ford model a

admin — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – @news20.bellglobal.com: I don’t know if anybody can answer this but i’ll ask anyway, i read in a book that model a’s didn’t use a stick shift transmission but used three separate pedals (one for reverse, one for a lower forward gear another for a higher speed), could someone verify this and if it’s not then what did they do? it’s just a question i’ve been wondering about and anybody who can at least attempt answer this is appreciated It was the Model T. There were three foot pedals; Left = clutch, Middle = reverse, Right = foot brake. The ‘clutch’ pedal disengaged the drive from top gear when pressed halfway down. Pushing it harder caused low gear to engage. So, to start up, one pushed the clutch pedal all the way in, revved up the engine, and having reached about l5mph, let the clutch pedal all the way out and high gear was engaged. To stop, one half depressed the clutch, thus releasing top gear, then used ‘brake’ as required. To reverse, one half de-clutched, then pushed the reverse pedal. The Model A that followed had a gear shift lever. Ron Another feature with the Ford model "T" was that if you had a real steep hill to climb, you had to do it in reverse. That was because the fuel tank was in front of the windshield and the fuel was a gravity feed to the carburetor. Going up a very steep hill would run the carb out of gas. My dad used to have a model "T" and told me about the three floor medals and the hill climbing he would do with the "T". Those were interesting times. Sorry, your answer is only 50% correct. Yes, they backed up steep hills so the gravity feed would keep gas in the carb. The tank was under the seat and there was no fuel pump. Harry K After you finish fighting over that (both locations are correct depending on year) the other 50% of the reason was because reverse was the highest ratio gear available. I have a webcam in the tropics http://ii.net/~farmerjim/

Thanks, I wasn’t aware of that never having seen one other than under the seat and really haven’t done much reading other than casual on the T. Harry K

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t know if anybody can answer this but i’ll ask anyway, i read in a book that model a’s didn’t use a stick shift transmission but used three separate pedals (one for reverse, one for a lower forward gear another for a higher speed), could someone verify this and if it’s not then what did they do? it’s just a question i’ve been wondering about and anybody who can at least attempt answer this is appreciated Nope, that would be the Model *T* (1908-1927) The model T used a planetary transmission that had 2 forward gears and one reverse. It was foot controlled somewhat like a motorcycle, with three pedals poking out through the floorboards that operated the gearbox. One pedal controlled the clutch and forward ratio’s, one the reverse gear and the third pedal actuated a brake band within the gearbox itself (the T had no wheel brakes at all). I was fortunate enough to drive an original T some years ago on a farm, and it was an interesting experience to say the least The throttle was controlled by a lever on the steering wheel, and you set that to the rpm you wanted, and moved the ignition timing lever to a position were the engine sounded best. Next, you stabbed the "C" pedal to the floor quickly to engage first gear and hold the clutch out, and then released it slightly to let in the clutch and get moving. Once you were off you had to hold the pedal there until you were ready to shift into top gear, in which case you released the pedal completely and the car banged itself into high and chugged along. Stopping was as interesting as getting going, as the brake band was pissweak. You stepped on the "B" pedal as hard as you could to slow down while holding the "C" pedal to the floor, and with your third leg you stood on the "R" pedal if it was an emergency It seems completely foreign by today’s standards, but back in 1908 there weren’t all that many cars to be used to, so learning to drive the T was no different to learning to drive anything of today. It was also an extremely popular car in it’s time, and most people of the period knew how to operate one, even though other cars existed with "conventional" transmissions. The model A Ford appeared in 1928, and was equipped with a conventional 3 speed stick shift transmission. — Regards, Noddy.

Great answer and very accurate. You reminded me of the first time I drove a T as well. The experience was sure one to behold. Luggy

Response:

How about the TT then? You forgot to mention it Ron. :) The dear old Truck No missed that

Only in USA I think. Australia had the TT car — which I presume was a factory built hybrid that had at least some Model A running gear under a Model T body and which would have sold concurrently with the Model A. I have no idea how many were built and I’m pretty sure the only one I’ve ever seen had a Model A transmission with the handbrake lever next to the driver’s door (same as a ‘28 Model A). IIRC it also had a Model A dash, and definitely had Model A wheels. I doubt if the TT truck would ever have been seen here as car production only began in 1925. Prior to that they were imported as a rolling chassis and the bodies were built by various body builders in various styles. At the end of factory production in 1927 there were obviously a lot of Model T body bits left over, which is probably where the TT came in…. It’s common to see factory Model A commercials (light trucks, pickups, buckboards, or whatever you might call them) with model T panels — rear guards (fenders) in particular. — John H

Response:

ya, model t, sorry – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t know if anybody can answer this but i’ll ask anyway, i read in a book that model a’s didn’t use a stick shift transmission but used three separate pedals (one for reverse, one for a lower forward gear another for a higher speed), could someone verify this and if it’s not then what did they do? it’s just a question i’ve been wondering about and anybody who can at least attempt answer this is appreciated Nope, that would be the Model *T* (1908-1927) The model T used a planetary transmission that had 2 forward gears and one reverse. It was foot controlled somewhat like a motorcycle, with three pedals poking out through the floorboards that operated the gearbox. One pedal controlled the clutch and forward ratio’s, one the reverse gear and the third pedal actuated a brake band within the gearbox itself (the T had no wheel brakes at all). I was fortunate enough to drive an original T some years ago on a farm, and it was an interesting experience to say the least The throttle was controlled by a lever on the steering wheel, and you set that to the rpm you wanted, and moved the ignition timing lever to a position were the engine sounded best. Next, you stabbed the "C" pedal to the floor quickly to engage first gear and hold the clutch out, and then released it slightly to let in the clutch and get moving. Once you were off you had to hold the pedal there until you were ready to shift into top gear, in which case you released the pedal completely and the car banged itself into high and chugged along. Stopping was as interesting as getting going, as the brake band was pissweak. You stepped on the "B" pedal as hard as you could to slow down while holding the "C" pedal to the floor, and with your third leg you stood on the "R" pedal if it was an emergency It seems completely foreign by today’s standards, but back in 1908 there weren’t all that many cars to be used to, so learning to drive the T was no different to learning to drive anything of today. It was also an extremely popular car in it’s time, and most people of the period knew how to operate one, even though other cars existed with "conventional" transmissions. The model A Ford appeared in 1928, and was equipped with a conventional 3 speed stick shift transmission. — Regards, Noddy.

Response:

After you finish fighting over that (both locations are correct depending on year) the other 50% of the reason was because reverse was the highest ratio gear available.

That’d be the *lowest* — Regards, Noddy.

