--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: EG^00014 Date: 12/30/97 From: MARC GERGES Time: 12:07am \/To: RONNIE THOMPSON (Read 0 times) Subj: REVERSE QUESTION Salut Ronnie! DW> My parent's Camry's Parking brake will let the car go forward AND DW> backward, so long as you give it enough gas... RT> Then it needs to be adjusted. If the brake works correctly, it RT> should be AT LEAST as strong as the engine, else it is not doing RT> its job. MG> The parking brake ist there to keep the car standing, it is not built MG> to brake it or to work against the engine. RT> Marc, while some people may think that the parking brake is only RT> for keeping the car standing still, that's not true. The parking RT> brake is actually called an emergency brake and its job is to stop RT> the car if/when the braking system fails. To tell somebody his parking brake is there to stop the vehicle in emergencies is imho culpable neglicence. Usual parking brakes are - under ideal conditions - capable of a decceleration of about 3 to 4 m/s^2. Real brakes make 9 to 10. MG> Most cars have parking brakes only on two wheels and cable MG> operated. That may keep a beetle standing, but not a modern car. MG> The 'real' brakes of course are stronger than the engine... RT> Like I said earlier, IF the brake is adjusted correctly, it should RT> be at least as strong as the engine. Any other way and I'm sure it RT> wouldn't be allowed on the road. Let's assume a parking brake capable of 3,5m/s^2 (although over a longer distance this seems utopic to me, I'd take 2 to 2,5 more realistic from 100 to 0). To brake the car from 100 km/h (62 mph) it takes 7,94 seconds. If your car is faster from standstill to 62 than that, the engine is stronger than the parking brakes. To compare with the real brakes (under fine conditions 9 is not a real problem): it stops in 3,08 s. cu .\\arc ...What do you call a nun after a sex change? Transistor. --- * Origin: sympathy for the debil (2:270/47) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: EG^00015 Date: 12/30/97 From: MARC GERGES Time: 12:21am \/To: BILL MITCHELL (Read 0 times) Subj: REVERSE QUESTION Salut Bill! RT>> Then it needs to be adjusted. If the brake works correctly, RT>> it should be AT LEAST as strong as the engine, else it is RT>> not doing its job. MG> The parking brake ist there to keep the car standing, it is MG> not built to brake it or to work against the engine. Most BM> The parking brake has two functions, it serves to hold the car when BM> parked and it is a backup brake if needed. They were called BM> emergency brakes at one time. As said in the mail before, calling that device emergency brake is fooling the people imho. BM> Drum brakes tend to have less holding power in reverse than disc, BM> but they still should hold. This applies only to drum brakes with two braking cylinders, drum brakes with a single cylinder have the same power in both directions. BM> I recently went through the New Jersey DMV's official testing BM> procedure (got my jeep inspected at a state run station). The BM> parking brake is tested twice. They accelerate for about 25 feet BM> and the parking brake must then stop the vehicle. Mmmh... a foot is about 0,3 meters, isn't it? That makes 7,5 m. If strong accelerated that makes about 25 km/h (16 mph). I guess from that speed you could stop the vehicle by putting a foot at and press it on the road :-) BM> They then rev the engine to a moderate speed in drive for an BM> automatic transmission, parking brake on, and the brake MUST hold BM> the car. Mmmmh... that depends more on the caracteristics of the torque converter ho. You don't have a real test? Here to car is driven on a test bed and checked. If the brakes don't pass a certain minimum and are even on both sides, they fail. BM> A failure on the brake tests can, in the inspector's BM> judgement, result in the vehicle being declared unsafe rather than BM> just the ordinary failed inspection sticker used for other test BM> failures, Seems correct to me. BM> though except in the case of complete brake failure I BM> doubt they'd declare a car with a parking brake that needs BM> adjustment unsafe. BM> An unsafe vehicle cannot be driven until declared safe and signed BM> off by a mechanic or state inspector, and subsequent reinspection BM> by a state inspector can, in extreme cases, be required. That's how it should be. BM> Believe it or not, though, the state inspectors do not examine BM> brake linings, only test performance. Uh-oh. cu .