automatic transmission failure question

eh? i don't know who you think you're talking with, but you /do/ know
that "" is a generic anti-spam address that /lots/ of
people use don't you?

backatcha big guy. but because i simply can't resist taunting idiots,
why don't you tell the class what you make of this:

http://i43.tinypic.com/24bq0jn.jpg

thanks.

 

Oops. I owe you a very sincere apology. There is someone who just goes
by "Jim" that pops up every time a .tech thread gets cross-posted with a
..makers.honda thread, and I had you and he confused.

That was 100% my mistake, and I do apologize.

Since I mistakenly dragged you into this, I feel I owe you the
background. The last time this came up and I pulled up an oil company's
spec sheet that showed their 10w30 was slightly thicker than their own
SAE 30 even AT 100C, "Jim" dismissed it as "believing glossy
advertising" and claimed that an SAE30 weight would always be much
thicker than a 10w30,"especially" on the high side of 100C. The chart
you just linked agrees with my claim, which is that since Xw30 oils
have a viscosity index much higher than the average SAE 30 oil, they
will match SAE 30 at 100C (where the spec defines the "30" in an Xw30)
and then as temperature continues to increase the Xw30 will actually
maintain a greater thickness than the SAE 30. The viscosity lines
clearly CROSS at the 100C measurement point, so above that point (until
somewhere > 300F where the VI improvers start breaking down and the oil
itself begins to oxidize) the 0w30 becomes THICKER than the straight
SAE30. NOT thinner. Granted, that's not shown on this chart, but its
what happens.


Now, rather than just calling each other morons (which I admittedly feel
like after that mistake...), could you possibly explain your claim that
leaf spring suspensions, in general, have more lateral deflection than
other designs? I agree that *particular* implementations may have
excessive lateral movement, but in general I've always found that
panhard-rod/trailing arm axle designs are more prone to slop (due to the
large bushings involved) than most simple leaf-spring designs. And even
when the slop is eliminated (heim joints, etc.) there's a residual issue
of the fact that the axle makes a large radius arc relative to the
vehicle centerline as the suspension extends or compresses, giving rise
to the "head toss" handling quirk that coil-sprung trucks like Jeep XJs
and TJs sometimes exhibit. In fact, Dodge is rather vocal in the
automotive press about how much work went into the coil spring rear
suspension of the new Ram 1500 to enable it to match the stability and
load-carrying capacity of conventional leaf suspensions... work that was
required BECAUSE of the lateral rigidity and inherent body-roll
resistance of leaf spring stacks, which were lost in utilizing coil
springs.

 

no problem.

to an extent. but it's a bit more complicated than that. viscosity is
not lubricity so exclusive focus on that isn't sufficient. what you
need is an oil that is stable not just at temperature, but at high shear
rates too. from what i understand, an odd assortment of base oil
compounds with branched chains, aromatics and inconsistent compounds,
like you have with "single weight", can't be relied on to do that in a
high shear hydrodynamic situation without all kinds of oddness like
cavitation and shear thinning.

ok, we need to separate marketing spin from reality. reality is that
leaf springs are CHEAP [the primary objective of anything detroit],
simple and kind-sorta work ok with low lateral loads, low speeds, and
where unsprung weight doesn't much matter. but if any of the above are
a factor, they suck. aside from the more obvious problems with things
like axle rotation on torque, the lateral issue is the same kind of
problem you can have with a saw blade. the frame remains rigid, but the
thin blade [elastically] buckles and bucks if load, speed, angle etc.,
aren't just right. that same elastic buckling is what accommodates
lateral movement on leaf springs. add to that worn pivot points and you
have a real stability problem.

as for being "rather vocal", all this stuff about having to spend money
to "design" a suspension system is just sheer effrontery and b.s. there
is nothing new in what they're doing. if anything, it's decades behind
the times. i've been to europe many times, and over there, they've had
heavy and light trucks with independent suspension, not a leaf spring in
sight, for what seems like ever. even the last hold-out of european
backwardness, the land rover, finally got with the program in the 80's.
here /we/ are in the naughties, 30-odd years later, and we're making
out like it's new and complicated??? that dude, is ridiculous.

http://www.unimogcentre.com/unimogprinc.html

these guys know what they're doing.