Response:

After you finish fighting over that (both locations are correct depending on year) the other 50% of the reason was because reverse was the highest ratio gear available. That’d be the *lowest*

maybe it’s semantics? the highest _ratio_ , i.e. the lowest gear? — John McKenzie

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – @news20.bellglobal.com: I don’t know if anybody can answer this but i’ll ask anyway, i read in a book that model a’s didn’t use a stick shift transmission but used three separate pedals (one for reverse, one for a lower forward gear another for a higher speed), could someone verify this and if it’s not then what did they do? it’s just a question i’ve been wondering about and anybody who can at least attempt answer this is appreciated It was the Model T. There were three foot pedals; Left = clutch, Middle = reverse, Right = foot brake. The ‘clutch’ pedal disengaged the drive from top gear when pressed halfway down. Pushing it harder caused low gear to engage. So, to start up, one pushed the clutch pedal all the way in, revved up the engine, and having reached about l5mph, let the clutch pedal all the way out and high gear was engaged. To stop, one half depressed the clutch, thus releasing top gear, then used ‘brake’ as required. To reverse, one half de-clutched, then pushed the reverse pedal. The Model A that followed had a gear shift lever. Ron Another feature with the Ford model "T" was that if you had a real steep hill to climb, you had to do it in reverse. That was because the fuel tank was in front of the windshield and the fuel was a gravity feed to the carburetor. Going up a very steep hill would run the carb out of gas. My dad used to have a model "T" and told me about the three floor medals and the hill climbing he would do with the "T". Those were interesting times. Sorry, your answer is only 50% correct. Yes, they backed up steep hills so the gravity feed would keep gas in the carb. The tank was under the seat and there was no fuel pump. Harry K

After you finish fighting over that (both locations are correct depending on year) the other 50% of the reason was because reverse was the highest ratio gear available. I have a webcam in the tropics http://ii.net/~farmerjim/

Response:

Sorry, your answer is only 50% correct. Yes, they backed up steep hills so the gravity feed would keep gas in the carb. The tank was under the seat and there was no fuel pump. Harry K

Response:

Ron the Barbarian

I would guess that the S might have had the same type of transmission, as it was quite similar to the T. The original A probably had some rubber-belt contraption. I think examples of each might be owned by the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn. I know I’ve seen models S, K, and A there. — -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Response:

Okay, how about the 1903 Ford Model A, 1904 Ford Model B, 1904 Ford Model C, 1906 Ford Model K, 1906 Ford Model N, 1907 Ford Model N and 1907 Ford Model S, that came BEFORE the 1908 Model T ? I would guess that the S might have had the same type of transmission, as it was quite similar to the T. The original A probably had some rubber-belt contraption. I think examples of each might be owned by the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn. I know I’ve seen models S, K, and A there.

The A was a chain driven two speed, powered by a twin cylinder engine. The following ones had a differentials. Model B had a 4 cylinder motor, Model C was an update of A, F was the last of the twin cylinder, two speed models. K replaced B with a six. The N and R had 4 cyl motors and looked very similar to the T, except they had 2 speed transmissions. The last of the two speeds was the Model S, which was almost identical to the Model T. The Model T was the first with a 3 speed.

Response:

Ron the Barbarian

Are you sure on that? I thought the 3 pedals were for low/high, reverse, and brake, and there were only 2 speeds. — -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ron the Barbarian

Sorry, you are correct. I was thinking of the pedals, The A that followed the T was the first 3 speed, using a gear lever. I’m not sure how the earlier Fords with the twin pedals worked.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – @dnews.tpgi.com.au: Okay, how about the 1903 Ford Model A, 1904 Ford Model B, 1904 Ford Model C, 1906 Ford Model K, 1906 Ford Model N, 1907 Ford Model N and 1907 Ford Model S, that came BEFORE the 1908 Model T ? What about them exactly? Transmissions, Noddy ?

How about the TT then? You forgot to mention it Ron. :) — John H

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – @dnews.tpgi.com.au: Okay, how about the 1903 Ford Model A, 1904 Ford Model B, 1904 Ford Model C, 1906 Ford Model K, 1906 Ford Model N, 1907 Ford Model N and 1907 Ford Model S, that came BEFORE the 1908 Model T ? What about them exactly? Transmissions, Noddy ? How about the TT then? You forgot to mention it Ron. :) — John H

The dear old Truck No missed that

Response:

Ron the Barbarian

Response:

I don’t know if anybody can answer this but i’ll ask anyway, i read in a book that model a’s didn’t use a stick shift transmission but used three separate pedals (one for reverse, one for a lower forward gear another for a higher speed), could someone verify this and if it’s not then what did they do? it’s just a question i’ve been wondering about and anybody who can at least attempt answer this is appreciated

No, the Model A (the second one, that is, the one from the ’30s) had a conventional 3-speed stickshift trans, you are thinking of the Model T, which did indeed have a 2-speed pedal operated planetary transmission. nate — replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Response:

Transmissions, Noddy ? I don’t know, I’d have to look them up. A "T" is the earliest car I’ve ever driven, and a pretty rooted one at that. I’ve never even *seen* the other things in the flesh, let alone know what they run.

Mostly twin cylinder motors with two speed transmissions. The K with a six was a dud, too expensive. Andre has some nice pics and info on the early Fords. http://www.ritzsite.net/FORD_1/02_eford.htm Ron

Response:

@dnews.tpgi.com.au: Okay, how about the 1903 Ford Model A, 1904 Ford Model B, 1904 Ford Model C, 1906 Ford Model K, 1906 Ford Model N, 1907 Ford Model N and 1907 Ford Model S, that came BEFORE the 1908 Model T ? What about them exactly?

Transmissions, Noddy ?

Response:

Transmissions, Noddy ?

I don’t know, I’d have to look them up. A "T" is the earliest car I’ve ever driven, and a pretty rooted one at that. I’ve never even *seen* the other things in the flesh, let alone know what they run. — Regards, Noddy.

Response:

Another feature with the Ford model "T" was that if you had a real steep hill to climb, you had to do it in reverse. That was because the fuel tank was in front of the windshield and the fuel was a gravity feed to the carburetor. Going up a very steep hill would run the carb out of gas. My dad used to have a model "T" and told me about the three floor medals and the hill climbing he would do with the "T". Those were interesting times.

Response:

Okay, how about the 1903 Ford Model A, 1904 Ford Model B, 1904 Ford Model C, 1906 Ford Model K, 1906 Ford Model N, 1907 Ford Model N and 1907 Ford Model S, that came BEFORE the 1908 Model T ?

What about them exactly? — Regards, Noddy.

Response:

WOW! Noddy, you got that one correct Okay, how about the 1903 Ford Model A, 1904 Ford Model B, 1904 Ford Model C, 1906 Ford Model K, 1906 Ford Model N, 1907 Ford Model N and 1907 Ford Model S, that came BEFORE the 1908 Model T ?

Response:

Nope, that would be the Model *T* (1908-1927) The model T used a planetary transmission that had 2 forward gears and one reverse. It was foot controlled somewhat like a motorcycle, with three pedals poking out through the floorboards that operated the gearbox. One pedal controlled the clutch and forward ratio’s, one the reverse gear and the third pedal actuated a brake band within the gearbox itself (the T had no wheel brakes at all). I was fortunate enough to drive an original T some years ago on a farm, and it was an interesting experience to say the least The throttle was controlled by a lever on the steering wheel, and you set that to the rpm you wanted, and moved the ignition timing lever to a position were the engine sounded best. Next, you stabbed the "C" pedal to the floor quickly to engage first gear and hold the clutch out, and then released it slightly to let in the clutch and get moving. Once you were off you had to hold the pedal there until you were ready to shift into top gear, in which case you released the pedal completely and the car banged itself into high and chugged along. Stopping was as interesting as getting going, as the brake band was pissweak. You stepped on the "B" pedal as hard as you could to slow down while holding the "C" pedal to the floor, and with your third leg you stood on the "R" pedal if it was an emergency It seems completely foreign by today’s standards, but back in 1908 there weren’t all that many cars to be used to, so learning to drive the T was no different to learning to drive anything of today. It was also an extremely popular car in it’s time, and most people of the period knew how to operate one, even though other cars existed with "conventional" transmissions. The model A Ford appeared in 1928, and was equipped with a conventional 3 speed stick shift transmission. — Regards, Noddy.

