proper grounding technique in automotive

[EdV]

I have visited other car forums and there seem to be a simple
modification one can do inorder to improve electronic efficiency
(faster response on drive-by wire, brighter headlamps, better radio
reception, less static shock, ) by adding grounding kits. The addt'l
grounding wires; battery (-) to body, body to engine, engine to
battery(-); improves flow of current by adding more ground connection.
The existing ground connections to the body are being terminated on
the "painted surface" of the body. Shouldn't all ground termination be
on a solid conductive metal surface? How does Automotive electronics
designers compensate for the insulation of the paint for ground?

[Eeyore]

Post by EdV
I have visited other car forums and there seem to be a simple
modification one can do inorder to improve electronic efficiency
(faster response on drive-by wire, brighter headlamps, better radio
reception, less static shock, ) by adding grounding kits. The addt'l
grounding wires; battery (-) to body, body to engine, engine to
battery(-); improves flow of current by adding more ground connection.
The existing ground connections to the body are being terminated on
the "painted surface" of the body. Shouldn't all ground termination be
on a solid conductive metal surface? How does Automotive electronics
designers compensate for the insulation of the paint for ground?

I don't know where you got this info but I can assure you that most of it is of
very low quality.

Graham

[Joel Kolstad]

Post by EdV
I have visited other car forums and there seem to be a simple
modification one can do inorder to improve electronic efficiency
(faster response on drive-by wire, brighter headlamps, better radio
reception, less static shock, )

I wouldn't buy "faster response to drive-by-wire," amd things like "brighter
headlights" are only going to be a very small improvement (assuming there
are no *faults* in the system), but radio reception might improve due to a
reduction of RFI.

Post by EdV
How does Automotive electronics
designers compensate for the insulation of the paint for ground?

They use star washers that "bite" through the paint when they're properly
torqued down. You also might find that, if you remove the nuts or bolts,
there's an area that was masked so that you are getting a solid ground, you
just can't see it.

----Joel

[EdV]

Apparently not all cars have this star washers, I have already
identified mazda and toyota doesn't use this star washers. I
disassmbled them just today. I imagine there should be serrations on
the washers and contacting plane as commonlu used on many consumer
electronic products, plus the surfaces of consumer products are not
painted.

==========================================================
They use star washers that "bite" through the paint when they're
properly

Post by Joel Kolstad
torqued down. You also might find that, if you remove the nuts or bolts,
there's an area that was masked so that you are getting a solid ground, you
just can't see it.
----Joel

[John Larkin]

Post by EdV
I have visited other car forums and there seem to be a simple
modification one can do inorder to improve electronic efficiency
(faster response on drive-by wire, brighter headlamps, better radio
reception, less static shock, ) by adding grounding kits. The addt'l
grounding wires; battery (-) to body, body to engine, engine to
battery(-); improves flow of current by adding more ground connection.
The existing ground connections to the body are being terminated on
the "painted surface" of the body. Shouldn't all ground termination be
on a solid conductive metal surface? How does Automotive electronics
designers compensate for the insulation of the paint for ground?

You are assuming that the engineers who design cars are stupid. I
don't think that's so. The "less static shock" thing is beyond silly.

Which cars are drive-by-wire?

John

[martin griffith]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:53:26 -0800, in sci.electronics.design John

Post by John Larkin

Post by EdV
I have visited other car forums and there seem to be a simple
modification one can do inorder to improve electronic efficiency
(faster response on drive-by wire, brighter headlamps, better radio
reception, less static shock, ) by adding grounding kits. The addt'l
grounding wires; battery (-) to body, body to engine, engine to
battery(-); improves flow of current by adding more ground connection.
The existing ground connections to the body are being terminated on
the "painted surface" of the body. Shouldn't all ground termination be
on a solid conductive metal surface? How does Automotive electronics
designers compensate for the insulation of the paint for ground?

You are assuming that the engineers who design cars are stupid. I
don't think that's so. The "less static shock" thing is beyond silly.
Which cars are drive-by-wire?
John

A380?


martin

[Eeyore]

Post by martin griffith

Post by John Larkin

Post by EdV
I have visited other car forums and there seem to be a simple
modification one can do inorder to improve electronic efficiency
(faster response on drive-by wire, brighter headlamps, better radio
reception, less static shock, ) by adding grounding kits. The addt'l
grounding wires; battery (-) to body, body to engine, engine to
battery(-); improves flow of current by adding more ground connection.
The existing ground connections to the body are being terminated on
the "painted surface" of the body. Shouldn't all ground termination be
on a solid conductive metal surface? How does Automotive electronics
designers compensate for the insulation of the paint for ground?

