I am posting this so I can get educated. Just finished taking apart an
automatic transaxle (1990 Nissan Maxima) for entertainment and "artsy"
parts. From the bearings and races I see a welding positioner in my future!

Anyway, the planetary gears are amazing as is the differential gear setup.
All of this runs in a transmission fluid bath, which makes me wonder, why
we use heavy gear oils for similar applications when not unitized with an
automatic tranny? Granted this unit was not as heavy duty as would be
required for a rear end of a truck, but, I am sure there are trucks with
front wheel drive automatic transaxles. (Maybe not?).

Educate me why heavy oils are used in gear boxes.

Thanks,

Ivan Vegvary

Ivan Vegvary writes:

Educate me why heavy oils are used in gear boxes.

Gear oil film is maintained under extreme pressure. No metal-to-metal
contact despite high pressure at gear contact areas.

"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message
news:yPUaj.12$ML6.5@trndny04...
I am posting this so I can get educated. Just finished taking apart an
automatic transaxle (1990 Nissan Maxima) for entertainment and "artsy"
parts. From the bearings and races I see a welding positioner in my
future!

Anyway, the planetary gears are amazing as is the differential gear setup.
All of this runs in a transmission fluid bath, which makes me wonder, why
we use heavy gear oils for similar applications when not unitized with an
automatic tranny? Granted this unit was not as heavy duty as would be
required for a rear end of a truck, but, I am sure there are trucks with
front wheel drive automatic transaxles. (Maybe not?).

Educate me why heavy oils are used in gear boxes.

Thanks,

Ivan Vegvary

You'll probably get better answers to this, but you may be interested that
my '87 Mazda 626 with manual gearbox specified *either* a heavy gear oil
*or* ATF for the gearbox. That one really threw me when I read it in the
factory shop manual. I used both at different times and the gearbox
definitely was quieter with the heavy lube. However, the synchro was also
much slower to work in cold weather.

That transmission, BTW, was one of the worst corruptions the Japanese ever
built. It was just that year -- 1987. I had it rebuilt twice, and I'm easy
on gears.

For any automobile gears, you need a high-pressure lubricant. I don't know
how they got away with ATF for that job. For hypoid and spiral-bevel gears,
as in a rear-axle diff, you also need a lubricant with high shear strength.
That's what heavy rear-end oil is supposed to have.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ivan Vegvary" wrote" (clip) I am sure there are trucks with
front wheel drive automatic transaxles. (Maybe not?). (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The VW Rabbit pickup truck comes to mind. (I don't know whether it came
with an automatic, though.) Not a good idea, because the load in the truck
bed makes the front end lift. Picture trying to get traction going up
hillon a wet dirt road.

On Dec 21, 3:19 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message

news:yPUaj.12$ML6.5@trndny04...



I am posting this so I can get educated. Just finished taking apart an
automatic transaxle (1990 Nissan Maxima) for entertainment and "artsy"
parts. From the bearings and races I see a welding positioner in my
future!

Anyway, the planetary gears are amazing as is the differential gear setup.
All of this runs in a transmission fluid bath, which makes me wonder, why
we use heavy gear oils for similar applications when not unitized with an
automatic tranny? Granted this unit was not as heavy duty as would be
required for a rear end of a truck, but, I am sure there are trucks with
front wheel drive automatic transaxles. (Maybe not?).

Educate me why heavy oils are used in gear boxes.

Thanks,

Ivan Vegvary

You'll probably get better answers to this, but you may be interested that
my '87 Mazda 626 with manual gearbox specified *either* a heavy gear oil
*or* ATF for the gearbox. That one really threw me when I read it in the
factory shop manual. I used both at different times and the gearbox
definitely was quieter with the heavy lube. However, the synchro was also
much slower to work in cold weather.

That transmission, BTW, was one of the worst corruptions the Japanese ever
built. It was just that year -- 1987. I had it rebuilt twice, and I'm easy
on gears.

For any automobile gears, you need a high-pressure lubricant. I don't know
how they got away with ATF for that job. For hypoid and spiral-bevel gears,
as in a rear-axle diff, you also need a lubricant with high shear strength.
That's what heavy rear-end oil is supposed to have.

--
Ed Huntress

My '85 Volvo DL also had ATF in the manual tranny....very nice on
those -35 F mornings.

Wolfgang

On Dec 21, 3:19 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message

news:yPUaj.12$ML6.5@trndny04...



I am posting this so I can get educated. Just finished taking apart an
automatic transaxle (1990 Nissan Maxima) for entertainment and "artsy"
parts. From the bearings and races I see a welding positioner in my
future!

