledge and some dont like to look at the simple problems first. agreed. ive mentioned before about having worked with a few big four at the time gm ford chysler amc on developing the cat converters back in the early 70s. i was impressed that not a one of them was like matt or bill. you worked in a muffler shop on a bending machine. more often than not ill stand by their work. in this case all of our resident engineers got it wrong. you noticed that too ; the bad part one has an electrical degree. and you can back this up how oh thats right you cant. all of the evidence including the very load test you insisted on say you are wrong. get over it. whats even more amusing is that as engineers they dont have enough c

From : tbone

budd cochran wrote ...if port voltage drops rapidly under small load battery is on its last legs. but yet it has plenty of power to start the car - an order of magnitude larger load - oh - im sorry - thats secret engineering talk for at least ten times as much and your ego is writing checks of a magnitude above what your education can pay. primary control circuit current for a starter is more than a magnitude less than the cranking current. ...line drop is not a sudden thing. load of under 10a is not a big load... ok - so you both are totally ignorant of resistive drops and the real world effects of ohms law. line drop is resistive drop over wire. with increase in current its effects in voltage change are for all practical purposes instantaneous on the order of nanoseconds or even quicker - throw in some parasitic inductance and capacitance and you might get into the high microsecond range - so like i said - for our discussion its instantaneous. naw i aint got no axperance a-tol. i jes werked on 36 and 48 volt lift truck control and power circuits fer ten yars. and your spelling shows just how much you really know. you know the kind where a current of a couple amps regulates the speed of a motor requiring half a thousand amps at full speed and 4 thousand amps at stall. the kind with individual battery cells weighing 200 lbs each. what in the hell does this shit have to do with anything the kind where you can plug in a set of welding cables and burn 1 steel in a single pass. ya wanna talk orders of magnitude hows that for magnitude bill oh gee budd youre so cool can we hang out with you what exactly does this have to do with the discussion it is you that is confusing primary circuit current with high amp starting current. what exactly does this primary - secondary bullshit have to do with a weak battery. oh yea not a damn thing. if the battery is so weak as to drop whole volts in a few seconds with a 10 amp load how could it possibly have enough power to start the engine when the load on it is over 100 amps especially when the computer that controls that engine also needs better than 10.5v to fire the injectors and this has nothing to do with a resistive voltage drop at all. and failing to mention that as current amps rises voltage loss decreases in a circuit. and i believe youre doing it deliberately to save face. hahahahahahaha could you be any more wrong i guess that ohms law has no meaning in your world. you do know the simple formula e = i x r right that same formula is used to calculate voltage drop as well. to calculate voltage drop r is the resistance of the connections and wires and i is the current flowing thru the circuit. now please explain how if r is held steady and i increases how e can go down given the above formula. dont worry ill wait. so im left with the dilemma of figuring out if you guys are truly this dumb or if its an act just to see how long you can keep this stupid conversation going you did talk about playing people to get your jollies earlier so maybe thats it. well ive come to the decision your diplomas arent in automotive fields or anything resembling them. which makes you no more an authority than parker was with his sociology phd. the sad thing is that they are correct while you and max are just making fools out of yourselves. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

you later go with the second choice therefore... as has been pointed out several times if you are correct the battery cant maintain voltage with a 10 amp load but it can start the car without any problem wich requires several times the 10 amp load. not plausible. an as ive stated numerous times the inverter shut down due to voltage drop. the starter motor is too dumb to care; it will continue to crank at less than 9volts not very well but it will crank. as such if the voltage dropped to 11v nominal and held long enough to spin the engine for one firing stroke and the ecm fired one injector the engine is starting on 11v start and running on 13.5+ after alternator reaches idle speed. weve all heard this happen in our youth while in the cold and with a near dead battery while uttering words similar to f*** my is gonna kill me if i cant get home. this could easily happen in the time mentioned as that which it took the inverter to shut down. as was noted he had better than 11v at the port under this load. since there is some drop in the line its almost sure that he had more at the battery but not by much. lol you really are too much max. many times failure to start has been directly attributed to the battery and if a simple 10a load will pull the battery down to a point where the inverter shuts down there would be no way in hell there would be enough voltage under a 150+ amp draw to fire any injector never mid starting it time and time again and as you seem to have forgotten once again the battery was load tested and is not the problem no matter how desperatly you may want it to be. as such your engineering which says it cannot happen and id agree on first glance is overridden by reality where imperfect voltage doesnt necessarily mean things come to a dead stop. remember there is no switch on the starter that is operated by a voltage sensor. the only thing switched is the injector needing 11v nominal to fire. which it would not get if the battery was this weak. iow the engine needs 11v to start the inverter needs 12v to operate. no the inverter needed 10.5 according to the op. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote ...that leaves two things the inverter is pulling too much amperage and the voltage drops as the fuse blows...... or.... the battery isnt able to supply the circuit and thus the fuse is never overloaded and never blows. you later go with the second choice therefore... as has been pointed out several times if you are correct the battery cant maintain voltage with a 10 amp load but it can start the car without any problem wich requires several times the 10 amp load. not plausible. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : max dodge

engineer would never allow too small a wire to be used in getting the job done. i can hear the bs now well thats what the fuse is for etc etc etc. its curious also that mopars have never been known for electrical problems to the extent of ford or gm. lol mopars were also known for making some of the best automatics on the planet and yet you are whining about one of their screwups there as well. terrific if the fuse never blew then they werent drawing too much power from the circuit and thus the voltage drop is due to something other than the design of the vehicle. that leaves two things the inverter is pulling too much amperage and the voltage drops as the fuse blows...... the simplest description of a fuse is a load sensing automatic non-auto resetting switch. it blows it stops current into everything downstream. lol what in the hell are you talking about. or.... the battery isnt able to supply the circuit and thus the fuse is never overloaded and never blows. and the undervoltage limiter shuts it all down. yea but it is due to a fault in the wiring not the battery. so while they think we dont like engineers my entire reply was based on engineers doing their work correctly. agreed. and wrong. conclusion either our resident engineers were incorrect about the cause of the problem assumed to be wiring and the need for a load test to check the battery. or chryslers resident engineers were wrong and failed to put the appropriate size fuse on the circuit along with the correct guage of wire. there is the third variable . . .the owner installed an oversized fuse and/ or a factory assembler screw up and installed an oversize fuse. quick check read the fuse rating and then see what the fuse is rated at. which has nothing to do with anything at all. somewhere in this mess a bunch of engineers screwed up its either in design or diagnosis. max as we both know too often idiocy or ego is considered to be more important than common sense or applied education. and sometimes those without the education think they know everything and then demonstrate the opposite. i dont know about you budd but ill take the word of the chrysler engineers over the word these self proclaimed experts on the systems in question. my friend there is no doubt that chrysler engineering has its act together but our resident engineers are just poor actors. oh yea chrysler never screwed up. i guess thats why they never got above #3. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving . 222 315565 mzjwf.13301$vl2.372@trnddc04 i thought the cutoff voltage of the inverter was 10.5. i recall it as being 11.5v. given what its used to feed im surprised its not higher. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote iow the engine needs 11v to start the inverter needs 12v to operate. i thought the cutoff voltage of the inverter was 10.5. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : tbone

so were in agreement on this appears and the experts are overlooking the kiss factor. bingo. the only two problems ive ever had with engineers is that some are arrogant pricks relying on their credentials instead of knowledge and some dont like to look at the simple problems first. and then there are those that can never admit to error even when every fact screams that you are. more often than not ill stand by their work. in this case all of our resident engineers got it wrong. the load test proves them right and you wrong. whats even more amusing is that as engineers they dont have enough confidence in their comrades over at chrysler to believe that an engineer would never allow too small a wire to be used in getting the job done. what makes you think that engineering had anything to do with it. how about accounting. i can hear the bs now well thats what the fuse is for etc etc etc. terrific if the fuse never blew then they werent drawing too much power from the circuit and thus the voltage drop is due to something other than the design of the vehicle. that leaves two things it does no such thing. the fuse is there to prevent a fire not eliminate a voltage drop. the inverter is pulling too much amperage and the voltage drops as the fuse blows...... w r o n g ! ! ! or.... the battery isnt able to supply the circuit and thus the fuse is never overloaded and never blows. w r o n g ! ! ! so while they think we dont like engineers my entire reply was based on engineers doing their work correctly. the funny thing is that the engineers probably had nothing to do with it. many of the failures in todays automobiles are due to cost cutting not engineering. conclusion either our resident engineers were incorrect about the cause of the problem assumed to be wiring and the need for a load test to check the battery w r o n g ! ! ! or chryslers resident engineers were wrong and failed to put the appropriate size fuse on the circuit along with the correct guage of wire. w r o n g ! ! ! somewhere in this mess a bunch of engineers screwed up its either in design or diagnosis. as usual you dont know wtf you are talking about and only see 1/1000th of the picture. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : matt whiting

ken weitzel wrote matt whiting wrote budd cochran wrote it is you that is confusing primary circuit current with high amp starting current. and failing to mention that as current amps rises voltage loss decreases in a circuit. and i believe youre doing it deliberately to save face. more of that new physics eh i learned that the voltage drop across a resistance was related to current by v=ir commonly called ohms law. a circuit is a resistance maybe a small one if the wire is large enough but a resistance nonetheless. so as current increases with resistance remaining the same the voltage drop around the circuit will increase not decrease. can you explain how you have found a way around ohms law hi... perhaps its been repealed not to fuel the fire but in a perhaps futile attempt to make you fellows come to some kind of a consensus... i have a 1500 watt electric heater in my garage for when i work a bit on my chrysler during a winnipeg winter... everytime i plug this heater in it gets nice and toasty warm which is good. but - the durned wire gets very very warm and concers me a bit. i wonder how and why and where that bit of energy comes from. again not to fan the flames but just food for thought. are you being sarcastic or do you really now know what causes the heating in the wires in your heater or do you mean the cord to the heater either way it is the same thing. power = isquaredr. the cord to the heater has some resistance and it is carrying a lot of current for a 1500 w heater so it will get warm and dissipate heat just as the heating element wires in the heater get hot and dissipate heat. matt matt .

