AMC-List Digest, Vol 11, Issue 45

[amc-list-request@xxxxxxx]

Send AMC-List mailing list submissions to
	amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	amc-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx

You can reach the person managing the list at
	amc-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of AMC-List digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: What's it from/for Metropolitin swap???!!!
      (Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM)
   2.  E-stick (Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM)
   3. Re: Overdrives revisited. (Sandwich Maker)
   4. Re: Overdrives revisited. (Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM)
   5. Re: What's it from/for Metropolitan swap???!!! (Sandwich Maker)
   6. FW: Gremlin Parts (not Mine) (Richard Estermyer)
   7. Re: E-stick (Tom Jennings)
   8. Re: Overdrives revisited. (RetroRalph)
   9. Re: E-stick (Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM)
  10. Re: E-stick (Widiker, John D)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 07:37:07 -0600
From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM"
	<Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] What's it from/for Metropolitin swap???!!!
To: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
	<4CC05BF0CC3F114281434B00B733E2A319C4B9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

I looked at the site. It's obvious you can't have ANY torque at ZERO
rpm!! Okay, I understand what you're saying -- that from idle the engine
can be loaded up and have almost immediate full torque. Technically it
should have given torque as "from idle" or listed idle rpm... which is
probably in the neighborhood of 5K+ (could be 10K+ for a turbine, but I
doubt that one was a high speed turbine). That would have been more
correct to me. But then they did list torque at OUTPUT SHAFT speed. You
have to look at the specs twice to catch exactly what they mean! When
used to looking at piston engine specs, it's misleading at first -- but
so is comparing apples to oranges!! I was referring to engine speed, not
output shaft speed. What Chrysler meant was with the engine running it
would have 425 lb/ft or torque available right from the start, and
wouldn't bog down and take time to produce pulling power like a piston
engine does. But the turbine has to be up to running speed first. They
don't take long to warm up once started, it should be ready to turn up
to redline from ignition in 5-10 seconds, but it must be up to speed.



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:44:16 -0600
From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM"
	<Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List]  E-stick
To: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
	<4CC05BF0CC3F114281434B00B733E2A319C597@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Actually, I see no reason it shouldn't be compatible with overdrive.
When you let off the gas to go into over drive it might declutch, but I
don't think that would be a problem. OD would still come in as long as
the car was moving fast enough. Kicking down OD should have no effect.

The main difference in the oil pump is that the gears are about 1/2"
longer than the standard pump (and of course the pump body). The only
other difference is the cover. It has passages to feed the clutch servo
and for vacuum control. The major parts needed are the oil pump, bell,
clutch assembly, clutch fork (arm), and servo. After that there are a
half dozen electric and/or vacuum switches so the servo knows whether
the car is in neutral or in gear. I suppose you'd want the "park in
gear" cable too. Since the clutch works in reverse (light springs keep
it DISengaged, the fork puts pressure ON the pressure plate) if you want
to park in gear or tow start something needs to engage the clutch. So a
special cable (well, actually an under dash park brake pull cable, just
marked "pull to engage" or something like that) was supplied. 

Tom, I'm going to have to write an E-stick article for AMC now!! Luckily
I figured out the exact sequence of operation a long time ago (don't ask
now -- I have it in my old book though!). Distilling it down into an
easy to follow path was a chore the first time -- I think I re-wrote
that one small section 3-4 times before I was satisfied with it, and
will likely re-write 2-3 times for an article again!! I've been writing
so much over the past few years that I have my rough draft thought out
in my head before I even put pen to paper (or rather finger to
keyboard). 

-------------------------
Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 12:55 AM
From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>

I have a 62 American TSM that I've never looked at, ever
(I bought it for super cheap in a used bookstore Just
Because). Thogut I'd take a look at the E-Stick setup.

What a complication! I'm sure it works OK if you drive it right
and everything is like-new, but man it's complicated! There's
all sorts of little interlocking servos and switches to get it
to behave; low hot-oil pressure, hard accell, decell, wear, you
name it there's a spring, cam switch, lever and diaphragm for it.

It's got it's own bell housing, oil pump, some clutch parts,
cables, parts, pieces and it's own steering column. It would be
harder to retrofit than air conditioning or auto to manual trans,
in the treasure hunt of insignificant and obscure hard parts.

I sure would love to have one for a while though. You don't
get much more 1950's than that.

Maybe Twin-Stick, aluminum engine, E-stick, hell, throw in a
Studey Hill Holder. Now there's a combo for a lot of weekend tune
ups. I doubt the E-stick is compatible with overdrive though.

