1998 Grand Caravan

Page 8 of 13  

Nope, we're both engineering revisionists because the engineers didn't 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 you'll get pissed I even mentioned it.... and if ya do, you might actually understand where we're coming from.
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Max Dodge wrote:

I've revised a lot of sh*tty engineering in products I've bought also. I would never claim that it doesn't happen. But if you've actually worked in engineering, you quickly learn that a lot of the sh*tty engineering that gets loose in the world isn't due to engineers, its due to accountants saying, "That's great. Now go redesign it so it'll still pretty much work but cost half as much." And the result of management backing them up.

Riiiiight.... Suuuuuure.....

Education really doesn't matter. Innate common sense is worth as much or more than education alone. Saying "you wouldn't understand it, you're an engineer..." displays a complete lack of innate common sense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

While that may be true, there are also engineers out there that insist on fixing things till they're broken, like the A-604 transmission.

Take another look at the slams directed at those with high school educations in this thread. I know Max's educational background and he and I have enjoyed a few excellent discussions without anyone holding a diploma over anyone's head.

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 there's no room for common sense and therfore they can't understand basic concepts or non-technical explanations. Hence the phrase, " you wouldn't understand, you're an engineer."
Personally, I use it only on those that have the misbelief that God should ask them for advice.
--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And yet, 15 years later, its still not a terrific transmission.
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How is it going to magically get any better?
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The design wasn't 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 there's 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 didn't just happen, it developed over many centuries from a flat rock to a complex tool, but it is not over-engineered.
--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Budd Cochran wrote:

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 I'm 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 let's at least stay on the right page in the debate. The engineers didn't 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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)

Really? I've seen more spun sprag clutches than bands broken. . .generally in 904's being neutral started.

I am offended you think I'm 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 ain't broke, don't fix it till it is." which is what I see as having happened.
--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Budd Cochran wrote:

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 DOESN'T work well is trying to have a computer control that apply rate over a wide range. Clutches work better for that.

We already know you're easily offended. The trans sucked because the engineers weren't finished with the job when it went to production. That's UNDER-engineering, not OVER-engineering. The thing's been pretty bulletproof for 10+ years now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 50's 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.

Yes, I have the right to be offended as do you. I also have the right to be offensive, as do you. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to matter to you that you did offend me.

Funny, I still hear a lot of complaints about it even in later models.
But you've got your opinions, I've got mine.
Cya.
Budd

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com *** *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Budd Cochran wrote:

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.

That's the point. I didn't SEE anyone say "you don't know dick because you only have a high school education." Not once. However, I did see plenty of "OH, well of COURSE you'd think THAT... you're an ENGINEER."

Not all of the mechanics I've met are willing to admit that one of their ilk could screw up, or worse, admit that they screwed up.
Some are so full

Some are so full of their "working man" image and feel so superior to "ivory tower engineers" that there's no room for common sense and therefore they can't understand and accept correct technical explanations of something that they've 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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don't you think you've been insulting enough for one day?
FYI, I do know some very good engineers and they neither slam a person's educational levels nor lord their toilet paper over others like Bill and Matt.
--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Budd Cochran wrote:

Except that we're 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. I'm sure you'll find as many as you found physics laws that supported your ludicrous claim about gear ratios having an inherent efficiency.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No argument here. But it wasn't what I objected about either.
>> Then we see engineers claiming they know it all

Well, I'm sure if you cared to do so, you'd find that at least one engineer on here posted his credentials in a "I should know, I'm an...." sort of way. I don't 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.

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 don't 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. I'd call that lacking in 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:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Max Dodge wrote:

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 you're 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 wasn't 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')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which might be why you gentlemen are perceived as you are; you haven't 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:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

LOL, wasn't 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.

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.

Unfortuinately, the problem only occurred once with the engine on. It repeated with the engine off.

It was documented exactly once. Four times, he noted it happened with engine off.

When the one time appears as an anomoly, the repeating condition does override the one time incident.

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:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.