Response:

@news20.bellglobal.com: I don’t know if anybody can answer this but i’ll ask anyway, i read in a book that model a’s didn’t use a stick shift transmission but used three separate pedals (one for reverse, one for a lower forward gear another for a higher speed), could someone verify this and if it’s not then what did they do? it’s just a question i’ve been wondering about and anybody who can at least attempt answer this is appreciated

It was the Model T. There were three foot pedals; Left = clutch, Middle = reverse, Right = foot brake. The ‘clutch’ pedal disengaged the drive from top gear when pressed halfway down. Pushing it harder caused low gear to engage. So, to start up, one pushed the clutch pedal all the way in, revved up the engine, and having reached about l5mph, let the clutch pedal all the way out and high gear was engaged. To stop, one half depressed the clutch, thus releasing top gear, then used ‘brake’ as required. To reverse, one half de-clutched, then pushed the reverse pedal. The Model A that followed had a gear shift lever. Ron

Response:

After you finish fighting over that (both locations are correct depending on year) the other 50% of the reason was because reverse was the highest ratio gear available.

That’d be the *lowest* — Regards, Noddy.

Response:

After you finish fighting over that (both locations are correct depending on year) the other 50% of the reason was because reverse was the highest ratio gear available. That’d be the *lowest*

maybe it’s semantics? the highest _ratio_ , i.e. the lowest gear? — John McKenzie

Response:

How about the TT then? You forgot to mention it Ron. :) The dear old Truck No missed that

Response:

Sorry, your answer is only 50% correct. Yes, they backed up steep hills so the gravity feed would keep gas in the carb. The tank was under the seat and there was no fuel pump. Harry K

Response:

How about the TT then? You forgot to mention it Ron. :) — John H

Response:

The dear old Truck No missed that

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ron the Barbarian

Sorry, you are correct. I was thinking of the pedals, The A that followed the T was the first 3 speed, using a gear lever. I’m not sure how the earlier Fords with the twin pedals worked.

Response:

I understand the T didn’t have a gasd gauge either, at least originally. You had to take the seat off the car, and stick a long dipstick into a tank beneath said seat to measure how much fuel was left in the car. Guess it didn’t have a CD player, either. John — To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. –Beethoven

Response:

Yup. There were aftermarket devices that included both a filler neck extension (to the front edge of the seat cushion, so that you could fill the tank without removing the seat cushion) and a gauge. The second Model A dealt with the problem by putting the fuel tank in the cowl, so a gauge on the rear of the tank was visible on the instrument panel. But it remained for a University of Michigan professor named King to invent a practical remote-reading fuel gauge. The King-Seeley company was founded in Ann Arbor to manufacture it.

Response:

Ron the Barbarian

Response:

Ron the Barbarian

Response:

Ron the Barbarian

Response:

Okay, how about the 1903 Ford Model A, 1904 Ford Model B, 1904 Ford Model C, 1906 Ford Model K, 1906 Ford Model N, 1907 Ford Model N and 1907 Ford Model S, that came BEFORE the 1908 Model T ?

What about them exactly? — Regards, Noddy.

Response:

Transmissions, Noddy ?

Response:

Transmissions, Noddy ?

Response:

The tour continues…

admin — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

<< << Like you care anyway. roger.

Now I’m you’re bitch? Honey, your *HOT*!!!! Spank me, pleeeeese…

Response:

<< Spank me, pleeeeese… Not to worry. I will, but first: Bring me back a four-leaf clover. _______ Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me! http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo \ - – //

Response:

Bring me back a four-leaf clover.

You don’t need one, just Google for ‘luck’.

Response:

<< Like you care anyway. roger. _______ Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me! http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo \ - – //

Response:

<< Like you care anyway. roger.

Response:

Doing coke with that LSD?

Response:

<< << Like you care anyway. roger.

Response:

<< Doing coke with that LSD? Rule 1. I don’t have broadband, I’m a simple girl, I dial up for my connection. Rule 2. Diet Coke, prefer it over Pepsi. Rule 3. My loss. _______ Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me! http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo \ - – //

Response:

Yesterdays destination was the nature reserve that is the Isle of May, about an hour and a half by sailboat off the East Neuk of Fife. We were a noisy party of nine on my chums Sadler yacht-thingie, a mixture of adults, kids and a cat. Just as we cleared the harbour wall the aforementioned ships kitty – which had been dancing around on the bow of the yacht – toppled into the salty, wet, water as we hit a lumpy swell. A shout of "Cat overboard" was followed by much laughter and a quick 360 (we were under motor). The unfortunate beast was scooped into a bucket and deposited in the galley to dry out and ponder the folly of practicing its disco moves too near the edge of a moving vessel. Apparently it does this fairly frequently, so the capt’n always keeps a bucket handy just in case… Capt’n – who was one of my juniors at work and now takes every opportunity to lord it over me on his smelly yacht – ordered the sails set and vacantly gazed at his GPS to determine which way to point the thing. Even as a non-yachtie I could see sail-setting was a pointless exercise as there was little wind and a heavy sea mist. As visibility was down to about 500m we prayed he knew what he was doing, lest the next stop was a sandbank off the Danish coast. After an interminable period motor-sailing, we arrived at the (very) rocky shore of the Isle of May – actually just off some bloody great cliffs. You have to creep c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y round the other side of the island and head for a *very* narrow channel to reach the tiny landing at Kirkhaven. By this time me ‘n’ the boys had changed into wetsuits so we didn’t care if the skipper hit a rock, we’d swim to shore OK. Landing accomplished, the rest of the party wandered off to annoy Puffins while we stayed to play in the anchorage. The waters were crystal clear, bloody freezing, but absolutely teeming with strange fish, crawly crabbie things and angry diving seabirds. Having no weight belts we swam like corks but, once acclimatised (i.e we’d peed in our wetsuits to warm ourselves up) the water was quite pleasant. Baby had purchased a snorkel and was making strange gurgling sounds every time he saw something interesting. Big boy was trying to look cool as another yacht with a teenage girl crew member was already in the bay. His day was made when she called him over and asked him to bring her a crab she’s seen scampering under her yacht. It took him three tries, but it’s amazing what he can do when he’s motivated Feeling sorry for the still-damp feline, we scooped up a flat fishy thing and deposited it onto the deck of the yacht. Kitty appeared grateful, if a little perplexed. After a couple of seconds pacing around the beast it pounced and tried to despatch it to fishy heaven with a telling bite to the head. Fish was having none of it, and proceeded to thrash around the deck like a dememted kangaroo, terrifying kitty in the process. We left it to the gods to decide whether frenzied fish escaped or cat cunning triumphed. By the time we set off home, all that was left of our fishy friend was a passable imitation of the fish skeletons you see in comic books. Disco kitty 1, flappy flat fish 0. By this time we’d had enough of the wet water so we dried and changed. The boys decided to run the gauntlet of some angry Arctic Terns and join the others on their Puffin hunt, while I changed into my running gear and planned a circuit or two of the islands numerous paths. However, the resident Ranger took a *very* dim view of this activity and it took me a full fifteen minutes of argument before he accepted that a running Roger represented no more danger to the nesting bird population than a walking Roger. Now I’d like to report that it was a fantastic run in some beautiful scenery but, although the sea mist was burning off as the day warmed up, it was dull, damp and depressing. You couldn’t run off-path for fear of crushing a Puffin in its burrow or stepping on a chick careless deposited by some stupid seabird. The paths were little more than animal tracks with carefully concealed holes and rocks in amongst the springy grassy mossy stuff that covered everything. On the positive side, dumb chicks refused to move from the path as I ran towards them, thus presenting the perfect opportunity to practice my rather rusty steeplechase hurdle technique. I could tell they were impressed. However, all in all, unless you’re a birdwatching fanatic or have access to a wetsuit, the Isle of May only gets a one-running-shoe rating from Roger. Best give it a miss. Little did I realise, as we sailed for home, that the next hour was to present me with my most traumatic experience of recent years. Perhaps, when I’ve come to terms with the matter, I’ll tell y’all about it. OTOH, perhaps I won’t. Like you care anyway.

