1998 Grand Caravan

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:

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Budd Cochran wrote:

No, I'm 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 don't 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 haven't thus far. Look it up, it is in any high school physics book or easily available via Google.
Matt
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

ROTFLMBO!!!! Spoken like a well trained engineer.
Matt, I've worked on gear trains that make automotive, even semi truck transmissions, look like toys and gear ratios do have efficiency quotients.

No, that would be you.

Make up your mind . . .parasitic losses or no parasitic losses . . .never mind. The fact you keep changing the "rules" means you've lost the discussion.

Why? You're not using the laws of physics, why should I?
--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Budd Cochran wrote:

OK, post just one technical reference to them. Just one and I'll admit here in print that I was wrong and you were right. Just one...
Matt
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Sorry, I didn't write any technical manuals at the time. . . I was too deep in grease and oil.
Of course, I also didn't think I was going to have to finish your education for you.
--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Budd Cochran wrote:

I didn't 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.

Yep, another "I've 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
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

I guess that's because unlike you, he is correct.

quotients.
Funny how you claim to be this great author and can't even figure this out. Applications of gear ratios have efficiencies, not gear ratios themselves.

Denial is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately the cost is that it tends to make the one using it look foolish.

it
are
It this just another desperate act on your part? It must be as it makes no sense otherwise.

up,
Get real Budd, this is a complete copout. He has supplied actual numbers and proven formulas. Where's yours?
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Gee, Tom, what could your purpose in replying to my post be EXCEPT A CHILDISH ATTEMPT TO START AN ARGUMENT?
Which isn't going to happen.
Now, go play somewhere else.
--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
wrote:

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?

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
NewMan wrote:

Bravo!!!
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
NewMan wrote:

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 - God's 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 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. They'd say "You know - when we asked you such-and-such, you said 'X'. Could you possibly say that slightly differently, maybe like this...". I'd say "no", and they'd say "Why not", and I'd say "because that would not be true.". Then they'd re-phrase it one step closer to the truth, but still a lie, and I'd 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')
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
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).
wrote:

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
CAVHBC wrote:

And you're an ass. ;) (there's the smiley to make the insult "ok.")
Yes, I'm 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 aren't incompatible, you know.

Possibly true on paper, and spoken just like the lawyers intended. But the background information is that that Chrysler didn't have *any* "common" AC evaporator rot-through failures until the LH cars. I'm sure some did fail, but not commonly. In 40+ years of having Chrysler products in the family, I've 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. I'm sure it even went through and passed a lot of accelerated corrosion testing... but there are cases where all the testing in the world won't catch something that happens in the REAL world where wall-clock/calendar time can't be simulated in the lab. Mold and dirt stick to evaporators and over time do things that you can't 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 you're SOL. If it had failed 1000 miles sooner, SURE we'd have fixed it, but not now!" Actually, I'm about 100% certain that if the decision had been made by the ENGINEERS, they'd 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 don't care about what happens after a design leaves our drafting boards.... Sorry for not knowing my place...

And yet you're the one who's 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, you're 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 that's 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).
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Wow....a sense of humor...not.
Notice...no smiley.....

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.

bullshit. and I mean BULLSHIT.

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.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Steve wrote:

Couldn't 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')
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

No chip here. I'm sure the CAVHBC doesn't either. The problem comes up when someone in the chain of important positions thinks someone else doesn't 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:
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Well said!!!!!
Bravo!!!!!
--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Bill Putney wrote:

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....
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Then you do not know all engineers, do you?
--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Budd Cochran wrote:

And you do not know the difference between most and all.
Matt
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Site Timeline

• Share To

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.