 

Agreed.

reality is that

Well... "suck" is relative too. Almost any leaf spring implementation
that can carry a 1/2 ton class truck or SUV will have a master leaf that
is on the order of 3" wide and 3/8" thick solid spring steel, and the
whole spring stack will be about 1.5 inches tall with the master leaf
only acting alone over a span of 3-5 inches longitudinally. So you're
really talking about "bending and buckling" something that quite frankly
is NOT going to bend or buckle under the loadings that the tires can
apply to it.

But my real disagreement here is that we have to compare leafs and their
shortcomings to real-world alternative rear suspensions made with
oversized bushings, sub-optimal geometry to avoid impinging on interior
space, and rather flexible stamped steel or cast aluminum members that
compare rather poorly to the leaf spring stack in terms of rigidity. FOR
THE MONEY, leaf springs quite often suck LESS than alternatives, which
was my point. IMO that was a big part of why the Honda Ridgeline hit the
market with a dull wet thump- it was all road manners and no hauling
ability. Were there some horrible leaf spring designs? SURE! Look at any
GM midsize car of the 70s that used leaf springs with long single-leaf
sections and not enough asymmetry to overcome axle torque (Nova, for
example). Those are the springs that gave rise to a whole aftermarket of
traction bars and other band-aids to try to get them to work as well as
better designs.

Of course leafs don't play with independent rear suspensions which are
becoming more common even on trucks, but that too is fuelled largely by
marketing hype. Solid axles actually have some favorable handling
characteristics (such as roll center) that get ignored because they're
considered "ancient" by the advertising types. If you want a truck with
an acceptable combination of weight hauling capability, drivetrain
strength, low cost, and acceptable handling, then solid axles (with or
without leaf springs) are actually near the top of the list of candidates.

Can they ever achieve the ultimate handling of a good independent rear
suspension? Of course not, or we'd see solid-axle Ferraris. Can an
independent rear suspension ever equal solid axle load carrying ability
and longevity under heavy loading? No, not at any reasonable cost (or
else we'd be seeing IRS on cement mixers. The pickup market falls in the
middle where either solution can be made to work with some compromises.

The innovation here is combining leaf springs with a solid axle in this
application, not IRS. Its the first non-leaf-sprung solid axle truck
since the '72 GM pickups, which were notoriously poor handlers when
loaded, although much better than leaf-sprung trucks when empty. Its the
combination of load carrying ability and stability with unloaded manners
that is new here. IRS ala Unimog or Humvee would be cost prohibitive
and unnecessary. I agree they're just crowing about what someone should
have looked into about 15 years ago, but as you said- COST is an
engineering driver as much as function in many cases.

At any rate, thanks for the discussion.

 

Wonder if he ever found out what the problem was????

 

What was the question again???

 

If you are referring to petroleum based oil your understanding is not
correct. The fact is that a single weight (monograde) oil is well
suited to handle the high temp high shear requirements of modern oil
standards. In fact if you research the origins of the current standard
for high temp high shear you will find the standards for multigrade oils
were arrived at by sampling all the monograde oils being sold and the
standard for high temp viscosity was set at the 95 percentile of what
tests found for monogrades at that point in time. That is, almost every
single weight oil (95% of them) they tested was better then the minimum
standard set (Viscosity at 150C and 10^6 s^-1 shear rate) for that
particular weight range. Very few of the multigrades exceed the standard
for high temp viscosity by much but almost all monograde oils do. And
this only applies to 20 and 30 weight oils . A 5w40 or 10w40 is even
required to meet the same standard that the straight 40 wt must meet. A
10w40 is only required to have the same viscosity as any common
monograde 30 wt to meet the the high-temp-high-shear test standard. Look
it up if you don't believe me.


The problem of the petroleum based oil becoming very thin and weak at
high temp and high load conditions is and always has been a problem
related to the viscosity improvers used in multigrade oils. The polymers
that are used to improve viscosity start to break down at temperatures
above the standard 100C temperature at which viscosity is measured for
establishing the grade. What that means in simple layman's term is that
lots of engines were being damaged when drivers attempted to haul their
boat up a hill on a hot day or when their cooling system failed for some
reason at highway speeds. This was a known problem with petroleum based
multigrade oils. But since the oil companies and automakers had no known
chemical solution for the problem with petroleum based oil (other than
the unacceptable one of using straight weight oils) the problem was kept
very quiet for many years after multigrade oil was first introduced.
Then about 15-20 years ago when the technology was sufficiently advanced
the problem was finally addressed by changing the standards. That change
is one of the main reasons why you now hear so many claims on how modern
oils are so so much better than they used to be. That is because what
was in most cars on the road 30 years ago was really crap if your engine
ran hot for some reason. Even today they have no means to economically
make the viscosity of 10w40 a good as straight 40 wt. oil (at the 150C
temp and 10^6 s^-1 shear test) and that is why the standard for
viscosity for those multigrades are less than it is for the 40 wt.
monograde. It is not until you get to the 15w40 oils that the high temp
viscosity requirement for multigrade is the same as it is for straight
40 wt.

The irony of all this is that the oil companies have used this as an
advertising ploy. Nowadays, they claim that their multigrade oil is
specially formulated for high temp high load operating conditions. The
implication is that because the straight weight oils are not specially
formulated for high temp high load they must not be as good under those
conditions. Apparently through this sort of advertising they have been
successful at leading many people to leap to this false conclusion.

-jim

 

The tranny QUIT on him. No-go... I wonder IF he found out why.

 

but they don't. really.

that's completely untrue. think about it - there is no way a "boxed"
structure is as rigid as a triangulated structure. it simply cannot be.

i don't think it's about "reasonable" cost - earth movers don't use leaf
springs and they're /way/ bigger than cement mixers. if you want my
opinion, based on my having traveled a lot and seen other peoples
solutions, i think it's simply that we have a kind of bizarre cultural
inertia here that simply doesn't /believe/, hence we don't even try.

but it's not cost prohibitive. and what cost is safety? the exploder,
leaf sprung, is a classic example. how many people do we have to kill
before we start looking at the big picture?

 

And are the basis for Nascar Sprint Cup rear suspensions.

 

now i know why steve was taking exception to you.

1. again, viscosity is not lubricity.

2. fwiu, most synthetics don't use vi "polymers" so blanket statements
about "breaking down" is bullshit.

3. vi improvers don't "start to break down at temperatures above the
standard 100C temperature at which viscosity is measured". they may
start to break down at 150 or more, but most motor oils don't run that
hot and you start having issues with base oils at that temperature anyway.

4. vi improvers are usually pour point depressants, thus they /thin/
what would otherwise be a more viscous oil. this means if the base
/was/ 40wt, it can now be /thinner/ at lower temperatures, hence 10w-40.
your bullshit has this the wrong way around if you think vi additive
breakdown causes oil to be too thin.

5. motor oil is /full/ of "polymers" so your language is chosen to
deliberately obscure - like a bullshitter.

 

Nobody said it was. There are standards and tests for viscosity and up to now
viscosity and the SAE standards for viscosity is all that has been included in
discussion.

What you are calling bullshit is something you dreamed up. The discussion was
about the viscosity of non-synthetic oil. Did I not make that clear in my first
sentence in my reply to you? I wrote -> "If you are referring to petroleum based
oil". I mentioned it again later several times just in case you failed to read
it in the first sentence.

The failure of multigrade oils maintaining the viscosity index above 100c is
exactly why they introduced a new standard that required the oil to meet a
certain level of viscosity at 150C. Prior to the introduction of that
requirement multigrade oils (non-synthetic) were not maintaining the viscosity
index above 100C. There was no requirement that the viscosity index extend in a
linear fashion beyond that point for those oils. In that era most 10w30 oils
were found to have a viscosity of less than 1 cSt at 150C compared to most
monograde 30 weights that were in the 3-5 range. Even with today's standards
most 10w30 are still thinner than most straight 30 wts at 150C test point.

No that is wrong. Pour point depressants are not the same as vii. They do affect
viscosity and so do some of the other additives like detergents. The bottom line
is that a multigrade oil is supposed to meet a certain viscosity standard. But
those standards are only based on tests at 2 temps (hi and lo). The discussion
is about what people imagine happens at other temps like let's say 250F (120C)?

It is a lot more complicated than you think. Improving the viscosity index is
blend of making thin oil thicker at high temp and thick oil thinner at low
temp. But it doesn't really matter what the base stock and additive package is
ultimately it has to pass the high and low temp viscosity tests to meet the
standard. The problem is you and Steve think you can predict how the oil will
behave above the 100c temp by drawing a line from the low temp viscosity point
to the 100C viscosity point and extrapolating that line above the 100C temp.
Problem is that doesn't work. If it had worked like that there would not now be
a viscosity requirement at 150C. The current standard for high temp viscosity at
150C is in place because it was recognized that your method of determining
viscosity at temps above 100C doesn't work.

One of the big problems with your method is that there is a fairly large range
of viscosities allowed to meet the 100C viscosity requirement. That alone has a
huge affect on the slope of your imagined viscosity index line. The other factor
is that what the viscosity index improvers do is pretty much all done when the
Temp reaches 100C. By that I mean that the index or line that is the graph of
temp vs. viscosity is no longer linear above 100C. Now I call that the vii
breaking down - you can call it whatever you want - but what it means is at
temps above 100C the oil gets much thinner than your straight line would
predict.

The viscosity index improvers are added and that is mostly what makes it a
multigrade oil. Without the addition of the vii the oil wouldn't qualify to be
multigrade. So what about that do you think is obscure?

The fact is that there was a known problem with multigrade oils not
maintaining viscosity at temperatures above 100c and to address that problem
they introduced a new standard that ensures that the viscosity doesn't fall
short all the way up to 150C. The basic change in the formulation of multigrade
oils that made it possible to meet the current standards was changes to the
viscosity index improvers.

Here is the reality of viscosity 30 weight petroleum oils:

a typical fresh 10w30 non-synthetic the viscosity is around 10 cSt at 100C and
around 3 cSt at 150C.

A typical straight 30 wt oil is around 12 cSt at 100C and around 4 cSt at 150C.

If you are capable of graphing those points you will see that the typical 30 wt
is always thicker at any temp than the typical 10w30.



Those numbers are typical of most of the oil on the market. That doesn't mean
it is impossible to make a 10w30 that is thicker than a straight 30 wt. it only
means it doesn't happen very often. The reason it works like that is that most
of the oil companies aren't running charities they don't give away anything they
don't have to.

-jim

 

which achieves precisely nothing and is no indicator of quality or
lubricity or stability.

<snip>

you're mixing friction with non-fact. you need to read something other
than an amsoil website.

**** - i really can't be bothered to argue with such bullshit.

 

No maybe not. And it won't matter any in a car with a working cooling
system. But it is the reason Briggs and Stratton engine company says use
straight 30 wt. and never put 10w30 petroleum based oil in many of their
small engines. Those engines run hot and oil related failure is almost
guaranteed with a petroleum based 10w30.

Never seen their website but sounds like you have.

Don't worry you didn't even come close to making any argument.

-jim

 

My gosh . . . You may want to slow down a bit, and back off on the
sweeping generalizations and such.