Anyway, the planetary gears are amazing as is the differential gear setup.
All of this runs in a transmission fluid bath, which makes me wonder, why
we use heavy gear oils for similar applications when not unitized with an
automatic tranny? Granted this unit was not as heavy duty as would be
required for a rear end of a truck, but, I am sure there are trucks with
front wheel drive automatic transaxles. (Maybe not?).

Educate me why heavy oils are used in gear boxes.

Thanks,

Ivan Vegvary

You'll probably get better answers to this, but you may be interested that
my '87 Mazda 626 with manual gearbox specified *either* a heavy gear oil
*or* ATF for the gearbox. That one really threw me when I read it in the
factory shop manual. I used both at different times and the gearbox
definitely was quieter with the heavy lube. However, the synchro was also
much slower to work in cold weather.

That transmission, BTW, was one of the worst corruptions the Japanese ever
built. It was just that year -- 1987. I had it rebuilt twice, and I'm easy
on gears.

For any automobile gears, you need a high-pressure lubricant. I don't know
how they got away with ATF for that job. For hypoid and spiral-bevel gears,
as in a rear-axle diff, you also need a lubricant with high shear strength.
That's what heavy rear-end oil is supposed to have.

--
Ed Huntress


My 4 liter V6 '92 Ranger 5spd used ATF in the gearbox and the transfer
case- it was a mazda trans.
They improved a bit I guess, I got just shy 250,000 miles out of the
trans before a bearing started making noise. But, had it lasted
longer, I'd still have it.


Dave

Another answer is that heavy oils aren't so heavy. An oil with a viscosity
of 150 cSt at 100 F could be an SAE 40 engine oil or an SAE 90 gear oil.
Confusing, isn't it.

As Ed says, the hypoid gears typically used in a diff need EP (extreme
pressure) additives which form a chemical film on the metal at the high
temperatures and pressures generated locally in the contact.

Also, the viscosity of oils drops rapidly as temperature increases (even
with the additives used in engine oils). Stick a thicker than normal oil in
a gearbox working at reasonable speeds and it will heat up and get thinner.

Mineral oil is remarkably effective on concentrated contacts without too
much sliding, like rolling element bearings or simpler gears. Under the high
pressure, the viscosity goes up very high and the metal parts deform
elastically, giving a contact perhaps a millimetre wide but a lubricant film
only a micron ( 40 microinches) thick. Look up EHL for more details.

Ivan Vegvary wrote:
I am posting this so I can get educated. Just finished taking apart an
automatic transaxle (1990 Nissan Maxima) for entertainment and "artsy"
parts. From the bearings and races I see a welding positioner in my future!

Anyway, the planetary gears are amazing as is the differential gear setup.
All of this runs in a transmission fluid bath, which makes me wonder, why
we use heavy gear oils for similar applications when not unitized with an
automatic tranny? Granted this unit was not as heavy duty as would be
required for a rear end of a truck, but, I am sure there are trucks with
front wheel drive automatic transaxles. (Maybe not?).

Educate me why heavy oils are used in gear boxes.

Most gearboxes rely on hydrodynamic lubrication. This means that the oil
isn't fed into the gearbox under pressure. It's just picked up by the
gears as they rotate and entrained between them. As the oil is drawn
between the gears, it gets squeezed. This squeezing creates pressure in
the oil, which separates the metal surfaces and reduces wear. You can
think of it like an old-fashioned mangle for wringing clothes. The
clothes are drawn between the rollers, and as they pass through, the
clothes push the rollers apart slightly. Oil does the same thing in a
gearbox.

Now if the gears rotate very fast, a lower viscosity lubricant is
adequate because when it gets squeezed, it doesn't have time to flow out
from between the gears. In fact, a higher viscosity lubricant would be a
bad idea for gears rotating fast, as it would result in a lot of
friction and consequently power loss. But for gears that rotate at a low
speed, a higher viscosity lubricant is required. This is so that it
takes longer to flow out from between the gears, and so prevents metal
to metal contact.

The best viscosity for a lubricant also depends on how heavily loaded
the gearbox is. A heavily loaded gearbox will require a more viscous
lubricant than a lightly loaded gearbox. This is because in a heavily
loaded gearbox the lubricant is squeezed harder, and so flows out from
between the gears faster.

It's all about speed and loading.

Hope this helps!

Best wishes,

Chris

wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 3:19 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message

news:yPUaj.12$ML6.5@trndny04...



I am posting this so I can get educated. Just finished taking apart an
automatic transaxle (1990 Nissan Maxima) for entertainment and "artsy"
parts. From the bearings and races I see a welding positioner in my
future!

Anyway, the planetary gears are amazing as is the differential gear
setup.
All of this runs in a transmission fluid bath, which makes me wonder,
why
we use heavy gear oils for similar applications when not unitized with
an
automatic tranny? Granted this unit was not as heavy duty as would be
required for a rear end of a truck, but, I am sure there are trucks
with
front wheel drive automatic transaxles. (Maybe not?).