From : bill putney

ken weitzel wrote hi... perhaps its been repealed not to fuel the fire but in a perhaps futile attempt to make you fellows come to some kind of a consensus... that would be like asking me to come to a concensus that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. aint gonna happen. i have a 1500 watt electric heater in my garage for when i work a bit on my chrysler during a winnipeg winter... everytime i plug this heater in it gets nice and toasty warm which is good. but - the durned wire gets very very warm and concers me a bit. i wonder how and why and where that bit of energy comes from. were back to resistance in the wire which - according to ohms law - causes a voltage drop proportional to current flow. now - power loss heat generated in that wire = current^2 * resistance. it also is voltage^2 resitance. either way you calculate it it comes out the same. for budd and max the ^ is a mathemeatical/engineering symbol - brought about by the use of computers because superscripts are awkward in computers - meaning to the power of or in this case. ^2 means squared. so youll understand power lost is equal to voltage squared divided by resistance where power is in watts voltage is volts and current is amps or some other compatible units. sarcasmnow - if you do not believe ohms law but instead believe budds law budds law as current amps rises voltage loss decreases in a circuit - a direct quote from the man himself the resistance in the wire causes a voltage *rise* with current - so if the voltage at the wall outlet is 115 the voltage reaching the heater is actually higher - say 120 volts. so since the current is the same in the series circuit instead of the resistance causing power loss power is actually generated by the resistance in the wire you just think the wire is heating up ken - actually by budds law the wire is getting colder. if you are smart ken you will buy a whole bunch of heaters and tap into this power generation and sell off the excess power./sarcasm again not to fan the flames but just food for thought. no - with a simple real world example youve provided another opportunity to illustrate gross and willful ignorance on the part of certain people. take care. ken ps. i coulda spelt ohm backwards and really messed the conversation up believe it or not there is an engineering unit called mhos pronounced like the name of the leader of the three stooges which is the inverse of resistance i.e. 1/ohms - it is called conductivity. so if a certain wire or junction or device is a good conductor it will have high mhos.this last paragraph is not tongue-in-cheek. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

matt whiting wrote ken weitzel wrote hi... perhaps its been repealed not to fuel the fire but in a perhaps futile attempt to make you fellows come to some kind of a consensus... i have a 1500 watt electric heater in my garage for when i work a bit on my chrysler during a winnipeg winter... everytime i plug this heater in it gets nice and toasty warm which is good. but - the durned wire gets very very warm and concers me a bit. i wonder how and why and where that bit of energy comes from. again not to fan the flames but just food for thought. are you being sarcastic or do you really now know what causes the heating in the wires in your heater or do you mean the cord to the heater either way it is the same thing. power = isquaredr. the cord to the heater has some resistance and it is carrying a lot of current for a 1500 w heater so it will get warm and dissipate heat just as the heating element wires in the heater get hot and dissipate heat. matt matt well - sure - if you believe ohms law!!! what poppycock! bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : max dodge

more often than not ill stand by their work. in this case all of our resident engineers got it wrong. the load test proves them right and you wrong. what you are failing to grasp here is that a load test was done even though all of the engineers said it was useless. your statement above is exactly why i said a load test was needed; it is definitive proof of where the problem lies. if you go back and read what ive said on that thread i didnt claim to know exactly where the problem was only that a load test was essential in finding it. they claims as well as yours to the contrary are proven wrong by the fact that a load test was in fact done. the claim that 629a or whatever amperage was claimed was found means nothing until a manufacturers cca rating for the battery is posted and i havent seen anyone post that as a fact yet. the fact that the wiring is determined to be the center of this problem means that one group of engineers is wrong either its you internet experts or the ones in the chrysler engineering and design studios. as i said before and especially in light of your outrageous claims helium has no weight ill go with the chrysler guys as more reliable. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author so were in agreement on this appears and the experts are overlooking the kiss factor. bingo. the only two problems ive ever had with engineers is that some are arrogant pricks relying on their credentials instead of knowledge and some dont like to look at the simple problems first. and then there are those that can never admit to error even when every fact screams that you are. more often than not ill stand by their work. in this case all of our resident engineers got it wrong. the load test proves them right and you wrong. whats even more amusing is that as engineers they dont have enough confidence in their comrades over at chrysler to believe that an engineer would never allow too small a wire to be used in getting the job done. what makes you think that engineering had anything to do with it. how about accounting. i can hear the bs now well thats what the fuse is for etc etc etc. terrific if the fuse never blew then they werent drawing too much power from the circuit and thus the voltage drop is due to something other than the design of the vehicle. that leaves two things it does no such thing. the fuse is there to prevent a fire not eliminate a voltage drop. the inverter is pulling too much amperage and the voltage drops as the fuse blows...... w r o n g ! ! ! or.... the battery isnt able to supply the circuit and thus the fuse is never overloaded and never blows. w r o n g ! ! ! so while they think we dont like engineers my entire reply was based on engineers doing their work correctly. the funny thing is that the engineers probably had nothing to do with it. many of the failures in todays automobiles are due to cost cutting not engineering. conclusion either our resident engineers were incorrect about the cause of the problem assumed to be wiring and the need for a load test to check the battery w r o n g ! ! ! or chryslers resident engineers were wrong and failed to put the appropriate size fuse on the circuit along with the correct guage of wire. w r o n g ! ! ! somewhere in this mess a bunch of engineers screwed up its either in design or diagnosis. as usual you dont know wtf you are talking about and only see 1/1000th of the picture. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote max dodge wrote ...that leaves two things the inverter is pulling too much amperage and the voltage drops as the fuse blows...... or.... the battery isnt able to supply the circuit and thus the fuse is never overloaded and never blows. you later go with the second choice therefore... as has been pointed out several times if you are correct the battery cant maintain voltage with a 10 amp load but it can start the car without any problem wich requires several times the 10 amp load. not plausible. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x and what are your degrees in 1 i already answered that. 2 you already stated that you wouldnt believe me no matter what i told you. ah yes thanks for reminding me why i dont believe the stuff you wrote below. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams what gauge wire carries the starting current the power outlet current the pilot current for engaging the solenoid is a mere fraction of the current required to crank the engine . . .your argument is false. except even though you dont realize it what youve been arguing is that the drop is coming from within the battery internal resistance - and that drop will be due to *total* current it is supplying at any given moment again you illustrate your gross ignorance of reality as dictated by ohms law. so when engaging and cranking the starter the drop in the battery will primarily be determined by the current that the starter is sucking. even with zero drop across the solenoid supply wire the voltage it sees will be no higher than what the battery can provide at the heavy current draw of the starter. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

sarcasm mode at full throttle full boost and full nox oh i keep forgetting only an engineer like yourself roflmbo!!! can deliberately confuse a topic. sarcasm mode disengaged -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams budd cochran wrote it is you that is confusing primary circuit current with high amp starting current. and failing to mention that as current amps rises voltage loss decreases in a circuit. and i believe youre doing it deliberately to save face. more of that new physics eh i learned that the voltage drop across a resistance was related to current by v=ir commonly called ohms law. a circuit is a resistance maybe a small one if the wire is large enough but a resistance nonetheless. so as current increases with resistance remaining the same the voltage drop around the circuit will increase not decrease. can you explain how you have found a way around ohms law matt *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : ken weitzel

matt whiting wrote budd cochran wrote sarcasm mode at full throttle full boost and full nox oh i keep forgetting only an engineer like yourself roflmbo!!! can deliberately confuse a topic. sarcasm mode disengaged ha ha ha... ohms law is about as simple as it gets. only you could be confused about e=ir. hi matt... wonder if someone could if they didnt know the abbreviations... so just in case... e = voltage in volts i = current in amps r = resistance in ohms take care. ken .

From : bill putney

ken weitzel wrote matt whiting wrote budd cochran wrote sarcasm mode at full throttle full boost and full nox oh i keep forgetting only an engineer like yourself roflmbo!!! can deliberately confuse a topic. sarcasm mode disengaged ha ha ha... ohms law is about as simple as it gets. only you could be confused about e=ir. hi matt... wonder if someone could if they didnt know the abbreviations... so just in case... e = voltage in volts i = current in amps r = resistance in ohms that might be helpful to someone who really wants to learn ken but they really are not interested in anything other than mental masturbation. besides it was spelled out for them in those terms already anyway. also why i used the term willfully ignorant. sad. very sad. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote max dodge wrote ...that leaves two things the inverter is pulling too much amperage and the voltage drops as the fuse blows...... or.... the battery isnt able to supply the circuit and thus the fuse is never overloaded and never blows. you later go with the second choice therefore... as has been pointed out several times if you are correct the battery cant maintain voltage with a 10 amp load but it can start the car without any problem wich requires several times the 10 amp load. not plausible. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x and what are your degrees in 1 i already answered that. 2 you already stated that you wouldnt believe me no matter what i told you. ah yes thanks for reminding me why i dont believe the stuff you wrote below. budd you dont have to believe bill just google ohms law or pick up any basic physics or electrical book. i searched for budds law and came up empty. - matt .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote sarcasm mode at full throttle full boost and full nox oh i keep forgetting only an engineer like yourself roflmbo!!! can deliberately confuse a topic. sarcasm mode disengaged ha ha ha... ohms law is about as simple as it gets. only you could be confused about e=ir. matt .

From : tbone

sarcasm mode at full throttle full boost and full nox oh i keep forgetting only an engineer like yourself roflmbo!!! can deliberately confuse a topic. sarcasm mode disengaged is this your coded way of saying you were wrong. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

more often than not ill stand by their work. in this case all of our resident engineers got it wrong. the load test proves them right and you wrong. what you are failing to grasp here is that a load test was done even though all of the engineers said it was useless. your statement above is exactly why i said a load test was needed; it is definitive proof of where the problem lies. if you go back and read what ive said on that thread i didnt claim to know exactly where the problem was only that a load test was essential in finding it. lol sorry maxi but you are still wrong. a simple voltage test on the battery while the inverter was plugged in was all that was needed. you really do flip flop more than kerry. first it was a bad battery then it wasnt but the load test was necessarry then back to the battery was bad again. make up your mind because either way you are still wrong. the battery was not bad and a load test was not necessary. they claims as well as yours to the contrary are proven wrong by the fact that a load test was in fact done. the claim that 629a or whatever amperage was claimed was found means nothing until a manufacturers cca rating for the battery is posted and i havent seen anyone post that as a fact yet. i must say that it funny to watch you twist and squirm rather than just admit to your error or just shut the hell up. since it is a mini-van with a factory battery do you really think it is going to be anything over 700 cca and i see you are still flip-flopping. in the first paragraph you claim that the load test confirming the battery to be ok proves you right and now you have managed to flip flop back to the battery possibly being bad again. if you actually new what a voltage drop was you could possibly have an argument that makes sense. the fact that the wiring is determined to be the center of this problem means that one group of engineers is wrong either its you internet experts or the ones in the chrysler engineering and design studios. as i said before and especially in light of your outrageous claims helium has no weight ill go with the chrysler guys as more reliable. once again you cant see the forest thru the trees. what makes you think that the engineers caused this problem perhaps it was the cost cutters or perhaps they were not expecting such a device to be connected there or saving money took a priority like in the dakota front ball joints or using the nv3500 in the full sized ram even though it reduced towing capability or using undersized steering shaft joints that tend to fail prematurely or putting the damn fuel filter in the tank as part of the pump. yea max cost savings is never placed over full reliability or longevity. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