There's an excellent out-of-the-car factory photo of the
E-stick equipped engine/trans assembly in the 62 American TSM
frontispiece.  (How often do you get to use THAT word.)



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:50:58 -0500 (EST)
From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Overdrives revisited.
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <200612201550.kBKFow111198@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

" From: "John Elle" <johnelle@xxxxxxxxx>
" 
" Frank and possibly Dave Stohler
" Dave had earlier purchased an overdrive transmission missing pieces.
" This lead to problems in trying to use it as finding parts is a bit hard
" to do. 
" I just ran across the following web site and some other information too;
"  
" http://www.advanceadapters.com/acrobat/saturn.pdf
"  
" Apparently advance purchased parts and tooling to reproduce the Warn
" over drive unit as the Saturn over drive unit. 
" I am not familiar enough with either one to know if there is any parts
" interchangeability but various web sites indicate Saturn parts can be
" used on earlier Warn units. 
" So the question is raised, any one know if parts can be purchased here
" to fit Dave's over drive unit? 
" If so, it is beginning to sound like a pretty good deal maybe

afaik the warn o/d has nothing to do with the warner r10 amc used.  i
don't believe any warn/saturn parts will help.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:06:24 -0600
From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM"
	<Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Overdrives revisited.
To: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
	<4CC05BF0CC3F114281434B00B733E2A319C5C1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

I took a look at the Advance site. The "Warn" overdrive is not the same
as the Borg-Warner overdrive. Operation is similar in that it uses a
planetary gearset inside a "drum" gear, but all ODs do (even the
Laycock-DeNormanville, which is the design that Gear Vendors bought --
they actually purchased AMC's left-over stock and converted those to
work as add-on units, then strengthened/improved the design for new
manufacture). 

Other than that there are no similarities. The B-W unit isn't
mechanically synchronized as far as I know (I've taken a couple apart --
and put back together in working order). It has an electric solenoid
that cuts ignition when engaging to prevent torque application until the
planetary is fully engaged (only takes a second or less -- one or two
firings missed). The Warn is mechanically shifted, so it needs a
synchronizer. The Warn page states a 25% engine speed reduction, all B-W
ODs were 30%. 

Unfortunately there are no parts from the Warn or GV units that will
interchange with the B-W. The good thing is that ALL B-W parts, at least
post WWI production, will interchange regardless of make. The only
differences are possibly the splines on the input gear and the
electrical controls. All the OD units have a solenoid and governor, but
each manufacturer wired them differently, some with more controls than
others. AMC even used 2-3 different wiring schemes, one without a power
relay. Studebaker used one of the most complicated (in some models) that
I've seen. Check out the B-W manual at
http://www.tocmp.com/manuals/trans/Borg-Warner%20Overdrive/index.htm.
They also have a collection of Nash and AMC manuals, and info on a lot
of various automotive makes and equipment, including a Carter YF manual
from 49 and 72, and a cnearly complete AMC 73 TSM (AC is missing, maybe
one or two other things, but mostly there). 



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:28:25 -0500 (EST)
From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] What's it from/for Metropolitan swap???!!!
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <200612201628.kBKGSPt11563@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

" From: Ken Ames <ameskg@xxxxxxxxx>
" 
" 
" Quoting farna@xxxxxxx:
" 
" > Tom, that would be APU (auxilliary power unit). They are used in aircraft
" > (including larger helicopters) to provide starting power and ground power in
" > remote locations or for short periods. I've seen a few. They produce hp at
" 
" > very high rpm as Andrew pointed out -- no useable torque, and a very narrow
"                                             --------------
" On the contrary, turbines are like steam engines, lots of torque and it starts
" at zero rpm.
"  http://www.motortrend.com/classic/features/c12_0603_1964_chrysler_turbine_car/specifications.html

this must be a free turbine design, with the output shaft driven
separately from the compressor.  it is obviously possible to design it
to give torque at zero output rpm, but like a torque converter - which
it is, in a way - at a penalty.  you have to trade efficiency for this
sort of flexibility.

" > power band. I think his electric idea has merit, but I think you'd still need
" > a battery to control the power between the gen and motor -- or a very large
" > variable resistance to dump excess power! On second thought, there should be
" > an electrical way to vary generator output without varying engine speed
" > much... 

i was thinking of a permanent-magnet alternator, brute-force
controlled by an scr output bridge - but if it has a wound field it
can be controlled the same way a car alternator is, via the field
current.  i didn't think slip rings at tens of thousands of rpm was a
good idea though.

