krp wrote:

Both the GM 700R4 and the Chrysler 41TE (minivan transmission of the
90s) are case studies in what happens when accountants "go over"
engineers' work and find ways to "save money." I'm sure you can find a
similar story at all manufacturers. In both cases, the basic designs are
fine- as witnessed by the fact that the 700R4 (and its electronic
version, the 4L60E) as well as the 41TE are now reliable... once all the
"cost cuts" were undone.... Hot rodders and muscle car guys even build
up 700R4s with updated parts and put them behind HUGE engines and they
don't break. The 41TE is still in use by Chrysler, and you never hear
problems about it anymore. In the case of the 41TE, it was also a bit
ahead of its time. The first fluids for it didn't work well, and also
since its small and light it really benefits from putting the throttle
under computer control (most current cars are "throttle by wire") so
that the computer can throttle back during shifts, saving the abuse of
dumping engine power into the clutch packs while they're slipping during
a shift. That change alone has HUGELY improved transmission reliability
all across the automotive industry.

"Steve" <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote


Both were lopusy transmissions. But neither had service problems.

The Torquflite was a GREAT transmission., "WAS." You forget in the 70's
came "PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE" and the rise of the BEAN COUNTERS running the
big 3. Of the 3 CEO's only Lee Iacocca knew ANYTHING about cars and he
didn't know much. The focus on building cars at all 3 companies was to make
them as CHEAPLY as possible, if they came off the line all fukkked up, have
the dealers fix them. Look at 1975. Can you find a car that even qualifies
as a "BAD" car from that year? When you made a terrible car, BAD was a step
UP. Again it was the age of the BEAN COUNTERS - MBA's designing cars. One
asshole ENDED the Fisher body Craftsman's guild. He didn't want to hear from
Engineers who he found "ANNOYING." That's when in the board room they
decided it was cheaper to pay off lawsuits than FIX their shitty cars. It
was more than just a time of greed. It was arrogance in their belief that
the American public would accept ANY shit they dished out. What were they
going to do, after all, buy a Volkswagen or a Rice Burner???? SCREW EM!

"Steve" <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote


Harvard MBA's to be exact. If it were up to me? I'd have a big meeting
at a outdoor pavilian in the middle of the Nevada desert and get EVERY MBA
in the country there for a seminar. Then I'd detonate a 50 megaton nuke and
get rid of them. I would pass a law imposing the death penalty for any MBA
we missed.

Look at electronics. RCA was offered the exclusine on flat panel
displays. Said it was "SHIT" and that nobody would ever want one. They were
HAPPY with their CRT TV's and minotors. Same with every other American
company. BTW - how is RCA doing today with making stuff in the U.S.?
Zenith? Maganox? Sylvania? ANYONE? The last of the computers. Dell. Where
are Dell's made today?

Did you hear the story (I am told it is TRUE) of a GM CEO that at one
meeting asked; "why the hell do we need 5 bolts on a wheel, won't ONE work?"
The problem with American industry is that we have had too many IDIOTS
running companies who have ZERO knowledge of their industry. They are
shocked when they hire a guy who was in wholesale food business and he comes
to an auto company and immediately puts it in the shitter! Same kind of goof
balls went to airlines. Delta's CEO was trying to get things done his way
and the pilots TRIED to tell the asshole, "Planes won't FLY that way!" "WHY
NOT?" No company can work well when the guy at the top is 100% clueless
about the business.

The first fluids for it didn't work well, and also
Yep, I think Fords do this by retarding the timing during shift, not
actually controlling the throttle, but still cutting back engine
power. You can actually hear this happen. And I have learned to
drive my Toyota that way too, letting up on the gas a bit to force the
shift to occur during lower power..

There has to be some period of slippage during every shift and the
friction parts wil llast longer if that happens with less power
flowing through..

Mark

AXOD Forward piston, and it wasn't plastic, it was aluminum. It had a
nasty tendency to crack. Ford's engineers revised the design several
times before it was replaced with a steel part.


Chris

"Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク" <Trueno (AT) e86 (DOT) GTS> wrote


Simple rule. Change fluid and filter every 24K. They last just fine. UNLESS
you are hauling a 65 foot boat. Had a friend who constantly bitched about
his Caravan. I asked him what he expected when he was hauling a boat and
trailer several times the car's rated towing capacity? I asked him if he
added an extra Trans cooler. He asked, WHY?

Reminds me of a story. One of the guys on our stunt driving team had worked
as service manager for a Cadillac dealer, and every year this old fart would
trade in his cars, and after the first one he'd tell the sales manager to
give him low bucks. The guy was angry and asked why. The sales manager told
him that the reason was that he put on lots of miles and never checked or
changed the oil. The old man came back; "What? You have to change the oil on
these? If they are built that poorly I don't want to own one again." He
started doing it to Lincolns. The engines were SHOT. He'd put on 75K to
100K a year. Run them almost dry on oil. Ignore the oil light. Traded it
when the oil light wouldn't go off any more. PEOPLE and cars.

"jim beam" <retard-finger (AT) bad (DOT) example.net> wrote




The CEO of Ford - KNEW - of the defect. It got there because of HIM
ordering cutting corners. The engineers were frantic. But he had an MBA. It
was calculated the the costs of lawsuits would be less than the cost to
eliminate the problem. Only trouble is that the plaintiff's in one case got
ahold of the proof that it WAS calculated by Ford and the jury PUNISHED Ford
big time to make sure they got the message that it was NOT cheaper to screw
over people. And Firestone was complicit in it. Those were BAD tires. Damn
near dragged Bridgestone under.

Like I said, I'd LOVE to see MBA's on death row. Look at our economy.
Look at the ruins of so many companies. Then look at the dicks who are the
CEO's.. Harvard MBAs! You know, I am a big fan of Obama, BUT the idea of
allowing the SAME clowns who ran the companies into the ground to stay on
with taxpayer money is INSANE! But worse - to bring over Jeff Imelt of GE to
be an "economic advisor" is absurd. Imelt is the guy who took GE and ran it
into the ground. Turned the entire company into shit! Stock was valued at
almost $200 at one time when he started, NOW it is worth LESS than $10 a
share and they keep posting losses. GE was making tons on a great line of
major appliances. Imelt turned that into shit. Same with defense contracts
and the jet engines. There is NOTHING at GE that he hasn't screwed up. He
has taken the NBC franchise into the toilet. Trying to prove that you can
take a primetime lineup and have ratings LOWER than ZERO.

Look at whole industries that have disappeared. Office equipment
including computers, TOTALLY GONE offshore. American brands for the most
part are owned by foreign companies. If something doesn't happen - you will
not be able to buy an AMERICAN car in another couple years. All of the Big
Three are like horses that need to be taken out to the back 40 and SHOT.
Ford is the least totaled of the 3, but is screwed. There is NO point trying
to save Chrysler or GM. They both NEED to go. GM - NEEDS to be in the
category of Nash,, Hudson, Kaiser, Studebaker, Packard etc except those guys
built some good cars.GM specializes in building SHIT. Chrysler has flashes
that MAYBE they could build a good car IF they got rid of the MBA's that run
it. Get some CAR people in there. At least somebody who has SOME knowledge
of what makes a car GO..... Somebody who has a clue as to what the market
needs. Someone who can see past the tip of his nose.

You know - when Henry Ford built the first model "T" there were NO gas
stations. But Ford built the cars. Almost everyone with a brain knows that
we will HAVE to have electric cars, and that batteries are just a short
haul. So HOW do we power these electric cars? Think back to the old trolley
cars and trackless trolley buses. Now - we are NOT going to go back to
overhead wires. Can't we come up with something for the 21st century? If we
build it right, we won't even have to "drive" the cars. Computers will take
us where we need to go. Safely. Can't we figure all this out???

You would think car companies want to keep their customers "coming
back"? Maybe that's why some do well and others are staring bankruptcy
in the eye.

On Apr 28, 8:51*pm, jim beam <retard-fin... (AT) bad (DOT) example.net> wrote:

makolber (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote:
Its done various ways. They may not have been the first, but the first
cars that I knew of that had these "torque management" schemes were the
1993 Chrysler LH series with the 42LE and 3.5L v6, and the same year
Cadillacs with the Northstar. I don't know the details on how the
Northstar did it but the Chrysler LH only applied torque management on
wide-open-throttle 1-2 shifts. It was done by cutting alternate fuel
injector pulses (basically running on 3 during the upshift). It was
pretty much undetectable.

Later vehicles that still had a direct cable linkage to the throttle
used various "torque management" features involving both retarding the
timing and cutting injector pulses. My wife's 05 PT does this and it
feels for all the world like the throttle is being closed.

Finally there are the throttle-by-wire vehicles, which just frickin'
close the throttle slightly- much cleaner and less noticeble in the feel
of the car, although I find them more audible. Under hard acceleration,
these systems sound very much like a good driver power-shifting a manual
transmission. I *think* that TBW vehicles cut power until the
transmission's input and output sensors show the correct ratio, meaning
that the clutch pack is no longer slipping. The computer then fully
applies the clutch and re-opens the throttle. There's virtually no wear
on the clutch packs this way since the only load on them while the shift
is occurring is the inertia of the crankshaft.



And I have learned to
And with the computer watching the input and output speeds, there really
doesn't have to be much or any real slippage. The computer can just
quickly apply the clutch a few milliseconds before or after the ratio is
perfectly matched as the engine winds down after the computer closes the
throttle and disengages the previous gear.

johngdole (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:
The sentiment may be right, but the logic doesn't follow- For is "doing
well" despite the alleged problems with the Explorer. (I say 'alleged'
because there's a lot of evidence that the only real problem was/is
idiot drivers that drove Explorers like Miatas, and crappy Firestone tires).