\\arc ...International Brotherhood of Tagline Thieves. --- * Origin: sympathy for the debil (2:270/47) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: EG^00016 Date: 12/30/97 From: ROY J. TELLASON Time: 04:04pm \/To: RONNIE THOMPSON (Read 0 times) Subj: SEARS CAR BATTERY! Ronnie Thompson wrote in a message to Roy J. Tellason: RJT> Not necessarily. We're not talking about draining the battery RJT> completely, only about taking it across the threshold of being able RJT> to start, then not. RT> Still, if it is happening in one hour, it is a large drain. Nope. <...> RJT> I had a '67 Fury at one time that had all sorts of new stuff put into RJT> it, and the battery kept dying. I kept on having to get it jump RJT> started, and couldn't figure out why for a while. Two things were a RJT> part of the problem. One was that the voltage regulator had been RJT> replaced, and had not been adjusted to charge at idle (this was a RJT> mechanical type, sorta like a relay with one single coil). The other RT> Never heard of that problem with a alternator, which I assume RT> it was, on a vehicle of that age, but ok. It wasn't a problem with the alternator, but a problem with the (mechanical) *regulator*. Didn't you read what I wrote? RJT> was that there was a trunk light and the bracket holding the switch RJT> had bent, allowing the light to stay on and continue to discharge the RJT> battery for long periods of time. RT> Had that problem one time on my Trans Am. Would only discharge RT> if it sat there for 2-3 days, yet if it was driven daily, you RT> wouldn't even notice. That would have been the case with mine, too, if the thing had been charging normally when it was being driven. email: roy.j.tellason%tanstaaf@frackit.com --- * Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS 717-432-0764 (1:270/615) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: EG^00017 Date: 12/30/97 From: ROY J. TELLASON Time: 04:23pm \/To: TOM WALKER (Read 0 times) Subj: Battery sizes TOM WALKER wrote in a message to ROY J. TELLASON: -> DL> ------------------------------------------------------------ -> DL> --- -> -> DL> 24 10.5 x 6.9 x 8.8 36 600 115 -> -> When I had that battery store we had Group 24 batteries in 350, -> 400, 450, -> 525, and 675 CCA ratings. All weighed different amounts, too... TW> Sounds likely since the CCA rating is Directly related to TW> the Amount of Active Material, mostly Lead, in the plates. TW> :-) :-) Yep. You could almost tell which one you had grabbed before you looked at the numbers just by how much it weighed... email: roy.j.tellason%tanstaaf@frackit.com --- * Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS 717-432-0764 (1:270/615) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: EG^00018 Date: 12/30/97 From: ROY J. TELLASON Time: 04:25pm \/To: TOM WALKER (Read 0 times) Subj: Electrical loads, battery TOM WALKER wrote in a message to BILL MITCHELL: -> ML> I believe he's questioning whether it will START without a -> ML> battery. Does it have sufficient residual magnetism to -> ML> generate a field? I suspect not. -> -> Your suspitions are correct, automotive alternators (in reality they -> really an AC Generator) are not self exciting and retain no residual -> magnatism. They need a battery to excite the field, otherwise they ha -> zero output. TW> Not only that but are of the Very Efficient Three Phase TW> design enabling them to put out those Higher Current outputs TW> in a much smaller package. Anybody that has ever seen or TW> replaced an old 100 Amp engine Generator can testify to TW> that. From what I understand, some of the newer stuff (GM in particular) is going to a lot more phases than that... email: roy.j.tellason%tanstaaf@frackit.com --- * Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS 717-432-0764 (1:270/615) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: EG^00019 Date: 12/30/97 From: ROY J. TELLASON Time: 04:33pm \/To: JAY EMRIE (Read 0 times) Subj: Engine Wanted JAY EMRIE wrote in a message to ROY WITT: RW>17 Dec 97 19:46, Roy J. Tellason said this about Engine Wanted to John RW>Faerb RW> RJT> Here's a question, maybe some folks can clarify this for me RW> RJT> -- if you look in a bunch of the books that you can get on these RW> RJT> cars (Chilton, Motors Manual, etc.) at engine specs, the '70 Dart RW> RJT> I had was rated at 230 HP for that engine, while the '75 was rated RW> RJT> at 170 HP! Can anybody explain to me just what exactly it was that RW> RJT> they did to change the engine and lose all those horses? RW>Long about 71 or 72 they (factories) changed the way they rated engine RW>horse RW>r. (I forget the old and new formulas they used) That helped those folks RW>wh RW>id license fees by horsepower. Illinois was one of them. RW>Then, about that same time, the govt said you (factories again) gotta stop RW>p RW>ting the air with those cars. Smog devices were bountiful beginning in 74 RW>a RW>y 75, horsepower was gone... RW> RJT> Is there stuff I can do to reverse that? Or would I be better off RW> RJT> just getting another engine and building it up from scratch? RW> Basically, your engine lost compression and some cam lobe. Put it back RW> with RW>ermarket stuff and it'll make horsepower again. JE> The biggest (worst) things the manufacturers did back in the JE> 70s was reduce the compression ratio AND retard the cam JE> timing about 5-7 degrees. Same cam grind, just differect JE> timing. I am speaking strictly of Ford 460 V8s here. I would JE> suspect others were similar. Supposed to reduce emissions JE> and ended up doing nothing but reduce power. I corrected JE> that by using a police cam which kept the better timing. So if I advance the timing to just this side of ping, I oughta be able to get some more power out of it? Or are you saying that I'd also need a different cam for it, too? email: roy.j.tellason%tanstaaf@frackit.com --- * Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS 717-432-0764 (1:270/615) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: EG^00020 Date: 12/30/97 From: ROY J. TELLASON Time: 04:41pm \/To: RONNIE THOMPSON (Read 0 times) Subj: Battery sizes Ronnie Thompson wrote in a message to JAY EMRIE: -=> Quoting JAY EMRIE to RONNIE THOMPSON <=- RT>You were VERY lucky. If the one battery had a true short like you are RT>saying, there would usually have been a VERY STRONG spark, when you RT>connecte RT>the jumper cables. I've seen batteries explode, as a result of an RT>internal RT>short, and it is NOT a pretty sight. JE> I'm a Lefty. Lefty goes right along with being Lucky. Seriously, I JE> have seen the results of a battery exploding. Next door neighbors JE> exploded, and all he did was turn the key on getting ready to start and JE> go to work. Sure made a mess under the hood. Luckily I was in my front JE> yard. Got the hose and washed everything down, and poured the baking JE> soda to everything. JE> One wxploded in front of a parts house. The poor guy had just opened JE> the hood enough for the engine compartment light to come on. JE> Wonder why either of those blew up? RT> Had to have the gases plus a spark to ignite them. In the RT> first, it could have been a bad connection right at the RT> battery. In the second, it could have been the same thing, RT> but I doubt it. There is a lot more potential for a spark RT> when trying to crank the vehicle then there is just lifting RT> the hood, and the hood light coming on. Second one has me RT> baffled. Then there's the bad connection _IN_ the battery, something that I saw more and more often as time went on while I was at that store... email: roy.j.tellason%tanstaaf@frackit.com --- * Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS 717-432-0764 (1:270/615) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: EG^00021 Date: 12/30/97 From: ROY J. TELLASON Time: 04:46pm \/To: MITCH W (Read 0 times) Subj: Battery Terminals Mitch W wrote in a message to Ronnie Thompson: RT> Most that I've seen, are still lead, with the exception on RT> smaller foreign vehicles. MW> Most, if not all, "lead" battery terminal clamps, which is MW> what I believe the discussion is about, have a steel core MW> inside the lead. Not that I've seen, and I've sure busted enough of them... email: roy.j.tellason%tanstaaf@frackit.com --- * Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS 717-432-0764 (1:270/615) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 246 AUTOMOTIVE Ref: EG^00022 Date: 12/30/97 From: JOHN RANGER Time: 10:11am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: ....walkin 'round IN WOMEN"S UNDERWAAAAR10:11:1812/30/97 Hello all! We got HIT last night with a Noreaster storm...that I had the Great luck to have to DRIVE thru. I have the Defrosting Grid on the back window and it seems that like Windsheild Wipers, The Manny makes some of these better than others. I have seen cars that you just look at the controls and the Blades KICK in and on others, Like my Bonny...you ask Nicely first. It may. These Defrost grids use 12Vdc....is that as much as they can handle? Would they not Kick a little bit faster in if they started at lets say, 18 vdc? *********************** John aka RANGER *************************** >HOOW-DEEE-HOOO! * Origin: Fight AIDS, not PEOPLE with AIDS....KBC-BBS (1:260/310.4) --- Squish v1.10 * Origin: -=:[ KBC Point 4 ]:=- (1:260/310.4)