On 04/13/2011 07:33 PM, Hal wrote:
>> you're stuck in a time warp dude - it's 2011.
>>
>
> WHOA. Holy smokes, thank you for that, Cap'n Obvious. ;-)

yeah, well "cap'n mechanical injection is not electronic injection"
should check his dates.

he should also learn to annotate his snipping to preserve meaning, not
distort it.


>
>> er, how many clutches are there in a traditional auto? �how many
>> hydraulic systems?
>>
>
> Quite a few, stacked together last time I checked. And one hydraulic
> system that I know of. The point was that I was comparing a standard
> transmission/transaxle to an automatic anything. The standard
> transmission, in my experience, will go longer without a failure
> because there are far fewer things to break.

a lot of auto transmissions in domestics are designed to fail after
given mileages. there's nothing inherently less reliable in an auto as
far as the drivetrain is concerned - if anything, the opposite -
planetary gearsets are theoretically stronger and therefore more
reliable than simple spur gearsets.

but once detroit succeeded in brainwashing people into expecting to
replace an auto transmission every 100k, then people coughed up the
dough with no real resistance. and the gravy train is well and truly in
motion. detroit's not giving up that particular cash machine without
one heck of a fight.


> Further on that point, it
> will be easier to repair if it does break, and since the 'automanual'
> boxes are relatively new, long-term reliability is somewhat hard to
> gauge. The syncromesh manual gearbox on the other hand has been around
> since what, 1940 something?

so? date has nothing to do with it.

traditional synchros are over-engineered to withstand abuse. the
expression "grind it till you find it" didn't come from nowhere.

if you have a computer shifting, you don't need such heavy synchros
because the thing is being shifted with complete precision each and
every time. that should also improve reliability - unless of course,
the design spec includes life limitation...


>
>> yeah, atf is not special...
>>
>
> $27 a liter isn't not cheap, and the DSG units do not take ATF.

with a dry clutch version, there's no reason it shouldn't run
traditional lubricants. unless of course you as a manufacturer want to
take the opportunity to mystify and expensify.


> Maybe
> the Ford's do? I'll probably never know because I won't buy a ford
> anything. But keep reading.
>
>> how about pausing to check your facts?
>
> How about take your own advice?
>
> Best,
> Chris

that's a classic - "do what i say, not what i [don't] do".


--
nomina rutrum rutrum