Change transmission fluid or not?

Interesting. I've never heard of them being used in other than snow or ice conditions.

Matt

Reply to
Matthew S. Whiting
Loading thread data ...

According to this, sand helps a little on dry rail, although it is marginal. And allowing a small amount of computer controlled wheel slip trumps sand by 10%!! So, given that the transmission we starting talking about here is computer controlled, I STILL don't buy that the particles in the oil make a positive difference. I'd have to see the morphology of the particles, but I'll bet they aren't sharp like fresh sand.

formatting link

Matt

Reply to
Matthew S. Whiting

So would adding sand to the ATF help or hurt?

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Reply to
Bill Putney

Well, if you added sand and the transmission failed soon thereafter, it was a "high miles" transmission and so the sand caused it to fail. If, on the other hand, you changed the transmission fluid and filter (and didn't add any sand) and the transmission failed soon thereafter, it was a "high miles" transmission and so the fluid change caused it to fail. If the transmission failed *without* new fluid *or* sand, it was just a random failure.

Or so John Kunkel and Rick Blaine and "Fastload" would have us believe.

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

Excellent post Steve I couldn't have said it better myself.

And where I work, we see the same problem but with computers. We get people all the time that call up with complaints and after asking a few leading questions it's obvious that what they have is a very sick computer that's stuffed to the gills with viruses and has had about a dozen iterations of AOL improperly removed and reinstalled to the point where the machine barely boots. All of these types pull the same shit - they want to bring in their machine and pay the smallest amount possible - buying ram and wanting us to install for free it is a common trick - just so they can extract about 6 hours of free labor nuking and reinstalling everything on their POS, then bitch that we wiped some commercial software like MS office because they "forgot the install cds and license at home" and get a pirate copy of that loaded for free, too.

If people weren't basically cheapskates about doing preventative maintainence on machines we wouldn't have all this interest in the so-called "extended drain" scam for motor oil among other things. Even the Army had to make failing to do PM's a court martialling offence to protect people from their own stupidity.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

measurement

You missed the point entirely John.

You claim that in the early part of the century some engineers computed the max speed the human body can endure is 40Mph. Well these so-called engineers were quite obviously not real engineers because if they were they would have been educated enough to know the the human body is already travelling a lot faster than 40Mph in relation to astronomical bodies, thus these computations were not internally consistent and could not have withstood any serious logical challenge.

There's been a lot of people calling themselves scientists and engineers throughout history. Even today there's idiots that claim that the religious belief of creationalism is scientific. However all the wishing does not make it scientific. Whatever you saw claiming that engineers were idiots in the early part of the century (which you have not even cited yet) was not saying that, it was saying that in the early part of the century there were some people not engineers but claiming to be engineers who made this rediculous 40Mph assertion.

Even I understand that and I am NOT a licensed engineer.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

I think that I can answer that for you. (and you should have asked why do they turn them on even on WET rail)

The reason is that the pressure between the wheel contact point and the rail is so enormous that even if the rail is loaded with water in a heavy rain, that when the sand is compressed between the rail and wheel that all the fluid is completely forced out from in between the sand grains. So, whether the rail is being sprayed down with water or not, the friction action of the sander is the same as a dry rail. Additionally, I think if you were to look at the surface of both the wheel and the rail after a locomotive passed over it with a sander going, you would find microscopic pits where each sand grain had been forced into the surface of the rail a tiny amount - enough to anchor it. Thus the sand grains aren't acting like little ball bearings in this application.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Not to go nuts with this, but is there even such a thing as absolute speed? By that I mean, what is the reference? The sun? No. The center of the universe? (whatever that would mean). Is the entire universe (center of, or mass average) traveling at some speed, and if so, relative to what? Einstein probably got it right when he used the word "relative" as the operative word, i.e., speed only has meaning when it is referenced to something else, and, again, I have to think that there is no such thing as absolute speed. Kind of like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?".

In reality, any discussion of the human body and speed would be in relation to the air around it, and in a car, it is pretty much a protective bubble that moves with the vehicle, so in that sense, the speed of the human body is zero *relative* *to* *the* *air* *in* *the*

*vehicle*. Beyond that, the limiting factor related to speed is acceleration (rate of change in speed), which of course is determined by the drive train of the vehicle, tires, etc. (Obviously an accident - i.e., high accelerations - is a situation beyond the limits of this discussion).