You are assuming that the engineers who design cars are stupid. I
don't think that's so. The "less static shock" thing is beyond silly.
Which cars are drive-by-wire?
John

A380?
martin

'Bus drivers ( as they're known ) refer to the cockpit these days as the office.

Graham

[RST Engineering (jw)]

They've been calling it that since at least the mid 1960s.

Jim

Post by Eeyore
'Bus drivers ( as they're known ) refer to the cockpit these days as the office.
Graham

[Eeyore]

Post by RST Engineering (jw)
They've been calling it that since at least the mid 1960s.

News to me. I thought it was relatively recently.

Graham

Post by RST Engineering (jw)
Jim

Post by Eeyore
'Bus drivers ( as they're known ) refer to the cockpit these days as the office.
Graham

[RST Engineering (jw)]

We used it at Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) when I was with them from '64
through '68. Hell of a college job, even got to teach a little stew school
while I was there. My thenwife wasn't pleased.

Jim

Post by Eeyore

Post by RST Engineering (jw)
They've been calling it that since at least the mid 1960s.

News to me. I thought it was relatively recently.
Graham

Post by RST Engineering (jw)
Jim

Post by Eeyore
'Bus drivers ( as they're known ) refer to the cockpit these days as
the
office.
Graham

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:17:26 -0800, "RST Engineering \(jw\)"

Post by RST Engineering (jw)
We used it at Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) when I was with them from '64
through '68. Hell of a college job, even got to teach a little stew school
while I was there. My thenwife wasn't pleased.
Jim

PSA was great. There was a SFO-LAX flight each way, every hour, on the
hour. No reservation, no security, no ticket. You'd just get on board
and give the stu 20 bucks, cash.

There's a story that a couple of the 727 crew were bored one night and
did a few zero-gee rolls, until a stu looked out the window and saw
the horizon upside-down.

John

[RST Engineering (jw)]

Post by John Larkin
PSA was great. There was a SFO-LAX flight each way, every hour, on the
hour. No reservation, no security, no ticket. You'd just get on board
and give the stu 20 bucks, cash.

PSA was a legend in its own time. I named my first product the "521" after
my employee number. I happened to be sitting next to the VP of Operations
for Southwest Airlines a couple of years ago and we got to chatting about
the biz. He told me that the folks that were starting Southwest actually
went to San Diego PSA Headquarters after PSA had just been bought by US Air
and (literally) trucked away every shred of ops and policy manuals that PSA
management was able to give them.

One of my childhood best friend's sister became a stew for PSA. She had the
most beautiful Irish alto lilt and played the guitar superbly. Every Friday
afternoon she'd bring her guitar along and the whole damned airplane became
an Irish choir. It was something to behold.

Post by John Larkin
There's a story that a couple of the 727 crew were bored one night and
did a few zero-gee rolls, until a stu looked out the window and saw
the horizon upside-down.

I think that would be a one-G roll, otherwise we'd have had passengers
floating off the overheads.

We did have a few cowboys at the controls. One of the best had a habit of
putting a rubber chicken under the windshield wiper as he was taxiing in to
the gate. One day the president of the airline saw it and told him, "no
more rubber chickens." The next day he taxiied in to the gate with a "for
sale" sign under the wiper.

I've got several thousand hours wrenching on that three-holed tin whore --
you undoubtably put your life in my hands a few times {;-) One damned fine
airplane once we understood that sink rate was phenomenal on a T-tail.

I lost quite a few friends on flight 182. Normally in an accident we can go
in to the sim and see if any possible combination of control inputs could
have saved the aircraft. In 99% of the cases we find that some very unusual
combinations of thrust and control surface settings that would have let the
crew bring the bird home. 182 was doomed from the moment it struck the
other aircraft -- so far as I am aware, nobody has ever been able to fly a
three-holer out of the configuration that 182 was in after the strike.

Jim

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:49:42 +0100, martin griffith

Post by martin griffith
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:53:26 -0800, in sci.electronics.design John

Post by John Larkin

Post by EdV
I have visited other car forums and there seem to be a simple
modification one can do inorder to improve electronic efficiency
(faster response on drive-by wire, brighter headlamps, better radio
reception, less static shock, ) by adding grounding kits. The addt'l
grounding wires; battery (-) to body, body to engine, engine to
battery(-); improves flow of current by adding more ground connection.
The existing ground connections to the body are being terminated on
the "painted surface" of the body. Shouldn't all ground termination be
on a solid conductive metal surface? How does Automotive electronics
designers compensate for the insulation of the paint for ground?

