Re: Starter interlock question
 

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:29:17 -0700, the following appeared
in rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, posted by L.W.(ßill) ------
III <----------@cox.net>:

Yep. I had a '53 Ambassador for about 3 months when I was in
11th grade, and IIRC the starter button on the floor was
pressed by a metal tab off the left(?) side of the clutch
pedal. Of course, you could always reach around the pedal
with your foot and press it directly, but why bother? It
took a fair push to get the starter cranking, so there was
no real danger of pressing it while shifting normally (and
you'd hardly be drag racing that boat). ;-)

> Nash used the clutch pedal to engage the starter, and release the
>brake.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>HarryS wrote:
>>
>> I am surprised they haven't done it motorcycles yet, I can't remember when
>> they first started doing it to autos but the clutch safety switch is usually
>> my first modification. Where the is a will there is a way and it is usually
>> for the better.
>>
>> --
>> HarryS My 2¢
>> "L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:4261D35C.496A424F@cox.net...
>> | I have seen many times the wear the thrust main burns into the
>> | crank, via people that rest the foot on the clutch pedal. I sounds like
>> | you have the problem whipped good enough for yourself, though.
>> | God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> | mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>> |
>> | JD Adams wrote:
>> | >
>> | > Quick question about an '05 TJL I bought in February.
>> | >
>> | > I *loathe* Big Brother demanding that my left foot sit squarely on the
>> clutch
>> | > pedal before I am allowed to crank the engine. The engine crank
>> bearings and
>> | > journals don't like it either, no oil pressure being present and all.
>> Some of
>> | > us are smart enough to fire the damned thing in neutral, thank you very
>> much!
>> | >
>> | > Anyway, I simply umplugged 'the device' and shorted it with a small
>> piece of
>> | > wire and some black tape. What I'd rather do is undo the clutch master
>> | > cylinder actuator rod and remove the entire offensive device altogether.
>> I
>> | > can't see far enough up there to determine how to unhook the rod itself.
>> | >
>> | > Has anyone done this? One can always just insert the appropriate fuse
>> in the
>> | > block, however one must tolerate the constant '4WD' lamp, and frankly,
>> I'd
>> | > just assume see the entire pressure switch go away, purely as a matter
>> of
>> | > principle.
>> | >
>> | > Not interested in flames on 'safety concerns'. I'm a veteran Commerical
>> | > Driver and I have no need for bolt-on Goverment mandated safety
>> enhancement
>> | > crapola designed for stupid people and/or Corporations who wish to limit
>> their
>> | > civil liability.
>> | >
>> | > -JD

--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

Re: Starter interlock question
 

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:29:17 -0700, the following appeared
in rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, posted by L.W.(ßill) ------
III <----------@cox.net>:

Yep. I had a '53 Ambassador for about 3 months when I was in
11th grade, and IIRC the starter button on the floor was
pressed by a metal tab off the left(?) side of the clutch
pedal. Of course, you could always reach around the pedal
with your foot and press it directly, but why bother? It
took a fair push to get the starter cranking, so there was
no real danger of pressing it while shifting normally (and
you'd hardly be drag racing that boat). ;-)

> Nash used the clutch pedal to engage the starter, and release the
>brake.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>HarryS wrote:
>>
>> I am surprised they haven't done it motorcycles yet, I can't remember when
>> they first started doing it to autos but the clutch safety switch is usually
>> my first modification. Where the is a will there is a way and it is usually
>> for the better.
>>
>> --
>> HarryS My 2¢
>> "L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:4261D35C.496A424F@cox.net...
>> | I have seen many times the wear the thrust main burns into the
>> | crank, via people that rest the foot on the clutch pedal. I sounds like
>> | you have the problem whipped good enough for yourself, though.
>> | God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> | mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>> |
>> | JD Adams wrote:
>> | >
>> | > Quick question about an '05 TJL I bought in February.
>> | >
>> | > I *loathe* Big Brother demanding that my left foot sit squarely on the
>> clutch
>> | > pedal before I am allowed to crank the engine. The engine crank
>> bearings and
>> | > journals don't like it either, no oil pressure being present and all.
>> Some of
>> | > us are smart enough to fire the damned thing in neutral, thank you very
>> much!
>> | >
>> | > Anyway, I simply umplugged 'the device' and shorted it with a small
>> piece of
>> | > wire and some black tape. What I'd rather do is undo the clutch master
>> | > cylinder actuator rod and remove the entire offensive device altogether.
>> I
>> | > can't see far enough up there to determine how to unhook the rod itself.
>> | >
>> | > Has anyone done this? One can always just insert the appropriate fuse
>> in the
>> | > block, however one must tolerate the constant '4WD' lamp, and frankly,
>> I'd
>> | > just assume see the entire pressure switch go away, purely as a matter
>> of
>> | > principle.
>> | >
>> | > Not interested in flames on 'safety concerns'. I'm a veteran Commerical
>> | > Driver and I have no need for bolt-on Goverment mandated safety
>> enhancement
>> | > crapola designed for stupid people and/or Corporations who wish to limit
>> their
>> | > civil liability.
>> | >
>> | > -JD

