There are 2 variants of the Getrag 4HP22 automatic in the Bmw E 28. The plain vanilla which is is cabled to the throttle linkage, and the EH which is electronically controlled. The EH has 3 sets of pre- programed shift points. EHs are toast by 150 k, forward cluth pack failure. My theory is that the electronics dont shift as well as the mechanical ones do. My car went 350k on its 4HP22 with care that was on the edge of total abuse. 2 others went 250k. All were working fine when the cars were retired.
Oil Urban Legand
- Thread starter Nicolai
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
I wonder why modern transmissions do not stand up as well as some older designs like TH-400s, C-6s or A727s.
Reliability has degrade due to 100% unnecessary complication. Some will cite consumer demand for velvety smooth shifts ..yet I've never taken a survey. This leads me to conclude that someone pulled the notion out of their behind (like many things we see) and that the engineers were doing a really lame attempt at copying the Germans in their ability to competently add new dimensions to the term complexity. It only works when you can write a blank check in the production. Add a bean counter to the process and you'll make the greatest tribute to reinventing the wheel a step backwards. This Detroit achieved with infamous success.
I wonder why modern transmissions do not stand up as well as some older designs like TH-400s, C-6s or A727s.
Reliability has degrade due to 100% unnecessary complication. Some will cite consumer demand for velvety smooth shifts ..yet I've never taken a survey. This leads me to conclude that someone pulled the notion out of their behind (like many things we see) and that the engineers were doing a really lame attempt at copying the Germans in their ability to competently add new dimensions to the term complexity. It only works when you can write a blank check in the production. Add a bean counter to the process and you'll make the greatest tribute to reinventing the wheel a step backwards. This Detroit achieved with infamous success.
I remember some chrysler ads years ago on why with a big torquey V-8, 4 manual gears were superfluous.
It was even proven down here with a high strung 265c.i. triple weber 6 putting out 224kW, that once moving, three was enough.
People wanted five speeds, and Nissan lead the fray, putting 5 gears in the range previously occupied by 4.
Now everything's a 6 speed, and you feel like you are rowing, rather than driving the car (in a manual)...VW/Porsche now have a two clutch constant meshtransmission, where there is one clutch lightly (dis) engaged, which is then engaged when the next gear is needed.
We need more gears (to be marketable). More gears = more complexity. More Complexity = more cost, or more fragility (take your pick).
Even looking back at the turbo 400s and 727s. The smoother the shift, the less they last.
I honestly don't know which came first, the chicken or the egg. Does marketing drive complexity, or does the market desire it ?
It was even proven down here with a high strung 265c.i. triple weber 6 putting out 224kW, that once moving, three was enough.
People wanted five speeds, and Nissan lead the fray, putting 5 gears in the range previously occupied by 4.
Now everything's a 6 speed, and you feel like you are rowing, rather than driving the car (in a manual)...VW/Porsche now have a two clutch constant meshtransmission, where there is one clutch lightly (dis) engaged, which is then engaged when the next gear is needed.
We need more gears (to be marketable). More gears = more complexity. More Complexity = more cost, or more fragility (take your pick).
Even looking back at the turbo 400s and 727s. The smoother the shift, the less they last.
I honestly don't know which came first, the chicken or the egg. Does marketing drive complexity, or does the market desire it ?
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: wcbcruzer
His Toyota lasted 300,000 miles without maintenance because...... it's a Toyota.
1970 was well before Toyota built it's quality reputation or shall I say perception.
Ya, lets face it. When you consider the American krrap Toyota was competing against back then I guess they were not all that good afterall. LMAO.
Originally Posted By: wcbcruzer
His Toyota lasted 300,000 miles without maintenance because...... it's a Toyota.
1970 was well before Toyota built it's quality reputation or shall I say perception.
Ya, lets face it. When you consider the American krrap Toyota was competing against back then I guess they were not all that good afterall. LMAO.
Originally Posted By: paul246
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: wcbcruzer
His Toyota lasted 300,000 miles without maintenance because...... it's a Toyota.