no thanks i still have my electrical engineering handbook. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote max dodge wrote ...that leaves two things the inverter is pulling too much amperage and the voltage drops as the fuse blows...... or.... the battery isnt able to supply the circuit and thus the fuse is never overloaded and never blows. you later go with the second choice therefore... as has been pointed out several times if you are correct the battery cant maintain voltage with a 10 amp load but it can start the car without any problem wich requires several times the 10 amp load. not plausible. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x and what are your degrees in 1 i already answered that. 2 you already stated that you wouldnt believe me no matter what i told you. ah yes thanks for reminding me why i dont believe the stuff you wrote below. budd you dont have to believe bill just google ohms law or pick up any basic physics or electrical book. i searched for budds law and came up empty. - matt *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : tbone

perhaps you should take the time to comprehend what it is telling you. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving no thanks i still have my electrical engineering handbook. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote max dodge wrote ...that leaves two things the inverter is pulling too much amperage and the voltage drops as the fuse blows...... or.... the battery isnt able to supply the circuit and thus the fuse is never overloaded and never blows. you later go with the second choice therefore... as has been pointed out several times if you are correct the battery cant maintain voltage with a 10 amp load but it can start the car without any problem wich requires several times the 10 amp load. not plausible. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x and what are your degrees in 1 i already answered that. 2 you already stated that you wouldnt believe me no matter what i told you. ah yes thanks for reminding me why i dont believe the stuff you wrote below. budd you dont have to believe bill just google ohms law or pick up any basic physics or electrical book. i searched for budds law and came up empty. - matt *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

and yet you claim to not denigrate a persons education. you are a lying hypocrite! ive had enough of you. -- budd cochran john 316-17 ephesians 28-9 our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. john adams budd cochran wrote no thanks i still have my electrical engineering handbook. if only you knew how to read it. im quite sure it has ohms law spelled out correctly. matt *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : matt whiting

budd cochran wrote and yet you claim to not denigrate a persons education. i didnt denigrate your education. i denigrated your ability to read. you posted a blatantly incorrect physics relationship yet you claim to have a book that in all likelihood would have the correct rendition of ohms law. so this suggests that you either cant read or cant understand the book you have. you are a lying hypocrite! only in your feeble mind. ive had enough of you. it is about time. im surprised you could tolerate truth and correctness even this long given your propensity for fiction. matt .

From : tbone

-- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving steve wrote snip easy 1 plug in the inverter 2 measure the voltage at the battery. call it v1 3 measure the voltage at the cigarette lighter. call it v2 4 subtract v2 from v1. if the difference is a couple of volts then you know that theres excessive voltage drop and that is why the inverter is cutting out. even easier. with the side benefit of automagically identifying whether its the wire or the ground thats to blame put one of the probes if digital on the battery positive terminal; the other probe on the outlet center pin. measure the voltage. and you will get nothing. why because both sides are connected to positive and with no load there can be no drop for the meter to measure. next put one of the probes on the battery negative; the other on the outlet shell. measure the voltage. again if it were the socket that were bad you would still get nothing because there is no current flow there when the socket is not being used. if you have a bad body ground you would see a voltage but it would not tell you where the problem is. in this case i would do as max suggested and measure for resistance. both should be very very small whichever if any is large is the problem. both are probably going to be zero because without a load you dont get voltage drops. take care. ken .

From : ken weitzel

steve wrote snip easy 1 plug in the inverter 2 measure the voltage at the battery. call it v1 3 measure the voltage at the cigarette lighter. call it v2 4 subtract v2 from v1. if the difference is a couple of volts then you know that theres excessive voltage drop and that is why the inverter is cutting out. even easier. with the side benefit of automagically identifying whether its the wire or the ground thats to blame put one of the probes if digital on the battery positive terminal; the other probe on the outlet center pin. measure the voltage. next put one of the probes on the battery negative; the other on the outlet shell. measure the voltage. both should be very very small whichever if any is large is the problem. take care. ken .

From : steve

max dodge wrote good god max. im not going to go back and re-trace the whole freakish thread but my recollection of the assertions made is not what you said above. then your recollection is faulty. what was said is that knowing what we know about the whole car including that it started normally and that wiring to cigarette lighters and auxiliary outlets tends to be under-sized that the *first* thing to do is probably *not* remove the battery from the vehicle and take it somewhere to have a load test on it. given that removal of the battery is not necessary it is if youre just a weekend mechanic. the first thing that makes sense for a guy with a garage and a voltmter is just measure the voltage drop under load between the battery and the cigarette lighter. except that we already know from what the inverter did that the voltage is low. no need to check again. why is it low at the lighter is it low because the battery is somehow sagging under a few amps of load yet still can supply 100+ amps to crank the engine not bloody likely! or is it because theres an excessive voltage drop along the supply to the lighter or perhaps a bad ground whether the battery is fresh as a daisy or half a volt down from where a new battery would be is less important than whether or not youre losing 2.3 volts between the battery and the cigarette lighter! how do you know you are losing 2.3 volts if you havent checked the battery under load easy 1 plug in the inverter 2 measure the voltage at the battery. call it v1 3 measure the voltage at the cigarette lighter. call it v2 4 subtract v2 from v1. if the difference is a couple of volts then you know that theres excessive voltage drop and that is why the inverter is cutting out. maybe the entire system including the battery is dropping that 2.3 volts. as i said in a previous post the only way you are losing that voltage without popping a fuse is if the battery cant supply the voltage. i cant help it if youre just dead-nuts wrong. whats going to pop the fuse if theres an undersized wire that is dropping the voltage or a bad ground connection when those faults occur the fuse winds up carrying less current than it should and is less likely to pop. unless you are willing to agree that there is a significant hazard in the wiring catching fire which would be an engineers fault for not specing the right wire guage. i think thats exactly the problem in this case. or a connection has deteriorated with time. in cars that have real cigarette lighters and not just accessory outlets its not at all uncommon for the center pin of the outlet to become corroded due to cigarette ashes transferred from the lighter and the heat of the lighter when its in operation. sometimes the weak connection is the lighter socket itself. .

From : steve

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote the design wasnt properly thought out to begin with. it was over-engineered. the dream was to eliminate a pair of bands which worked efficiently and take up less space then replace them with bulky clutches that create oil shear which heats up the fluid. actually budd the dream was to give the computer full authority over shift rate and quality plus a diagnostic capability. to do that necessitated clutch-to-clutch shifting and eliminated the ability to use overrunning clutches which in turn made bands pretty useless. did it bands can be released cleanly and as shown in the 727-904 series by using accumulators like those in the 604/41te applied smoothly. the overunning sprag in the case is unneccessary as the l/r band can be applied and is when low range is selected. a valve body change and you eliminate the weak link spun sprag bands are like self-energizing drum brakes. as they begin to apply they tend to apply themselves. you can make them do so very smoothly but what doesnt work well is trying to have a computer control that apply rate over a wide range. clutches work better for that. not that im a great defender of the 41te- its a classic example of management wanting to be able to crow about worlds first computer-controlled transmission! before the engineering was fully baked. but lets at least stay on the right page in the debate. the engineers didnt wake up and say duh i like clutches better than bands! it was a compromise in one area to allow what was hoped to be an improvement in another area and facilitate computer control. i am offended you think im not on the right page mister. i stated my beliefs and opinions on that transmission based on my experience. the trans sucks because it is over-engineered. again if it aint broke dont fix it till it is. which is what i see as having happened. we already know youre easily offended. the trans sucked because the engineers werent finished with the job when it went to production. thats under-engineering not over-engineering. the things been pretty bulletproof for 10+ years now. .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

budd cochran wrote budd cochran wrote the design wasnt properly thought out to begin with. it was over-engineered. the dream was to eliminate a pair of bands which worked efficiently and take up less space then replace them with bulky clutches that create oil shear which heats up the fluid. actually budd the dream was to give the computer full authority over shift rate and quality plus a diagnostic capability. to do that necessitated clutch-to-clutch shifting and eliminated the ability to use overrunning clutches which in turn made bands pretty useless. did it bands can be released cleanly and as shown in the 727-904 series by using accumulators like those in the 604/41te applied smoothly. the overunning sprag in the case is unneccessary as the l/r band can be applied and is when low range is selected. a valve body change and you eliminate the weak link spun sprag bands are like self-energizing drum brakes. as they begin to apply they tend to apply themselves. you can make them do so very smoothly but what doesnt work well is trying to have a computer control that apply rate over a wide range. clutches work better for that. whether bands self energize or not depends on the way they are applied in relation to rotation of the drum. chrysler used an external band brake for the emergency brake on the back of their transmissions in the 50s and it was too efficient when driving forward and about half as efficient went going backward. this could have been done in the transmission as well. not that im a great defender of the 41te- its a classic example of management wanting to be able to crow about worlds first computer-controlled transmission! before the engineering was fully baked. but lets at least stay on the right page in the debate. the engineers didnt wake up and say duh i like clutches better than bands! it was a compromise in one area to allow what was hoped to be an improvement in another area and facilitate computer control. i am offended you think im not on the right page mister. i stated my beliefs and opinions on that transmission based on my experience. the trans sucks because it is over-engineered. again if it aint broke dont fix it till it is. which is what i see as having happened. we already know youre easily offended. yes i have the right to be offended as do you. i also have the right to be offensive as do you. unfortunately it doesnt seem to matter to you that you did offend me. the trans sucked because the engineers werent finished with the job when it went to production. thats under-engineering not over-engineering. the things been pretty bulletproof for 10+ years now. funny i still hear a lot of complaints about it even in later models. but youve got your opinions ive got mine. cya. budd *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : max dodge

even easier. with the side benefit of automagically identifying whether its the wire or the ground thats to blame put one of the probes if digital on the battery positive terminal; the other probe on the outlet center pin. measure the voltage. this would be effective if we didnt already know there was a difference in voltage via the inverter function. next put one of the probes on the battery negative; the other on the outlet shell. measure the voltage. youll find nothing here since both are grounded. assuming the socket is losing its ground youll still find nothing. if you measure the resistance then youd find a bad ground. both should be very very small whichever if any is large is the problem. take care. the downside to these tests is the fact that most multimeters do not have leads long enough to complete the desired circuit. aside from that it would be a very effective method of checking the circuits. however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author steve wrote snip easy 1 plug in the inverter 2 measure the voltage at the battery. call it v1 3 measure the voltage at the cigarette lighter. call it v2 4 subtract v2 from v1. if the difference is a couple of volts then you know that theres excessive voltage drop and that is why the inverter is cutting out. even easier. with the side benefit of automagically identifying whether its the wire or the ground thats to blame put one of the probes if digital on the battery positive terminal; the other probe on the outlet center pin. measure the voltage. next put one of the probes on the battery negative; the other on the outlet shell. measure the voltage. both should be very very small whichever if any is large is the problem. take care. ken .