--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

Re: Starter interlock question
 

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:29:17 -0700, the following appeared
in rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, posted by L.W.(ßill) ------
III <----------@cox.net>:

Yep. I had a '53 Ambassador for about 3 months when I was in
11th grade, and IIRC the starter button on the floor was
pressed by a metal tab off the left(?) side of the clutch
pedal. Of course, you could always reach around the pedal
with your foot and press it directly, but why bother? It
took a fair push to get the starter cranking, so there was
no real danger of pressing it while shifting normally (and
you'd hardly be drag racing that boat). ;-)

> Nash used the clutch pedal to engage the starter, and release the
>brake.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>HarryS wrote:
>>
>> I am surprised they haven't done it motorcycles yet, I can't remember when
>> they first started doing it to autos but the clutch safety switch is usually
>> my first modification. Where the is a will there is a way and it is usually
>> for the better.
>>
>> --
>> HarryS My 2¢
>> "L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:4261D35C.496A424F@cox.net...
>> | I have seen many times the wear the thrust main burns into the
>> | crank, via people that rest the foot on the clutch pedal. I sounds like
>> | you have the problem whipped good enough for yourself, though.
>> | God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> | mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>> |
>> | JD Adams wrote:
>> | >
>> | > Quick question about an '05 TJL I bought in February.
>> | >
>> | > I *loathe* Big Brother demanding that my left foot sit squarely on the
>> clutch
>> | > pedal before I am allowed to crank the engine. The engine crank
>> bearings and
>> | > journals don't like it either, no oil pressure being present and all.
>> Some of
>> | > us are smart enough to fire the damned thing in neutral, thank you very
>> much!
>> | >
>> | > Anyway, I simply umplugged 'the device' and shorted it with a small
>> piece of
>> | > wire and some black tape. What I'd rather do is undo the clutch master
>> | > cylinder actuator rod and remove the entire offensive device altogether.
>> I
>> | > can't see far enough up there to determine how to unhook the rod itself.
>> | >
>> | > Has anyone done this? One can always just insert the appropriate fuse
>> in the
>> | > block, however one must tolerate the constant '4WD' lamp, and frankly,
>> I'd
>> | > just assume see the entire pressure switch go away, purely as a matter
>> of
>> | > principle.
>> | >
>> | > Not interested in flames on 'safety concerns'. I'm a veteran Commerical
>> | > Driver and I have no need for bolt-on Goverment mandated safety
>> enhancement
>> | > crapola designed for stupid people and/or Corporations who wish to limit
>> their
>> | > civil liability.
>> | >
>> | > -JD

--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

Re: Starter interlock question
 

Hi Jeff,
You have to have rebuilt a couple of muscle type engines, to see
that their high performance clutches make it is a common failure. look
under "loading" at: http://www.atra.com/crankshaft/ And what we do
modify the thrust bearing.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> I appreciate the notion that this is a safety device, and that it is
> annoying. I want to explore the part about how the crank bearings and
> journals have anything to do with the state of the clutch.

Re: Starter interlock question
 

Hi Jeff,
You have to have rebuilt a couple of muscle type engines, to see
that their high performance clutches make it is a common failure. look
under "loading" at: http://www.atra.com/crankshaft/ And what we do
modify the thrust bearing.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> I appreciate the notion that this is a safety device, and that it is
> annoying. I want to explore the part about how the crank bearings and
> journals have anything to do with the state of the clutch.

Re: Starter interlock question
 

Hi Jeff,
You have to have rebuilt a couple of muscle type engines, to see
that their high performance clutches make it is a common failure. look
under "loading" at: http://www.atra.com/crankshaft/ And what we do
modify the thrust bearing.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> I appreciate the notion that this is a safety device, and that it is
> annoying. I want to explore the part about how the crank bearings and
> journals have anything to do with the state of the clutch.

Re: Starter interlock question
 

Hi Jeff,
You have to have rebuilt a couple of muscle type engines, to see
that their high performance clutches make it is a common failure. look
under "loading" at: http://www.atra.com/crankshaft/ And what we do
modify the thrust bearing.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> I appreciate the notion that this is a safety device, and that it is
> annoying. I want to explore the part about how the crank bearings and
> journals have anything to do with the state of the clutch.

Re: Starter interlock question
 

I reject the notion that the 4.0L inline 6 has any similarity to the high
performance engines used in a muscle car, and the thrust loads in this motor
and the thrust loads in the muscle car motors are completely different and
call for entirely different countermeasures. Well, beyond the obvious
similarities of having pistons, connecting rods, valves, spark plugs, etc.