Response:

Rebuild 89 Caravan — 3-speed or 4-speed tranny?

admin — Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

BTW, some guys have swapped in 5-speed manual trannies into their Caravans

There is a 5spd that mates to the 3.0. It was used in AP-bodies (Shadow/Sundance) and while I am not certain on this, it *may* have been used in AJ-bodies (LeBaron coupe/convertible). I have no idea whether it’s robust enough to haul around a minivan. There are *very* strong 5-speeds available for the 4-cylinder engines. DS

Response:

Thanks, DS, I’ll check with my tranny guy about switching to the A670. A little birdie told me I’d be a lot happier with it! BTW, some guys have swapped in 5-speed manual trannies into their Caravans — saw it on the ‘net. Driving hassles aside, any thoughts on what the relative longevity of a 5-speed manual Caravan might be? Thanks, –Kirk in Minnesota re: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have a three-speed that came from another Caravan. I assume it’s the A607. A670, if it came from behind a 3.0 V6. (If it came in a 4-cylinder, it won’t fit with your V6). Not sure if it has all the accessories, though… Would it be difficult to find them in a junkyard? Probably not, no. Any axles or other "big" parts that need to be swapped? Nope. Mount brackets *may* differ, but I don’t think so. DS

Response:

DS: I have a three-speed that came from another Caravan. I assume it’s the A607. Not sure if it has all the accessories, though… Would it be difficult to find them in a junkyard? Any axles or other "big" parts that need to be swapped? Thanks, –kirk re:

Response:

I have a three-speed that came from another Caravan. I assume it’s the A607.

A670, if it came from behind a 3.0 V6. (If it came in a 4-cylinder, it won’t fit with your V6). Not sure if it has all the accessories, though… Would it be difficult to find them in a junkyard?

Probably not, no. Any axles or other "big" parts that need to be swapped?

Nope. Mount brackets *may* differ, but I don’t think so. DS

Response:

Dan, when I replied I thought he might have a 2.2L in his van. After I posted he stated that he had the 3.0 V-6, so I have to retract comments that do not apply. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ….. Not sure why we’re discussing 4-cylinder engines and direct-drive starters, though — the OP has a V6 van. My mechanic suggested that one way is to find the "number" of the 3-speed you have on the vehicle now and the number of the 3-speed donor transmission and use a Hollander manual to see if they can be interchanged. Doesn’t sound as if your mechanic has much experience with Hollander manuals. They inform you what parts are physically and functionally identical — they do NOT give information like "The 3-speed auto will fit in place of the 4-speed if you install a different shift cable and put in a kickdown cable and…" etc.

My mechanic makes his living repairing cars and teaching others how to do the same thing. He has a line up of fellows who come to him with problems that others cannot solve. Like I said, I assumed a 2.2L engine in the OP’s van. My mechanic never inferred anything about "The 3-speed auto will fit in place of the 4-speed if you install a different shift cable and put in a kickdown cable and…" as that is your inference. To end any head-bashing, I admit that I made a mistake assuming the van had a 2.2L engine. That assumption made an ass of my comment – ANY ONLY of my comment.. There! Everyone feel better? Lets try to help the OP’s concern and stick to that without passing judgment on anyone else’s abilities

Response:

I can have the engine and tranny rebuilt for about $2000

Or you could take a little road trip down to Ventura, CA and pick up the nice-running/nice-shifting 67k-mile 3.0/604 that are coming out of my ‘92 Spirit to make way for a 2.5 Turbo II and matching auto…! My question is about the tranny. I have two 4-speed overdrives which, according to anecdotal and personal evidence, are fairly unreliable.

Quite. And I have one 3-speed tranny from an 89 Plymouth Voyager.

If it’s behind a V6 engine, it’ll fit fine. Grab everything — shift cable, kickdown cable and bracket, speed/distance sensor, gear shift indicator plate inside the van, and engine control computer — go through the trans, and swap it in. If the ‘89 is a 4-cylinder, the trans won’t fit. Should it be more reliable than the 4-speeds?

MUCH!! Is this a good idea?

It is a tremendously good idea. DS

Response:

Can anything be done during the rebuild to INCREASE the reliability of the 1989 Caravan 4-speed tranny?

Certainly! 1) Install a later transmission control computer, e.g. from a ‘95 or so. Mechanically and electrically they swap right on, and the programming is much, much "friendlier" to the hardware. The later computers are identified by a finned case rather than a smooth/unfinned one, and they can be "flashed" (updated with new firmware), which the older ones cannot. 2) Obtain the transmission from a very-late-model (current production) wreck and swap the guts complete into your ‘89 case. OR 3) Dispense with the A604 altogether and build and swap-in an A670 3-speed auto. DS

Response:

production of the 2.2L. I don’t know which engine you have so am just using the 2.2 differences as something to remember. I don’t know if a different tranny was used in a Turbo engine as compared to a normally asphirated (spelling??) one either.

"Different" in that it had more clutch plates, different final drive ratio and (through ‘90) a non-lockup torque converter, yes, but they are physically interchangeable. Not sure why we’re discussing 4-cylinder engines and direct-drive starters, though — the OP has a V6 van. It is not as easy to asnwer as you might think.

It is exactly as easy to answer as he might think: Yes, an A670 3-speed automatic will go directly in place of an A604 4-speed automatic behind a 3.0 V6. A different gearshift cable is required, and of course the kickdown cable must be installed, and there are other minor adaptations, but beyonr that, no difficulty will be encountered. My mechanic suggested that one way is to find the "number" of the 3-speed you have on the vehicle now and the number of the 3-speed donor transmission and use a Hollander manual to see if they can be interchanged.

Doesn’t sound as if your mechanic has much experience with Hollander manuals. They inform you what parts are physically and functionally identical — they do NOT give information like "The 3-speed auto will fit in place of the 4-speed if you install a different shift cable and put in a kickdown cable and…" etc. DS

Response:

Ooops! All vehicles (runners, parts trucks and tranny donors) have 3.0 L engines. Is switching to the three-speed a real hassle? –Kirk re: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Which engine do you have? Which engine was attached to the "donor" 3-speed you have? The 3-speed bell housing changed when the starter (on the 2.2L0 was changed from direct drive to gear reduction. Then there was the difference in torque converters when the cranks were changed in the production of the 2.2L. I don’t know which engine you have so am just using the 2.2 differences as something to remember. I don’t know if a different tranny was used in a Turbo engine as compared to a normally asphirated (spelling??) one either.