From : max dodge

given that removal of the battery is not necessary it is if youre just a weekend mechanic. no it is not. for as educated in this as you all claim to be you dont seem to realize that a load tester is easily found and under $50. thus many places have them and loan them out. all you need to do is clamp them on and push a button no need to move the battery anywhere. an example seen here http//www.toolsource.com/ost/product.aspsourceid=overturebattery%5ftest&dept%5fid=500&pf%5fid=96095&mscssid=x0jeu6md7p9k9klgdbjm2vjpusam2889 except that we already know from what the inverter did that the voltage is low. no need to check again. why is it low at the lighter is it low because the battery is somehow sagging under a few amps of load yet still can supply 100+ amps to crank the engine not bloody likely! or is it because theres an excessive voltage drop along the supply to the lighter or perhaps a bad ground 1 see my reply to bill regarding the very real possibility that the starter works fine while the power port may not. 2 the only way to determine if its the wiring or the battery is to load test the battery. 3 testing the ground could easily be more difficult than testing the battery. how do you know you are losing 2.3 volts if you havent checked the battery under load easy 1 plug in the inverter 2 measure the voltage at the battery. call it v1 3 measure the voltage at the cigarette lighter. call it v2 4 subtract v2 from v1. if the difference is a couple of volts then you know that theres excessive voltage drop and that is why the inverter is cutting out. alright if you plug in the inverter and you place a load on the battery via the port what have you done yup thats right load tested the battery. and on top of it all you havent removed the battery. jeez that was tough. i cant help it if youre just dead-nuts wrong. whats going to pop the fuse if theres an undersized wire that is dropping the voltage or a bad ground connection when those faults occur the fuse winds up carrying less current than it should and is less likely to pop. yup thats why i prefer to load test the battery. then i can see how the battery works under load without all the rest of that stuff as variables. testing the battery determines a baseline and allows for proper testing of the rest of the varibles. i think thats exactly the problem in this case. or a connection has deteriorated with time. in cars that have real cigarette lighters and not just accessory outlets its not at all uncommon for the center pin of the outlet to become corroded due to cigarette ashes transferred from the lighter and the heat of the lighter when its in operation. sometimes the weak connection is the lighter socket itself. terrific see above regarding the ease of each test and why a battery load test is so simple. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote good god max. im not going to go back and re-trace the whole freakish thread but my recollection of the assertions made is not what you said above. then your recollection is faulty. what was said is that knowing what we know about the whole car including that it started normally and that wiring to cigarette lighters and auxiliary outlets tends to be under-sized that the *first* thing to do is probably *not* remove the battery from the vehicle and take it somewhere to have a load test on it. given that removal of the battery is not necessary it is if youre just a weekend mechanic. the first thing that makes sense for a guy with a garage and a voltmter is just measure the voltage drop under load between the battery and the cigarette lighter. except that we already know from what the inverter did that the voltage is low. no need to check again. why is it low at the lighter is it low because the battery is somehow sagging under a few amps of load yet still can supply 100+ amps to crank the engine not bloody likely! or is it because theres an excessive voltage drop along the supply to the lighter or perhaps a bad ground whether the battery is fresh as a daisy or half a volt down from where a new battery would be is less important than whether or not youre losing 2.3 volts between the battery and the cigarette lighter! how do you know you are losing 2.3 volts if you havent checked the battery under load easy 1 plug in the inverter 2 measure the voltage at the battery. call it v1 3 measure the voltage at the cigarette lighter. call it v2 4 subtract v2 from v1. if the difference is a couple of volts then you know that theres excessive voltage drop and that is why the inverter is cutting out. maybe the entire system including the battery is dropping that 2.3 volts. as i said in a previous post the only way you are losing that voltage without popping a f

From : tbone

given that removal of the battery is not necessary it is if youre just a weekend mechanic. no it is not. for as educated in this as you all claim to be you dont seem to realize that a load tester is easily found and under $50. thus many places have them and loan them out. all you need to do is clamp them on and push a button no need to move the battery anywhere. an example seen here http//www.toolsource.com/ost/product.aspsourceid=overturebattery%5ftest&dept%5fid=500&pf%5fid=96095&mscssid=x0jeu6md7p9k9klgdbjm2vjpusam2889 damn max are you ever going to let this one die. there is no need for a load test here no matter how hard you try and spin it. except that we already know from what the inverter did that the voltage is low. no need to check again. why is it low at the lighter is it low because the battery is somehow sagging under a few amps of load yet still can supply 100+ amps to crank the engine not bloody likely! or is it because theres an excessive voltage drop along the supply to the lighter or perhaps a bad ground 1 see my reply to bill regarding the very real possibility that the starter works fine while the power port may not. complete and utter nonsense. the starter is completely current dependent and if a small load of around 10a can pull it down so quickly what do you think the starter pulling around 20 times that load is going to do to the voltage of that battery. yea those injectors will fire real well at around 8 volts or less. 2 the only way to determine if its the wiring or the battery is to load test the battery. again wrong. all that needs to be done is to measure the voltage at the battery under load which is not the same thing as a load test. 3 testing the ground could easily be more difficult than testing the battery. while true we already know that the battery is not the problem. how do you know you are losing 2.3 volts if you havent checked the battery under load easy 1 plug in the inverter 2 measure the voltage at the battery. call it v1 3 measure the voltage at the cigarette lighter. call it v2 4 subtract v2 from v1. if the difference is a couple of volts then you know that theres excessive voltage drop and that is why the inverter is cutting out. alright if you plug in the inverter and you place a load on the battery via the port what have you done measured battery voltage under the load of the device. yup thats right load tested the battery. nope it is not. not enough current for a valid load test or even enough time according to you. and on top of it all you havent removed the battery. jeez that was tough. and it wasnt a load test either. jeez what an idiot! i cant help it if youre just dead-nuts wrong. whats going to pop the fuse if theres an undersized wire that is dropping the voltage or a bad ground connection when those faults occur the fuse winds up carrying less current than it should and is less likely to pop. yup thats why i prefer to load test the battery. then i can see how the battery works under load without all the rest of that stuff as variables. testing the battery determines a baseline and allows for proper testing of the rest of the varibles. you always load test the battery because you dont fully understand what you are doing and it seems to work. pretty much like blood letting reduced fevers so they did it out of habit without actually understanding how or why. i think thats exactly the problem in this case. or a connection has deteriorated with time. in cars that have real cigarette lighters and not just accessory outlets its not at all uncommon for the center pin of the outlet to become corroded due to cigarette ashes transferred from the lighter and the heat of the lighter when its in operation. sometimes the weak connection is the lighter socket itself. terrific see above regarding the ease of each test and why a battery load test is so simple. simple yes necessary here not at all! -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : christopher thompson

even easier. with the side benefit of automagically identifying whether its the wire or the ground thats to blame put one of the probes if digital on the battery positive terminal; the other probe on the outlet center pin. measure the voltage. this would be effective if we didnt already know there was a difference in voltage via the inverter function. next put one of the probes on the battery negative; the other on the outlet shell. measure the voltage. youll find nothing here since both are grounded. assuming the socket is losing its ground youll still find nothing. if you measure the resistance then youd find a bad ground. both should be very very small whichever if any is large is the problem. take care. the downside to these tests is the fact that most multimeters do not have leads long enough to complete the desired circuit. simple enough a length of wire is cheap and easy to find. aside from that it would be a very effective method of checking the circuits. however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author steve wrote snip easy 1 plug in the inverter 2 measure the voltage at the battery. call it v1 3 measure the voltage at the cigarette lighter. call it v2 4 subtract v2 from v1. if the difference is a couple of volts then you know that theres excessive voltage drop and that is why the inverter is cutting out. even easier. with the side benefit of automagically identifying whether its the wire or the ground thats to blame put one of the probes if digital on the battery positive terminal; the other probe on the outlet center pin. measure the voltage. next put one of the probes on the battery negative; the other on the outlet shell. measure the voltage. both should be very very small whichever if any is large is the problem. take care. ken .

From : max dodge

except that no matter how you spin it at very least a cobbled load test was done. you know it because you made reference to it. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author given that removal of the battery is not necessary it is if youre just a weekend mechanic. no it is not. for as educated in this as you all claim to be you dont seem to realize that a load tester is easily found and under $50. thus many places have them and loan them out. all you need to do is clamp them on and push a button no need to move the battery anywhere. an example seen here http//www.toolsource.com/ost/product.aspsourceid=overturebattery%5ftest&dept%5fid=500&pf%5fid=96095&mscssid=x0jeu6md7p9k9klgdbjm2vjpusam2889 damn max are you ever going to let this one die. there is no need for a load test here no matter how hard you try and spin it. except that we already know from what the inverter did that the voltage is low. no need to check again. why is it low at the lighter is it low because the battery is somehow sagging under a few amps of load yet still can supply 100+ amps to crank the engine not bloody likely! or is it because theres an excessive voltage drop along the supply to the lighter or perhaps a bad ground 1 see my reply to bill regarding the very real possibility that the starter works fine while the power port may not. complete and utter nonsense. the starter is completely current dependent and if a small load of around 10a can pull it down so quickly what do you think the starter pulling around 20 times that load is going to do to the voltage of that battery. yea those injectors will fire real well at around 8 volts or less. 2 the only way to determine if its the wiring or the battery is to load test the battery. again wrong. all that needs to be done is to measure the voltage at the battery under load which is not the same thing as a load test. 3 testing the ground could easily be more difficult than testing the battery. while true we already know that the battery is not the problem. how do you know you are losing 2.3 volts if you havent checked the battery under load easy 1 plug in the inverter 2 measure the voltage at the battery. call it v1 3 measure the voltage at the cigarette lighter. call it v2 4 subtract v2 from v1. if the difference is a couple of volts then you know that theres excessive voltage drop and that is why the inverter is cutting out. alright if you plug in the inverter and you place a load on the battery via the port what have you done measured battery voltage under the load of the device. yup thats right load tested the battery. nope it is not. not enough current for a valid load test or even enough time according to you. and on top of it all you havent removed the battery. jeez that was tough. and it wasnt a load test either. jeez what an idiot! i cant help it if youre just dead-nuts wrong. whats going to pop the fuse if theres an undersized wire that is dropping the voltage or a bad ground connection when those faults occur the fuse winds up carrying less current than it should and is less likely to pop. yup thats why i prefer to load test the battery. then i can see how the battery works under load without all the rest of that stuff as variables. testing the battery determines a baseline and allows for proper testing of the rest of the varibles. you always load test the battery because you dont fully understand what you are doing and it seems to work. pretty much like blood letting reduced fevers so they did it out of habit without actually understanding how or why. i think thats exactly the problem in this case. or a connection has deteriorated with time. in cars that have real cigarette lighters and not just accessory outlets its not at all uncommon for the center pin of the outlet to become corroded due to cigarette ashes transferred from the lighter and the heat of the lighter when its in operation. sometimes the weak connection is the lighter socket itself. terrific see above regarding the ease of each test and why a battery load test is so simple. simple yes necessary here not at all! -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