The owners of a 4.0L inline 6 can select N, depress the clutch and start the
motor, and long before the engine has completed the second revolution, and
probably before it has finished the first, the engine is started and the
clutch can be released, if one is worried about the thrust loads.

I agree that the safety switch is problematic, especially on the trail when
one might want to use one foot on the gas and another on the brake, making N
the gear of choice. But the reasons for this have nothing at all to do with
thrust loads, and everything to do with how many feet one has. Most of us
have only two feet, and we don't want to be struggling with pedals that we
have gears that we can use to accomplish the same mission. My safety switch
has been bypassed for years, it has never been functional for the 7 years I
have owned my Jeep and my BMW hasn't got a safety switch, so I am well aware
of why they are a pain in the ass. I only question that there is any
appreciable wear on the engine because the clutch pedal is depressed while
starting the motor. This wear is listed as a primary factor in the decision
to disconnect the switch, and it is this factor that I have a questio about.




"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
news:42643D64.17D2EF13@cox.net...
> Hi Jeff,
> You have to have rebuilt a couple of muscle type engines, to see
> that their high performance clutches make it is a common failure. look
> under "loading" at: http://www.atra.com/crankshaft/ And what we do
> modify the thrust bearing.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>> I appreciate the notion that this is a safety device, and that it is
>> annoying. I want to explore the part about how the crank bearings and
>> journals have anything to do with the state of the clutch.

Re: Starter interlock question
 

I reject the notion that the 4.0L inline 6 has any similarity to the high
performance engines used in a muscle car, and the thrust loads in this motor
and the thrust loads in the muscle car motors are completely different and
call for entirely different countermeasures. Well, beyond the obvious
similarities of having pistons, connecting rods, valves, spark plugs, etc.

The owners of a 4.0L inline 6 can select N, depress the clutch and start the
motor, and long before the engine has completed the second revolution, and
probably before it has finished the first, the engine is started and the
clutch can be released, if one is worried about the thrust loads.

I agree that the safety switch is problematic, especially on the trail when
one might want to use one foot on the gas and another on the brake, making N
the gear of choice. But the reasons for this have nothing at all to do with
thrust loads, and everything to do with how many feet one has. Most of us
have only two feet, and we don't want to be struggling with pedals that we
have gears that we can use to accomplish the same mission. My safety switch
has been bypassed for years, it has never been functional for the 7 years I
have owned my Jeep and my BMW hasn't got a safety switch, so I am well aware
of why they are a pain in the ass. I only question that there is any
appreciable wear on the engine because the clutch pedal is depressed while
starting the motor. This wear is listed as a primary factor in the decision
to disconnect the switch, and it is this factor that I have a questio about.




"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
news:42643D64.17D2EF13@cox.net...
> Hi Jeff,
> You have to have rebuilt a couple of muscle type engines, to see
> that their high performance clutches make it is a common failure. look
> under "loading" at: http://www.atra.com/crankshaft/ And what we do
> modify the thrust bearing.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>> I appreciate the notion that this is a safety device, and that it is
>> annoying. I want to explore the part about how the crank bearings and
>> journals have anything to do with the state of the clutch.

Re: Starter interlock question
 

I reject the notion that the 4.0L inline 6 has any similarity to the high
performance engines used in a muscle car, and the thrust loads in this motor
and the thrust loads in the muscle car motors are completely different and
call for entirely different countermeasures. Well, beyond the obvious
similarities of having pistons, connecting rods, valves, spark plugs, etc.

The owners of a 4.0L inline 6 can select N, depress the clutch and start the
motor, and long before the engine has completed the second revolution, and
probably before it has finished the first, the engine is started and the
clutch can be released, if one is worried about the thrust loads.

I agree that the safety switch is problematic, especially on the trail when
one might want to use one foot on the gas and another on the brake, making N
the gear of choice. But the reasons for this have nothing at all to do with
thrust loads, and everything to do with how many feet one has. Most of us
have only two feet, and we don't want to be struggling with pedals that we
have gears that we can use to accomplish the same mission. My safety switch
has been bypassed for years, it has never been functional for the 7 years I
have owned my Jeep and my BMW hasn't got a safety switch, so I am well aware
of why they are a pain in the ass. I only question that there is any
appreciable wear on the engine because the clutch pedal is depressed while
starting the motor. This wear is listed as a primary factor in the decision
to disconnect the switch, and it is this factor that I have a questio about.




"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
news:42643D64.17D2EF13@cox.net...
> Hi Jeff,
> You have to have rebuilt a couple of muscle type engines, to see
> that their high performance clutches make it is a common failure. look
> under "loading" at: http://www.atra.com/crankshaft/ And what we do
> modify the thrust bearing.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>> I appreciate the notion that this is a safety device, and that it is
>> annoying. I want to explore the part about how the crank bearings and
>> journals have anything to do with the state of the clutch.