Starter interlock question
Guest
Posts: n/a
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 ***. 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" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42643D64.17D2EF13@***.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.
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 ***. 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" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42643D64.17D2EF13@***.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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Starter interlock question
I'm concerned that lateral crankshaft loading during startup with zero oil
pressure will cause premature thrust bearing failure. Stepping on the clutch
pedal pulls the crankshaft rearward, eventually causing bearing problems with
some engines. I doubt the 4.0 is one of them, however I've primarily driven
V-8 muscle cars for the last 20 years, and one big NO-NO for me is to touch
that clutch pedal while firing it up. Same goes for my 'big truck' (Detroit
S60/Fuller 13). I'm just not wild about preloading and cranking an engine,
forcing crank bearing surfaces together prior to building even a small amount
of oil pressure, and that's pretty much what this 'safety device' does.
I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I see it as both an annoyance and a
potential for premature engine bearing failure. To most, it's just another
pain in the butt to get around.
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.
pressure will cause premature thrust bearing failure. Stepping on the clutch
pedal pulls the crankshaft rearward, eventually causing bearing problems with
some engines. I doubt the 4.0 is one of them, however I've primarily driven
V-8 muscle cars for the last 20 years, and one big NO-NO for me is to touch
that clutch pedal while firing it up. Same goes for my 'big truck' (Detroit
S60/Fuller 13). I'm just not wild about preloading and cranking an engine,
forcing crank bearing surfaces together prior to building even a small amount
of oil pressure, and that's pretty much what this 'safety device' does.
I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I see it as both an annoyance and a
potential for premature engine bearing failure. To most, it's just another
pain in the butt to get around.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Starter interlock question
I'm concerned that lateral crankshaft loading during startup with zero oil
pressure will cause premature thrust bearing failure. Stepping on the clutch
pedal pulls the crankshaft rearward, eventually causing bearing problems with
some engines. I doubt the 4.0 is one of them, however I've primarily driven
V-8 muscle cars for the last 20 years, and one big NO-NO for me is to touch
that clutch pedal while firing it up. Same goes for my 'big truck' (Detroit
S60/Fuller 13). I'm just not wild about preloading and cranking an engine,
forcing crank bearing surfaces together prior to building even a small amount
of oil pressure, and that's pretty much what this 'safety device' does.
I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I see it as both an annoyance and a
potential for premature engine bearing failure. To most, it's just another
pain in the butt to get around.
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.
pressure will cause premature thrust bearing failure. Stepping on the clutch
pedal pulls the crankshaft rearward, eventually causing bearing problems with
some engines. I doubt the 4.0 is one of them, however I've primarily driven
V-8 muscle cars for the last 20 years, and one big NO-NO for me is to touch
that clutch pedal while firing it up. Same goes for my 'big truck' (Detroit
S60/Fuller 13). I'm just not wild about preloading and cranking an engine,
forcing crank bearing surfaces together prior to building even a small amount
of oil pressure, and that's pretty much what this 'safety device' does.
I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I see it as both an annoyance and a
potential for premature engine bearing failure. To most, it's just another
pain in the butt to get around.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Starter interlock question
I'm concerned that lateral crankshaft loading during startup with zero oil
pressure will cause premature thrust bearing failure. Stepping on the clutch
pedal pulls the crankshaft rearward, eventually causing bearing problems with
some engines. I doubt the 4.0 is one of them, however I've primarily driven
V-8 muscle cars for the last 20 years, and one big NO-NO for me is to touch
that clutch pedal while firing it up. Same goes for my 'big truck' (Detroit
S60/Fuller 13). I'm just not wild about preloading and cranking an engine,
forcing crank bearing surfaces together prior to building even a small amount
of oil pressure, and that's pretty much what this 'safety device' does.
I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I see it as both an annoyance and a
potential for premature engine bearing failure. To most, it's just another
pain in the butt to get around.
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.
pressure will cause premature thrust bearing failure. Stepping on the clutch
pedal pulls the crankshaft rearward, eventually causing bearing problems with
some engines. I doubt the 4.0 is one of them, however I've primarily driven
V-8 muscle cars for the last 20 years, and one big NO-NO for me is to touch
that clutch pedal while firing it up. Same goes for my 'big truck' (Detroit
S60/Fuller 13). I'm just not wild about preloading and cranking an engine,
forcing crank bearing surfaces together prior to building even a small amount
of oil pressure, and that's pretty much what this 'safety device' does.
I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I see it as both an annoyance and a
potential for premature engine bearing failure. To most, it's just another
pain in the butt to get around.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Starter interlock question
I'm concerned that lateral crankshaft loading during startup with zero oil
pressure will cause premature thrust bearing failure. Stepping on the clutch
pedal pulls the crankshaft rearward, eventually causing bearing problems with
some engines. I doubt the 4.0 is one of them, however I've primarily driven
V-8 muscle cars for the last 20 years, and one big NO-NO for me is to touch
that clutch pedal while firing it up. Same goes for my 'big truck' (Detroit
S60/Fuller 13). I'm just not wild about preloading and cranking an engine,
forcing crank bearing surfaces together prior to building even a small amount
of oil pressure, and that's pretty much what this 'safety device' does.