" _______________________________________________

" From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM" <Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
" 
" I looked at the site. It's obvious you can't have ANY torque at ZERO
" rpm!! 

it -is- possible!  notice they mentioned an auto transmission -without-
torque converter -- the output turbine, on its own shaft, must have
this function.

the compressor shaft would still have to be spinning at its usual
speed.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought


------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 12:39:28 -0500
From: "Richard Estermyer" <javelinman74@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AMC-List] FW: Gremlin Parts (not Mine)
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <BAY106-F17472576EA6D715C5E2197DDCF0@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Hey gang,
Met a new friend, local here in MI and his son has some Gremlin parts to 
sell.  Below is the list and message.  Contact Rob for more infor.   
hew27t@xxxxxxxxxxx  Good Luck!

Merry Christmas
Richard

Richard Estermyer
PhotoGraphics
6235 S. Mohawk Avenue
Ypsilanti, MI 48197

734.483.5138
734.417.9456 cell
javelinman74@xxxxxxxxxxx





>From: "Rob Hewitt" <hew27t@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <javelinman74@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Gremlin Parts
>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:17:43 -0500
>
>     Richard, I just wanted to drop you a line and let you know my son has 
>the following parts for sale that came off his 74 Gremlin. If you know 
>anyone looking for any of this stuff send them our way. Here's what we have
>
>Front Brakes
>Doors
>Rear Suspension with brakes
>Rear Bumper with shocks
>Rear Taillights
>Radiator
>Assorted seat belts
>Keystone Classic wheels
>Wiper Motor
>Motor mounts
>Gas tank
>1974 to 1979 Motor Manuel
>That's all I remember off hand but someone can ask and if he has it, he 
>will sell it

_________________________________________________________________
Visit MSN Holiday Challenge for your chance to win up to $50,000 in Holiday 
cash from MSN today! 
http://www.msnholidaychallenge.com/index.aspx?ocid=tagline&locale=en-us



------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:19:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] E-stick
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612201007370.5995@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM wrote:

> 
> Actually, I see no reason it shouldn't be compatible with overdrive.
> When you let off the gas to go into over drive it might declutch, but I
> don't think that would be a problem. OD would still come in as long as
> the car was moving fast enough. Kicking down OD should have no effect.

There's servo gunk to make it engine-brake on decelleration,
where it would seem it would want to simply declutch. It's really
complicated! Did you drive one in perfect working order? I bet
there were few of those after a year or two -- it just looks
like a prone-to-problem system. Not badly designed, just a
lot of stuff that's unique, hard to test, and subtle. Probably
not a good combo for the corner garage in 1960-ish. Umm like
fuel injection.

> The main difference in the oil pump is that the gears are about 1/2"
> longer than the standard pump (and of course the pump body). 

Actually, after reading it over, the oil pump is the LEAST of
the changes, and the most understandable. (Though that pump
would make a nice performance pump.)  I shold scan that photo
and the E-stick pages, the theory-of-operation is similar to
the auto transmission, color flow diagrams and all.


> Tom, I'm going to have to write an E-stick article for AMC now!! Luckily

That would be cool. I've always had a sick curiousity about
all the failed "new ideas" in cars; e-stick, hill-holders,
that sort of thing.

> I figured out the exact sequence of operation a long time ago (don't ask
> now -- I have it in my old book though!). Distilling it down into an
> easy to follow path was a chore the first time -- I think I re-wrote
> that one small section 3-4 times before I was satisfied with it, and
> will likely re-write 2-3 times for an article again!! I've been writing
> so much over the past few years that I have my rough draft thought out
> in my head before I even put pen to paper (or rather finger to
> keyboard). 

It would probably be easier to describe it in some simplified
computer language! A tiny microprocessor would make E-Stick work
perfectly, for example decell, and avoid low-engine-oil-pressure
didn't slip the clutch, etc.


------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:58:05 -0800
From: "RetroRalph" <retroralph@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Overdrives revisited.
To: <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <001d01c72468$c8d2ded0$6400a8c0@ralphs1>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
	reply-type=original

Yeah, "Warn" isn't same as "Warner" but there is some historic relationship, 
apparently.