Educate me why heavy oils are used in gear boxes.

Thanks,

Ivan Vegvary

You'll probably get better answers to this, but you may be interested
that
my '87 Mazda 626 with manual gearbox specified *either* a heavy gear oil
*or* ATF for the gearbox. That one really threw me when I read it in the
factory shop manual. I used both at different times and the gearbox
definitely was quieter with the heavy lube. However, the synchro was also
much slower to work in cold weather.

That transmission, BTW, was one of the worst corruptions the Japanese
ever
built. It was just that year -- 1987. I had it rebuilt twice, and I'm
easy
on gears.

For any automobile gears, you need a high-pressure lubricant. I don't
know
how they got away with ATF for that job. For hypoid and spiral-bevel
gears,
as in a rear-axle diff, you also need a lubricant with high shear
strength.
That's what heavy rear-end oil is supposed to have.

--
Ed Huntress


My 4 liter V6 '92 Ranger 5spd used ATF in the gearbox and the transfer
case- it was a mazda trans.
They improved a bit I guess, I got just shy 250,000 miles out of the
trans before a bearing started making noise. But, had it lasted
longer, I'd still have it.


Dave

Part of the reason I bought that car is that people told me they made really
nice transmissions and solid engines. I saw inside of my gearbox when my
friendly shop owner had it cracked open and I couldn't believe what I saw.
They slimmed down the case and made the walls so thin that there was hardly
any flange to support the bearings. The bearings would flex, and there would
go the transmission.

In '88, I'm told, they fixed that. Too late for me.

--
Ed Huntress

Christopher Tidy wrote in
:



Most gearboxes rely on hydrodynamic lubrication. This means that the
oil isn't fed into the gearbox under pressure. It's just picked up by
the gears as they rotate and entrained between them. As the oil is
drawn between the gears, it gets squeezed. This squeezing creates
pressure in the oil, which separates the metal surfaces and reduces
wear. You can think of it like an old-fashioned mangle for wringing
clothes. The clothes are drawn between the rollers, and as they pass
through, the clothes push the rollers apart slightly. Oil does the
same thing in a gearbox.


Just to add, the oil in an automatic _is_ pressurized, which means it can
be forced where it needs to be.


--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
better idiots.

Remove sp to reply via email

Anthony wrote:

snip

Just to add, the oil in an automatic _is_ pressurized, which means it can
be forced where it needs to be.

If that's the case, it would probably explain the difference Ivan was
referring to. I've never taken an automatic transmission apart myself.

Best wishes,

Chris

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Part of the reason I bought that car is that people told me they made really
nice transmissions and solid engines. I saw inside of my gearbox when my
friendly shop owner had it cracked open and I couldn't believe what I saw.
They slimmed down the case and made the walls so thin that there was hardly
any flange to support the bearings. The bearings would flex, and there would
go the transmission.


I've always thought that ATF is used now to bump up the EPA Cafe numbers.
Like how cars that used to use 10w-30 are now spec'd for 5w-30.

If you think walls are thin now wait until they try to meet the 2012 35mpg
CAFE standards.

Listening to the j*ck*sses in Washington claim how the new energy bill is
going to save each citizen lots of money just about made me want to puke. My
next car will likely rust out before I finish paying for it.

Wes

Wes: We are driving a 2003 car that if it ever gets below 40mpg at 80mph,
I'm going to start checking it over. Recent trip to Oklahoma and return was
done with the speedo showing 80 in all the 75mph zones even in head winds.
The worst we got was 47mpg. However you can't buy a new one of these in
California. The VW Jetta TDI would have to be degraded to get down to
35mpg. We have a few J*ck*asses in California. BTW the car can exceed
100mph if it has to without exceeding redline.
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Part of the reason I bought that car is that people told me they made
really
nice transmissions and solid engines. I saw inside of my gearbox when my
friendly shop owner had it cracked open and I couldn't believe what I saw.
They slimmed down the case and made the walls so thin that there was
hardly
any flange to support the bearings. The bearings would flex, and there
would
go the transmission.


I've always thought that ATF is used now to bump up the EPA Cafe numbers.
Like how cars that used to use 10w-30 are now spec'd for 5w-30.

If you think walls are thin now wait until they try to meet the 2012 35mpg
CAFE standards.

Listening to the j*ck*sses in Washington claim how the new energy bill is
going to save each citizen lots of money just about made me want to puke.
My
next car will likely rust out before I finish paying for it.

Wes

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:38:21 +0000, Christopher Tidy
wrote:

Anthony wrote:

snip

Just to add, the oil in an automatic _is_ pressurized, which means it can
be forced where it needs to be.