Response:

Related Question: Can anything be done during the rebuild to INCREASE the reliability of the 1989 Caravan 4-speed tranny? Or are these things simply doomed? Perhaps I should rebuild BOTH 4-speed units so I can swap them in and out every 25,000 miles? Ouch! :) Thanks, as usual, –Kirk re: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The 3-speed is reputed to be MORE reliable than the plagued 4-speed. I seldom read about 3-speed problems but read about a lot of 4-speed failures. Ken in Manitoba

Response:

Which engine do you have? Which engine was attached to the "donor" 3-speed you have? The 3-speed bell housing changed when the starter (on the 2.2L0 was changed from direct drive to gear reduction. Then there was the difference in torque converters when the cranks were changed in the production of the 2.2L. I don’t know which engine you have so am just using the 2.2 differences as something to remember. I don’t know if a different tranny was used in a Turbo engine as compared to a normally asphirated (spelling??) one either. It is not as easy to asnwer as you might think. My mechanic suggested that one way is to find the "number" of the 3-speed you have on the vehicle now and the number of the 3-speed donor transmission and use a Hollander manual to see if they can be interchanged. This is a timely question because the 3-speed in my ‘84 has just started shifting problems – due to one of the diff bearings starting to fail and the little chips are getting into the governor causing shift problems. Solution is a complete rebuild (tranny has about 270,000 km and is probably original) and a rebuilt torque converter AND flushing the oil cooler + hoses. My question is about the tranny. I have two 4-speed overdrives which, according to anecdotal and personal evidence, are fairly unreliable. And I have one 3-speed tranny from an 89 Plymouth Voyager. Will the three-speed fit?

See above. Should it be more reliable than the 4-speeds? (Especially when pulling my fishing boat or pop-up camper trailer?)

The 3-speed is reputed to be MORE reliable than the plagued 4-speed. I seldom read about 3-speed problems but read about a lot of 4-speed failures. Ken in Manitoba

Response:

Hi, gang: I’m rebuilding my 89 Grand Caravan (don’t laugh! I love the thing, and the old-timer I bought it from 4 years ago paid almost $2000 to rustproof the chassis — a huge advantage here in salt-the-roads Minnesota). Besides, I have a second 89 Caravan for parts Anyway, the chassis and running gear are in excellent shape, but the engine and the second 4-speed tranny are coming close to the 200,000-mile mark. It runs okay, but it’s been sounding like crap for more than a year. (It drives very nicely, however, with smooth suspension, tight steering and all possible options. It’s a power marshmallow!) I can have the engine and tranny rebuilt for about $2000, and I can handle the paint and minor body work myself. With what new (or newer) vehicles cost these days, I just don’t wanna invest… My question is about the tranny. I have two 4-speed overdrives which, according to anecdotal and personal evidence, are fairly unreliable. And I have one 3-speed tranny from an 89 Plymouth Voyager. Will the three-speed fit? Should it be more reliable than the 4-speeds? (Especially when pulling my fishing boat or pop-up camper trailer?) Do I need to change the front axles or anything else to make it fit? Is this a good idea? Thanks in advance, –Kirk in Minnesota

Response:

See above. Should it be more reliable than the 4-speeds? (Especially when pulling my fishing boat or pop-up camper trailer?)

The 3-speed is reputed to be MORE reliable than the plagued 4-speed. I seldom read about 3-speed problems but read about a lot of 4-speed failures. Ken in Manitoba

Response:

Can anything be done during the rebuild to INCREASE the reliability of the 1989 Caravan 4-speed tranny?

Response:

I can have the engine and tranny rebuilt for about $2000

Quite. And I have one 3-speed tranny from an 89 Plymouth Voyager.

MUCH!! Is this a good idea?

It is a tremendously good idea. DS

Response:

I have a three-speed that came from another Caravan. I assume it’s the A607.

A670, if it came from behind a 3.0 V6. (If it came in a 4-cylinder, it won’t fit with your V6). Not sure if it has all the accessories, though… Would it be difficult to find them in a junkyard?

Probably not, no. Any axles or other "big" parts that need to be swapped?

Nope. Mount brackets *may* differ, but I don’t think so. DS

Response:

BTW, some guys have swapped in 5-speed manual trannies into their Caravans

Response:

Running with rain suit?

admin — Sun, 04 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

it din’t rain. Why God Why! oh yes went to this school being built. and put resumes in area of job wanted. hope for best. thanks all. just walk into a meeting and then a big Wohwwww and walk out., had like 50 men sitting at a round table all there heads turn and they look. I guest this life of mine is just ment to be. 25 miles yesterday, time to ride and pick up cans for days food. and go thru seedsto plant veggies…… job search done. 60 today and sunshine……Oh that just great:? big backpack again….. re mod bike…… Hamburger and mac and cheese my favs.. I dress simple. what ever gets me out the door. and this 5 a.m. shit only make my bode hurt….

Response:

Sheesh. As if joggers don’t look goofy enough as it is.

Response:

silentium, shit! shit shit shit shit shit the true shit is [you] <—-to the shit —-("undershit")—- gift from your monkey: http://www.wordreference.com/it/en/translation.asp?iten=babbeo

Response:

Just your common K marts paints and jacket. light weight plastic. for bike rides. try to keep areas dry, or jock itch and swimmers ear well happen. some people like pain. anyways. I have a red running shirt. and a army green heavy warm vest. zipper broke hafe way up. soooo bad. well give this a try. 30 now i.d. going to 50 and rain. winds high is 18 to 27 from south west. low 3 to 5 south west. I bike it most. running tends to hurt the back some. and just beginner after over a real long injuries wait. 2 or 3 mile walk rain on. I am ready and gone. today:). 10 cent can feeds the bode when no one wants me to work. past 18 month and no job, and another 30 resumes, applications and calls to tape machine. Gee good thing I have all this experience to be a crippled and a retard here to Not get a job…… I well wait…… day off. mom dad home now, so got to find cans to eat,I still don’t see how this area x spect me to pay or find work with zero money help. again. I well live. God speed r and r…… eat home grown and nature. and die if you do it wrong…. good luck

Response:

How do you guys handle outdoor running in rain? I used to run with T-shirt and short in rain. But guess I’m getting old now and couldn’t do that for a while. It’s 0 degree C this morning and rainning. I went out to do my 10k with a $2 transparent rain coat. The 10k time was 4 minutes longer. Is that due to the extra air drag of the rain coat?

Just above freezing makes for difficult running conditions IMO. The rain can sap the warmth right out of your body in a very short amount of time. Hypothermia is a real problem when that happens. Make sure you are not running in anything that is made of cotton. If you use a waterproof jacket, you may find it too warm. Vests can be good for this rain/temperature with a lightweight (not cotton) longsleeve t-shirt underneath. Look for the lightest weight clothing you can get that is still slightly water resistant. You’ll need some breathability, so 100% waterproof won’t work. Personally, I’ve found a good combination for these conditons to be Sugoi’s Beam Vest and running tights. I am quite happy with that. Here’s the vest: http://www.sugoi.ca/consumer/product.aspx?sectionStyleID=4731&color=COS Phil M. — "Pain is temporary: the success it brings can be everlasting." -fortune cookie

Response:

At 0C, light rain, and no wind for a 40-70 min run (I’m assuming 10k fits in here somewhere for you – see my questions at end), I’d probably wear a rain-resistant shell on top and my sporthill xc pants (my usual running gear). Heavier rain and maybe some wind, I might consider my waterproof shell on top (pit zips open although they don’t do much good) and maybe tights under my sporthills (warm legs function better for me and reduces injury potential). For pouring rain I’d definitely wear waterproof gear – top and bottom. In my case, I *know* I get hypothermic fairly easily. While it may not be big issue in the 30-40 min range, beyond there (esp. beyond 1 hr or so), it is an issue for *me*. YMMV With *my* gear, I know that neither my sporthills nor my windshells are waterproof, but they breathe reasonably well and are ok for everyday running – assuming it’s not raining hard when I start. My waterproof Marmot precip jacket and pants (full zip for ventilation) do an excellent job of keeping rain and wind out (at least for short term < 1 hr) – and keeping body moisture in. They are noisy compared to my everyday gear, but light (jacket is 10oz) so I take them in my pack on extended outings (multiple hours) when rain is a possibility. For a run in the 45-70+ min range, they keep the rain out and keep warm sweat next to my body. For longer runs, the wetness from the sweat will be an issue. I’ve tested my present windshell in wind, but not rain (only had it a couple weeks), but reviews suggest it reasonably rain resistant but not for prolonged (multiple hours) exposure in heavy, wet snows or rains. Unless it’s really pouring when I leave, or an imminent threat of such, I think my usual shell and sporthills (maybe with tights if windy) will do for most conditions. I do have some other new winter-closeout sale items that I haven’t had a chance to test under these conditions yet, but some new combinations may work for moderate (not pouring) rain for runs <60min. with a $2 transparent rain coat. The 10k time was 4 minutes longer. Is that due to the extra air drag of the rain coat?

Not enough information provided. 4 min longer relative to what? Have you been running in 80F temperatures and this is cooler or -20F and this is uncomfortably warm (or pleasantly warm)? Do you usually do 35 min 10k’s so that this is a 10% increase in time or more usually a 1:10 10k where this might be rounding error? Was it windy? Were you on muddy trails? Was this run at same effort as the last time you ran it? Were you rested as well as other times or over trained? or distracted by something? My initial knee jerk reaction without other information is that a light raincoat isn’t going to make 4min difference in time in a 10k, esp. if running on roads where mud isn’t an issue. That’s assuming you didn’t have it open and using it like a drag chute for resistance running Which is why I raised the questions of what else might be affecting your time. FWIW, I do notice a decrease in my times over the same routes as temperatures get warmer in the spring – but I’m clueless as to whether it’s temperature, fewer layers, less snow (sometimes), more daylight runs, winter base building – probably all of the above. And these covariates will always be present. 4 min variation in a route that takes about an hour for me at this time of year, I think is more related to footing conditions and natural variations than any gear that I’m wearing, certainly not a light raincoat. Dot nice thing about Alaska is you can buy gear on winter closeouts and still wear them for at least a month after you get them. — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

Basic question about 5K races

admin — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – But if you want to find out about your local race, you really should talk to somebody local, esp. if associated with the race. That’s the only reliable information for *your* race. I know I got a shock for my first race when I found out a few days before that things were so different from what I had expected based on what I had read. (I’d been trying to contact organizers and hadn’t gotten any responses.) Same here. I thought the race I was entering was a 5K "Fun Run" in a park known for its trails. Turns out it was a four mile road race that ran PAST the park (but not on the trails) and there were NO walkers. I finished last with my poky 12 minute mile jog. It was significantly different than I expected. But don’t interpret that to mean it was bad. It was just fine. I’m still looking for a 5K "Fun Run" that fits my ideal.

I think you did great, and would encourage you to keep looking for that perfect "fun run". Some events are better organised than others. Usually, the big city races are quite large, well organised, and have a diverse pool of runners, from very fast to very slow, to walking (you wouldn’t finish last in a NY city race, even at your 12min/mile pace) I don’t know how the Boston races compare, but I would guess they’d be similar. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – But if you want to find out about your local race, you really should talk to somebody local, esp. if associated with the race. That’s the only reliable information for *your* race. I know I got a shock for my first race when I found out a few days before that things were so different from what I had expected based on what I had read. (I’d been trying to contact organizers and hadn’t gotten any responses.) Same here. I thought the race I was entering was a 5K "Fun Run" in a park known for its trails. Turns out it was a four mile road race that ran PAST the park (but not on the trails) and there were NO walkers. I finished last with my poky 12 minute mile jog. It was significantly different than I expected. But don’t interpret that to mean it was bad. It was just fine. I’m still looking for a 5K "Fun Run" that fits my ideal.

‘Tis (almost) the season for spring charity 5Ks. Unless you live on Neptune (like Dot, har har har), there should be more coming up in April and May than you can shake a stick at. In my vast racing experience, the best back-of-the-pack experiences come in "medium-sized" races: a few hundred runners, but not a few thousand. For most races you can research past finishing times and turnouts on the web.

Response:

But if you want to find out about your local race, you really should talk to somebody local, esp. if associated with the race. That’s the only reliable information for *your* race. I know I got a shock for my first race when I found out a few days before that things were so different from what I had expected based on what I had read. (I’d been trying to contact organizers and hadn’t gotten any responses.)

Same here. I thought the race I was entering was a 5K "Fun Run" in a park known for its trails. Turns out it was a four mile road race that ran PAST the park (but not on the trails) and there were NO walkers. I finished last with my poky 12 minute mile jog. It was significantly different than I expected. But don’t interpret that to mean it was bad. It was just fine. I’m still looking for a 5K "Fun Run" that fits my ideal. Dally

Response:

I would like to participate in a upcoming April 25 5K run/walk in our community park (Western suburbs of Chicago). I never participated in a race before and have some basic question. The ad says that the race begins at 8am. Is it realistic to expect to be done by, say, 8:55am. I need to take my son to a playgroup at 10am. If it says the race begins at 8am, I have to be there at 7:45 or so, to register etc? Do people finish around where they started? How does it work, normally? i

Have you run that far in training? If so, figure you will run faster than that during a race.

Response:

Doubtful I could run that fast… but thanks. i If this is your first race, don’t worry about time. Just have fun. Also, what you actually have for your race may differ from what any of us here indicate. Donovan and I run at opposite extremes.

Yeah, it was interesting reading your response in this thread. Hopefully, between us we can "bracket" his experience … Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

Doubtful I could run that fast… but thanks. i

If this is your first race, don’t worry about time. Just have fun. Also, what you actually have for your race may differ from what any of us here indicate. Donovan and I run at opposite extremes. He does big city road races in NYC while I do comparatively small trail runs (max 200 runners, sometimes < 30) in Alaska. Somewhere in between is what you might find for experiences on race day Seriously, though for a run in a local community park, don’t be surprised if there’s no big clock, no mile markers, etc. There may very well be, but I’ve yet to see any in any of my races (except for clock in orienteering where start times are variable). "Dual timing" at my last race consisted of 2 hand timers. Also for those age-graded thingies, keep in mind that many world records (the standards for these numbers) are set on accurately measured courses designed to be fast. Many local races may be approximate distances, more hills, wind, snow, or any number of other things to slow a person down. It’s an ideal that people that are into numbers enjoy comparing themselves to. And trail runners use the slowness of a course to judge the amount of challenge in a race (hills, mud, snow, and other course challenges) But if you want to find out about your local race, you really should talk to somebody local, esp. if associated with the race. That’s the only reliable information for *your* race. I know I got a shock for my first race when I found out a few days before that things were so different from what I had expected based on what I had read. (I’d been trying to contact organizers and hadn’t gotten any responses.) Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

If you’re referring to a the 60% AG% rating .. ? It’s about 21:36 for a male under 35. If you’re older than that, you get a time bonus — add maybe about 9 seconds per year or so. Doubtful I could run that fast… but thanks.

For your first race — just run it and have a good time. You will probably exceed your expectations. Running alongside a bunch of other people who are running fairly fast not only reduces any inhibitions that would prevent you from running fast, the fact that you’re not alone and the excitement of the occasion also boosts pain tolerance or even suppresses pain. Whatever happens, you’ll probably do better than you expect. So have a good race, and be sure to post a report. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

… snipped other useful suggestions… Generally, anything above 60% is considered a reasonably respectable performance, and is the entry-level standard for some competitive clubs. Serious competitive runners are usually over 70%, and the ones who win age group awards around here are typically in the high 70s or low 80s. Thanks. And how fast should I run a 5K run to become "barely respectable"?

If you’re referring to a the 60% AG% rating .. ? It’s about 21:36 for a male under 35. If you’re older than that, you get a time bonus — add maybe about 9 seconds per year or so. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

I would like to participate in a upcoming April 25 5K run/walk in our community park (Western suburbs of Chicago). I never participated in a race before and have some basic question. The ad says that the race begins at 8am. Is it realistic to expect to be done by, say, 8:55am. Depends on how quickly you finish (-; Yes, it’s realistic. Once you finish, you can just go. Most races will post the results on the internet nowadays. Okay, thanks. They would tell me my time right away though, right?

Usually, they have a nice big clock at the finish line, so you can check your time. So if you only care up to plus/minus a second or two, then you can just check the clock as you finish. It’s a good idea to bring your stopwatch to keep an eye on your mile splits. One hint: if the race is chip-timed, make sure you run past *BOTH* of the mats at the finish line. A lot of people get recorded out-of-place, because they decide that they don’t have to run any more after they’ve run under the clock. Not the case — run through the finish line, not to the finish line (apart from anything else, this also helps prevent other finishers getting obstructed) Do people finish around where they started? Most races of this length use a loop course (or an approximate loop). Alright, sounds good. Do you know of a website with running time distribution curves for various ages?

Many races record your WAVA "age graded percentage" rating. For a runner aged 20-35, this is calculated by dividing the time for a world record performance (at least, world record at the time the system was devised) by your time. For example, a 3hr marathon for a 25 year old would be 2:06:50 / 3hrs = 126.8/180 = 70.4%. The ratings are graded to take age into account, so there are scale factors for different ages and different distances. So for example, a 38 year old male runner who runs a 4 miler in 23:10 will have a performance rating of about 75%, whereas the same pace is only worth 73% for a 30 year old. Generally, anything above 60% is considered a reasonably respectable performance, and is the entry-level standard for some competitive clubs. Serious competitive runners are usually over 70%, and the ones who win age group awards around here are typically in the high 70s or low 80s. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

Is there a contact phone number listed anywhere? If so, call & ask about all these things. It’s what I did the first time I did a local community race. I even asked "will there be some slow people running?" (I’m slow, I wanted to know I’d have company!).

heck, I asked how long they kept the course open! I had read the case of someone doing a winter tri that he had so many problems that they were about ready to close the pool when he showed up for the swim portion (swim is usually last in winter tris). No, I wasn’t that slow as it turned out. contacting locals is also how I found out that we (Alaska) do things very differently up here than down south (or at least r.r postings). I basically ignored everything I’d heard here or read in books regarding races. Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would like to participate in a upcoming April 25 5K run/walk in our community park (Western suburbs of Chicago). I never participated in a race before and have some basic question. The ad says that the race begins at 8am. Is it realistic to expect to be done by, say, 8:55am. I need to take my son to a playgroup at 10am. If it says the race begins at 8am, I have to be there at 7:45 or so, to register etc? Do people finish around where they started? How does it work, normally? i

Response:

Assuming they start on time and you run 5k in less than 55 min, then you should be done by then I need to take my son to a playgroup at 10am. If it says the race begins at 8am, I have to be there at 7:45 or so, to register etc?

Most races I’ve done suggest arriving 1 hr before race, esp. if you haven’t pre-registered, which may take 5-10 min. Small races (<30 people) may suggest 30 min lead time. There may be pre-race meetings about 30 min before. The registration may not be at the start line. Parking most likely isn’t at start line. And if everybody else waited until race day to register, there may be long lines at registration. Don’t forget time for warmup, potty lines, etc. Some races will start without you; others may wait (to the annoyance of some runners that arrived on time). Do people finish around where they started?

Depends on the route. Check with the RD, the web page, or someone whose done the race before. I’ve only done a few short races so far but half have been loops returning to start and half have been point to point and you’re on your own to find a way back to your vehicle (many just run back). Other races do provide a shuttle if point to point. Sometimes parking is at start; sometimes at finish. Regarding the time question in your other post, this would depend on race. My races generally don’t have web pages, but many have times posted in the paper the next day. Assuming it’s not too crowded, you may be able to get the time when you finish or someone may call out the time as you cross. My very first race expected us to come to the visitor center after 5pm to get results (manual recording) – also parade time so I think there was some ulterior motive there. They’ve changed that procedure in recent years. Enjoy! and post a race report! Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

Depends on how quickly you finish (-; Yes, it’s realistic. Once you finish, you can just go. Most races will post the results on the internet nowadays. I need to take my son to a playgroup at 10am. If it says the race begins at 8am, I have to be there at 7:45 or so, to register etc?

I’d recommend getting there earlier if you need to register, more like 7:30 (even for a small race). It rapidly gets more crowded as it gets closer to starting time. Never hurts to be early. Do people finish around where they started?

Most races of this length use a loop course (or an approximate loop). Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

In my vast experience the race starts when they say it will start. How long it takes you to finish is someone situational, don’t you think? If it says the race begins at 8am, I have to be there at 7:45 or so, to register etc?

Earlier than that: the registration ENDED 15 minutes before the race started. It was nearby but not actually AT the starting line. I’d say to get there by 7:15. You might want to do a warm-up run, too. Do people finish around where they started?

Nearby, anyway, at least in the races I know about. How does it work, normally?

You show up in running gear and move your feet over and over again. Dally

Response:

Its 2004, How about 21st Century Engineering in your car line?

admin — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Today I am going to address suspension systems. In the beginning there was the solid axle. Still used on some big rig trucks. Very durable but rough riding. Knee action independent suspension came along, popularized after WWII. A refined version can be seen in the ‘82 Mercedes Benz. Upper and lower control arms in sort of a parallelogram geometry. Spring acts on lower control arm. There is a robust steering knuckle and spindle for the wheel mount. Very effective for its day. A knee action suspension can frequently hold its alignment for the life of the car. You will note the M.B. uses very refined forged arms instead of the usual pressed steel found on the American cars. McPherson struts came next, with huge savings to the manufacturers not passed along to the consumers. Its an all-in-one assembly of spring and damper and sort of resembles the struts used on aircraft, from which I assume the design was adapted for cars. Since this design is predominately in use today, I will delve into its serious deficiencies: 1. It will not hold alignment. Mere friction is used at the two lower bolts, one an adjusting cam and the other a clamp bolt to hold the camber adjustment fixed. A good bump or light curb hit can and will move the camber angle, requiring a new alignment job. In contrast, the knee action used a micrometer screw or shims to affect adjustment, both very robust. Also, in the knee action system, caster could be adjusted; caster is fixed in McPherson suspensions. 2. As the wheel undulates over bumps, the McPherson strut will alternately compress and extend and as it does so, the camber of the wheel is in constant change from its nominal zero degrees from vertical. This produces a constant scrubbing action on the tire. You can demonstate this by simply jouncing up and down on the front end or even better, jacking up and then lowering your front end. Observe the wheel take on a pronounced positive camber as your jack up and then as you apply extra weight (simulating rebound), it will assume a pronounced negative camber. With camber in a constant state of flux from neutral (where it should stay), to positive to negative, the tires wear out about double the rate they would if a constant zero camber could be maintained. Knee action is guilty of the same fault. Only a true aircraft strut maintains a zero in all spring deflections or compressions. Such a strut requires a scissors link and is more complex, of course, but the extra expense is indicated in $30,000 cars, if not in $8000 cars. You will note that year-to-year model changes no longer involve complete body style changes as in the 50’s. Even in those days, the running gear remained largely unchanged, at least in principle; it was style that changed significantly from year-to-year. Even today, with the style changes taking several years, the running gear is carried over as long as the factory can possibly can get away with. Suspension systems are at least 50 years out of date. Now you know why radial tires should provide at least 100,000 miles of service but don’t. Now you know why your wheels are always out of alignment. Its the McPherson strut.