This from: http://www.hermtheoverdriveguy.com/id21.htm


Besides the popular Warn overdrive, there is another type you might find on 
an old Jeep.  The Borg-Warner overdrive is different than the Warn 
overdrive.  It was originally designed for two wheel drive applications.  An 
adapter kit was once available to mount one behind the Dana 18 transfer 
case.  The rear driveshaft had to be shortened.  Overdrive was only useable 
in 2WD.  The Borg-Warner unit was a forerunner of the Warn overdrive.  Once 
the Warn unit was introduced in the early 1960's, sales dropped off 
considerably because of the complex installation.  Borg-Warner Overdrive 
Manuals can be seen here.

More history on this at:  http://www.hermtheoverdriveguy.com/id20.htm

Might be interesting to some...
______________________________________________________________
Ralph Ausmann  -  Hillsboro, OR - > <ralph.ausmann@xxxxxxxxx>






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sandwich Maker" <adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] Overdrives revisited.


>" From: "John Elle" <johnelle@xxxxxxxxx>
> "
> " Frank and possibly Dave Stohler
> " Dave had earlier purchased an overdrive transmission missing pieces.
> " This lead to problems in trying to use it as finding parts is a bit hard
> " to do.
> " I just ran across the following web site and some other information too;
> "
> " http://www.advanceadapters.com/acrobat/saturn.pdf
> "
> " Apparently advance purchased parts and tooling to reproduce the Warn
> " over drive unit as the Saturn over drive unit.
> " I am not familiar enough with either one to know if there is any parts
> " interchangeability but various web sites indicate Saturn parts can be
> " used on earlier Warn units.
> " So the question is raised, any one know if parts can be purchased here
> " to fit Dave's over drive unit?
> " If so, it is beginning to sound like a pretty good deal maybe
>
> afaik the warn o/d has nothing to do with the warner r10 amc used.  i
> don't believe any warn/saturn parts will help.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
> internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
> adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought
> _______________________________________________
> AMC-List mailing list
> AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
>
> or go to http://www.amc-list.com
> 



------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:03:26 -0600
From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM"
	<Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] E-stick
To: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
	<4CC05BF0CC3F114281434B00B733E2A319C6B2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

I agree, something like a BASIC Stamp could handle all the logic much
easier than the "analog computer" design of the original system. 

The one I had was in good working order -- those old switches and such
were well built, not like the Mexican/Chinese junk we sometimes get
today! The big problem was low oil pressure on a 90K mile engine. The
fellow I bought it from already had all the parts to convert over, just
hadn't done it (I may have said before that he started converting, but
he'd just collected the parts). I didn't drive it much before
converting. There was an incline at a stop sign right at the house I was
in. The engine had to rev way up and the clutch would get to nearly
smoking the couple times I did drive that way. I don't recall driving it
more than 3-4 short trips before converting. But everything worked as it
should have. If one switch was out it would likely be apparent which,
I'm not sure. 

It looks and sounds more complicated than it is. Poor vacuum and oil
pressure would kill it before a bad switch. At least from what I
remember (will have to look over a TSM again!) a bad switch should be
obvious -- like grinding going into a gear or something. For
deceleration the servo compared engine vacuum with oil pressure. The
amazing thing is the engineers managed to make it all work without a
speed or motion sensor, they extrapolated that MECHANICALLY with vacuum,
oil pressure, and shift lever position information only!! Smart guys... 

--------------
Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 01:19 PM
From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM wrote:

>
> Actually, I see no reason it shouldn't be compatible with overdrive.
> When you let off the gas to go into over drive it might declutch, but
I
> don't think that would be a problem. OD would still come in as long as
> the car was moving fast enough. Kicking down OD should have no effect.

There's servo gunk to make it engine-brake on decelleration,
where it would seem it would want to simply declutch. It's really
complicated! Did you drive one in perfect working order? I bet
there were few of those after a year or two -- it just looks
like a prone-to-problem system. Not badly designed, just a
lot of stuff that's unique, hard to test, and subtle. Probably
not a good combo for the corner garage in 1960-ish. Umm like
fuel injection.

> The main difference in the oil pump is that the gears are about 1/2"
> longer than the standard pump (and of course the pump body).

Actually, after reading it over, the oil pump is the LEAST of
the changes, and the most understandable. (Though that pump
would make a nice performance pump.)  I shold scan that photo
and the E-stick pages, the theory-of-operation is similar to
the auto transmission, color flow diagrams and all.

> Tom, I'm going to have to write an E-stick article for AMC now!!
Luckily

That would be cool. I've always had a sick curiousity about
all the failed "new ideas" in cars; e-stick, hill-holders,
that sort of thing.