IIRC, a lot of the original speculation (scientific or otherwise) about maximum possible vehicle speed was based on what were considered structural limits of a clear medium (i.e., glass) for the windshield against the air resistance. It is easy to see how merely visualizing the exponentially increasing forces would be overwheleming to deal with without experimentation and how the mind would have trouble imagining a practical glass structure holding up to the wind forces at, say, a speed of 80 mph (one only has to hold their hand out of the window of a car moving at 25 mph to let your imagination run wild), and one would probably feel safe speculating that no practical glass sturcture would be able to do so and crossing their fingers hoping that they would be proven right.

I'll ignore your dishonest jabs at those who believe that God created life. Oh I know you'll say you were just criticizing those who claim it is scientific, but it is clear that your intent is to ridicule even those who believe it. Just because something can't be "scientifically" proven to Ted Mittelstaedt's satisfaction doesn't mean it isn't true. Sorry - I guess I didn't guite totally ignore your remarks.

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Reply to
Bill Putney

The difficulty with this kind of research is that it's dirty and icky not sexy, so your not going to find many grad students doing thesis based on this. (Although it would make a great thesis topic) And everyone else doing research is a commercial body and thus they aren't going to publish their failed results because they don't want to give competitors free information.

But you can bet your hat that ALL fluid manufacturers have searched for a "tranny improver" fluid for old trannys.

To my knowledge though, the only credible company marketing anything that is targeted along these lines is Valvoline with it's MaxLife ATF. Note that this is a _synthetic_ ATF fluid and it's a Dexron III/Mercon fluid.

I personally am rather leery of MaxLife ATF for several reasons. First of all, Valvoline claims it's ATF +4 compatible which is clearly false. ATF +4 is a synthetic fluid alright, but it uses a patented additive package that Damlier/Chrysler holds the patent on, and has only licensed ONE fluid additive manufacturer in the world to make. And the terms of their license prevent this manufacturer from selling the ATF +4 additive package to other fluid manufacturers, they are only allowed to sell it to Chrysler. That is why all ATF +4 must touch Chrysler somehow.

Secondly, Valvoline's president has made some statements to Lubricants World that indicate that Valvoline is aiming specifically at the auto owners of high mileage cars because their market research indicates those owners are more likely to pay more money for car care products. This is definitely supported by the pricing of the entire MaxLife line, from ATF to motor oil. I can't help wondering if that Max Life ATF is just regular Dexron III with a stop leak added to it, and packaged differently with a higher price tag on it.

Thirdly, the MaxLife line was only introduced by Valvoline a couple years ago and they are claiming that there's research showing that these fluids extend vehicle life. The question is how can this be since the fluids have not been on the market that long. It's equivalent to claiming that a lightbulb will last 50 years on the first year of it's production run.

I do buy Valvoline oil (when it's on sale) for oil changes, and I do have a vehicle that takes Dexron as a matter of fact and it is older. But I will wait another 5 years and also for the price to come down on MaxLife before trying it out.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

And no doubt that change had more to do with marketing than with any engineering change.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Hey, stop it right there! Dont put word in my mouth please. I was commenting on what "5" mecanics told me about my car, nothing more, since i dont know a thing about car/tranny, i'm a prime candidate to beleive any BS anybody can tell me, what i see here is two very different opinion/thinking and as an observer, i dont know who's right or wrong. Or may be nobody is right or wrong actually, may be you are all wrong! Who can tell? I'm not an engineer or mecanic or so called "expert" like some like to call themselve here.

My experience always told me this (said that already): If it's not broken, dont fix it. May be my tranny is broken and about to fail like some claim it is and may be it is not like i beleive it is. The fluid color "suggest" it is failing/broken but it as been like this since 200,000 km (previous owner never changed the fluid, he told me) and still going strong! What do you make of that hu? Pure luck? Ok, you may be right, it WILL fail sooner or later, like ANY tranny actually. I have yet to see no discoloration on fluid for a tranny that as 300,000km and had never had a change. I promes, I will let you know when it fail, may be in a week, a month, a year? because I decided to not change the fluid.

Reply to
Fastload

Mass, times the acceleration due to gravity, divided by a very small surface area , equals one hell of a lot of psi on the interface. Nothing like you get between two, or four, or six rotating clutch plates.

How's that.

Dan

Reply to
Dan Gates

Yeah, the only engineering change for '64 was the replacement of the in-pan screen/in-line filter with an in-pan Dacron filter of the type with which we're all now so familiar.