If that's the case, it would probably explain the difference Ivan was
referring to. I've never taken an automatic transmission apart myself.

Best wishes,

Chris

Many constant mesh standard transmissions run automatic trans fluid,
engine oil, or specifically synthetic engine oil.
Some constant mesh transmissions also run GL oil.
Most sliding gear standard transmissions (Non constant mesh,
syncromesh) use GL rated (heavier) oils.
Virtually all Hypoid differentials use a GL rated heavy gear oil.
Worm gear drives use a specific worm gear lubricant - extremely heavy
"lard like" lubricant

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Newshound. You are the first person I've heard talk that knows SAE 40 and
SAE 90 can have the same viscosity. I ran into this in a Bearing Handbook.
I started asking all of my friends who have been in the
car/motorcycle/aircraft business about which had the higher viscosity. No
one knew about this and assumed as I did the SAE 90 was more viscous.

"newshound" wrote in message
...
Another answer is that heavy oils aren't so heavy. An oil with a viscosity
of 150 cSt at 100 F could be an SAE 40 engine oil or an SAE 90 gear oil.
Confusing, isn't it.

As Ed says, the hypoid gears typically used in a diff need EP (extreme
pressure) additives which form a chemical film on the metal at the high
temperatures and pressures generated locally in the contact.

Also, the viscosity of oils drops rapidly as temperature increases (even
with the additives used in engine oils). Stick a thicker than normal oil
in a gearbox working at reasonable speeds and it will heat up and get
thinner.

Mineral oil is remarkably effective on concentrated contacts without too
much sliding, like rolling element bearings or simpler gears. Under the
high pressure, the viscosity goes up very high and the metal parts deform
elastically, giving a contact perhaps a millimetre wide but a lubricant
film only a micron ( 40 microinches) thick. Look up EHL for more details.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message
news:yPUaj.12$ML6.5@trndny04...
I am posting this so I can get educated. Just finished taking apart an
automatic transaxle (1990 Nissan Maxima) for entertainment and "artsy"
parts. From the bearings and races I see a welding positioner in my
future!

Anyway, the planetary gears are amazing as is the differential gear
setup. All of this runs in a transmission fluid bath, which makes me
wonder, why we use heavy gear oils for similar applications when not
unitized with an automatic tranny? Granted this unit was not as heavy
duty as would be required for a rear end of a truck, but, I am sure there
are trucks with front wheel drive automatic transaxles. (Maybe not?).

Educate me why heavy oils are used in gear boxes.

Thanks,

Ivan Vegvary

You'll probably get better answers to this, but you may be interested that
my '87 Mazda 626 with manual gearbox specified *either* a heavy gear oil
*or* ATF for the gearbox. That one really threw me when I read it in the
factory shop manual. I used both at different times and the gearbox
definitely was quieter with the heavy lube. However, the synchro was also
much slower to work in cold weather.

That transmission, BTW, was one of the worst corruptions the Japanese ever
built. It was just that year -- 1987. I had it rebuilt twice, and I'm easy
on gears.

For any automobile gears, you need a high-pressure lubricant. I don't know
how they got away with ATF for that job. For hypoid and spiral-bevel
gears, as in a rear-axle diff, you also need a lubricant with high shear
strength. That's what heavy rear-end oil is supposed to have.

--
Ed Huntress

Ford used the Mazda R2 5-speed box in Rangers and F-150s. Mine has 106K on
it and shifts fine. My friend has 300K on his and it shifts fine. Both
trucks have the 300 cube six which belts out 292 lbft of torque. The R2 uses
ATF with a change interval of 60K. A lot of stick shift transmissions now
have needle bearings, which are better lubricated by lighter oils (like ATF
or even 10W-30 motor oil) than good old 80W/90.

-Carl

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote:

Wes: We are driving a 2003 car that if it ever gets below 40mpg at 80mph,
I'm going to start checking it over. Recent trip to Oklahoma and return was
done with the speedo showing 80 in all the 75mph zones even in head winds.
The worst we got was 47mpg. However you can't buy a new one of these in
California. The VW Jetta TDI would have to be degraded to get down to
35mpg. We have a few J*ck*asses in California. BTW the car can exceed
100mph if it has to without exceeding redline.


But diesels are BAAAADDD in the USA, good in Europe. I'd drive a decent
afordable small diesel in a heart beat. As it is, I'm driving a Saturn SL
which does get 35-36 mpg (summer) using gasoline.

Simple economics will drive people to more fuel efficent cars.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Part of the reason I bought that car is that people told me they made
really
nice transmissions and solid engines. I saw inside of my gearbox when my
friendly shop owner had it cracked open and I couldn't believe what I saw.
They slimmed down the case and made the walls so thin that there was
hardly
any flange to support the bearings. The bearings would flex, and there
would
go the transmission.