> I figured out the exact sequence of operation a long time ago (don't
ask
> now -- I have it in my old book though!). Distilling it down into an
> easy to follow path was a chore the first time -- I think I re-wrote
> that one small section 3-4 times before I was satisfied with it, and
> will likely re-write 2-3 times for an article again!! I've been
writing
> so much over the past few years that I have my rough draft thought out
> in my head before I even put pen to paper (or rather finger to
> keyboard).

It would probably be easier to describe it in some simplified
computer language! A tiny microprocessor would make E-Stick work
perfectly, for example decell, and avoid low-engine-oil-pressure
didn't slip the clutch, etc.



------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:16:30 -0500
From: "Widiker, John D" <john.widiker@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] E-stick
To: <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
	<053E34168692C4438533FE33E79C1A184390E7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"

 I've been following this thread with growing fascination, what cars and
years was this system available in out of curiosity?

~John

-----Original Message-----
From: amc-list-bounces@xxxxxxx [mailto:amc-list-bounces@xxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 2:03 PM
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [AMC-List] E-stick

I agree, something like a BASIC Stamp could handle all the logic much
easier than the "analog computer" design of the original system. 

The one I had was in good working order -- those old switches and such
were well built, not like the Mexican/Chinese junk we sometimes get
today! The big problem was low oil pressure on a 90K mile engine. The
fellow I bought it from already had all the parts to convert over, just
hadn't done it (I may have said before that he started converting, but
he'd just collected the parts). I didn't drive it much before
converting. There was an incline at a stop sign right at the house I was
in. The engine had to rev way up and the clutch would get to nearly
smoking the couple times I did drive that way. I don't recall driving it
more than 3-4 short trips before converting. But everything worked as it
should have. If one switch was out it would likely be apparent which,
I'm not sure. 

It looks and sounds more complicated than it is. Poor vacuum and oil
pressure would kill it before a bad switch. At least from what I
remember (will have to look over a TSM again!) a bad switch should be
obvious -- like grinding going into a gear or something. For
deceleration the servo compared engine vacuum with oil pressure. The
amazing thing is the engineers managed to make it all work without a
speed or motion sensor, they extrapolated that MECHANICALLY with vacuum,
oil pressure, and shift lever position information only!! Smart guys... 

--------------
Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 01:19 PM
From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM wrote:

>
> Actually, I see no reason it shouldn't be compatible with overdrive.
> When you let off the gas to go into over drive it might declutch, but
I
> don't think that would be a problem. OD would still come in as long as

> the car was moving fast enough. Kicking down OD should have no effect.

There's servo gunk to make it engine-brake on decelleration, where it
would seem it would want to simply declutch. It's really complicated!
Did you drive one in perfect working order? I bet there were few of
those after a year or two -- it just looks like a prone-to-problem
system. Not badly designed, just a lot of stuff that's unique, hard to
test, and subtle. Probably not a good combo for the corner garage in
1960-ish. Umm like fuel injection.

> The main difference in the oil pump is that the gears are about 1/2"
> longer than the standard pump (and of course the pump body).

Actually, after reading it over, the oil pump is the LEAST of the
changes, and the most understandable. (Though that pump would make a
nice performance pump.)  I shold scan that photo and the E-stick pages,
the theory-of-operation is similar to the auto transmission, color flow
diagrams and all.

> Tom, I'm going to have to write an E-stick article for AMC now!!
Luckily

That would be cool. I've always had a sick curiousity about all the
failed "new ideas" in cars; e-stick, hill-holders, that sort of thing.

> I figured out the exact sequence of operation a long time ago (don't
ask
> now -- I have it in my old book though!). Distilling it down into an 
> easy to follow path was a chore the first time -- I think I re-wrote 
> that one small section 3-4 times before I was satisfied with it, and 
> will likely re-write 2-3 times for an article again!! I've been
writing
> so much over the past few years that I have my rough draft thought out

> in my head before I even put pen to paper (or rather finger to 
> keyboard).

It would probably be easier to describe it in some simplified computer
language! A tiny microprocessor would make E-Stick work perfectly, for
example decell, and avoid low-engine-oil-pressure didn't slip the
clutch, etc.

_______________________________________________
AMC-List mailing list
AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

or go to http://www.amc-list.com



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
AMC-List mailing list
AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list


End of AMC-List Digest, Vol 11, Issue 45
****************************************