the downside to these tests is the fact that most multimeters do not have leads long enough to complete the desired circuit. simple enough a length of wire is cheap and easy to find. right so are you measuring the voltage or resistance in the wire and its cobbled connections or the actual circuit you intended to check yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. right but you did not say that before so now you are doing a load test something that the experts say isnt necessary. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. thats great but the negative side wont have any power. so testing for voltage will net you a zero. if you wish to test the ground side for continuity to ground a resistance check is in order. fact is there are about ten ways to check each side of the circuit. the best way with the opening facts given is to check your power source for voltage and voltage under load and see how it compares to your power port. that will eliminate the battery or the wiring. if its the wiring as is widely suggested what engineer would allow that then a continuity check on the ground side is in order. if that proves to be good then rewiring the port is the next step. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author even easier. with the side benefit of automagically identifying whether its the wire or the ground thats to blame put one of the probes if digital on the battery positive terminal; the other probe on the outlet center pin. measure the voltage. this would be effective if we didnt already know there was a difference in voltage via the inverter function. next put one of the probes on the battery negative; the other on the outlet shell. measure the voltage. youll find nothing here since both are grounded. assuming the socket is losing its ground youll still find nothing. if you measure the resistance then youd find a bad ground. both should be very very small whichever if any is large is the problem. take care. the downside to these tests is the fact that most multimeters do not have leads long enough to complete the desired circuit. simple enough a length of wire is cheap and easy to find. aside from that it would be a very effective method of checking the circuits. however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author steve wrote snip easy 1 plug in the inverter 2 measure the voltage at the battery. call it v1 3 measure the voltage at the cigarette lighter. call it v2 4 subtract v2 from v1. if the difference is a couple of volts then you know that theres excessive voltage drop and that is why the inverter is cutting out. even easier. with the side benefit of automagically identifying whether its the wire or the ground thats to blame put one of the probes if digital on the battery positive terminal; the other probe on the outlet center pin. measure the voltage. next put one of the probes on the battery negative; the other on the outlet shell. measure the voltage. both should be very very small whichever if any is large is the problem. take care. ken .

From : christopher thompson

the downside to these tests is the fact that most multimeters do not have leads long enough to complete the desired circuit. simple enough a length of wire is cheap and easy to find. right so are you measuring the voltage or resistance in the wire and its cobbled connections or the actual circuit you intended to check yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. right but you did not say that before so now you are doing a load test something that the experts say isnt necessary. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. thats great but the negative side wont have any power. so testing for voltage will net you a zero. if you wish to test the ground side for continuity to ground a resistance check is in order. so there is not power on the ground side of a connection funny ive found plenty of voltage drops in corroded ground wires and connections before with exactly this test. try it with a resistor and a lightbulb from radio shack someday. fact is there are about ten ways to check each side of the circuit. the best way with the opening facts given is to check your power source for voltage and voltage under load and see how it compares to your power port. that will eliminate the battery or the wiring. if its the wiring as is widely suggested what engineer would allow that then a continuity check on the ground side is in order. if that proves to be good then rewiring the port is the next step. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author even easier. with the side benefit of automagically identifying whether its the wire or the ground thats to blame put one of the probes if digital on the battery positive terminal; the other probe on the outlet center pin. measure the voltage. this would be effective if we didnt already know there was a difference in voltage via the inverter function. next put one of the probes on the battery negative; the other on the outlet shell. measure the voltage. youll find nothing here since both are grounded. assuming the socket is losing its ground youll still find nothing. if you measure the resistance then youd find a bad ground. both should be very very small whichever if any is large is the problem. take care. the downside to these tests is the fact that most multimeters do not have leads long enough to complete the desired circuit. simple enough a length of wire is cheap and easy to find. aside from that it would be a very effective method of checking the circuits. however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author steve wrote snip easy 1 plug in the inverter 2 measure the voltage at the battery. call it v1 3 measure the voltage at the cigarette lighter. call it v2 4 subtract v2 from v1. if the difference is a couple of volts then you know that theres excessive voltage drop and that is why the inverter is cutting out. even easier. with the side benefit of automagically identifying whether its the wire or the ground thats to blame put one of the probes if digital on the battery positive terminal; the other probe on the outlet center pin. measure the voltage. next put one of the probes on the battery negative; the other on the outlet shell. measure the voltage. both should be very very small whichever if any is large is the problem. take care. ken .

From : max dodge

so there is not power on the ground side of a connection on a power port with nothing plugged in there is no power on the ground side. funny ive found plenty of voltage drops in corroded ground wires and connections before with exactly this test. if the ground wire is to connected load which is in turn connected to a power source that is correct. in the case of a power port with nothing plugged in you will get no voltage reading on the ground side. try it with a resistor and a lightbulb from radio shack someday. i would but without a battery i know what i would find. no voltage. this circuit would only have voltage if you had a battery or uncle fester connected to it. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author the downside to these tests is the fact that most multimeters do not have leads long enough to complete the desired circuit. simple enough a length of wire is cheap and easy to find. right so are you measuring the voltage or resistance in the wire and its cobbled connections or the actual circuit you intended to check yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. right but you did not say that before so now you are doing a load test something that the experts say isnt necessary. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. thats great but the negative side wont have any power. so testing for voltage will net you a zero. if you wish to test the ground side for continuity to ground a resistance check is in order. so there is not power on the ground side of a connection funny ive found plenty of voltage drops in corroded ground wires and connections before with exactly this test. try it with a resistor and a lightbulb from radio shack someday. fact is there are about ten ways to check each side of the circuit. the best way with the opening facts given is to check your power source for voltage and voltage under load and see how it compares to your power port. that will eliminate the battery or the wiring. if its the wiring as is widely suggested what engineer would allow that then a continuity check on the ground side is in order. if that proves to be good then rewiring the port is the next step. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author even easier. with the side benefit of automagically identifying whether its the wire or the ground thats to blame put one of the probes if digital on the battery positive terminal; the other probe on the outlet center pin. measure the voltage. this would be effective if we didnt already know there was a difference in voltage via the inverter function. next put one of the probes on the battery negative; the other on the outlet shell. measure the voltage. youll find nothing here since both are grounded. assuming the socket is losing its ground youll still find nothing. if you measure the resistance then youd find a bad ground. both should be very very small whichever if any is large is the problem. take care. the downside to these tests is the fact that most multimeters do not have leads long enough to complete the desired circuit. simple enough a length of wire is cheap and easy to find. aside from that it would be a very effective method of checking the circuits. however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author steve wrote snip easy 1 plug in the inverter 2 measure the voltage at the battery. call it v1 3 measure the voltage at the cigarette lighter. call it v2 4 subtract v2 from v1. if the difference is a couple of volts then you know that theres excessive voltage drop and

From : bill putney

tbone wrote given that removal of the battery is not necessary it is if youre just a weekend mechanic. no it is not. for as educated in this as you all claim to be you dont seem to realize that a load tester is easily found and under $50. thus many places have them and loan them out. all you need to do is clamp them on and push a button no need to move the battery anywhere. an example seen here http//www.toolsource.com/ost/product.aspsourceid=overturebattery%5ftest&dept%5fid=500&pf%5fid=96095&mscssid=x0jeu6md7p9k9klgdbjm2vjpusam2889 damn max are you ever going to let this one die. there is no need for a load test here no matter how hard you try and spin it. except that we already know from what the inverter did that the voltage is low. no need to check again. why is it low at the lighter is it low because the battery is somehow sagging under a few amps of load yet still can supply 100+ amps to crank the engine not bloody likely! or is it because theres an excessive voltage drop along the supply to the lighter or perhaps a bad ground 1 see my reply to bill regarding the very real possibility that the starter works fine while the power port may not. complete and utter nonsense. the starter is completely current dependent and if a small load of around 10a can pull it down so quickly what do you think the starter pulling around 20 times that load is going to do to the voltage of that battery. yea those injectors will fire real well at around 8 volts or less. 2 the only way to determine if its the wiring or the battery is to load test the battery. again wrong. all that needs to be done is to measure the voltage at the battery under load which is not the same thing as a load test. 3 testing the ground could easily be more difficult than testing the battery. while true we already know that the battery is not the problem. how do you know you are losing 2.3 volts if you havent checked the battery under load easy 1 plug in the inverter 2 measure the voltage at the battery. call it v1 3 measure the voltage at the cigarette lighter. call it v2 4 subtract v2 from v1. if the difference is a couple of volts then you know that theres excessive voltage drop and that is why the inverter is cutting out. alright if you plug in the inverter and you place a load on the battery via the port what have you done measured battery voltage under the load of the device. yup thats right load tested the battery. nope it is not. not enough current for a valid load test or even enough time according to you. and on top of it all you havent removed the battery. jeez that was tough. and it wasnt a load test either. jeez what an idiot! i cant help it if youre just dead-nuts wrong. whats going to pop the fuse if theres an undersized wire that is dropping the voltage or a bad ground connection when those faults occur the fuse winds up carrying less current than it should and is less likely to pop. yup thats why i prefer to load test the battery. then i can see how the battery works under load without all the rest of that stuff as variables. testing the battery determines a baseline and allows for proper testing of the rest of the varibles. you always load test the battery because you dont fully understand what you are doing and it seems to work. pretty much like blood letting reduced fevers so they did it out of habit without actually understanding how or why. i think thats exactly the problem in this case. or a connection has deteriorated with time. in cars that have real cigarette lighters and not just accessory outlets its not at all uncommon for the center pin of the outlet to become corroded due to cigarette ashes transferred from the light

From : bill putney

weak connection is the lighter socket itself. terrific see above regarding the ease of each test and why a battery load test is so simple. simple yes necessary here not at all! isnt it amazing how the same bad battery is supposed to drop enough voltage to trip the 10a inverter off fail a load test by that i mean the true load test that youre talking about - not the super-light load test of the 10a inverter and yet start the engine with no hint of a problem id like to see the math on that one. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x . 222 315762 49cchefnpf1vu1@individual.net max dodge wrote so there is not power on the ground side of a connection on a power port with nothing plugged in there is no power on the ground side. funny ive found plenty of voltage drops in corroded ground wires and connections before with exactly this test. if the ground wire is to connected load which is in turn connected to a power source that is correct. in the case of a power port with nothing plugged in you will get no voltage reading on the ground side. try it with a resistor and a lightbulb from radio shack someday. i would but without a battery i know what i would find. no voltage. this circuit would only have voltage if you had a battery or uncle fester connected to it. damn! here is what you said however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. then christopher yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. once again you are proving your lack of understanding of ohms law and your dishonesty in the discussion or intelligence - again sometimes its difficult to separate the two. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

christopher thompson wrote be a very effective method of checking the circuits. however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. christopher max and budd stop just short of saying that ohms law is false and it is clear that they do not understand its application. plus the fact that max thru dishonesty or ignorance plays shell games with the facts - for example - here you clearly say that to do the voltage drop thing you apply a load and in maxs post immediately following he says that you wont get a voltage drop because you didnt apply a load. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : christopher thompson

christopher thompson wrote be a very effective method of checking the circuits. however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. christopher max and budd stop just short of saying that ohms law is false and it is clear that they do not understand its application. plus the fact that max thru dishonesty or ignorance plays shell games with the facts - for example - here you clearly say that to do the voltage drop thing you apply a load and in maxs post immediately following he says that you wont get a voltage drop because you didnt apply a load. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x yes i know thats why ive talked myself out of replying serveral times. ive followed the thread for the most part from the begining. -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango .

From : max dodge

isnt it amazing how the same bad battery is supposed to drop enough voltage to trip the 10a inverter off fail a load test by that i mean the true load test that youre talking about - not the super-light load test of the 10a inverter and yet start the engine with no hint of a problem id like to see the math on that one. i already went through how it could happen and often does. take a look at back posts. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author tbone wrote given that removal of the battery is not necessary it is if youre just a weekend mechanic. no it is not. for as educated in this as you all claim to be you dont seem to realize that a load tester is easily found and under $50. thus many places have them and loan them out. all you need to do is clamp them on and push a button no need to move the battery anywhere. an example seen here http//www.toolsource.com/ost/product.aspsourceid=overturebattery%5ftest&dept%5fid=500&pf%5fid=96095&mscssid=x0jeu6md7p9k9klgdbjm2vjpusam2889 damn max are you ever going to let this one die. there is no need for a load test here no matter how hard you try and spin it. except that we already know from what the inverter did that the voltage is low. no need to check again. why is it low at the lighter is it low because the battery is somehow sagging under a few amps of load yet still can supply 100+ amps to crank the engine not bloody likely! or is it because theres an excessive voltage drop along the supply to the lighter or perhaps a bad ground 1 see my reply to bill regarding the very real possibility that the starter works fine while the power port may not. complete and utter nonsense. the starter is completely current dependent and if a small load of around 10a can pull it down so quickly what do you think the starter pulling around 20 times that load is going to do to the voltage of that battery. yea those injectors will fire real well at around 8 volts or less. 2 the only way to determine if its the wiring or the battery is to load test the battery. again wrong. all that needs to be done is to measure the voltage at the battery under load which is not the same thing as a load test. 3 testing the ground could easily be more difficult than testing the battery. while true we already know that the battery is not the problem. how do you know you are losing 2.3 volts if you havent checked the battery under load easy 1 plug in the inverter 2 measure the voltage at the battery. call it v1 3 measure the voltage at the cigarette lighter. call it v2 4 subtract v2 from v1. if the difference is a couple of volts then you know that theres excessive voltage drop and that is why the inverter is cutting out. alright if you plug in the inverter and you place a load on the battery via the port what have you done measured battery voltage under the load of the device. yup thats right load tested the battery. nope it is not. not enough current for a valid load test or even enough time according to you. and on top of it all you havent removed the battery. jeez that was tough. and it wasnt a load test either. jeez what an idiot! i cant help it if youre just dead-nuts wrong. whats going to pop the fuse if theres an undersized wire that is dropping the voltage or a bad ground connection when those faults occur the fuse winds up carrying less current than it should and is less likely to pop. yup thats why i prefer to load test the battery. then i can see how the battery works under load without all the rest of that stuff as variables. testing the battery determines a baseline and allows for proper testing of the rest of the varibles. you always load test the battery because you dont fully understand what you are doing and it seems to work. pretty much like blood letting reduced fevers so they did it out of habit without actually understanding how or why. i think thats exactly the problem in this case. or a connection has deteriorated with time. in cars that have real cigarette lighters and not just accessory outlets its not at all uncommon for the center pin of the outlet to become corroded due to cigarette ashes transferred from the lighter and the heat of the lighter when its in operation. sometimes the weak connection is the lighter socket itself. terrific see above regarding the ease of each test and why a battery load test is so simple. simple yes necessary here not at all! isnt it amazing how the same bad battery is supposed to drop enough voltage to trip the 10a inverter off fail a load test by that i mean the true load test that youre talking about - not the super-light load test of the 10a inverter and yet start the engine with no hint of a problem id li

From : whoever

on mon 3 apr 2006 bill putney wrote true load test that youre talking about - not the super-light load test of the 10a inverter and yet start the engine with no hint of a problem id like to see the math on that one. here it is with a 10a load we assume a voltage drop of approx 1 volts. thus we can approximate the internal resistance at .1 ohms. now when starting the car we can assume a current of 250a which would lead to a voltage drop of 25v. since this is greater than the nominal 12v output of the battery we actually have a battery voltage of -13v 12v - 25v. -13v is clearly sufficient to start the car. even though the voltage is negative because the current passes through both stator and rotor windings the starter always turns in the same direction. that was easy! .

From : max dodge

once again you are proving your lack of understanding of ohms law and your dishonesty in the discussion or intelligence - again sometimes its difficult to separate the two. once again when someone changes their description of the test it changes the method of testing. chris changed from simply probing the port to back probing the plug of the device plugged into the port. two entirely different things get two entirely different results. no lying except on your part where you fail to observe the difference in chris posts. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote so there is not power on the ground side of a connection on a power port with nothing plugged in there is no power on the ground side. funny ive found plenty of voltage drops in corroded ground wires and connections before with exactly this test. if the ground wire is to connected load which is in turn connected to a power source that is correct. in the case of a power port with nothing plugged in you will get no voltage reading on the ground side. try it with a resistor and a lightbulb from radio shack someday. i would but without a battery i know what i would find. no voltage. this circuit would only have voltage if you had a battery or uncle fester connected to it. damn! here is what you said however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. then christopher yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. once again you are proving your lack of understanding of ohms law and your dishonesty in the discussion or intelligence - again sometimes its difficult to separate the two. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : max dodge

max and budd stop just short of saying that ohms law is false and it is clear that they do not understand its application. plus the fact that max thru dishonesty or ignorance plays shell games with the facts - for example - here you clearly say that to do the voltage drop thing you apply a load and in maxs post immediately following he says that you wont get a voltage drop because you didnt apply a load. yet another lie on your part. go back and read the original description chris gives of his test. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author christopher thompson wrote be a very effective method of checking the circuits. however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. christopher max and budd stop just short of saying that ohms law is false and it is clear that they do not understand its application. plus the fact that max thru dishonesty or ignorance plays shell games with the facts - for example - here you clearly say that to do the voltage drop thing you apply a load and in maxs post immediately following he says that you wont get a voltage drop because you didnt apply a load. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : ken weitzel

whoever wrote on mon 3 apr 2006 bill putney wrote true load test that youre talking about - not the super-light load test of the 10a inverter and yet start the engine with no hint of a problem id like to see the math on that one. here it is with a 10a load we assume a voltage drop of approx 1 volts. thus we can approximate the internal resistance at .1 ohms. now when starting the car we can assume a current of 250a which would lead to a voltage drop of 25v. since this is greater than the nominal 12v output of the battery we actually have a battery voltage of -13v 12v - 25v. -13v is clearly sufficient to start the car. even though the voltage is negative because the current passes through both stator and rotor windings the starter always turns in the same direction. that was easy! hey think you made one tiny mistake here... every time ive done lt the starter motor has turned backwards which causes the engine to run backwards. have to go downtown in one speed reverse quite slowly trying to go minus 50 kmh. its ok when i get home though cause backing up the driveway in drive is really really efficient and fast. oh and one other thing to be careful of. watch your temp guage cause the fans turn backwards too and the durned rad freezes solid. the good thing is the radio runs backwards too so instead of pushing out sound it sucks it all in. nice and quiet for a change. ken .

From : bill putney

whoever wrote on mon 3 apr 2006 bill putney wrote true load test that youre talking about - not the super-light load test of the 10a inverter and yet start the engine with no hint of a problem id like to see the math on that one. here it is with a 10a load we assume a voltage drop of approx 1 volts. thus we can approximate the internal resistance at .1 ohms. now when starting the car we can assume a current of 250a which would lead to a voltage drop of 25v. since this is greater than the nominal 12v output of the battery we actually have a battery voltage of -13v 12v - 25v. -13v is clearly sufficient to start the car. even though the voltage is negative because the current passes through both stator and rotor windings the starter always turns in the same direction. that was easy! ha ha! i love it! ingenious! bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : max dodge

ohms law works just fine chris its your testing methods that seem to change once i point out the flaws. or is it just the description because you didnt actually describe it correctly whichever ill allow you two self proclaimed geniuses to your flawed logic and devices. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author christopher thompson wrote be a very effective method of checking the circuits. however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. christopher max and budd stop just short of saying that ohms law is false and it is clear that they do not understand its application. plus the fact that max thru dishonesty or ignorance plays shell games with the facts - for example - here you clearly say that to do the voltage drop thing you apply a load and in maxs post immediately following he says that you wont get a voltage drop because you didnt apply a load. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x yes i know thats why ive talked myself out of replying serveral times. ive followed the thread for the most part from the begining. -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango .

From : bill putney

christopher thompson wrote christopher thompson wrote be a very effective method of checking the circuits. however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. christopher max and budd stop just short of saying that ohms law is false and it is clear that they do not understand its application. plus the fact that max thru dishonesty or ignorance plays shell games with the facts - for example - here you clearly say that to do the voltage drop thing you apply a load and in maxs post immediately following he says that you wont get a voltage drop because you didnt apply a load. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x yes i know thats why ive talked myself out of replying serveral times. ive followed the thread for the most part from the begining. i hear ya! i swore to myself that i wasnt going to reply anymore. im so weak!!!!!! bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : christopher thompson

i never changed my post or method. read again max -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango once again you are proving your lack of understanding of ohms law and your dishonesty in the discussion or intelligence - again sometimes its difficult to separate the two. once again when someone changes their description of the test it changes the method of testing. chris changed from simply probing the port to back probing the plug of the device plugged into the port. two entirely different things get two entirely different results. no lying except on your part where you fail to observe the difference in chris posts. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote so there is not power on the ground side of a connection on a power port with nothing plugged in there is no power on the ground side. funny ive found plenty of voltage drops in corroded ground wires and connections before with exactly this test. if the ground wire is to connected load which is in turn connected to a power source that is correct. in the case of a power port with nothing plugged in you will get no voltage reading on the ground side. try it with a resistor and a lightbulb from radio shack someday. i would but without a battery i know what i would find. no voltage. this circuit would only have voltage if you had a battery or uncle fester connected to it. damn! here is what you said however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. then christopher yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. once again you are proving your lack of understanding of ohms law and your dishonesty in the discussion or intelligence - again sometimes its difficult to separate the two. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : tbone

