Simultaneous Application of Gas and Brake Pedals

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:47:27 GMT, "Bernard farquart"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>> So is it because wheels are round and transmissions and alternators are
>>> irregularly shaped that there's a difference in how they are referred
>>> to?
>>> Just trying to figure out the rules. 8^)
>>>
>>
>>Nope, the difference is in how they are sourced and installed
>>and how parts are cataloged for them. If you need an alternator
>>for your BMW you may be asked if it is a Bosch unit or a Marshal
>>because the alternator was purchased seperately and installed by BMW,
>>not manufatured by them.
>>
>>If you have a honda, and you need a cap and rotor, you will need to know
>>who made your distributor, TEC or Hitachi, or perhaps Mitsuba.
>>just calling it a "Honda distributor" will make the parts counter guy
>>laugh, but will not get you the part
>>
>
> No, you will ask for an alternator to fit a sept 1994 production (or a
> an "N" code) Honda Civic SE, or whatever, and IF more than one
> manufacturer was used on that model and production date, the
> counterman will ask which one it is, as the alternator, or
> distributor, or starter or whatever is built by these several
> different companies SPECIFICALLY to HONDA specs. The mounting ear
> location may fit ONLY a certain Honda engine, and nothing else.

Not true, alternators may be used on BMW, or Volvo, or Volkswagon
that are the same part number.

Distributor caps that fit a Subaru may also be found on a Toyota.

Don't take my word for it (since I have only been ASE certified P2
for ten freekin' years) open up a buyers guide for Standard,Niehoff,
any tune up parts manufacterer. Then look in the back of a buyers guide for
rotating electrical (alternators & starters) and see what the application
listings are by part number.

A little knowledge.....


Bernard

Bernard farquart wrote:

>>So is it because wheels are round and transmissions and alternators are
>>irregularly shaped that there's a difference in how they are referred to?
>>Just trying to figure out the rules. 8^)
>>
>
>
> Nope, the difference is in how they are sourced and installed
> and how parts are cataloged for them.

I understand that.

> If you need an alternator
> for your BMW you may be asked if it is a Bosch unit or a Marshal
> because the alternator was purchased seperately and installed by BMW,
> not manufatured by them.

I understand that.

> If you have a honda, and you need a cap and rotor, you will need to know
> who made your distributor, TEC or Hitachi, or perhaps Mitsuba.
> just calling it a "Honda distributor" will make the parts counter guy
> laugh, but will not get you the part

I understand that.

>>Truth is Daniel, knowledgeable people all the time refer to such devices
>>by application even though technically it's not up to your standards,
>
>
> Not always, and specifically not in automotive applications

Yes - frequently. Chevrolet wheel, Chrysler transmission, etc., etc., etc.

To hear you and Daniel, I get the impression that if someone posted a
statement like "Hi guys. I hear that Chrysler transmissions of the
early and mid 90's were trouble-prone" that you would be totally puzzled
about what the person meant by "Chrysler transmissions", when everybody
else would know exactly what was meant.

>>and people all the time understand the information that is being conveyed
>
>
> Nope, not always

It's done all the time. Again, Chevrolet wheels, Chrysler
transmissions, etc., etc., etc.


> (which is the goal most of the time. No different I guess in
>
>>correcting someone when they refer to a "lash adjuster" as a lifter, or
>>talking about torque in pounds, both of which I joke about all the time.
>>Just depends on how anal we all want to be.
>
>
> You must be an engineer, lots of theory, no practical
> application as applies to automotive.

You missed it on this one.

I knew enough even as a teenager in the sixties to know that when a
mecahnic told me that my Travelall had an AMC transmission in it that it
had the same transmission that was used in AMC vehicles. Sounds pretty
practical to me.

> I know that some of the people who plst are engineers,
> but I have seen to much of this "really informed mis-information"
> from that particular class in my sixteen years of selling
> auto parts in Seattle (Boeing country) to miss making the
> observation.

Oh - so other "classes" of people are immune from that. B.S.