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

When I've snooped around the forums on railroad.net, I've often seen it reported that the manufacturers (EMD and GE) quote their maximum adhesion factors (and therefore maximum tractive effort) on "sanded dry rail." And the railroaders' "war stories" about heavy hauling conditions back it up.

Reply to
Steve

Pretty darn good ;-)

Like I said, I just felt ornery and I'm kinda fed up with "what if you did ?" proposals.

Reply to
Steve

Yes, it is the speed of light in a vacuum.

Einstein didn't say this exactly. The theory of relativity is considerably more complicated.

For example, suppose you are on the Earth and I am on a spacecraft that is approaching the Earth at a speed of a thousand miles an hour, and will pass by it without stopping, heading on to the moon. At the instant that I pass the Earth, you and I both shine a flashlight at the moon. Einstein's theory states that both our flashlight beams will reach the moon at the same time, mine will not travel an extra thousand miles an hour and reach the moon first.

The theory is really best explained with math. The English language cannot properly express it, which is why it's possible to create all kinds of amusing contradictions when you attempt to explain the theory using English.

I don't ridicule people who claim God created the Universe (either by Big Bang or other means) because there is no observable repeatable experiment that can be done that would prove any theory, including theirs by the way. I think a scientist can still maintain some sort of intellectual honesty in this kind of a claim, because by definition since creation of the Universe includes creation of the evolutionary processes that operate inside the Universe, this kind of a statement is not at odds with evolution and the theory of natural selection.

Unfortunately, all the people I've ever met who call themselves Creationalists all claim that their so-called theory is in opposition to the theory of evolution and natural selection. I do not redicule their beliefs but I do redicule their assertions that their collection of myths and claptrap somehow disproves evolution, and I do not redicule them as people, I pity them because their minds are so limited and closed that they can never truly appreciate how vast and old and complex and glorious the Universe is, and they can never see themselves as a part of the Universe, until the day they die.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Not so. The effects of the speed of light are always relative to some other object and its speed relative to the first object. Whatever speed the points A and B that an observer uses to mark the speed of the light in that vacuum are relative to that observer will affect that observer's measured speed. If the points A and B are moving with the observer, then he will measure the nominal speed of light. If not, then the results will be skewed by their **relative** (not absolute) speed.

Notice that you are talking of speed of one thing **relative** to another - that is the only context in which Einstein's theory has meaning.

But the two observers will disagree on the distance to the moon at the time the lights were flashed (to clarify, you will say that the distance from earth to moon and spacecraft to moon was the same, but you the number that you give for that same distance will be different. And you will both be convinced that you are right because the time that you both measure for the transit time will be-self consistent with what you know the speed of light to be and the distance that you say it traveled. The time that the earth observer says the two beams took to reach the moon (based on his measurement by earth-based instruments) will differ from the time that you say it took both beams to reach the moon (based on your measurement by your spacecraft-based measurements) due to your

**relative** (not absolute) speed differences. You will both be in agreement that the two beams reached the moon at the same time, but you will disagree on the amount of time that it took (and the distance traveled) - but your calculation of the speed of light based on your distance measurement and the time measurement will be the same as the calculation of the speed of light based on the earth-bound observer's measurement of the distance and the time. It's all "relative".

That still does not remove the *relativistic* nature of the observations (hence the name "Theory of Relativity") due to the change not only in time but of distance that the two observers will claim, yet they both will calculate out the same speed of light based on the calculation based on the two set of numbers from the observation of the same event. That's why you see the paradoxes/apparent contradictions that you did not understand.

Well if you consider our chatting here the same as having "met" each other, then you can no longer say that. I know that mutations, evolution thru gene combination, and natural selection occur. Yet I am a creationist. You no longer can make that claim (or at least you have to muddy it up by qualifying it with having communicated on the internet with someone such as me while not actually having met me). 8^)

I do not redicule

Yet you lump us all together. So who is now the close-minded one?

(For the record, "evolution" has two meanings for this discussion. One is that all life evolved from one cell that resulted from chemicals combining in just the right way in the so-called primordial soup. The other meaning is that life, as created by God, has changed over time due to the established facts of mutation and gene combination over time. One can certainly believe the latter (change of what God created) without believing the former (that all life forms have a single single-cell ancestor). The intellectual dishonesty that I see in people who ridicule creationsists as a lumped group is in the fact that they cleverly pretend not to distinguish the two aspects of evolution.)

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Reply to
Bill Putney

agreed

Reply to
robs440

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.