isnt it amazing how the same bad battery is supposed to drop enough voltage to trip the 10a inverter off fail a load test by that i mean the true load test that youre talking about - not the super-light load test of the 10a inverter and yet start the engine with no hint of a problem id like to see the math on that one. i already went through how it could happen and often does. take a look at back posts. lol often does my ass. while the starter may still crank the engine it will be much slower and would probably not allow the injectors to fire. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

the downside to these tests is the fact that most multimeters do not have leads long enough to complete the desired circuit. simple enough a length of wire is cheap and easy to find. right so are you measuring the voltage or resistance in the wire and its cobbled connections or the actual circuit you intended to check since the meter already has a high impedence there is no load on its wires so no measurable voltage drop there. yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. right but you did not say that before so now you are doing a load test something that the experts say isnt necessary. lol! how is this a valid battery load test now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. thats great but the negative side wont have any power. so testing for voltage will net you a zero. if you wish to test the ground side for continuity to ground a resistance check is in order. w r o n g !!! fact is there are about ten ways to check each side of the circuit. really name them. the best way with the opening facts given is to check your power source for voltage and voltage under load and see how it compares to your power port. agreed but a battery load test is not required to do this. that will eliminate the battery or the wiring. if its the wiring as is widely suggested what engineer would allow that then a continuity check on the ground side is in order. if that proves to be good then rewiring the port is the next step. what are you measuring continuity between if it is between the connector case and the battery negative you still need those long leads and here a cobbled connection will give a false reading unlike a simple voltage measurment which will not. as for the engineering it would be great if they had the last word but they dont. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

in the first post you said to probe the center pin of the socket clearly if you wish to do that nothing will be in the port. in your revision you mention that back probing the plug would need to be done since youve got a load plugged in. now either you are doing a load test which is against all the informed opinion or you are testing for continuity not voltage on the ground side. go back and read what you claimed again or better yet follow your sage advice and stop posting. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i never changed my post or method. read again max -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango once again you are proving your lack of understanding of ohms law and your dishonesty in the discussion or intelligence - again sometimes its difficult to separate the two. once again when someone changes their description of the test it changes the method of testing. chris changed from simply probing the port to back probing the plug of the device plugged into the port. two entirely different things get two entirely different results. no lying except on your part where you fail to observe the difference in chris posts. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote so there is not power on the ground side of a connection on a power port with nothing plugged in there is no power on the ground side. funny ive found plenty of voltage drops in corroded ground wires and connections before with exactly this test. if the ground wire is to connected load which is in turn connected to a power source that is correct. in the case of a power port with nothing plugged in you will get no voltage reading on the ground side. try it with a resistor and a lightbulb from radio shack someday. i would but without a battery i know what i would find. no voltage. this circuit would only have voltage if you had a battery or uncle fester connected to it. damn! here is what you said however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. then christopher yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. once again you are proving your lack of understanding of ohms law and your dishonesty in the discussion or intelligence - again sometimes its difficult to separate the two. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : steve

max dodge wrote in the first post you said to probe the center pin of the socket clearly if you wish to do that nothing will be in the port. in your revision you mention that back probing the plug would need to be done since youve got a load plugged in. back when i worked as an electronics tech if someone told me to probe the center pin of socket # such-and-such under load it was understood that i would gain access to the back of the socket and probe the voltage at the center pins back connection not stick a probe down the socket itself. and today when i ask a tech to do that same measurement they still understand the method to use so terminology hasnt changed either. .

From : bill putney

tbone wrote the downside to these tests is the fact that most multimeters do not have leads long enough to complete the desired circuit. simple enough a length of wire is cheap and easy to find. right so are you measuring the voltage or resistance in the wire and its cobbled connections or the actual circuit you intended to check since the meter already has a high impedence there is no load on its wires so no measurable voltage drop there. yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. right but you did not say that before so now you are doing a load test something that the experts say isnt necessary. lol! how is this a valid battery load test now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. thats great but the negative side wont have any power. so testing for voltage will net you a zero. if you wish to test the ground side for continuity to ground a resistance check is in order. w r o n g !!! fact is there are about ten ways to check each side of the circuit. really name them. the best way with the opening facts given is to check your power source for voltage and voltage under load and see how it compares to your power port. agreed but a battery load test is not required to do this. that will eliminate the battery or the wiring. if its the wiring as is widely suggested what engineer would allow that then a continuity check on the ground side is in order. if that proves to be good then rewiring the port is the next step. what are you measuring continuity between if it is between the connector case and the battery negative you still need those long leads and here a cobbled connection will give a false reading unlike a simple voltage measurment which will not. as for the engineering it would be great if they had the last word but they dont. isnt it amusing that he calls for a continuity test *as* *opposed* *to* running a current thru the same path and measuring the voltage drop across said path when in fact when you understand how an ohmmeter works you know that that is exaclty what it does just at lower levels of current forced and voltage read the ratio in either case being the resistance i.e. measuring voltage drop with forced current = continuity test with the results even in the same engineering units. oh no! im in trouble now! i used the word engineering! like waving a red flag in front of a bull. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : ken weitzel

christopher thompson wrote as i said i never changed my post!!!!!! get it straight max. someone else said to probe the center pin. infact when i mentioned probing the center pin i said you would have to back probe! here ill cut and paste directly from the original. hi christopher... twas me and i dont mind being blamed and taking my fair share of the heat. i apologize for somehow inadvertantly drawing you into it. i can only offer that i incorrectly assumed that some things should be taken as a given. like the meter being turned on the battery connected and so on. most importantly that wed all recognize that the load placed on the wiring by a high impedance and/or digital meter would be so little it would be well into the reciprocity failure range. effectively making ohms law fail - ooh boy am i gonna be sorry i said that sorry again and take care. ken .

From : christopher thompson

as i said i never changed my post!!!!!! get it straight max. someone else said to probe the center pin. infact when i mentioned probing the center pin i said you would have to back probe! here ill cut and paste directly from the original. yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. now youve seen that before. that was my first post into this thread! anyone else that suggested probing down the front of the port was someone else and not me. get your stuff straight max! now go accuse someone else of not knowing what they are doing. -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango in the first post you said to probe the center pin of the socket clearly if you wish to do that nothing will be in the port. in your revision you mention that back probing the plug would need to be done since youve got a load plugged in. now either you are doing a load test which is against all the informed opinion or you are testing for continuity not voltage on the ground side. go back and read what you claimed again or better yet follow your sage advice and stop posting. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i never changed my post or method. read again max -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango once again you are proving your lack of understanding of ohms law and your dishonesty in the discussion or intelligence - again sometimes its difficult to separate the two. once again when someone changes their description of the test it changes the method of testing. chris changed from simply probing the port to back probing the plug of the device plugged into the port. two entirely different things get two entirely different results. no lying except on your part where you fail to observe the difference in chris posts. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote so there is not power on the ground side of a connection on a power port with nothing plugged in there is no power on the ground side. funny ive found plenty of voltage drops in corroded ground wires and connections before with exactly this test. if the ground wire is to connected load which is in turn connected to a power source that is correct. in the case of a power port with nothing plugged in you will get no voltage reading on the ground side. try it with a resistor and a lightbulb from radio shack someday. i would but without a battery i know what i would find. no voltage. this circuit would only have voltage if you had a battery or uncle fester connected to it. damn! here is what you said however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. then christopher yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. once again you are proving your lack of understanding of ohms law and your dishonesty in the discussion or intelligence - again sometimes its difficult to separate the two. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : max dodge

back when i worked as an electronics tech if someone told me to probe the center pin of socket # such-and-such under load it was understood that i would gain access to the back of the socket and probe the voltage at the center pins back connection not stick a probe down the socket itself. and today when i ask a tech to do that same measurement they still understand the method to use so terminology hasnt changed either. great well then explain this put one of the probes if digital on the battery positive terminal; the other probe on the outlet center pin. measure the voltage. then yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. ken suggests one type of test then chris suggestes another. my reply was to kens description not chriss alteration for his use. obviously the operative term under load was missing in the first description. funny part is... theres that load test again. if its so unnecessary why does it keep coming up -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote in the first post you said to probe the center pin of the socket clearly if you wish to do that nothing will be in the port. in your revision you mention that back probing the plug would need to be done since youve got a load plugged in. back when i worked as an electronics tech if someone told me to probe the center pin of socket # such-and-such under load it was understood that i would gain access to the back of the socket and probe the voltage at the center pins back connection not stick a probe down the socket itself. and today when i ask a tech to do that same measurement they still understand the method to use so terminology hasnt changed either. .

From : max dodge

isnt it amusing that he calls for a continuity test i didnt call for a continuity test i merely rebutted a test which would not work saying that a continuity test would be the only way for the proposed test circuit to work. *as* *opposed* *to* running a current thru the same path and measuring the voltage drop across said path when in fact when you understand how an ohmmeter works you know that that is exaclty what it does just at lower levels of current forced and voltage read the ratio in either case being the resistance i.e. measuring voltage drop with forced current = continuity test with the results even in the same engineering units. oh no! im in trouble now! i used the word engineering! like waving a red flag in front of a bull. no you took words out of context and claimed i said something i didnt. jeez get it straight im still saying the load test would be the best one to use.... funny thats a voltage reading not a continuity test. youre not in trouble for saying engineering but you might be in trouble for lying... if i cared that much. fun to watch you spin. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author tbone wrote the downside to these tests is the fact that most multimeters do not have leads long enough to complete the desired circuit. simple enough a length of wire is cheap and easy to find. right so are you measuring the voltage or resistance in the wire and its cobbled connections or the actual circuit you intended to check since the meter already has a high impedence there is no load on its wires so no measurable voltage drop there. yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. right but you did not say that before so now you are doing a load test something that the experts say isnt necessary. lol! how is this a valid battery load test now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. thats great but the negative side wont have any power. so testing for voltage will net you a zero. if you wish to test the ground side for continuity to ground a resistance check is in order. w r o n g !!! fact is there are about ten ways to check each side of the circuit. really name them. the best way with the opening facts given is to check your power source for voltage and voltage under load and see how it compares to your power port. agreed but a battery load test is not required to do this. that will eliminate the battery or the wiring. if its the wiring as is widely suggested what engineer would allow that then a continuity check on the ground side is in order. if that proves to be good then rewiring the port is the next step. what are you measuring continuity between if it is between the connector case and the battery negative you still need those long leads and here a cobbled connection will give a false reading unlike a simple voltage measurment which will not. as for the engineering it would be great if they had the last word but they dont. isnt it amusing that he calls for a continuity test *as* *opposed* *to* running a current thru the same path and measuring the voltage drop across said path when in fact when you understand how an ohmmeter works you know that that is exaclty what it does just at lower levels of current forced and voltage read the ratio in either case being the resistance i.e. measuring voltage drop with forced current = continuity test with the results even in the same engineering units. oh no! im in trouble now! i used the word engineering! like waving a red flag in front of a bull. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