1970 was well before Toyota built it's quality reputation or shall I say perception.
Ya, lets face it. When you consider the American krrap Toyota was competing against back then I guess they were not all that good afterall. LMAO.
yeah, I see SO many more '70 toyotas around today than '70 novas, camaros, impalas, mustangs, etc.
seriously, at the time, toyota was a curiousity, a new odd little car, just like the mazdas w/ the funky rotary, or the opels that buick was selling. they are all gone now, rusted away.
back to the original story, interesting. I'm sure there was a guy who used some oil he swiped from his job, and I'm sure he believed it was a miracle. but, the truth is in the story: he topped it off whenever needed. I've known people who do this w/ cheap disposable cars, they just keep it topped off, and if it's consuming oil, then the oil is always new.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: wcbcruzer
His Toyota lasted 300,000 miles without maintenance because...... it's a Toyota.
1970 was well before Toyota built it's quality reputation or shall I say perception.
Ya, lets face it. When you consider the American krrap Toyota was competing against back then I guess they were not all that good afterall. LMAO.
yeah, I see SO many more '70 toyotas around today than '70 novas, camaros, impalas, mustangs, etc.
seriously, at the time, toyota was a curiousity, a new odd little car, just like the mazdas w/ the funky rotary, or the opels that buick was selling. they are all gone now, rusted away.
back to the original story, interesting. I'm sure there was a guy who used some oil he swiped from his job, and I'm sure he believed it was a miracle. but, the truth is in the story: he topped it off whenever needed. I've known people who do this w/ cheap disposable cars, they just keep it topped off, and if it's consuming oil, then the oil is always new.
I heard a remarkably similar story involving a Suburban, NASA, stolen space grade synthetic oil, and 40 MPG.
The mystique of such urban legends is probably that 90% of the listeners don't change their own oil, and don't know why anyone would want to get greasy to save $3... unless they know something "the man" is keeping us from having.
The mystique of such urban legends is probably that 90% of the listeners don't change their own oil, and don't know why anyone would want to get greasy to save $3... unless they know something "the man" is keeping us from having.
Originally Posted By: mpvue
I'm sure there was a guy who used some oil he swiped from his job, ..
Not when the job site is a drilling platform, which produces crude, not refined oil.
As to why modern transmissions are less reliable, I would point to the need to do more with less, i.e. Corp Avg fuel economy standards, coupled with corporate cost accountants.
I'm sure there was a guy who used some oil he swiped from his job, ..
Not when the job site is a drilling platform, which produces crude, not refined oil.
As to why modern transmissions are less reliable, I would point to the need to do more with less, i.e. Corp Avg fuel economy standards, coupled with corporate cost accountants.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
As to why modern transmissions are less reliable, I would point to the need to do more with less, i.e. Corp Avg fuel economy standards, coupled with corporate cost accountants.
Yes. One would probably find that the complex configuration is to trump the EPA economy cyle ..and that the product is built to a price point for market acceptance to yield the most revenue.
The oddity is that it does little good to the consumer to spend $3000-4000 in repair to save $1000 of fuel over their ownership ..or anyone's future ownership.
I doubt that it would stand up in the energy balance of another vehicles production.
As to why modern transmissions are less reliable, I would point to the need to do more with less, i.e. Corp Avg fuel economy standards, coupled with corporate cost accountants.
Yes. One would probably find that the complex configuration is to trump the EPA economy cyle ..and that the product is built to a price point for market acceptance to yield the most revenue.
The oddity is that it does little good to the consumer to spend $3000-4000 in repair to save $1000 of fuel over their ownership ..or anyone's future ownership.
I doubt that it would stand up in the energy balance of another vehicles production.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Pablo
That would be sperm whale oil. Not just any old whale blubber! Mate.
Whoops. So there you have it. Sperm whale oil was the lubricant to end all lubricants when it came to ATF... Apparently and supposedly.