You are assuming that the engineers who design cars are stupid. I
don't think that's so. The "less static shock" thing is beyond silly.
Which cars are drive-by-wire?
John

A380?

Fly-by-miswire.

John

[Eeyore]

Post by John Larkin
Fly-by-miswire.

A technician did once rewire a sidestick incorrectly in a Lufthansa A320.

When the captain commanded a turn to the left it banked right. The first officer
caught it and they returned to the airport.

Graham

[Dan Mills]

Post by Eeyore
A technician did once rewire a sidestick incorrectly in a Lufthansa
A320. When the captain commanded a turn to the left it banked right. The
first officer caught it and they returned to the airport.

I recall an incident a few years back where the engine fire warning lights
were crosswired on a two engine plane.

One engine caught fire, and the captain pulled the shutdown for the engine
with the warning light..... (It may have been the emergency cutoff handles
cross wired, I cannot remember for certain).

Anyone recall the details.

Regards, Dan.

[jasen]

Post by Eeyore

Post by John Larkin
Fly-by-miswire.

A technician did once rewire a sidestick incorrectly in a Lufthansa A320.
When the captain commanded a turn to the left it banked right. The first officer
caught it and they returned to the airport.

I recall a story about a test car that had the steering backwards (as a
prank on the driver) the test driver drove it all day on the test circuit
without incident and then when leaving the facility in his own car drove
into the gatepost.

Bye.
Jasen

[Jim Thompson]

Post by jasen

Post by Eeyore

Post by John Larkin
Fly-by-miswire.

A technician did once rewire a sidestick incorrectly in a Lufthansa A320.
When the captain commanded a turn to the left it banked right. The first officer
caught it and they returned to the airport.

I recall a story about a test car that had the steering backwards (as a
prank on the driver) the test driver drove it all day on the test circuit
without incident and then when leaving the facility in his own car drove
into the gatepost.
Bye.
Jasen

That's similar to an MIT experiment where test subjects wore glasses
that inverted everything (top-to-bottom).

After about a week the test subjects were "seeing" normally. Removing
the glasses, everything was upside down ;-)

...Jim Thompson

[Joerg]

Post by John Larkin

Post by EdV
I have visited other car forums and there seem to be a simple
modification one can do inorder to improve electronic efficiency
(faster response on drive-by wire, brighter headlamps, better radio
reception, less static shock, ) by adding grounding kits. The addt'l
grounding wires; battery (-) to body, body to engine, engine to
battery(-); improves flow of current by adding more ground connection.
The existing ground connections to the body are being terminated on
the "painted surface" of the body. Shouldn't all ground termination be
on a solid conductive metal surface? How does Automotive electronics
designers compensate for the insulation of the paint for ground?

You are assuming that the engineers who design cars are stupid. I
don't think that's so. ...

Not stupid but they don't always seem to come up with the smartest
solution. Had a European version of the Plymouth Horizon when I was
young. The alternator mount broke numerous times, usually in the dead of
night out in the boonies. Replaced the whole darn thing with steel
members and bingo, problem solved. Then after the umpteenth water pump
took a dump, usually also way out in the boonies, I retrofitted one in
that had ball bearings. Never took a dump again. And the retail cost of
that pump was almost exactly the same as the one from Chrysler. The
licensed tech there, BTW, told me that "you can't do that". Oh really...

[Eeyore]

Post by Joerg

Post by John Larkin

Post by EdV
I have visited other car forums and there seem to be a simple
modification one can do inorder to improve electronic efficiency
(faster response on drive-by wire, brighter headlamps, better radio
reception, less static shock, ) by adding grounding kits. The addt'l
grounding wires; battery (-) to body, body to engine, engine to
battery(-); improves flow of current by adding more ground connection.
The existing ground connections to the body are being terminated on
the "painted surface" of the body. Shouldn't all ground termination be
on a solid conductive metal surface? How does Automotive electronics
designers compensate for the insulation of the paint for ground?

You are assuming that the engineers who design cars are stupid. I
don't think that's so. ...

Not stupid but they don't always seem to come up with the smartest
solution. Had a European version of the Plymouth Horizon when I was
young. The alternator mount broke numerous times, usually in the dead of
night out in the boonies. Replaced the whole darn thing with steel
members and bingo, problem solved. Then after the umpteenth water pump
took a dump, usually also way out in the boonies, I retrofitted one in
that had ball bearings. Never took a dump again. And the retail cost of
that pump was almost exactly the same as the one from Chrysler. The
licensed tech there, BTW, told me that "you can't do that". Oh really...

Chrysler made some truly dreadful cars in Europe.

Graham

[Joerg]

Post by Eeyore

Post by Joerg

Post by John Larkin

Post by EdV
I have visited other car forums and there seem to be a simple
modification one can do inorder to improve electronic efficiency
(faster response on drive-by wire, brighter headlamps, better radio
reception, less static shock, ) by adding grounding kits. The addt'l
grounding wires; battery (-) to body, body to engine, engine to
battery(-); improves flow of current by adding more ground connection.
The existing ground connections to the body are being terminated on
the "painted surface" of the body. Shouldn't all ground termination be
on a solid conductive metal surface? How does Automotive electronics
designers compensate for the insulation of the paint for ground?

You are assuming that the engineers who design cars are stupid. I
don't think that's so. ...

Not stupid but they don't always seem to come up with the smartest
solution. Had a European version of the Plymouth Horizon when I was
young. The alternator mount broke numerous times, usually in the dead of
night out in the boonies. Replaced the whole darn thing with steel
members and bingo, problem solved. Then after the umpteenth water pump
took a dump, usually also way out in the boonies, I retrofitted one in
that had ball bearings. Never took a dump again. And the retail cost of
that pump was almost exactly the same as the one from Chrysler. The
licensed tech there, BTW, told me that "you can't do that". Oh really...

Chrysler made some truly dreadful cars in Europe.

My father once had a Chrysler 180. Old style design, nothing
eye-poppingly modern but it served us well. He got a good deal because
nobody seemed to like it's looks. Even the dealer said "You want THIS
car?" but added "Well, the engine will pull any trailer you want". Of
course, they had a design booboo in that one as well. They placed the
battery above one if the I-beams (this car had a real frame), sans drip
pan. And that brought it to grief via rusting out that part of the
frame. Duh!

[Eeyore]

Post by Joerg

Post by Eeyore

Post by Joerg

Post by John Larkin

Post by EdV
I have visited other car forums and there seem to be a simple
modification one can do inorder to improve electronic efficiency
(faster response on drive-by wire, brighter headlamps, better radio
reception, less static shock, ) by adding grounding kits. The addt'l
grounding wires; battery (-) to body, body to engine, engine to
battery(-); improves flow of current by adding more ground connection.
The existing ground connections to the body are being terminated on
the "painted surface" of the body. Shouldn't all ground termination be
on a solid conductive metal surface? How does Automotive electronics
designers compensate for the insulation of the paint for ground?

You are assuming that the engineers who design cars are stupid. I
don't think that's so. ...

Not stupid but they don't always seem to come up with the smartest
solution. Had a European version of the Plymouth Horizon when I was
young. The alternator mount broke numerous times, usually in the dead of
night out in the boonies. Replaced the whole darn thing with steel
members and bingo, problem solved. Then after the umpteenth water pump
took a dump, usually also way out in the boonies, I retrofitted one in
that had ball bearings. Never took a dump again. And the retail cost of
that pump was almost exactly the same as the one from Chrysler. The
licensed tech there, BTW, told me that "you can't do that". Oh really...

Chrysler made some truly dreadful cars in Europe.

My father once had a Chrysler 180. Old style design, nothing
eye-poppingly modern but it served us well. He got a good deal because
nobody seemed to like it's looks. Even the dealer said "You want THIS
car?" but added "Well, the engine will pull any trailer you want". Of
course, they had a design booboo in that one as well. They placed the
battery above one if the I-beams (this car had a real frame), sans drip
pan. And that brought it to grief via rusting out that part of the
frame. Duh!

I recall the 180. Not a pretty car !

A friend of mine traded his Triumph 2000 for one in a deal that the trader must
have delighted at.

It was later discovered he was developing a brain tumour ( fortunately treated
).

Graham

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:17:35 +0000, Eeyore

Post by Eeyore

Post by Joerg

Post by John Larkin

Post by EdV
I have visited other car forums and there seem to be a simple
modification one can do inorder to improve electronic efficiency
(faster response on drive-by wire, brighter headlamps, better radio
reception, less static shock, ) by adding grounding kits. The addt'l
grounding wires; battery (-) to body, body to engine, engine to
battery(-); improves flow of current by adding more ground connection.
The existing ground connections to the body are being terminated on
the "painted surface" of the body. Shouldn't all ground termination be
on a solid conductive metal surface? How does Automotive electronics
designers compensate for the insulation of the paint for ground?

You are assuming that the engineers who design cars are stupid. I
don't think that's so. ...

Not stupid but they don't always seem to come up with the smartest
solution. Had a European version of the Plymouth Horizon when I was
young. The alternator mount broke numerous times, usually in the dead of
night out in the boonies. Replaced the whole darn thing with steel
members and bingo, problem solved. Then after the umpteenth water pump
took a dump, usually also way out in the boonies, I retrofitted one in
that had ball bearings. Never took a dump again. And the retail cost of
that pump was almost exactly the same as the one from Chrysler. The
licensed tech there, BTW, told me that "you can't do that". Oh really...

Chrysler made some truly dreadful cars in Europe.
Graham

They didn't discriminate; they made some ghastly stuff here, too.

My starter wife had a 440 cubic-inch hemi-head V8 New Yorker, the one
with the push-button transmission. You had to remove the alternator to
change a couple of the spark plugs, so I never changed them.

The Plymouths were sheer crap. My MGs were crap too, but at least they
were fun.

John

[Eeyore]

Post by John Larkin
My starter wife had a 440 cubic-inch hemi-head V8 New Yorker

7.2 litres for personal transport !

Graham

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:58:55 +0000, Eeyore

Post by Eeyore

Post by John Larkin
My starter wife had a 440 cubic-inch hemi-head V8 New Yorker

7.2 litres for personal transport !
Graham

Oops, my memory lapsed. It was the air conditioning compressor you had
to remove to get at the spark plugs.

John

[Jeff L]

Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:58:55 +0000, Eeyore

Post by Eeyore

Post by John Larkin
My starter wife had a 440 cubic-inch hemi-head V8 New Yorker

7.2 litres for personal transport !
Graham

Oops, my memory lapsed. It was the air conditioning compressor you had
to remove to get at the spark plugs.

That could be a much bigger bitch then the alternator

Post by John Larkin
John

[martin griffith]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:58:55 +0000, in sci.electronics.design Eeyore

Post by Eeyore

Post by John Larkin
My starter wife had a 440 cubic-inch hemi-head V8 New Yorker

7.2 litres for personal transport !
Graham

so what is your volume? Doesn't sound like a whole lot of space to me


martin

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:58:55 +0000, Eeyore

Post by Eeyore

Post by John Larkin
My starter wife had a 440 cubic-inch hemi-head V8 New Yorker

7.2 litres for personal transport !
Graham

Plus, she had a Kawasaki Samurai, the (literally) killer 3-cylinder,
2-cycle motorcycle that would go 0-60 in 4 seconds, at the top of
second gear. Whoop, whooooop, 60. She lost her spleen on that one.

John

[Genome]

Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:58:55 +0000, Eeyore

Post by Eeyore

Post by John Larkin
My starter wife had a 440 cubic-inch hemi-head V8 New Yorker

7.2 litres for personal transport !
Graham

Plus, she had a Kawasaki Samurai, the (literally) killer 3-cylinder,
2-cycle motorcycle that would go 0-60 in 4 seconds, at the top of
second gear. Whoop, whooooop, 60. She lost her spleen on that one.
John

"She lost her spleen on that one."

Fucking car drivers.

Three pot Wakas and Suzis were dogs. Only stupid ride shite like that.

Can't go wrong with a 250cc Two pot Yam and a tin of WD40.

Ring a Ding Ding Ding.

Get her an Aprillia and two lids and let her ride you to work.

Watch out for the wheelies. This modern stuff makes pillion hard work but
you need a fat bloke on the back to pull it off.

If 'you' get it right she won't miss you!

DNA

[John Larkin]

Post by Genome

Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:58:55 +0000, Eeyore

Post by Eeyore

Post by John Larkin
My starter wife had a 440 cubic-inch hemi-head V8 New Yorker

7.2 litres for personal transport !
Graham

Plus, she had a Kawasaki Samurai, the (literally) killer 3-cylinder,
2-cycle motorcycle that would go 0-60 in 4 seconds, at the top of
second gear. Whoop, whooooop, 60. She lost her spleen on that one.
John

"She lost her spleen on that one."
Fucking car drivers.

Pickup truck.

Post by Genome
Three pot Wakas and Suzis were dogs. Only stupid ride shite like that.

As a matter of fact, we were young and stupid. The Kaw was way too
light for the horsepower, it liked to seize up at speed, and the
suspension got dynamically unstable at about 80 MPH and tended to toss
people off into the weeds. But I have lingering fond memories of
riding on the back, hanging onto, umm, various body parts for support.

I did have a Yamaha 250 single-jug dirt bike that was pretty much
indestructable. I bet I crashed it 500 times in the dirt. Ever play
"tag" on motorcycles?

John

[Genome]

Post by John Larkin

Post by Genome

Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:58:55 +0000, Eeyore

Post by Eeyore

Post by John Larkin
My starter wife had a 440 cubic-inch hemi-head V8 New Yorker

7.2 litres for personal transport !
Graham

Plus, she had a Kawasaki Samurai, the (literally) killer 3-cylinder,
2-cycle motorcycle that would go 0-60 in 4 seconds, at the top of
second gear. Whoop, whooooop, 60. She lost her spleen on that one.
John

"She lost her spleen on that one."
Fucking car drivers.

Pickup truck.

Post by Genome
Three pot Wakas and Suzis were dogs. Only stupid ride shite like that.

As a matter of fact, we were young and stupid. The Kaw was way too
light for the horsepower, it liked to seize up at speed, and the
suspension got dynamically unstable at about 80 MPH and tended to toss
people off into the weeds. But I have lingering fond memories of
riding on the back, hanging onto, umm, various body parts for support.
I did have a Yamaha 250 single-jug dirt bike that was pretty much
indestructable. I bet I crashed it 500 times in the dirt. Ever play
"tag" on motorcycles?
John

I am no expert because I just cadged pillion.

However I must state in no uncertain terms that I am disgusted that you were
so stupid as to interfere with the driver........

'Whoops, well darling. If you were paying attention, we appear to be in this
field because the suspension went dynamically unstable at 80MPH whilst I was
feeling your titties.'

Go on..... get her a Lid and a balls out two stroke!

DNA

DNA

[Jeff L]

Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:58:55 +0000, Eeyore

Post by Eeyore

Post by John Larkin
My starter wife had a 440 cubic-inch hemi-head V8 New Yorker

7.2 litres for personal transport !
Graham

Plus, she had a Kawasaki Samurai, the (literally) killer 3-cylinder,
2-cycle motorcycle that would go 0-60 in 4 seconds,

A friend of mine restores those, modifies them and races them. They seem
fast.

I managed 0-60 in 5.5 s a few times in my 2.8L MPFI 5 speed Camaro. The
engine was getting just what it needed those times (in terms of fuel and ing
timing), and I probably revved the engine to ~ 7,000 rpm to do it.

at the top of

Post by John Larkin
second gear. Whoop, whooooop, 60.
She lost her spleen on that one.

Ouch!

Post by John Larkin
John

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:58:55 +0000, Eeyore

Post by Eeyore

Post by John Larkin
My starter wife had a 440 cubic-inch hemi-head V8 New Yorker

7.2 litres for personal transport !
Graham

I had one like this for my second car, same displacement.

Loading Image...

The two ends of a the grille hinged up (driven by a hefty electric
motor, of course) when you turned the headlights on. Didn't fare so
well in ice and snow.

It was fun to do conservation of momentum calculations with small
cars- IIRC, in a 60mph head-on collision the beast would slow by ~ 20
mph, and the small car would go from +60mph to -20 mph.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

[kell]

Post by Spehro Pefhany
It was fun to do conservation of momentum calculations with small
cars- IIRC, in a 60mph head-on collision the beast would slow by ~ 20
mph, and the small car would go from +60mph to -20 mph.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

You would only have full conservation of momentum in an elastic
collision, where the small car bounces like a billiard ball off the
larger one. Of course, the reality lies somewhere between that model
and the squash-a-fly model.

[Jim Thompson]

Post by kell

Post by Spehro Pefhany
It was fun to do conservation of momentum calculations with small
cars- IIRC, in a 60mph head-on collision the beast would slow by ~ 20
mph, and the small car would go from +60mph to -20 mph.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

You would only have full conservation of momentum in an elastic
collision, where the small car bounces like a billiard ball off the
larger one. Of course, the reality lies somewhere between that model
and the squash-a-fly model.

That's why I've opted for heavy cars for the family since around 1977.

In our latest T-bone at Thanksgiving 2004, it was gratifying to see
only a wrinkled side of the Q45 and the teenaged perp's "toy" car
twisted like a pretzel ;-)

Likewise, a few years earlier, a totaled Toyota pick-up, when it
rear-ended the Q45... scratched our bumper up pretty bad, though ;-)

...Jim Thompson

[JeffM]

Post by John Larkin
My starter wife had a 440 cubic-inch hemi-head V8 New Yorker,
the one with the push-button transmission.

Nitpick: The 440 was a wedge. More likely was a 426 or 392.
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:PRY3WpCk5jcJ:www.moparsa2z.com/web/
archive/spec%2520sheets/hemi_specifications.htm+426.ci+392.ci+354.ci
+331.ci+325.ci+315.ci+270.ci+241.ci

[John Larkin]

Post by JeffM

Post by John Larkin
My starter wife had a 440 cubic-inch hemi-head V8 New Yorker,
the one with the push-button transmission.

Nitpick: The 440 was a wedge. More likely was a 426 or 392.
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:PRY3WpCk5jcJ:www.moparsa2z.com/web/
archive/spec%2520sheets/hemi_specifications.htm+426.ci+392.ci+354.ci
+331.ci+325.ci+315.ci+270.ci+241.ci

What? She lied to me? That bitch!

John

[Jeff L]

Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:17:35 +0000, Eeyore

Post by Eeyore

Post by Joerg

Post by John Larkin

Post by EdV
I have visited other car forums and there seem to be a simple
modification one can do inorder to improve electronic efficiency
(faster response on drive-by wire, brighter headlamps, better radio
reception, less static shock, ) by adding grounding kits. The addt'l
grounding wires; battery (-) to body, body to engine, engine to
battery(-); improves flow of current by adding more ground connection.
The existing ground connections to the body are being terminated on
the "painted surface" of the body. Shouldn't all ground termination be
on a solid conductive metal surface? How does Automotive electronics
designers compensate for the insulation of the paint for ground?

You are assuming that the engineers who design cars are stupid. I
don't think that's so. ...

Not stupid but they don't always seem to come up with the smartest
solution. Had a European version of the Plymouth Horizon when I was
young. The alternator mount broke numerous times, usually in the dead of
night out in the boonies. Replaced the whole darn thing with steel
members and bingo, problem solved. Then after the umpteenth water pump
took a dump, usually also way out in the boonies, I retrofitted one in
that had ball bearings. Never took a dump again. And the retail cost of
that pump was almost exactly the same as the one from Chrysler. The
licensed tech there, BTW, told me that "you can't do that". Oh really...

Chrysler made some truly dreadful cars in Europe.
Graham

They didn't discriminate; they made some ghastly stuff here, too.
My starter wife had a 440 cubic-inch hemi-head V8 New Yorker,

Would that have been a 426 hemi? With aftermarket intakes, injection, steel
crank, and strong pistons and rods, those engines can make over 900 HP,
without a turbo, supercharger, nitrous oxide, etc!

the one

Post by John Larkin
with the push-button transmission. You had to remove the alternator to
change a couple of the spark plugs, so I never changed them.
The Plymouths were sheer crap. My MGs were crap too, but at least they
were fun.
John

[EdV]

Woah, slow down I never wanted to give that suggestion that engineers
are stupid. I'm thinking there is a mis communication between design
and manufacturing. I think that grounding on a solid unpainted
surface is the way to go or the star washer. But as for what I can see
on 2 cars now there are no solid contact. Even the ground screw
threads on the body is painted.

My concern is the grounding on the painted surface, the drive by wire,
brighter lamps, reception and static shocks are not important. If the
intention is to ground the battery on the painted surface can it be
compensated by thicker wires or larger screws by the designer?


==========================================================
You are assuming that the engineers who design cars are stupid. I

Post by John Larkin
don't think that's so. The "less static shock" thing is beyond silly.
Which cars aredrive-by-wire?
John

[m***@sushi.com]

On Jan 27, 10:53 am, John Larkin

Post by John Larkin

Post by EdV
I have visited other car forums and there seem to be a simple
modification one can do inorder to improve electronic efficiency
(faster response on drive-by wire, brighter headlamps, better radio
reception, less static shock, ) by adding grounding kits. The addt'l
grounding wires; battery (-) to body, body to engine, engine to
battery(-); improves flow of current by adding more ground connection.
The existing ground connections to the body are being terminated on
the "painted surface" of the body. Shouldn't all ground termination be
on a solid conductive metal surface? How does Automotive electronics
designers compensate for the insulation of the paint for ground?You are assuming that the engineers who design cars are stupid. I

don't think that's so. The "less static shock" thing is beyond silly.
Which cars are drive-by-wire?
John

Some of the luxury cars have drive-by-wire throttles. [Mercedes,
Infiniti, maybe Lexus] Now the notion that fiddling with the ground
would improve this is on shakey ground.

It's always a good idea to replace the ground cables from the battery,
though you could probably clean up the ends. [For production vehicles,
I buy new cables. For the antiques, you clean them up. Yeah, Caigs
DeOxit.]

[PeteS]

Post by EdV
I have visited other car forums and there seem to be a simple
modification one can do inorder to improve electronic efficiency
(faster response on drive-by wire, brighter headlamps, better radio
reception, less static shock, ) by adding grounding kits. The addt'l
grounding wires; battery (-) to body, body to engine, engine to
battery(-); improves flow of current by adding more ground connection.
The existing ground connections to the body are being terminated on
the "painted surface" of the body. Shouldn't all ground termination be
on a solid conductive metal surface? How does Automotive electronics
designers compensate for the insulation of the paint for ground?

Hilarious, but hogwash.

Improve electronic efficiency? We've had audiophools, now we have
automophools [tm].

The earth connections made at manufacture may not even be ordinarily
visible apart from the battery and alternator.

Modern vehicles provide earth to various connectors (Mercedes calls this
their 'body builder' connections) that are derived from a bus bar approach.

Factory fit equipment gets installed and connected with solid power
(both power and earth) connections that I don't think you'll be able to
improve upon.

Secondary market equipment might not use an earth point (a bolt into the
chassis) and doesn't on at least 14 types of vehicle I personally know
of (the equipment I designed is fitted in them) but gets all power from
the connectors mentioned above. On some vehicles, direct grounding of
equipment is prohibited [fuel tankers for example] and there's even a
spec for it.

So the bottom line is 'No, these grounding kits are a way to part fools
from their money'.

Cheers

PeteS

[EdV]

I wasn't asking about the grounding wire kits & electronic efficiency
tiger. I'm asking if it's good to connect the ground contacts on the
painted surface of a cars body, I'm not talking about the after market
grounding kits but the original connections from Toyota and Mazda (at
least these 2 brands I have seen)

let me rephrase my question. On my Toyota and my friends Mazda, I
found that the negative battery terminal is connected to the painted
surface of the cars body. It's my knowledge that electrical
connections on a painted surface is not a very good practice, or is
there a way that the Toyota or Mazda are able to connect them without
any impact to the electronic devices. As earier mentioned there are no
star washer or any serrations on the connectors as well.

=================================================
Hilarious, but hogwash.

Post by PeteS
Improve electronic efficiency? We've had audiophools, now we have
automophools [tm].
The earth connections made at manufacture may not even be ordinarily
visible apart from the battery and alternator.
Modern vehicles provide earth to various connectors (Mercedes calls this
their 'body builder' connections) that are derived from a bus bar approach.
Factory fit equipment gets installed and connected with solid power
(both power and earth) connections that I don't think you'll be able to
improve upon.
Secondary market equipment might not use an earth point (a bolt into the
chassis) and doesn't on at least 14 types of vehicle I personally know
of (the equipment I designed is fitted in them) but gets all power from
the connectors mentioned above. On some vehicles, direct grounding of
equipment is prohibited [fuel tankers for example] and there's even a
spec for it.
So the bottom line is 'No, these grounding kits are a way to part fools
from their money'.
Cheers
PeteS

[me]

Post by EdV
I wasn't asking about the grounding wire kits & electronic efficiency
tiger.

snip

Post by EdV
let me rephrase my question. On my Toyota and my friends Mazda, I
found that the negative battery terminal is connected to the painted
surface of the cars body. It's my knowledge that electrical
connections on a painted surface is not a very good practice, or is
there a way that the Toyota or Mazda are able to connect them without
any impact to the electronic devices. As earier mentioned there are no
star washer or any serrations on the connectors as well.

off hand, wire connects to bolt and bolt connects to metal chasis.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[jasen]

Post by EdV
I have visited other car forums and there seem to be a simple
modification one can do inorder to improve electronic efficiency
(faster response on drive-by wire, brighter headlamps, better radio
reception, less static shock, ) by adding grounding kits. The addt'l
grounding wires; battery (-) to body, body to engine, engine to
battery(-); improves flow of current by adding more ground connection.
The existing ground connections to the body are being terminated on
the "painted surface" of the body. Shouldn't all ground termination be
on a solid conductive metal surface? How does Automotive electronics
designers compensate for the insulation of the paint for ground?

paint-cutting washers, non-painted nuts and studs screwed into nuts welded
to the body,