Jacques

 

Industry all around the world has been damaged by these people. It is NOT
true that if you can run a doughnut shop, you can run GM.

 

Generalizations? How many TV sets are built in the United States today?
Can you name ONE? How about a desk top computer? Don't say a MAC, they are
built in China. Want to talk about RCA? Who owns RCA today? I'll give you a
clue it is NOT American. When is the last time you saw a ZENITH TV set? A
Royal or Underwood typewriter? A Monroe or SCM calculator? Seen a Magnavox
TV? Motorola? Sylvania? Seen any Allis Chalmers tractors lately?
International Harvester tractors?

Where is the electronic stuff being made? Did you know that MOST of the
electronics in our military airplanes is made in CHINA? Did you know that we
CANNOT produce the stuff any more? We don't have the technology any more. It
would take AT LEAST 5 years in TOTAL crisis mode before we could rebuild the
factories and the structure to even TRY to build the stuff. If we went to
war with China, in simple words, we'd be fukked. We could not get ANY spare
parts. Same is true of things like Tanks and APC's.

Take your "American" car. 75% of the parts are made OFF SHORE. Looking
forward much of the FUTURE for GM will be built in MEEEHEEEKO, and much of
Chrysler's in Canada or Italy if the deal with Fiat goes through. Sweeping
generalizations? Did you think I was being rhetorical about a GM CEO
lambasting some engineers about how many lug nuts are on a wheel? Or the
FACT that the asshole never had a driver's license and had NO idea how an
internal combustion engine works. NONE AT ALL!

Yeah I guess I did make a sweeping generalization when I said there were
NO American made tv sets. Despite the FACT that the video recorder was
INVENTED by American engineers, the VCRs were all made in Asia. (See the
history of the AMPEX corporation), yeah it is pretty general and sweeping
when I say that NO American made TV set has existed for almost 20 years. NO
VCRS, no DVD's NO CD's and on and on. Show me I am WRONG. Name a TV set
built in America. Both Plasma, and LCD were American inventions. NO
American company would consider them. So is the new LED TV screens. The
inventors TRIED to get interest in the US, but the HARVARD geniuses told
them they were "INSANE" that "nobody will want" those things.

It is only a matter of time when you will NOT be able to buy an American
made car or truck. MAYBE Roger Penske san save Saturn and turn it into a
real car company. At least Penske know where the gasoline goes in a car. The
SHITHEAD running Chrysler ran HOME DEPOT before coming to run Chrysler into
the ground. I think Ford has improved, but the jury is out on saving the
company. It has 10 times the debt it can manage and survive. For's
management is much better than that of GM or Chrysler. Both of which are
TOTALLY CLUELESS. Ford has a chance, a ridiculously small chance, but
remote as it is, they have a chance to survive. GM has absolutely NO chance.
Even with 300 TRILLION dollars from the government. They still will have the
SAME clueless assholes building the SAME horrible cars and asking WHY a
wheel needs 5 lug nuts. Not a CLUE as to what makes them go, or what kind
of cars to build. They see a model start to sell for Toyota, and Chevy will
have a SHITTY copy as a new model next year. Why do you think there are 2300
different kinds of Chevy's? GM is the car company that doesn't know what it
wants to be when it grows up. It hasn't known since Al Sloan died.

Specifics? GM is BANKRUPT. Chrysler is BANKRUPT. Ford is ALMOST
bankrupt. Who is left????

 

HARVARD says you CAN. However HARVARD asshole also put the donut shops out
of business. IF you want to totally fukkkk up a company and bankrupt it,
hire a HARVARD MBA to run it. If you wanted to destroy Christianity, elect a
Harvard MBA as Pope! Want to end Al Qaeda? Assassinate Bin Laden and put a
Harvard MBA in charge. The examples of companies these HARVARD Geniuses have
destroyed is way too long to detail here.

 

mysterios get no info fr me

 

| automatic transmissions are sealed boxes
| that you don't repair
In msia, g-box specialist workshops can repair.