irish44j wrote: I also like the big cable strap running from the frame of my Triumph GT6 to the engine block. It's not a grounding strap, its a big cable to presumably stop the engine from ending up in the driver's lap during a front-end collision
The MG midgets had them too. Presumably to keep the engine from flying down the road after a collision.
3 pages of this and no mention of the Taurus? Ford knew the springs would break, but rather than replace the springs, they just put a mesh bag around them as a recall, so that when they did inevitably break, they wouldn't puncture a tire.
Another good one, courtesy of Ford, was the Econoline pickups. They had a habit of standing on their nose under hard braking, so the later versions had 200lbs of lead weight mounted behind the rear axle to try and keep a more tail-down attitude under hard braking
In reply to mazdeuce:
Gm uses torque management on pretty much everything. When the c6 z06 came out people were making stupid gains just removing torque management and good tires.
Im pretty sure even the old c5 has it. I tried my first dig launch in the car and it acted like it was gonna hook and go and just nosed over. Not near as bad since the tune so im assuming the disabled it or reduced it
In reply to Opti:
I know they use it everywhere, and in some places it kind of makes sense as a primitive traction control. I 'heard' that they developed it because their engine power leapfrogged their transmissions and a software fix was cheap and easy. Who knows.
Torque management is common on a lot of cars. Usually with an auto, it'll cut some power on lanch and some on the shifts. It's meant to help the trans lifespan a bit and to prevent idiots from wheel-hopping an axle shaft to death off the line.
Keith Tanner wrote: That's the VW fix? Not a bandaid, that's a legitimate thing. You'll see those flow straighteners on a lot of cars. I suspect it was left out for a reason, maybe restriction.
Its the fix for the Euro cars, not US
GM 1-4 skip shift comes to mind. Goofy attempt for better gas mileage.
Appleseed wrote: GM 1-4 skip shift comes to mind. Goofy attempt for better gas mileage.
And it had the exact opposite effect - you ended up driving harder so the skip shift mechanism wouldn't come in to play, so you used more gas. Had one on my '98 Camaro, it was actually kind of eerie.
My Dodge 2500 has torque management to keep the clutch and trans together. There's a lot of forces at work. And interestingly, it looks like the new Miata has a lower rev limiter in higher gears. It just closes the throttle on you. Haven't figured out the reason on that one yet.
Keith Tanner wrote:Appleseed wrote: GM 1-4 skip shift comes to mind. Goofy attempt for better gas mileage.And it had the exact opposite effect - you ended up driving harder so the skip shift mechanism wouldn't come in to play, so you used more gas. Had one on my '98 Camaro, it was actually kind of eerie. My Dodge 2500 has torque management to keep the clutch and trans together. There's a lot of forces at work. And interestingly, it looks like the new Miata has a lower rev limiter in higher gears. It just closes the throttle on you. Haven't figured out the reason on that one yet.
Skip shift wasn't done for real world mpg. It was done to get the EPA estimates more in line with real world. The EPA test for manual trans cars at the time (not sure if it's changed since) specified that you must shift to specific gears at a given road speed (such as 2nd at 10mph, 3rd at 20mph, etc.), so depending on the gearing of the car, this could make the testing very far off from real-world conditions.
By forcing you to shift 1 - 4 under the conditions encountered during the test, they could prevent the screwy test rules from returning a much lower mpg figure than anyone would actually get out of the car just driving it normally.
For the Miata rev limiter, they probably want to limit sustained time at high rpm (which will happen more easily in higher gears).
irish44j wrote: E30 convertibles got a big weight in the trunk for one reason or another. I forget why.
NVH. The later E36 and 46 verts use a special battery to absorb the vibration that would lead to cowl shake with the top down. This is why you cannot put just any battery into those cars.. it will die a quick death as it is shaken but not stirred
I forget the whys of it, but the Firestone/Ford Explorer tire inflation pressure debacle was really bad.
mad_machine wrote:irish44j wrote: E30 convertibles got a big weight in the trunk for one reason or another. I forget why.NVH. The later E36 and 46 verts use a special battery to absorb the vibration that would lead to cowl shake with the top down. This is why you cannot put just any battery into those cars.. it will die a quick death as it is shaken but not stirred
It was not just convertibles. All 6 cylinder e30s had the big chunk of weight in the trunk. I always assumed it was to counteract the weight of the 6 cyl. All the 4 cyl I have seen did not have it.
Shaun wrote: I forget the whys of it, but the Firestone/Ford Explorer tire inflation pressure debacle was really bad.
The Explorer had some issues with rollovers beforehand, and the engineers recommend fixes for the suspension and track width. Instead, Ford got the idea to just tell the end user to run the tires 10psi underinflated.
If it was actually the problem has been widely debated.
rslifkin wrote:Keith Tanner wrote:Skip shift wasn't done for real world mpg. It was done to get the EPA estimates more in line with real world. The EPA test for manual trans cars at the time (not sure if it's changed since) specified that you must shift to specific gears at a given road speed (such as 2nd at 10mph, 3rd at 20mph, etc.), so depending on the gearing of the car, this could make the testing very far off from real-world conditions. By forcing you to shift 1 - 4 under the conditions encountered during the test, they could prevent the screwy test rules from returning a much lower mpg figure than anyone would actually get out of the car just driving it normally.Appleseed wrote: GM 1-4 skip shift comes to mind. Goofy attempt for better gas mileage.And it had the exact opposite effect - you ended up driving harder so the skip shift mechanism wouldn't come in to play, so you used more gas. Had one on my '98 Camaro, it was actually kind of eerie. My Dodge 2500 has torque management to keep the clutch and trans together. There's a lot of forces at work. And interestingly, it looks like the new Miata has a lower rev limiter in higher gears. It just closes the throttle on you. Haven't figured out the reason on that one yet.
Agreed. And just like VW, they passed the tests in the lab but the modifications had the opposite effect in the real world. 
Get the pitchforks and torches! Assemble the internet mobs!
IIRC not only debated but extensively litigated!!!! I also dimly recall it spurred development of a specification of tires for SUV's and other good changes regarding coordination between auto and tire manufacturers.
NickD wrote:Shaun wrote: I forget the whys of it, but the Firestone/Ford Explorer tire inflation pressure debacle was really bad.The Explorer had some issues with rollovers beforehand, and the engineers recommend fixes for the suspension and track width. Instead, Ford got the idea to just tell the end user to run the tires 10psi underinflated. If it was actually the problem has been widely debated.
The Lotus Esprit V8 was massively detuned so it wouldn't grenade the POS French gearbox. Down to 350 HP, from a relatively easy 500-ish. Oh, "magic" gear lube to hold the gear box together at even 300 HP.
Europas: The headlights were too low. 1. Apply for and receive an exemption. Exemption expires. Reapply. Repeat until Feds finally say "no." 2. Put a offset headlight mount on that fits into the headlight bucket, extends out and up an inch or so and then mounts the headlight. 3. Swap the front A arms around so that the front end sits up higher. 4. Longer springs in the front. And that was just headlights. You should see the shift linkage. Steering rack too short (came from a spitfire)? Add extenders between the rack and the inner tie rod. Extra holes in the body? Fiberglass tape. Like "There, I fixed it."
This was a band aid after the the cars left factory. After the Pinto fuel tank fires, Chevrolet recalled Vega/Monza to install molded plastic on lower leading edge and corners of fuel tanks and huge rounded oversize washers on lower shock bolts to prevent puncturing of tank in rear end collisions.
British Leyland recalled TR6 to rotate quick release fuel cap 90 degrees for similar reason.
Shaun wrote: IIRC not only debated but extensively litigated!!!! I also dimly recall it spurred development of a specification of tires for SUV's and other good changes regarding coordination between auto and tire manufacturers.NickD wrote:Shaun wrote: I forget the whys of it, but the Firestone/Ford Explorer tire inflation pressure debacle was really bad.The Explorer had some issues with rollovers beforehand, and the engineers recommend fixes for the suspension and track width. Instead, Ford got the idea to just tell the end user to run the tires 10psi underinflated. If it was actually the problem has been widely debated.
Not to mention resulting in legislation requiring TPMS.
The Shelby GLH-S had their ECU's tuned to reduce boost targets at lower vehicle speed to save the weak transaxles they were stuck with.
The same engine package in one of the larger cars had a much more wide power curve.
Oddly, this led to the GLH-S being a bit more exciting to drive since the boost came on so much stronger at higher speeds.
TR6s had a large (~4 inch) rubber plug in the middle of the floor pan to fill the jacking hole used for earlier TRs. I guess new tooling or welding would have been too expensive.
I guess this isn't a fix so much as an anachronism.
Keith Tanner wrote:Appleseed wrote: GM 1-4 skip shift comes to mind. Goofy attempt for better gas mileage.And it had the exact opposite effect - you ended up driving harder so the skip shift mechanism wouldn't come in to play, so you used more gas. Had one on my '98 Camaro, it was actually kind of eerie.
Bingo, I always do the 1-2 shift at 2500-3000 rpm minimum to avoid the skip shift nonsense, rather than short shifting at <2k like the lazy torque monster would prefer. Not a big deal once you adjust your driving habits to it, but still stupid. The one time it really, really bugs me though is in auto x when you have a course that's tight right out of the start gate and want to short shift to 2nd ASAP. Stupid thing cost me a position at one race last year
rslifkin wrote:Keith Tanner wrote:Skip shift wasn't done for real world mpg. It was done to get the EPA estimates more in line with real world. The EPA test for manual trans cars at the time (not sure if it's changed since) specified that you must shift to specific gears at a given road speed (such as 2nd at 10mph, 3rd at 20mph, etc.), so depending on the gearing of the car, this could make the testing very far off from real-world conditions. By forcing you to shift 1 - 4 under the conditions encountered during the test, they could prevent the screwy test rules from returning a much lower mpg figure than anyone would actually get out of the car just driving it normally. For the Miata rev limiter, they probably want to limit sustained time at high rpm (which will happen more easily in higher gears).Appleseed wrote: GM 1-4 skip shift comes to mind. Goofy attempt for better gas mileage.And it had the exact opposite effect - you ended up driving harder so the skip shift mechanism wouldn't come in to play, so you used more gas. Had one on my '98 Camaro, it was actually kind of eerie. My Dodge 2500 has torque management to keep the clutch and trans together. There's a lot of forces at work. And interestingly, it looks like the new Miata has a lower rev limiter in higher gears. It just closes the throttle on you. Haven't figured out the reason on that one yet.
Yes, and this is how GM used it to dodge the gas guzzler tax, which was really the whole point.
Bingo, I always do the 1-2 shift at 2500-3000 rpm minimum to avoid the skip shift nonsense, rather than short shifting at <2k like the lazy torque monster would prefer. Not a big deal once you adjust your driving habits to it, but still stupid. The one time it really, really bugs me though is in auto x when you have a course that's tight right out of the start gate and want to short shift to 2nd ASAP. Stupid thing cost me a position at one race last year
Have you considered eliminating the skip shift ? You can DIY the job for under 10 bucks or buy a commercially made one that plugs right in for under 30. It's just a little electrical hack to do away with it.
The only reason I could think of was keeping it stock for SCCA/NASA legalities.
The skip shift accidentally fell off the Camaro transmission when I installed it in my MG 
You'll need to log in to post.