I've always thought that ATF is used now to bump up the EPA Cafe numbers.
Like how cars that used to use 10w-30 are now spec'd for 5w-30.

That may be, but the trend toward lighter oils also contributes to longer
engine life, they tell me. I don't know about transmission life.

My 2.3 liter Ford Focus is lubed with factory-recommended 5W - 20,
semi-synthetic. After 40,000 miles it doesn't burn a drop, and my mechanic
tells me the engine life with these new oils (and the new cylinder
machining, and the new coatings) is incredible.


If you think walls are thin now wait until they try to meet the 2012 35mpg
CAFE standards.

After my first car it was 21 years before I owned another car (not counting
two full-size vans) that got *worse* than 32 mpg. So you're talking to the
wrong guy. I'm the one who thinks that any car that weighs more than 2,500
pounds should be taxed out of existence.

I've owned four cars that weighed 1,650 pounds dry or less; one was 1,350.
The biggest engine in any of those was 1,300 cc, but one of them did 125
mph -- although it was a little rough running below 4,000 rpm. d8-)


Listening to the j*ck*sses in Washington claim how the new energy bill is
going to save each citizen lots of money just about made me want to puke.
My
next car will likely rust out before I finish paying for it.

Think how much lighter it will be when the quarter panels and door panels
rust off. It might not be such a bad thing.

--
Ed Huntress

Ivan Vegvary wrote:
I am posting this so I can get educated. Just finished taking apart an
automatic transaxle (1990 Nissan Maxima) for entertainment and "artsy"
parts. From the bearings and races I see a welding positioner in my future!

Anyway, the planetary gears are amazing as is the differential gear setup.
All of this runs in a transmission fluid bath, which makes me wonder, why
we use heavy gear oils for similar applications when not unitized with an
automatic tranny? Granted this unit was not as heavy duty as would be
required for a rear end of a truck, but, I am sure there are trucks with
front wheel drive automatic transaxles. (Maybe not?).

Educate me why heavy oils are used in gear boxes.
If you compare the size of the gear faces in the auto trans to
an old-style manual trans, for instance, you will likely find
the auto trans has a much larger load-bearing face, so as to
reduce the cross-sectional loading. This can also be
accomplished by making the diameter of the gears larger.

Different gear tooth profiles can also reduce the wiping action
of the gear teeth, reducing or increasing the wear. The optimum
amount of sliding action on the tooth face keeps the
hydrodynamic film working to keep the metal apart.

Auto transmissions use a light oil because the clutches and
bands need to slip freely when not engaged. Also, the torque
converter works efficiently with a lighter working fluid.

Jon

Wes wrote:

If you think walls are thin now wait until they try to meet the 2012 35mpg
CAFE standards.

Listening to the j*ck*sses in Washington claim how the new energy bill is
going to save each citizen lots of money just about made me want to puke. My
next car will likely rust out before I finish paying for it.

Wes
It is going to be really hard to meet the 35 MPG standard
without major changes in the drive train. Lightening just isn't
going to get much further. The last gasp was lock-up torque
converters. Now, they are going to have to get serious.
Combining start/stop technology with something like stratified
charge or some other scheme to get rid of the throttle and run
the engine at full cylinder pressure all the time (like Diesel)
is going to be required. C'mon, Detroit, we know you've had
stratified charge systems running since the 1970's.

Electric steering is already coming in, saves a Hp on the
steering pump. Next is something in the auto trans to reduce
the demand of the hydraulic pump. They may already have gone to
variable-displacement pumps instead of fixed-displacement and a
pressure regulator in many newer transmissions. I think the
start/stop systems may use an electrical pump so the engine
doesn't need to pump up hydraulic pressure before the
transmission can engage.

But, these are all small tweaks. The Otto cycle needs to go,
and something more efficient at mid-throttle needs to replace
it. Diesel, of course, has been there for decades.

Jon

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
Newshound. You are the first person I've heard talk that knows SAE 40 and
SAE 90 can have the same viscosity. I ran into this in a Bearing Handbook.
I started asking all of my friends who have been in the
car/motorcycle/aircraft business about which had the higher viscosity. No
one knew about this and assumed as I did the SAE 90 was more viscous.
The SAE 90 is clearly more viscous, as seen when you pour the
stuff at room temperature. The story changes entirely at
operating temperature for the crankcase or gearbox, and then it
changes entirely again when you subject it to high per-unit area
forces between very smooth surfaces under shear. The various
lubes are formulated for their specific duty, and a gear lube
could be horrible for piston rings, for instance, and the engine
lube could be terrible in the gears.

Consumer's Union (pub of Consumer Reports) did a magnificent
tour-de-force on engine lubes about 30 years ago, and showed
that of a dozen or so name brands, there was a HUGE difference
between them. There were 3 that performed so far above the rest
that is wasn't funny, like the worst of the good 3 brands had a
5 times margin over the next brand! I had a car at the time
with a warped head (76 Chevy Vega) and confirmed that these
measurements were relevant. When heat-soaked, the oil-film
breakdown was plainly audible with average oil, almost never
heard with the "good" brands. I used Shell Fire&Ice and
Havoline Supreme for many years until those brand labels went
off the market.

Jon

"Jon Elson" wrote in message
...

Auto transmissions use a light oil because the clutches and bands need to
slip freely when not engaged. Also, the torque converter works
efficiently with a lighter working fluid.

Jon
The clutches need a thin oil that will easily displace, allowing them to
engage. Your comment on the torque convertor is correct.

On 2007-12-22, Jon Elson wrote:

[ ... ]

Electric steering is already coming in, saves a Hp on the
steering pump.

And where does that energy come from to power the steering? If
you say "the battery", then the next obvious question is "where does the
energy come from to charge the battery" -- and the answer there must be
"the engine" for the most part -- though I guess that you could put
alternators inside the wheels so braking would partially come from
energy being transferred to the battery.

Or are you saying that electrical power steering is (or can be
made) more energy efficient than the hydraulic power steering found on
most cars these days?

Next is something in the auto trans to reduce
the demand of the hydraulic pump. They may already have gone to
variable-displacement pumps instead of fixed-displacement and a
pressure regulator in many newer transmissions. I think the
start/stop systems may use an electrical pump so the engine
doesn't need to pump up hydraulic pressure before the
transmission can engage.

But, these are all small tweaks. The Otto cycle needs to go,
and something more efficient at mid-throttle needs to replace
it. Diesel, of course, has been there for decades.

O.K. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next
few years.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

Electric steering is already coming in, saves a Hp on the
steering pump.

And where does that energy come from to power the steering? If
you say "the battery", then the next obvious question is "where does the
energy come from to charge the battery" -- and the answer there must be
"the engine" for the most part -- though I guess that you could put
alternators inside the wheels so braking would partially come from
energy being transferred to the battery.

Or are you saying that electrical power steering is (or can be
made) more energy efficient than the hydraulic power steering found on
most cars these days?

I don't know how the current technology works for sure so I'm assuming we
have a constant volume pump dumping flow over a relief valve. If so, then
electrics might make sense. At highway speeds with normal inputs to stay in
one's lane power assisted steering isn't needed with most vehicles. I'm
pretty sure your old enough to have operated a vehicle without power
steering.

With an electric system a torque sensor on the steering input shaft would
turn on the hydraulics for a few moments during low speed steering
operations or a need to make rapid wheel angle changes at speed.

I wonder if a variable displacement pump would be equally effective?

Wes

Jon Elson wrote:
Wes wrote:

If you think walls are thin now wait until they try to meet the 2012
35mpg
CAFE standards.

Listening to the j*ck*sses in Washington claim how the new energy
bill is
going to save each citizen lots of money just about made me want to
puke. My
next car will likely rust out before I finish paying for it.

Wes
It is going to be really hard to meet the 35 MPG standard without
major changes in the drive train. Lightening just isn't going to get
much further. The last gasp was lock-up torque converters. Now, they
are going to have to get serious. Combining start/stop technology with
something like stratified charge or some other scheme to get rid of
the throttle and run the engine at full cylinder pressure all the time
(like Diesel) is going to be required. C'mon, Detroit, we know you've
had stratified charge systems running since the 1970's.

Electric steering is already coming in, saves a Hp on the steering
pump. Next is something in the auto trans to reduce the demand of the
hydraulic pump. They may already have gone to variable-displacement
pumps instead of fixed-displacement and a pressure regulator in many
newer transmissions. I think the start/stop systems may use an
electrical pump so the engine doesn't need to pump up hydraulic
pressure before the transmission can engage.

But, these are all small tweaks. The Otto cycle needs to go, and
something more efficient at mid-throttle needs to replace it. Diesel,
of course, has been there for decades.

Jon
AFAIK the MGF roadster, not available in the US, introduced electrical
power assisted steering in 1995. I don't know whether other car
companies have moved to such system much yet. In the MGF case it's
basically a servo motor system, no hydraulics involved.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:39:01 +0000, with neither quill nor qualm,
David Billington quickly quoth:

AFAIK the MGF roadster, not available in the US, introduced electrical
power assisted steering in 1995. I don't know whether other car
companies have moved to such system much yet. In the MGF case it's
basically a servo motor system, no hydraulics involved.