I wonder what real proof there is to substantiate that today? i.e. put it into a few late-model designs and see if it holds up better...
SPERMIL 1
The LUBINATOR!
That would surely fail the API valvetrain wear test!
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Pablo
That would be sperm whale oil. Not just any old whale blubber! Mate.
Whoops. So there you have it. Sperm whale oil was the lubricant to end all lubricants when it came to ATF... Apparently and supposedly.
I wonder what real proof there is to substantiate that today? i.e. put it into a few late-model designs and see if it holds up better...
SPERMIL 1
The LUBINATOR!
That would surely fail the API valvetrain wear test!
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Pablo
That would be sperm whale oil. Not just any old whale blubber! Mate.
Whoops. So there you have it. Sperm whale oil was the lubricant to end all lubricants when it came to ATF... Apparently and supposedly.
I wonder what real proof there is to substantiate that today? i.e. put it into a few late-model designs and see if it holds up better...
SPERMIL 1
The LUBINATOR!
That would surely fail the API valvetrain wear test!
I was under the impression that if used in the "bearing on a jig" test, that instead of creating a wear scar that it would propel the bearing into a state of ultra-high speed, encapsulating the equipment and the surrounding observers and test operators in a time-breach plasma, which would thrust them into a time rip and propel them back to the time of the dinosaurs!
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Pablo
That would be sperm whale oil. Not just any old whale blubber! Mate.
Whoops. So there you have it. Sperm whale oil was the lubricant to end all lubricants when it came to ATF... Apparently and supposedly.
I wonder what real proof there is to substantiate that today? i.e. put it into a few late-model designs and see if it holds up better...
SPERMIL 1
The LUBINATOR!
That would surely fail the API valvetrain wear test!
I was under the impression that if used in the "bearing on a jig" test, that instead of creating a wear scar that it would propel the bearing into a state of ultra-high speed, encapsulating the equipment and the surrounding observers and test operators in a time-breach plasma, which would thrust them into a time rip and propel them back to the time of the dinosaurs!
Kestas
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Yes. One would probably find that the complex configuration is to trump the EPA economy cyle... and that the product is built to a price point for market acceptance to yield the most revenue.
The oddity is that it does little good to the consumer to spend $3000-4000 in repair to save $1000 of fuel over their ownership... or anyone's future ownership.
I doubt that it would stand up in the energy balance of another vehicles production.
This is something I've been posting for years, that you've put so eloquently. This argument can be applied to many other complicated and intertwined functions of the engine. Compare the bill to properly diagnose and repair driveability issues on the modern engine with the carburated cars of yesteryear. It's nothing to spend $300 to $700 to get an engine running properly for some relatively minor problem, whereas back then all we had to deal with were carburators and distributors. Today, $500 could buy you a new carburator, distributor, wires, and plugs... basically refresh all the engine controls.
Like you said, transmissions are the worst offender. Where is the savings for the average comsumer? Many times I think it would be cheaper to simplify cars and burn more gas. It would leave more money in the consumers' pockets.
Of course, the automakers meet their MPG goals and bragging rights... and the dealers enjoy their revenue come repair time.
Yes. One would probably find that the complex configuration is to trump the EPA economy cyle... and that the product is built to a price point for market acceptance to yield the most revenue.
The oddity is that it does little good to the consumer to spend $3000-4000 in repair to save $1000 of fuel over their ownership... or anyone's future ownership.
I doubt that it would stand up in the energy balance of another vehicles production.
This is something I've been posting for years, that you've put so eloquently. This argument can be applied to many other complicated and intertwined functions of the engine. Compare the bill to properly diagnose and repair driveability issues on the modern engine with the carburated cars of yesteryear. It's nothing to spend $300 to $700 to get an engine running properly for some relatively minor problem, whereas back then all we had to deal with were carburators and distributors. Today, $500 could buy you a new carburator, distributor, wires, and plugs... basically refresh all the engine controls.
Like you said, transmissions are the worst offender. Where is the savings for the average comsumer? Many times I think it would be cheaper to simplify cars and burn more gas. It would leave more money in the consumers' pockets.