Response:

Read out of a Machinery’s Handbook while sitting in the office every morning like I do and you will greatly profit from it.

Seems like the best part of your brain got flushed away at some point…

Response:

Bill Putney posted: As you point out in your next post, there is some adjustment of caster on the LH vehicles by shifting the engine cradle as allowed by the 4 bolt to hole clearances (but shops don’t know about this, or don’t admit to knowing). This fix is in fact documented in TSB #02-16-99 and a repair procedure referenced in that TSB.

Using undersized bolts in oversized holes = an engineer with a hole in his head who signed off on that one. Any SAE engineer will agree it goes against all acceptable standards, both automotive, aircraft, marine, and in most instances of general machinery. Anything placed in a hole should fit nice and snug: rivets, bolts, threaded cap screw, wire harnesses into grommets, etc. ad infinitum. Read out of a Machinery’s Handbook while sitting in the office every morning like I do and you will greatly profit from it. The camber adustment with excentric is basically the same error because it uses an oversized hole. Using two excentrics compounds the madness. I have frequently used aircraft design, fabrication, and assembly processes as good examples for auto factories to follow, even if "watered down" in their approach. The exchange above by other posters reinforces my position that almost nothing on cars would be allowed on airplanes and for very good reason. Cars are, have been, and if the current attitude prevails, always will be inferior machines of questionable roadworthiness and doubful value. I have essentially given up on cars and resigned myself to go with the flow, capitalizing on my ability to keep earlier, cheaper models on the road for my personal transportation. The ones who suffer the most are those good-intentioned buyers who lay down $30,000 for new cars in hopes that their families will enjoy safe, reliable, if not cheap transportation. They are the ones shortchanged, not I.

Response:

Funny. Just had alignment checked on my ‘00 Intrepid and caster IS adjustable from 2 to 4 degrees positive, with ideal at 3. Requires replacement of the original strut clevis to knuckle attachment bolts with undersized bolts. The undersized bolts are to allow camber adjustment. There is no published procedure on a 2000 Intrepid for caster adjustment. There is a specified range as cited above.

Actually, the car comes from the factory with one eccentric bolt and one non-eccentric bolt holding the knuckle to the strut, and they replace the non-eccentric bolt with an eccentric bolt to double the range of adjustment of the camber. As you point out in your next post, there is some adjustment of caster on the LH vehicles by shifting the engine cradle as allowed by the 4 bolt to hole clearances (but shops don’t know about this, or don’t admit to knowing). This fix is in fact documented in TSB #02-16-99 and a repair procedure referenced in that TSB. Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x") —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

Will double check with shop. They said it’s possible.

No doubt that it’s possible by shifting the sub-frame forward or back, but caster is not going to change by replacing with the previously mentioned strut to knuckle bolts.

Response:

The cars I’ve had over the last 15 years have held alignment much MUCH better (and longer) than anything I owned in the 60’s and 70’s. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

I’ve never had anything hold alignment BETTER than a torsion-bar Chrysler from the 60s/70s (NOT the F/M/J transverse T-bar setup, but the A/B/C/E/R body longitudinal setup). But my ‘93 has held alignment AS WELL as the old cars. However, if you read some of the trade magazines there are quite a few modern cars that are problem children when it comes to alignments. Limited range of camber adjustment, NO provision for camber adjustment, etc. etc. Moog and other companies are making good money on ‘problem solver’ kits that have offset cam bolts that allow you to add adjustment capability to these cars.

Response:

Will double check with shop. They said it’s possible. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Funny. Just had alignment checked on my ‘00 Intrepid and caster IS adjustable from 2 to 4 degrees positive, with ideal at 3. Requires replacement of the original strut clevis to knuckle attachment bolts with undersized bolts. The undersized bolts are to allow camber adjustment. There is no published procedure on a 2000 Intrepid for caster adjustment. There is a specified range as cited above.

Response:

The undersized bolts are to allow camber adjustment. There is no published procedure on a 2000 Intrepid for caster adjustment. There is a specified range as cited above.

Response:

Funny. Just had alignment checked on my ‘00 Intrepid and caster IS adjustable from 2 to 4 degrees positive, with ideal at 3. Requires replacement of the original strut clevis to knuckle attachment bolts with undersized bolts. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – caster is fixed in McPherson suspensions.

Response:

The cars I’ve had over the last 15 years have held alignment much MUCH better (and longer) than anything I owned in the 60’s and 70’s. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Don’t feel bad, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about either. At least you have the ability to see it. Sadly , he doesn’t. Tom Heintz "Mopar Maniac"

Response:

Today I am going to address suspension systems. Why???

Give it up, he’s high on Cheetos, Ted

Response:

The cars I’ve had over the last 15 years have held alignment much MUCH better (and longer) than anything I owned in the 60’s and 70’s. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Response:

Today I am going to address suspension systems.

Why???

Response:

Today I am going to address suspension systems.

Why???

Response:

Today I am going to address suspension systems. Why???

Give it up, he’s high on Cheetos, Ted

Response:

The cars I’ve had over the last 15 years have held alignment much MUCH better (and longer) than anything I owned in the 60’s and 70’s. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Response:

The cars I’ve had over the last 15 years have held alignment much MUCH better (and longer) than anything I owned in the 60’s and 70’s. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Don’t feel bad, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about either. At least you have the ability to see it. Sadly , he doesn’t. Tom Heintz "Mopar Maniac"

Response:

Funny. Just had alignment checked on my ‘00 Intrepid and caster IS adjustable from 2 to 4 degrees positive, with ideal at 3. Requires replacement of the original strut clevis to knuckle attachment bolts with undersized bolts. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – caster is fixed in McPherson suspensions.

Response:

The undersized bolts are to allow camber adjustment. There is no published procedure on a 2000 Intrepid for caster adjustment. There is a specified range as cited above.

Response:

The cars I’ve had over the last 15 years have held alignment much MUCH better (and longer) than anything I owned in the 60’s and 70’s. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Response:

Will double check with shop. They said it’s possible.

No doubt that it’s possible by shifting the sub-frame forward or back, but caster is not going to change by replacing with the previously mentioned strut to knuckle bolts.

Response:

Read out of a Machinery’s Handbook while sitting in the office every morning like I do and you will greatly profit from it.

Seems like the best part of your brain got flushed away at some point…

Run Run Away » running gear

My cat is disgusting

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Running & Change of Seasons

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

ford model a

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response: