Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:21:05 -0700
Reply-To: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Subject: Re: Auto Trans Modified Governor Test Report [addendum]
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original
all good work there Jack.
re
I have a question for those of you who drive a 1.9L manual: at what rpm
do you normally upshift when pulling into traffic, or when climbing up a
hill? I bet it's higher than 2600 rpm.
'way' above 2,600.
Probably I'm shifting out of first at 4,200, and out of 2nd at 3,500 or so.
And out of 3rd at fairly zippy rpm too.
the 1.9 likes to rev nicely.
I've driven some 84 passenger manual trans vanagons that just rip through
the gears ..
like you're gonna be at 5K rpm easily in first and second if you just let it
go as well as it wants to go.
With an auto trans the affect is quite attenuated.
The auto trans , to me, by seat of the pants feel, eats up to 30 % of the
power that would normally be there.
they're nice to drive , the auto, especially in stop n' go traffic ..(
which I'm never in, or something is really wrong ! )
and they work all right ..
but you pay in other ways to drive one.
( I have a plan for a manual trans that only needs the clutch pedal used for
starting from a stop, after that all shifts are done disengaging the clutch
with a small micro switch on the shifter.
I have another plan ...to put in either a vw 3 speed 'autostick shift'
trans .
or better..........a 4 speed from a porsche 911....a 4 speed manual, but no
clutch pedal ...pre electronic era too. )
scott
www.turbovans.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rocket J Squirrel" <camping.elliott@GMAIL.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: Auto Trans Modified Governor Test Report [addendum]
> On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 11:21 -0700, Loren Busch wrote:
>
>> RE: Modified Governor In AT w/Stock VW Engines
>> So let me ask a very basic question. What makes us think that the
>> engineers at VW didn't know what they were doing? What makes us
>> think that the stock match between RPM and tranny gearing is wrong?
>> And in addition what makes us think the new shift points are better
>> than what the original designers came up with?
>
>
> I just got back from German Transaxle and asked Ken whether he felt that
> there would be any reliability issue moving the shift points up with the
> modified governor, and he said no.
>
> I asked whether the VW engineers may have picked the stock shift points
> for solid design reasons, and he said that there were probably many
> factors. For example, some people live in hilly terrain while others
> live on the flats. Women (he said women, this may or may not be sexist
> or may express preference) like lower shift points because they may feel
> that the sound of the engine revving high can cause concern. Mileage
> enters into the mix, as does straight up driver preference. He's had
> some people return the modified governor because they hated the change.
> Others, like me, love it. Engineering is not the only factor that drives
> design -- the pesky Marketing department gets their foot into it, too.
>
> Between the time that VW first introduced the 010 transmission (late
> '70s?) until they discontinued it, they constantly tinkered with the
> shift points, in the valve body mainly.
>
> The shift points are a matter of compromise between many different
> needs.
>
> I asked whether he sells the modified governor and how much for one. He
> said he used to sell them and charged $20, asking for a $50 core
> deposit. But many people didn't bother returning the core, and stock
> governors are getting hard to come by. I suggested a $500 core deposit.
> That, I said, would guarantee that everyone would return their old one.
>
> As mentioned when I posted this addendum earlier today, that there
> appears to be some weakness in the cooler that mounts to the front of
> the transaxle that should be attended to if someone wants to try this
> modification, see my addendum post of earlier today. There may be other
> unintended consequences, but damage to the transaxle does not seem
> likely.
>
>
>> BTW, I understand the need to change the shift point in the auto
>> tranny if going to a Zetec or Subie engine, whole different power
>> curves. I also know that the auto tranny in the Vanagons has a
>> stellar reputation for reliability and endurance when paired with the
>> stock engines. So why are we trying to re-engineer what has proven to
>> be a good setup?
>
>
> I asked that of Ken, too. He said that many things on a car (he used air
> intake as an example, I'm not sure what he was referring to, but some of
> you might know) where the general driver might ask, "what's wrong with
> the way the manufacturer set it up?" and the car enthusiast might want
> to modify for his or her personal driving habits. "Tuning," he called
> it.
>
> Musicians know about tuning. Why would someone modify the bridge or nut
> on a fretted instrument to raise or lower the strings? Didn't the
> manufacturer get it right?
>
> Near as I could tell from his words and demeanor, this change in the
> shift point is not trouble for the transaxle. He didn't think this was a
> big deal. The presence of a brown Vanagon in the GTA parking lot -- and
> not one stuck in one space but in different locations every time I go
> over, so it probably belongs to someone who works there -- suggests that
> he and the crew are not unfamiliar with our vans.
>
> I have a question for those of you who drive a 1.9L manual: at what rpm
> do you normally upshift when pulling into traffic, or when climbing up a
> hill? I bet it's higher than 2600 rpm.
>
> --
> Rocky J Squirrel
| 
