Honda Car Forum

jim wrote:
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> 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

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.



>
>
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>> 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.

jim beam wrote:
>

> now i know why steve was taking exception to you.
>
> 1. again, viscosity is not lubricity.

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.


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

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.


>
> 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.

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.






>
> 4. vi improvers are usually pour point depressants, thus they /thin/
> what would otherwise be a more viscous oil.

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)?


> 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.

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.

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



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





>
> >
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >> 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.

jim wrote:
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> now i know why steve was taking exception to you.
>>
>> 1. again, viscosity is not lubricity.
>
> 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.
>
>
>> 2. fwiu, most synthetics don't use vi "polymers" so blanket statements
>> about "breaking down" is bullshit.
>
> 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.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> 4. vi improvers are usually pour point depressants, thus they /thin/
>> what would otherwise be a more viscous oil.
>
> 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)?
>
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>> 5. motor oil is /full/ of "polymers" so your language is chosen to
>> deliberately obscure - like a bullshitter.
>
>
>
> 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.

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


>
>
>
> 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
>
>
<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.

jim beam wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> >> now i know why steve was taking exception to you.
> >>
> >> 1. again, viscosity is not lubricity.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >> 2. fwiu, most synthetics don't use vi "polymers" so blanket statements
> >> about "breaking down" is bullshit.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> 4. vi improvers are usually pour point depressants, thus they /thin/
> >> what would otherwise be a more viscous oil.
> >
> > 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)?
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >> 5. motor oil is /full/ of "polymers" so your language is chosen to
> >> deliberately obscure - like a bullshitter.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> which achieves precisely nothing and is no indicator of quality or
> lubricity or stability.
>


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.




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

Never seen their website but sounds like you have.

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

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

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:45:58 -0400, krp <krp34@verizon.net> wrote:

>
> "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:-4idnTOZ0NUk_WrUnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@texas.net...
>
>> Both the GM 700R4 and the Chrysler 41TE (minivan transmission of the
>> 90s) are case studies in what happens when accountants "go over"
>> engineers' work and find ways to "save money."
>
> Harvard MBA's to be exact. If it were up to me? I'd have a big
> meeting at a outdoor pavilian in the middle of the Nevada desert and get
> EVERY MBA in the country there for a seminar. Then I'd detonate a 50
> megaton nuke and get rid of them. I would pass a law imposing the death
> penalty for any MBA we missed.
>
>> I'm sure you can find a similar story at all manufacturers.
>
> Look at electronics. RCA was offered the exclusine on flat panel
> displays. Said it was "SHIT" and that nobody would ever want one. They
> were HAPPY with their CRT TV's and minotors. Same with every other
> American company. BTW - how is RCA doing today with making stuff in the
> U.S.? Zenith? Maganox? Sylvania? ANYONE? The last of the computers.
> Dell. Where are Dell's made today?
>
>> In both cases, the basic designs are fine- as witnessed by the fact
>> that the 700R4 (and its electronic version, the 4L60E) as well as the
>> 41TE are now reliable... once all the "cost cuts" were undone.... Hot
>> rodders and muscle car guys even build up 700R4s with updated parts and
>> put them behind HUGE engines and they don't break. The 41TE is still in
>> use by Chrysler, and you never hear problems about it anymore. In the
>> case of the 41TE, it was also a bit ahead of its time. The first fluids
>> for it didn't work well, and also since its small and light it really
>> benefits from putting the throttle under computer control (most current
>> cars are "throttle by wire") so that the computer can throttle back
>> during shifts, saving the abuse of dumping engine power into the clutch
>> packs while they're slipping during a shift. That change alone has
>> HUGELY improved transmission reliability all across the automotive
>> industry.
>
> Did you hear the story (I am told it is TRUE) of a GM CEO that at
> one meeting asked; "why the hell do we need 5 bolts on a wheel, won't
> ONE work?" The problem with American industry is that we have had too
> many IDIOTS running companies who have ZERO knowledge of their industry.
> They are shocked when they hire a guy who was in wholesale food business
> and he comes to an auto company and immediately puts it in the shitter!
> Same kind of goof balls went to airlines. Delta's CEO was trying to get
> things done his way and the pilots TRIED to tell the asshole, "Planes
> won't FLY that way!" "WHY NOT?" No company can work well when the guy
> at the top is 100% clueless about the business.
>
>
>
>

>>
>> "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
>> news:-4idnTOZ0NUk_WrUnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@texas.net...
>>
>>> Both the GM 700R4 and the Chrysler 41TE (minivan transmission of the
>>> 90s) are case studies in what happens when accountants "go over"
>>> engineers' work and find ways to "save money."
>>
>> Harvard MBA's to be exact.

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.

"Jacques Clouseau" <jclouseau@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
newsp.uu5nr9w5euf5ww@biz.ours...

>>> Both the GM 700R4 and the Chrysler 41TE (minivan transmission of the
>>> 90s) are case studies in what happens when accountants "go over"
>>> engineers' work and find ways to "save money."
>>
>> Harvard MBA's to be exact. If it were up to me? I'd have a big
>> meeting at a outdoor pavilian in the middle of the Nevada desert and get
>> EVERY MBA in the country there for a seminar. Then I'd detonate a 50
>> megaton nuke and get rid of them. I would pass a law imposing the death
>> penalty for any MBA we missed.
>>
>>> I'm sure you can find a similar story at all manufacturers.
>>
>> Look at electronics. RCA was offered the exclusine on flat panel
>> displays. Said it was "SHIT" and that nobody would ever want one. They
>> were HAPPY with their CRT TV's and monitors. Same with every other
>> American company. BTW - how is RCA doing today with making stuff in the
>> U.S.? Zenith? Maganox? Sylvania? ANYONE? The last of the computers.
>> Dell. Where are Dell's made today?

>>> In both cases, the basic designs are fine- as witnessed by the fact
>>> that the 700R4 (and its electronic version, the 4L60E) as well as the
>>> 41TE are now reliable... once all the "cost cuts" were undone.... Hot
>>> rodders and muscle car guys even build up 700R4s with updated parts and
>>> put them behind HUGE engines and they don't break. The 41TE is still in
>>> use by Chrysler, and you never hear problems about it anymore. In the
>>> case of the 41TE, it was also a bit ahead of its time. The first fluids
>>> for it didn't work well, and also since its small and light it really
>>> benefits from putting the throttle under computer control (most current
>>> cars are "throttle by wire") so that the computer can throttle back
>>> during shifts, saving the abuse of dumping engine power into the clutch
>>> packs while they're slipping during a shift. That change alone has
>>> HUGELY improved transmission reliability all across the automotive
>>> industry.
>>
>> Did you hear the story (I am told it is TRUE) of a GM CEO that at
>> one meeting asked; "why the hell do we need 5 bolts on a wheel, won't
>> ONE work?" The problem with American industry is that we have had too
>> many IDIOTS running companies who have ZERO knowledge of their industry.
>> They are shocked when they hire a guy who was in wholesale food business
>> and he comes to an auto company and immediately puts it in the shitter!
>> Same kind of goof balls went to airlines. Delta's CEO was trying to get
>> things done his way and the pilots TRIED to tell the asshole, "Planes
>> won't FLY that way!" "WHY NOT?" No company can work well when the guy
>> at the top is 100% clueless about the business.

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

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????

"HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:gcPWl.25327$as4.4033@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>>>
>>> "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
>>> news:-4idnTOZ0NUk_WrUnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@texas.net...
>>>
>>>> Both the GM 700R4 and the Chrysler 41TE (minivan transmission of the
>>>> 90s) are case studies in what happens when accountants "go over"
>>>> engineers' work and find ways to "save money."
>>>
>>> Harvard MBA's to be exact.
>
> 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.

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.