Is this produced by the fine and dependable Lucas Electric we've all
come to know and lov^H^H^Hfear? Scary thought, that.

--
Seen on a bumper sticker: ARM THE HOMELESS

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
On 2007-12-22, Jon Elson wrote:

[ ... ]

Electric steering is already coming in, saves a Hp on the
steering pump.

And where does that energy come from to power the steering? If
you say "the battery", then the next obvious question is "where does the
energy come from to charge the battery" -- and the answer there must be
"the engine" for the most part -- though I guess that you could put
alternators inside the wheels so braking would partially come from
energy being transferred to the battery.

Or are you saying that electrical power steering is (or can be
made) more energy efficient than the hydraulic power steering found on
most cars these days?

Electronic power steering is already on the street see
http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Technical/eps.htm. It is more energy efficient
than hydraulic because A) it only draws from the prime mover when there is a
demand (no hydraulic pump spinning away recirculating oil, no belt drag) and
B) the component parts are orders-of-magnitude lighter (no pump, pressure
lines, brackets, ect).

-Carl

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:39:01 +0000, with neither quill nor qualm,
David Billington quickly quoth:


AFAIK the MGF roadster, not available in the US, introduced electrical
power assisted steering in 1995. I don't know whether other car
companies have moved to such system much yet. In the MGF case it's
basically a servo motor system, no hydraulics involved.


Is this produced by the fine and dependable Lucas Electric we've all
come to know and lov^H^H^Hfear? Scary thought, that.

--
Seen on a bumper sticker: ARM THE HOMELESS

Not sure but these days with the passing years you do hear of heavy
steering or intermittent operation due to the steering sensor or
connectors playing up on older cars.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:39:01 +0000, with neither quill nor qualm,
David Billington quickly quoth:

AFAIK the MGF roadster, not available in the US, introduced electrical
power assisted steering in 1995. I don't know whether other car
companies have moved to such system much yet. In the MGF case it's
basically a servo motor system, no hydraulics involved.

Is this produced by the fine and dependable Lucas Electric we've all
come to know and lov^H^H^Hfear? Scary thought, that.

--
Seen on a bumper sticker: ARM THE HOMELESS

Seen on another bumper sticker: Why do the Brits drink warm beer? Because
they have Lucas refrigerators.

--
Ed Huntress

Jon Elson wrote in
:

It is going to be really hard to meet the 35 MPG standard
without major changes in the drive train. Lightening just isn't
going to get much further. The last gasp was lock-up torque
converters. Now, they are going to have to get serious.
Combining start/stop technology with something like stratified
charge or some other scheme to get rid of the throttle and run
the engine at full cylinder pressure all the time (like Diesel)
is going to be required. C'mon, Detroit, we know you've had
stratified charge systems running since the 1970's.


It's out there already, DIG (Direct injection Gasoline), more are coming,
bet on it, and sooner than you think.
35 mpg is not unachieveable, some vehicles have been getting better than
that for years.
The TDI that Volkswagon AG has is an incredible engine, wish I could
afford one.
The small diesel market is going to expand in the next few years in the
US.
There are also alternatives out there to the otto cycle engine. The mazda
rotary is one that has been proven, and gets good fuel mileage.

--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
better idiots.

Remove sp to reply via email

On Dec 22, 5:16 am, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:

Or are you saying that electrical power steering is (or can be
made) more energy efficient than the hydraulic power steering found on
most cars these days?

Enjoy,
DoN.


I think the electric system would be more efficient because it would
only draw power when the steering wheel is turned. The hydraulic pump
for power steering is running constantly. One could also not use
power steering for turns when moving above thirty mph.

Of course with lighter cars, one should not need power steering at
all.

Dan

"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in news:yPUaj.12$ML6.5@trndny04:

which makes me wonder, why
we use heavy gear oils for similar applications when not unitized with
an automatic tranny?

The '62 MG Midget that I once had used 30-wt. motor oil in its 4-speed
manual transmission.

On 22 Dec 2007 05:16:36 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2007-12-22, Jon Elson wrote:

[ ... ]

Electric steering is already coming in, saves a Hp on the
steering pump.

And where does that energy come from to power the steering? If
you say "the battery", then the next obvious question is "where does the
energy come from to charge the battery" -- and the answer there must be
"the engine" for the most part -- though I guess that you could put
alternators inside the wheels so braking would partially come from
energy being transferred to the battery.

Or are you saying that electrical power steering is (or can be
made) more energy efficient than the hydraulic power steering found on
most cars these days?

Definitely as it only draws power when boost is required.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:11:52 -0500, Wes wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

Electric steering is already coming in, saves a Hp on the
steering pump.