max dodge wrote so stop the shell games por favor. if you can play them so can i. you wouldnt recognize an honest factual discussion if you saw one. sucks when your own tactics are used against you doesnt it i wouldnt know. thats your problem - in your ignorance and dishonesty you think anything that is said whether factual or not is tactics and thats all your ranting is without reality to back it up. you specialize in shell games - obvious to everyone probably including yourself. please reply with some inane bullshit it might be amusing. im sure in your mind and no one elses i have obliged you. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : max dodge

now go accuse someone else of not knowing what they are doing. since you acknowledge that what i replied to was different than what you changed the description to read perhaps you should go accuse someone else of not knowing what they are doing. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author as i said i never changed my post!!!!!! get it straight max. someone else said to probe the center pin. infact when i mentioned probing the center pin i said you would have to back probe! here ill cut and paste directly from the original. yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. now youve seen that before. that was my first post into this thread! anyone else that suggested probing down the front of the port was someone else and not me. get your stuff straight max! now go accuse someone else of not knowing what they are doing. -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango in the first post you said to probe the center pin of the socket clearly if you wish to do that nothing will be in the port. in your revision you mention that back probing the plug would need to be done since youve got a load plugged in. now either you are doing a load test which is against all the informed opinion or you are testing for continuity not voltage on the ground side. go back and read what you claimed again or better yet follow your sage advice and stop posting. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i never changed my post or method. read again max -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango once again you are proving your lack of understanding of ohms law and your dishonesty in the discussion or intelligence - again sometimes its difficult to separate the two. once again when someone changes their description of the test it changes the method of testing. chris changed from simply probing the port to back probing the plug of the device plugged into the port. two entirely different things get two entirely different results. no lying except on your part where you fail to observe the difference in chris posts. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote so there is not power on the ground side of a connection on a power port with nothing plugged in there is no power on the ground side. funny ive found plenty of voltage drops in corroded ground wires and connections before with exactly this test. if the ground wire is to connected load which is in turn connected to a power source that is correct. in the case of a power port with nothing plugged in you will get no voltage reading on the ground side. try it with a resistor and a lightbulb from radio shack someday. i would but without a battery i know what i would find. no voltage. this circuit would only have voltage if you had a battery or uncle fester connected to it. damn! here is what you said however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. then christopher yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. once again you are proving your lack of understanding of ohms law and your dishonesty in the discussion or intelligence - again sometimes its difficult to separate the two. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

max dodge wrote funny part is... theres that load test again. if its so unnecessary why does it keep coming up your sleight-of-hand on that is and surely you know this - and ill quit calling you shirley that in the context of car batteries the term *load test* implies something other than putting a relatively low level current and reading voltage or the equivalent a continuity test with an ohmmeter for a negligible amount of time for an instantaneous reading to register wiring drops. a load test is sucking a certain amount of energy watts x voltage x time out of the battery excluiding the wiring by applying a fairly heavy current for a prescribed time while monitoring its voltage to get an idea of capacity - not just its steady state resistance. the test that was being talked about was to test voltage drop in the wires. your much earlier rantings were clearly about traditional load testing the battery itself - not about hi-resistance cable clamp connections - not about what are low level instantaneous tests of the wiring with low level currents - the effects on the battery of which are going to be negligible. those are low level current tests simply applying a light short-term load/current in a broader sense outside the narrow context of battery load tests a load test of the system with negligle implications about the battery itself but for honest discussion not the proverbial *battery load test* that you started out talking about 200 posts ago. so stop the shell games por favor. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : max dodge

so stop the shell games por favor. if you can play them so can i. sucks when your own tactics are used against you doesnt it please reply with some inane bullshit it might be amusing. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote funny part is... theres that load test again. if its so unnecessary why does it keep coming up your sleight-of-hand on that is and surely you know this - and ill quit calling you shirley that in the context of car batteries the term *load test* implies something other than putting a relatively low level current and reading voltage or the equivalent a continuity test with an ohmmeter for a negligible amount of time for an instantaneous reading to register wiring drops. a load test is sucking a certain amount of energy watts x voltage x time out of the battery excluiding the wiring by applying a fairly heavy current for a prescribed time while monitoring its voltage to get an idea of capacity - not just its steady state resistance. the test that was being talked about was to test voltage drop in the wires. your much earlier rantings were clearly about traditional load testing the battery itself - not about hi-resistance cable clamp connections - not about what are low level instantaneous tests of the wiring with low level currents - the effects on the battery of which are going to be negligible. those are low level current tests simply applying a light short-term load/current in a broader sense outside the narrow context of battery load tests a load test of the system with negligle implications about the battery itself but for honest discussion not the proverbial *battery load test* that you started out talking about 200 posts ago. so stop the shell games por favor. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : tbone

isnt it amusing that he calls for a continuity test i didnt call for a continuity test i merely rebutted a test which would not work saying that a continuity test would be the only way for the proposed test circuit to work. actually yea you did and more than once. *as* *opposed* *to* running a current thru the same path and measuring the voltage drop across said path when in fact when you understand how an ohmmeter works you know that that is exaclty what it does just at lower levels of current forced and voltage read the ratio in either case being the resistance i.e. measuring voltage drop with forced current = continuity test with the results even in the same engineering units. oh no! im in trouble now! i used the word engineering! like waving a red flag in front of a bull. no you took words out of context and claimed i said something i didnt. jeez get it straight im still saying the load test would be the best one to use.... funny thats a voltage reading not a continuity test. lol like how you keep attempting to equate a low level circuit load test with the battery load test you keep harping on about. youre not in trouble for saying engineering but you might be in trouble for lying... if i cared that much. if you didnt care then why are you posting i guess the only one lying here is you to yourself. fun to watch you spin. once again accusing others of doing what you are i see. unfortunately you do so often that it is no longer effective. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

so stop the shell games por favor. if you can play them so can i. and have done so far longer than any of us. sucks when your own tactics are used against you doesnt it you should know the answer to this one as well. please reply with some inane bullshit it might be amusing. i must agree here as yours have entertained me for quite a while now. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote the downside to these tests is the fact that most multimeters do not have leads long enough to complete the desired circuit. simple enough a length of wire is cheap and easy to find. right so are you measuring the voltage or resistance in the wire and its cobbled connections or the actual circuit you intended to check since the meter already has a high impedence there is no load on its wires so no measurable voltage drop there. yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. right but you did not say that before so now you are doing a load test something that the experts say isnt necessary. lol! how is this a valid battery load test now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. thats great but the negative side wont have any power. so testing for voltage will net you a zero. if you wish to test the ground side for continuity to ground a resistance check is in order. w r o n g !!! fact is there are about ten ways to check each side of the circuit. really name them. the best way with the opening facts given is to check your power source for voltage and voltage under load and see how it compares to your power port. agreed but a battery load test is not required to do this. that will eliminate the battery or the wiring. if its the wiring as is widely suggested what engineer would allow that then a continuity check on the ground side is in order. if that proves to be good then rewiring the port is the next step. what are you measuring continuity between if it is between the connector case and the battery negative you still need those long leads and here a cobbled connection will give a false reading unlike a simple voltage measurment which will not. as for the engineering it would be great if they had the last word but they dont. isnt it amusing that he calls for a continuity test *as* *opposed* *to* running a current thru the same path and measuring the voltage drop across said path when in fact when you understand how an ohmmeter works you know that that is exaclty what it does just at lower levels of current forced and voltage read the ratio in either case being the resistance i.e. measuring voltage drop with forced current = continuity test with the results even in the same engineering units. oh no! im in trouble now! i used the word engineering! like waving a red flag in front of a bull. max can never admit to error regardless of how obvious it may be and will go on for quite a while. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : christopher thompson

im not upset with you no need to apologise. no harm no foul take it easy ken -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango christopher thompson wrote as i said i never changed my post!!!!!! get it straight max. someone else said to probe the center pin. infact when i mentioned probing the center pin i said you would have to back probe! here ill cut and paste directly from the original. hi christopher... twas me and i dont mind being blamed and taking my fair share of the heat. i apologize for somehow inadvertantly drawing you into it. i can only offer that i incorrectly assumed that some things should be taken as a given. like the meter being turned on the battery connected and so on. most importantly that wed all recognize that the load placed on the wiring by a high impedance and/or digital meter would be so little it would be well into the reciprocity failure range. effectively making ohms law fail - ooh boy am i gonna be sorry i said that sorry again and take care. ken .

From : christopher thompson

lol simply amazing! what a creative mind you have. -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango now go accuse someone else of not knowing what they are doing. since you acknowledge that what i replied to was different than what you changed the description to read perhaps you should go accuse someone else of not knowing what they are doing. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author as i said i never changed my post!!!!!! get it straight max. someone else said to probe the center pin. infact when i mentioned probing the center pin i said you would have to back probe! here ill cut and paste directly from the original. yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. now youve seen that before. that was my first post into this thread! anyone else that suggested probing down the front of the port was someone else and not me. get your stuff straight max! now go accuse someone else of not knowing what they are doing. -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango in the first post you said to probe the center pin of the socket clearly if you wish to do that nothing will be in the port. in your revision you mention that back probing the plug would need to be done since youve got a load plugged in. now either you are doing a load test which is against all the informed opinion or you are testing for continuity not voltage on the ground side. go back and read what you claimed again or better yet follow your sage advice and stop posting. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i never changed my post or method. read again max -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango once again you are proving your lack of understanding of ohms law and your dishonesty in the discussion or intelligence - again sometimes its difficult to separate the two. once again when someone changes their description of the test it changes the method of testing. chris changed from simply probing the port to back probing the plug of the device plugged into the port. two entirely different things get two entirely different results. no lying except on your part where you fail to observe the difference in chris posts. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote so there is not power on the ground side of a connection on a power port with nothing plugged in there is no power on the ground side. funny ive found plenty of voltage drops in corroded ground wires and connections before with exactly this test. if the ground wire is to connected load which is in turn connected to a power source that is correct. in the case of a power port with nothing plugged in you will get no voltage reading on the ground side. try it with a resistor and a lightbulb from radio shack someday. i would but without a battery i know what i would find. no voltage. this circuit would only have voltage if you had a battery or uncle fester connected to it. damn! here is what you said however it does not determine if the voltage drop under load is due to wiring or battery. then christopher yes it does max. if you have a load connected so the circuit is complete then measuring from the outer shell to neg post should result in 0 volts or nearly same with positive post to center post youll have to back probe as a load needs to be connected to complete the circuit. now using ohms law we know that if there is resistance in either of the pos or neg side of the circuit you will see a voltage drop meaning you will read a voltage acrost that resistance. if the voltage is 0 then that means the resistance is 0. once again you are proving your lack of understanding of ohms law and your dishonesty in the discussion or intelligence - again sometimes its difficult to separate the two. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .