Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.

jim beam > wrote in
t:

> Tegger wrote:
>> "jp2express" > wrote in
>> et:
>>
>>> Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e.
>>> fluid changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)?
>>
>>
>>
>> Most autos do not use bands any more; they use clutch packs.
>
> the all clutch pack solution is unique to honda afaik. planetary
> geared automatics, which are the majority, still use clutch bands in
> addition to clutch packs.



Toyota went bandless in the '70s.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

"Dan Bloomquist" > wrote in message
...
> Useful Info wrote:
>
>> Read all about it, he <snip>
>>
>
> Useful wins this troll.
>
>
But as a spammer he seems to have ended up on the losing end. The thread has
been about the subject line and spinoff from that. His site advertising has
been a flop, because nobody even cares where the link pointed. Just as
well - I saw the subject lines there and realized I had forgotten my tin
foil hat.

Mike

Tegger wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in
> t:
>
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> "jp2express" > wrote in
>>> et:
>>>
>>>> Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e.
>>>> fluid changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)?
>>>
>>>
>>> Most autos do not use bands any more; they use clutch packs.
>> the all clutch pack solution is unique to honda afaik. planetary
>> geared automatics, which are the majority, still use clutch bands in
>> addition to clutch packs.
>
>
>
> Toyota went bandless in the '70s.
>
>
>
i thought they were still planetary. i tried looking briefly for toyota
gearbox drawings last night but couldn't find anything. do you have any
links?

jim beam > wrote in
t:

> Tegger wrote:
>> jim beam > wrote in
>> t:
>>
>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>> "jp2express" > wrote in
>>>> et:
>>>>
>>>>> Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e.
>>>>> fluid changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most autos do not use bands any more; they use clutch packs.
>>> the all clutch pack solution is unique to honda afaik. planetary
>>> geared automatics, which are the majority, still use clutch bands in
>>> addition to clutch packs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Toyota went bandless in the '70s.
>>
>>
>>
> i thought they were still planetary.




Planetary yes, banded no. The two are not mutually inclusive. All bands
or clutch packs do is affect which part(s) of the planetary gearset
is/are allowed to turn.

I also discovered the Chrysler A604 transaxle is also bandless. I have
posted to rec.autos.tech asking for more examples of bandless auto
gearboxes.



> i tried looking briefly for
> toyota gearbox drawings last night but couldn't find anything. do you
> have any links?
>


Not online. I read that in a factory shop manual. Toyota had some banded
trannies and some bandless ones. I think the Toyota A40 was the first
bandless.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

In rec.autos.makers.honda Tegger > wrote:
> The domestics are losing market share left right and center.

> Isn't Toyota poised to displace GM in the #1 position in a few years?

If you are talking about the american market only, I don't know, but in
the global market Toyota got to number one in the first quarter(?) of
this year.


--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

On May 22, 11:32 pm, jim beam > wrote:
> Tegger wrote:
> > Broderick Crawford > wrote in
> :
>
> >> **** safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a
> >> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out
> >> the competition.
>
> > If that's the case, the plan isn't working very well.
>
> that's the ironic stupidity of it! rather than re-invest and compete,
> detroit simply put lipstick on their pig and hoped to keep selling it.
> now, domestic product is /so/ bad and /so/ behind the technology curve,
> it's hard to see how they could ever catch up. it's not like anyone
> couldn't see this coming, not least detroit, and they were filling their
> pants with their fears. but then they had the reprieve of the suv
> phenomenon when they were suddenly making 50% /NET/ profits on those
> pieces of the garbage, and the japanese were standing about scratching
> themselves wondering what the **** people were buying those dumb-ass
> vehicles for. but ever the pragmatists, the japanese soon figured that
> if that's what the round-eyes wanted, that's what they would get, and
> suddenly the only thing detroit had left was taken away. dumb *******s.
> they deserve to go down in flames if they can't get smart.
>
> > The domestics are
> > losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to displace
> > GM in the #1 position in a few years?


Not helping that the cost of medical insurance in the us amounts
to $1500/vehicle, and that the union labor cost is $25/hour for
uneducated high school dropouts who can barely be trusted to swing a
hammer.
These costs cut into the profit margins on the manufacturing
end, and must be made up somewhere, and you can't really do it with
efficiency improvements because those are capital intensive. so they
make up for it on skimpy design cycle and poor tolerance machining, n
other words, our cushioned american asses make crap cars because our
union cocksuckers would rather make crap cars than get paid what
they're worth.

I guess it boils down to the way each individual views things.

I tend to think along the same lines as Jeremy: If the insides of the
transmission are fully automated, fluid controlled, and use a torque
converter instead of a clutch, I call it an automatic transmission. On the
other hand, if the gears are physically enguaged/disenguaged with levers and
actuators and/or requires a clutch, that is a manual transmission in my
book - no matter how many gismos are bolted on top to do the shifting.

Back to the main article: Greg Wilson (the author) says the VW has a "
6-speed manual transmission that shifts automatically." It sound like Mr.
Wilson also views this as a manual transmission, but is pointing out that
the operator may have no control over the gear selection (other than Park,
Reverse, Neutral, and Drive).

The lesson here is: If someone is trying to sell you a car that says it has
an automatic transmission, the Buyer may want to ask for more details.
Otherwise, he may get a vehicle that comes with someone in the passenger's
seat to shift the gears for him!

~JP

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/gw/vw1litre.htm

bill wrote:

> jim beam > wrote:
> >
> > > The domestics are
> > > losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to displace
> > > GM in the #1 position in a few years?
>
> Not helping that the cost of medical insurance in the us amounts
> to $1500/vehicle

Good Lord !

That would translate in UK equivalent terms to a US productvity rate for auto
workers of only about 2 vehicles per year !

I suspect the US auto compnaies could save *VAST* sums of money by operating their
own clinics and hospitals and recruiting health workers as direct employees.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact comes out;
>>>>Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations.
>>>
>>>This is especially a problem in the USA where it seem the public thinks heavy
>>>vehicles are safer.
>>
>>If push comes to shove, the heavier vehicle will suffer less damage than
>>the lighter should the two tango.
>
>
> The *vehicle* may indeed suffer less damage. Doesn't necessarily hold true for the
> people inside.
>
>
>
>>Quite frankly, I feel a whole lot safer in my 1955 Studebaker President
>>with seat belts than I do in my 1983 Civic.
>
>
> Whereas in fact you're far worse off.
>
> Graham
>



Hmmmmm.... I've survived for 67 years without the modern nanny safety crap.

JT

Earle Horton wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>>>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact
>>>>>comes out;
>>>>>Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations.
>>>>
>>>>This is especially a problem in the USA where it seem the public
>>>>thinks heavy vehicles are safer.
>>>
>>>If push comes to shove, the heavier vehicle will suffer less damage than
>>>the lighter should the two tango.
>>
>>The *vehicle* may indeed suffer less damage. Doesn't necessarily hold
>>true for the people inside.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Quite frankly, I feel a whole lot safer in my 1955 Studebaker President
>>>with seat belts than I do in my 1983 Civic.
>>
>>Whereas in fact you're far worse off.
>>
>
> Not necessarily. The other car and its occupants may serve as his "crush
> zone".
>
> Saludos,
>
> Earle
>
>


Egg-Zact-Lee!

<G>

JT