So you're saying I should use pounds as a unit of torque? What's
practical about that?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Bernard farquart wrote:
>>So is it because wheels are round and transmissions and alternators are
>>irregularly shaped that there's a difference in how they are referred to?
>>Just trying to figure out the rules. 8^)
>>
>
>
> Nope, the difference is in how they are sourced and installed
> and how parts are cataloged for them. If you need an alternator
> for your BMW you may be asked if it is a Bosch unit or a Marshal
> because the alternator was purchased seperately and installed by BMW,
> not manufatured by them.
>
> If you have a honda, and you need a cap and rotor, you will need to know
> who made your distributor, TEC or Hitachi, or perhaps Mitsuba.
> just calling it a "Honda distributor" will make the parts counter guy
> laugh, but will not get you the part...

>
> You must be an engineer, lots of theory, no practical
> application as applies to automotive.
>
> I know that some of the people who plst are engineers,
> but I have seen to much of this "really informed mis-information"
> from that particular class in my sixteen years of selling
> auto parts in Seattle (Boeing country) to miss making the
> observation.

The stark reality just hit me that you took my comment about the reason
for the difference in referencing types of wheels and alternators and
transmissions being because wheels are round and alternators and
transmissions are irregularly shaped as a serious assertion on my part.

LOL! Please tell me that isn't the case.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

>
> I knew enough even as a teenager in the sixties to know that when a
> mecahnic told me that my Travelall had an AMC transmission in it that it
> had the same transmission that was used in AMC vehicles. Sounds pretty
> practical to me.

try this as an explination (lifted from the IH digest page)
http://www.binderbulletin.org/faq/18.htm#9

Begin quote
> t-409 band adjustment tools
Dana Fisher -- 1/10/2000, 3:33 p.m.


The T-409 automatic transmission is a heavy duty cast iron unit made by
Borg-Warner. AMC called it a flash-o-matic. The T 39 and T 49 are the same
just not as heavy duty in the servo and planetary area. This style goes way
back to the 50's with IHC T26 T28. They got better over the years but were
quite heavy and I think Warner quit making them in 1971 or there abouts--IH
being about the only user. Ford also used this design but used linkage for
the kick-down not electrical [ Ford Model FMX ]. I think Japan even copied
it but shrunk the mold somewhat.

end quote

Made by borg warner, they are an independant
company that makes MANY transmissions for MANY
auto and truck manufacturers. Apparently it was also purchased
by AMC, but was, in fact not an AMC trans. Small point
perhaps, but laziness annoys some people.

<snip my ad. hom attack on engineers>
>
> Oh - so other "classes" of people are immune from that. B.S.

Nope, just saying you seemed like a particularly bad
type of nut-job that I had run into before.
>
> So you're saying I should use pounds as a unit of torque? What's
> practical about that?

See? that sentance makes absolutely NO sense.


>

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...

> The stark reality just hit me that you took my comment about the reason
> for the difference in referencing types of wheels and alternators and
> transmissions being because wheels are round and alternators and
> transmissions are irregularly shaped as a serious assertion on my part.
>
> LOL! Please tell me that isn't the case.
>

Nope, just heard misinformation about stuff I do
each and every day.

Bernard farquart wrote:
> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>The stark reality just hit me that you took my comment about the reason
>>for the difference in referencing types of wheels and alternators and
>>transmissions being because wheels are round and alternators and
>>transmissions are irregularly shaped as a serious assertion on my part.
>>
>>LOL! Please tell me that isn't the case.
>>
>
>
> Nope, just heard misinformation about stuff I do
> each and every day.

Examples of the misinformation would be...?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Bernard farquart wrote:

>>I knew enough even as a teenager in the sixties to know that when a
>>mecahnic told me that my Travelall had an AMC transmission in it that it
>>had the same transmission that was used in AMC vehicles. Sounds pretty
>>practical to me.
>
>
> try this as an explination (lifted from the IH digest page)
> http://www.binderbulletin.org/faq/18.htm#9
>
> Begin quote
>
>> t-409 band adjustment tools
>
> Dana Fisher -- 1/10/2000, 3:33 p.m.
>
>
> The T-409 automatic transmission is a heavy duty cast iron unit made by
> Borg-Warner. AMC called it a flash-o-matic. The T 39 and T 49 are the same
> just not as heavy duty in the servo and planetary area. This style goes way
> back to the 50's with IHC T26 T28. They got better over the years but were
> quite heavy and I think Warner quit making them in 1971 or there abouts--IH
> being about the only user. Ford also used this design but used linkage for
> the kick-down not electrical [ Ford Model FMX ]. I think Japan even copied
> it but shrunk the mold somewhat.
>
> end quote
>
> Made by borg warner, they are an independant
> company that makes MANY transmissions for MANY
> auto and truck manufacturers. Apparently it was also purchased
> by AMC, but was, in fact not an AMC trans. Small point
> perhaps, but laziness annoys some people.
>
> <snip my ad. hom attack on engineers>
>
>>Oh - so other "classes" of people are immune from that. B.S.
>
>
> Nope, just saying you seemed like a particularly bad
> type of nut-job that I had run into before.

Yes - I know your type too, if you want to start stereotyping people -
the guy, who for whatever reason did not get a college education, and
stupidly feels inferior to those who did and so looks for reasons to cut
those whom he feels inferior to down to try to feel better about himself.

I'm still amazed that all of this is over a simple statement that I was
told that the vehicle I drove as a teenager had an "AMC transmission".
While, for non-professional conversation, it was perfectly adequate for
conveying what was meant, you are looking at it as an opportunity to
nit-pic the precise meaning of. You don't really believe that you don't
know what someone means when they say an early- or mid-90's Chrysler
trasnmission? I suppose you have some convuluted explanation why that
isn't the same as a statement of that day of saying the vehicle used an
AMC transmission? Yes - I also know your type very well.

>>So you're saying I should use pounds as a unit of torque? What's
>>practical about that?
>
>
> See? that sentance makes absolutely NO sense.

I was just trying to find examples of what you were nebulously claiming
about impracticalities in what I had said previously that put me into
your stereotypical view of engineers. The only thing I could find that
you might have been referring to was the example I had given of
technical illiterates who express torque values in pounds. You seem to
fit the category. So how does it feel to be stereotyped? Are you one
of those guys who tries to sell your customers SilverStar bulbs because
they are "brighter".

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:

> To hear you and Daniel, I get the impression that if someone posted a
> statement like "Hi guys. I hear that Chrysler transmissions of the
> early and mid 90's were trouble-prone" that you would be totally puzzled
> about what the person meant by "Chrysler transmissions", when everybody
> else would know exactly what was meant.

But those were indeed CHRYSLER transmissions.

If you said, "I hear mid-70s AMC transmissions were trouble prone," I'd
say, "Which do you mean? The GM-built Hydramatic in the full-size Jeep
trucks, Cherokee, and Wagoneer, or the Chrysler-built TorqueCommand in
the cars?"

wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:22:46 -0500, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>There are *many* ways of varying the mechanical advantage of the
>>>>>>driver's foot over the disc caliper pistons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>True, but a lot of them involve tradeoffs, usually in the "stroke" of
>>>>>the master cylinder.
>>>>
> There is ONE reason why disk brakes generally are more likely to
> require a booster, and it relates directly to increased pedal motion.
> Put simply, a disk brake caliper has a much larger piston than a wheel
> cyl, and therefore it takes more fluid to move the pads.

Actually disks don't take more fluid because while drum brakes retract
fully against their adjuster stops via springs, disk brakes only
"retract" as far as rotor runout pushes them. So the volume of fluid
that moves is typically less with disk brakes, which is why front
disk/rear drum braking systems typically have a hold-off or pressure
balance valve that prevents the disks from activating until some fluid
has been pushed toward the rear drum brakes and the shoes actually begin
to engage the drums.

Steve wrote:

> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> To hear you and Daniel, I get the impression that if someone posted a
>> statement like "Hi guys. I hear that Chrysler transmissions of the
>> early and mid 90's were trouble-prone" that you would be totally
>> puzzled about what the person meant by "Chrysler transmissions", when
>> everybody else would know exactly what was meant.
>
>
> But those were indeed CHRYSLER transmissions.
>
> If you said, "I hear mid-70s AMC transmissions were trouble prone," I'd
> say, "Which do you mean? The GM-built Hydramatic in the full-size Jeep
> trucks, Cherokee, and Wagoneer, or the Chrysler-built TorqueCommand in
> the cars?"

I guess I chose a bad example then. But *IF* the Chrysler trannies were
made by a third party, then people still would understand if the
statement were made as I said it.

I think this horse is dead about three times over. Thanks for your
sensible discussion on this.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')