Of course, the automakers meet their MPG goals and bragging rights... and the dealers enjoy their revenue come repair time.
Exactly. The argument that consumers are demanding ever more complex cars (More Gears! - GIVE ME MORE GEARS!) has always seemed wrong to me.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
I wish I had the mojo to integrate hp loss in an auto transmission. Otherwise ..and outside of some needed weight reductions, they could have just put high stall lock up converters on the very robust 3 speed transmissions of yesteryear. My 30rh (904) is a virtual CVT in economy mode. You leave a light @ 2000 rpm ..and the tach never moves until the lock up occurs. After lock up, and it returns to 2000 rpm ..you're somewhere around 50 mph. Adjust onset rpm to accommodate grade
Simple ..effective. Throw one more gear in there if you so desire
I'd say that more gears would allow you to compress your power band into a narrower range.
I'd say that more gears would allow you to compress your power band into a narrower range.
Originally Posted By: Nicolai
This story is so far out that I almost put it in the humor section. There may be some truth to parts of it but I doubt it.
Back in 1990 I was working for a Nissan dealership in Southern California. The uniform delivery guy (Tom) that brought us our cleaned uniforms and shop towels was constantly talking about his 1970 Toyota that had 300,000 miles that he had never once changed the oil on. None of use believed him but he swore that it lasted so long because he had put special oil in it.
Back in 1970 Tom was working on the oil rigs off the coast of California, he was a maintenance worker and maintained all the equipment on the oil rig. The oil company that he worked for had a small supply of oil that they kept locked up that he was instructed to use on all the rigs equipment. This oil supposedly comes from a certain pocket of oil when they first drill undersea, and there is only a very small quantity of it for the entire oil field. Toms story is that he added 1 quart of this oil to his new Toyota in 1970 and only topped it up over the years never wanting to drain the special oil that he put in.
Since he was very boastful about this oil the Toyota dealership next door decided to investigate it. When they put the car on the lift they noticed that the Oil filter was the original oil filter was the type they only used at the factory and had different marking then the oil filters that were used as replacements. The Toyota dealer contacted Toyota and they sent engineers from Japan. The Japanese engineers confirmed that this was the original oil filter only used at the factory when the car was new. Toyota wanted to examine the car back in Japan so they gave tom a brand new Toyota pickup in exchange for his 1970 car and took the car back to Japan to be analyzed.
The only parts of this story that I can confirm are that I knew Tom and heard his story of the special oil at least 10 times and I can confirm that Tom got a new Toyota truck.
I would speculate this is just a tall tale but part of me wants to believe that there is some very special oil in the ground that would work miracles.
Please do not flame me about this story, I did hear it first hand but I am posting it here to share a tall tale
Nicolai
This story is entirely believably. As someone else pointed out, the guy thought he was putting some miracle oil in his car. Maybe he DID put a quart of some form of synthetic oil in the engine, as these WERE around in 1970. BUT, more importantly, a Toyota of that era would have burned/used oil - probably a quart every 800-1200 miles, which was acceptable for the time. He was just refreshing the oil so often, that it was always in good shape. Plus, the car was operated in Cali, with less cold weather to deal with. Plus, if he was working on a remote drilling site, or doing deliveries (later on), all the car ever saw was optimum operating conditions. Sure, it could have gone 200k w/o an official oil change. Easy!
This story is so far out that I almost put it in the humor section. There may be some truth to parts of it but I doubt it.
Back in 1990 I was working for a Nissan dealership in Southern California. The uniform delivery guy (Tom) that brought us our cleaned uniforms and shop towels was constantly talking about his 1970 Toyota that had 300,000 miles that he had never once changed the oil on. None of use believed him but he swore that it lasted so long because he had put special oil in it.
Back in 1970 Tom was working on the oil rigs off the coast of California, he was a maintenance worker and maintained all the equipment on the oil rig. The oil company that he worked for had a small supply of oil that they kept locked up that he was instructed to use on all the rigs equipment. This oil supposedly comes from a certain pocket of oil when they first drill undersea, and there is only a very small quantity of it for the entire oil field. Toms story is that he added 1 quart of this oil to his new Toyota in 1970 and only topped it up over the years never wanting to drain the special oil that he put in.
Since he was very boastful about this oil the Toyota dealership next door decided to investigate it. When they put the car on the lift they noticed that the Oil filter was the original oil filter was the type they only used at the factory and had different marking then the oil filters that were used as replacements. The Toyota dealer contacted Toyota and they sent engineers from Japan. The Japanese engineers confirmed that this was the original oil filter only used at the factory when the car was new. Toyota wanted to examine the car back in Japan so they gave tom a brand new Toyota pickup in exchange for his 1970 car and took the car back to Japan to be analyzed.
The only parts of this story that I can confirm are that I knew Tom and heard his story of the special oil at least 10 times and I can confirm that Tom got a new Toyota truck.
I would speculate this is just a tall tale but part of me wants to believe that there is some very special oil in the ground that would work miracles.
Please do not flame me about this story, I did hear it first hand but I am posting it here to share a tall tale
Nicolai
This story is entirely believably. As someone else pointed out, the guy thought he was putting some miracle oil in his car. Maybe he DID put a quart of some form of synthetic oil in the engine, as these WERE around in 1970. BUT, more importantly, a Toyota of that era would have burned/used oil - probably a quart every 800-1200 miles, which was acceptable for the time. He was just refreshing the oil so often, that it was always in good shape. Plus, the car was operated in Cali, with less cold weather to deal with. Plus, if he was working on a remote drilling site, or doing deliveries (later on), all the car ever saw was optimum operating conditions. Sure, it could have gone 200k w/o an official oil change. Easy!
Kestas
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I wish I had the mojo to integrate hp loss in an auto transmission....
If it helps, for a manual transmission, the power loss is roughly 4% when it has to go through gearing, when compared with direct shaft drive.
I mention this everytime there is discussion on overdrive transmissions. In the old days (pre-mid-70s) final drive was direct drive in manual transmissions, which is more efficient. Plus, when I mention this people point out that overdrive is incorporated in modern 4-speeds for packaging purposes.
4% is nothing to sneeze at. Considering what the automakers do for fuel eceonomy gain, perhaps we should revisit the merit of using gearing versus direct drive for the final drive.
I wish I had the mojo to integrate hp loss in an auto transmission....
If it helps, for a manual transmission, the power loss is roughly 4% when it has to go through gearing, when compared with direct shaft drive.
I mention this everytime there is discussion on overdrive transmissions. In the old days (pre-mid-70s) final drive was direct drive in manual transmissions, which is more efficient. Plus, when I mention this people point out that overdrive is incorporated in modern 4-speeds for packaging purposes.
4% is nothing to sneeze at. Considering what the automakers do for fuel eceonomy gain, perhaps we should revisit the merit of using gearing versus direct drive for the final drive.
Quote:
Many times I think it would be cheaper to simplify cars and burn more gas.
Very hard to do when the Government is heavily leaning on you to make arbitrary MPG limits.
Many times I think it would be cheaper to simplify cars and burn more gas.
Very hard to do when the Government is heavily leaning on you to make arbitrary MPG limits.
Kestas
Staff member
Government exists (or should exist) for the benefit of the populace. When their made-up goals start working against the populace, i.e., making it more expensive to go from Point A to Point B, then something is awry.
Of course the reason for this is that lawmakers cater to the general thoughts of the public, which is focused on gas mileage, not the cost of going from Point A to Point B. So, we have to cater to the simplemindedness of the public, and not intelligent thought.
Of course the reason for this is that lawmakers cater to the general thoughts of the public, which is focused on gas mileage, not the cost of going from Point A to Point B. So, we have to cater to the simplemindedness of the public, and not intelligent thought.
Sad, but true.
- Status