Simultaneous Application of Gas and Brake Pedals

Steve wrote:

> 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.

But you adjust your drum brakes at every chassis lube interval... right?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

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.
>

Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of - also used by Studebaker as the
"Flightomatic" or "Powershift."

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 02:22:56 GMT, "Bernard farquart"
> wrote:

>
> 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.

This is/was common in European vehicles - but is NOT universally true.
>
>Distributor caps that fit a Subaru may also be found on a Toyota.
The cap and rotor, yes. The distributor itself, no.
Both alternators and distributors CAN be very specific to a very
limited range of vehicles.
>
>Don't take my word for it (since I have only been ASE certified P2
>for ten freekin' years)
And I've been a (Canadian interprovincial)licenced auto mechanic since
1971 and was service manager for a Toyota dealer for 10 of those
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.....
can make some young squirts overconfident.
>
>
>Bernard
>

Bill Putney wrote:

> 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.

I guess that's why it stuck out with me... AMC is a company that NEVER
made their own automatic. Its not as if they made some and bought some,
they literally never developed one, and thats one of the many oddities
about AMC.


> 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.

Come to think of it, one of them WAS made by a third party for many
years, ending only recently. The Jeep Cherokee (not Grand) had an
Asin-Warner automatic, never a Chrysler.

>
> I think this horse is dead about three times over.

True enough....

Nate Nagel wrote:


> But you adjust your drum brakes at every chassis lube interval...
> right?
>
> nate
>
So long as the starwheels aren't buggered up, I adjust them every time I
stop while driving in reverse :-p

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:04:05 -0600, Steve > wrote:

>Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>> But you adjust your drum brakes at every chassis lube interval...
>> right?
>>
>> nate
>>
>So long as the starwheels aren't buggered up, I adjust them every time I
> stop while driving in reverse :-p

Unless the vehicle is one of many that adjusts the brakes every time
you apply the parking brake --------