And where does that energy come from to power the steering? If
you say "the battery", then the next obvious question is "where does the
energy come from to charge the battery" -- and the answer there must be
"the engine" for the most part -- though I guess that you could put
alternators inside the wheels so braking would partially come from
energy being transferred to the battery.

Or are you saying that electrical power steering is (or can be
made) more energy efficient than the hydraulic power steering found on
most cars these days?

I don't know how the current technology works for sure so I'm assuming we
have a constant volume pump dumping flow over a relief valve. If so, then
electrics might make sense. At highway speeds with normal inputs to stay in
one's lane power assisted steering isn't needed with most vehicles. I'm
pretty sure your old enough to have operated a vehicle without power
steering.

With an electric system a torque sensor on the steering input shaft would
turn on the hydraulics for a few moments during low speed steering
operations or a need to make rapid wheel angle changes at speed.

I wonder if a variable displacement pump would be equally effective?

EPS does not need to use hydraulics.

Wes


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:45:33 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:39:01 +0000, with neither quill nor qualm,
David Billington quickly quoth:

AFAIK the MGF roadster, not available in the US, introduced electrical
power assisted steering in 1995. I don't know whether other car
companies have moved to such system much yet. In the MGF case it's
basically a servo motor system, no hydraulics involved.

Is this produced by the fine and dependable Lucas Electric we've all
come to know and lov^H^H^Hfear? Scary thought, that.

--
Seen on a bumper sticker: ARM THE HOMELESS

Seen on another bumper sticker: Why do the Brits drink warm beer? Because
they have Lucas refrigerators.

They drink their beer at room temperature. Anyone who's lived in
Britain knows that's not warm.
The reason?
Lucas central heating???????

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:23:54 GMT, Anthony
wrote:

Jon Elson wrote in
m:

There are also alternatives out there to the otto cycle engine. The mazda
rotary is one that has been proven, and gets good fuel mileage.


It DOES?????
News to me.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:33:33 GMT, "RAM³"
wrote:

"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in news:yPUaj.12$ML6.5@trndny04:

which makes me wonder, why
we use heavy gear oils for similar applications when not unitized with
an automatic tranny?

The '62 MG Midget that I once had used 30-wt. motor oil in its 4-speed
manual transmission.

And my old mini had the transmission in the engine sump, so SHARED the
engine oil.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:45:33 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:39:01 +0000, with neither quill nor qualm,
David Billington quickly quoth:


AFAIK the MGF roadster, not available in the US, introduced electrical
power assisted steering in 1995. I don't know whether other car
companies have moved to such system much yet. In the MGF case it's
basically a servo motor system, no hydraulics involved.

Is this produced by the fine and dependable Lucas Electric we've all
come to know and lov^H^H^Hfear? Scary thought, that.

--
Seen on a bumper sticker: ARM THE HOMELESS

Seen on another bumper sticker: Why do the Brits drink warm beer? Because
they have Lucas refrigerators.


They drink their beer at room temperature. Anyone who's lived in
Britain knows that's not warm.
The reason?
Lucas central heating???????


I enjoy the joke about Lucas and understand it but having lived in the
US and tasted your beer offerings from the late 1970s I would suggest
most if not all are served below optimal temperature, ie frozen below
the limit of taste. British bitters are best consumed served at cellar
temperature of IIRC about 50F to 60F, certainly one of my favourite
beers provide locally is "Old Peculiar" from the north of England.

clare wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:23:54 GMT, Anthony
wrote:


Jon Elson wrote in
om:


There are also alternatives out there to the otto cycle engine. The mazda
rotary is one that has been proven, and gets good fuel mileage.



It DOES?????
News to me.

Not any of the ones I have been around.

Great performance when they run, and loads of potential with forced
induction, when they run, but mileage....Not a chance!

While I am sure that somewhere there are high mileage Wankel engines
out there, I have never seen them.

I had an RX2, with a later 13B in it. 70 miles per hour in second
gear, and all the handling characteristics of a pig on stilts.

The guy that bought it from me got out of a speeding ticket, on the
basis of "Look at this car! Do you really think it could possibly go
that fast?"

Cheers
Trevor Jones

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:16:29 +0000, with neither quill nor qualm,
David Billington quickly quoth:

I enjoy the joke about Lucas and understand it but having lived in the
US and tasted your beer offerings from the late 1970s I would suggest
most if not all are served below optimal temperature, ie frozen below
the limit of taste. British bitters are best consumed served at cellar
temperature of IIRC about 50F to 60F, certainly one of my favourite
beers provide locally is "Old Peculiar" from the north of England.

All beer tastes so much like crap that it must be served ice cold to
limit that reference flavor and smell. Ick!

LJ--happily sober for many moons now.

--
Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous
delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit.
--e e cummings