I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I see it as both an annoyance and a
potential for premature engine bearing failure. To most, it's just another
pain in the butt to get around.
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.
pressure will cause premature thrust bearing failure. Stepping on the clutch
pedal pulls the crankshaft rearward, eventually causing bearing problems with
some engines. I doubt the 4.0 is one of them, however I've primarily driven
V-8 muscle cars for the last 20 years, and one big NO-NO for me is to touch
that clutch pedal while firing it up. Same goes for my 'big truck' (Detroit
S60/Fuller 13). I'm just not wild about preloading and cranking an engine,
forcing crank bearing surfaces together prior to building even a small amount
of oil pressure, and that's pretty much what this 'safety device' does.
I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I see it as both an annoyance and a
potential for premature engine bearing failure. To most, it's just another
pain in the butt to get around.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Starter interlock question
Just maybe the reason the old Nash engines that started by
depressing the clutch on a dry thrust bearing, which is the same engine
you run in your Jeep only last seventy thousand miles in the fifties.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> 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 ***. 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.
depressing the clutch on a dry thrust bearing, which is the same engine
you run in your Jeep only last seventy thousand miles in the fifties.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> 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 ***. 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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Starter interlock question
Just maybe the reason the old Nash engines that started by
depressing the clutch on a dry thrust bearing, which is the same engine
you run in your Jeep only last seventy thousand miles in the fifties.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> 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 ***. 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.
depressing the clutch on a dry thrust bearing, which is the same engine
you run in your Jeep only last seventy thousand miles in the fifties.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> 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 ***. 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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Starter interlock question
Just maybe the reason the old Nash engines that started by
depressing the clutch on a dry thrust bearing, which is the same engine
you run in your Jeep only last seventy thousand miles in the fifties.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> 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 ***. 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.
depressing the clutch on a dry thrust bearing, which is the same engine
you run in your Jeep only last seventy thousand miles in the fifties.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> 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 ***. 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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Starter interlock question
Just maybe the reason the old Nash engines that started by
depressing the clutch on a dry thrust bearing, which is the same engine
you run in your Jeep only last seventy thousand miles in the fifties.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> 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 ***. 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.
depressing the clutch on a dry thrust bearing, which is the same engine
you run in your Jeep only last seventy thousand miles in the fifties.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> 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 ***. 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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Starter interlock question
Outside of being stopped at a stop light, I never used a clutch on
any of the tractors I drove.
http://www.----------.com/rextrans.jpg
http://www.----------.com/white.jpg
http://www.----------.com/mack.jpg
http://www.----------.com/kenworth.jpg
With my Kenworth I had to use two hands on my knee to release it. Like
there's a reason the clutch pedal is so... big and you can barely even
see the brake pedal in this picture:
http://www.----------.com/kenworthdash.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
JD Adams wrote:
>
> I'm concerned that lateral crankshaft loading during startup with zero oil
> pressure will cause premature thrust bearing failure. Stepping on the clutch
> pedal pulls the crankshaft rearward, eventually causing bearing problems with
> some engines. I doubt the 4.0 is one of them, however I've primarily driven
> V-8 muscle cars for the last 20 years, and one big NO-NO for me is to touch
> that clutch pedal while firing it up. Same goes for my 'big truck' (Detroit
> S60/Fuller 13). I'm just not wild about preloading and cranking an engine,
> forcing crank bearing surfaces together prior to building even a small amount
> of oil pressure, and that's pretty much what this 'safety device' does.
>
> I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I see it as both an annoyance and a
> potential for premature engine bearing failure. To most, it's just another
> pain in the butt to get around.
any of the tractors I drove.
http://www.----------.com/rextrans.jpg
http://www.----------.com/white.jpg
http://www.----------.com/mack.jpg
http://www.----------.com/kenworth.jpg
With my Kenworth I had to use two hands on my knee to release it. Like
there's a reason the clutch pedal is so... big and you can barely even
see the brake pedal in this picture:
http://www.----------.com/kenworthdash.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
JD Adams wrote:
>
> I'm concerned that lateral crankshaft loading during startup with zero oil
> pressure will cause premature thrust bearing failure. Stepping on the clutch
> pedal pulls the crankshaft rearward, eventually causing bearing problems with
> some engines. I doubt the 4.0 is one of them, however I've primarily driven
> V-8 muscle cars for the last 20 years, and one big NO-NO for me is to touch
> that clutch pedal while firing it up. Same goes for my 'big truck' (Detroit
> S60/Fuller 13). I'm just not wild about preloading and cranking an engine,
> forcing crank bearing surfaces together prior to building even a small amount
> of oil pressure, and that's pretty much what this 'safety device' does.
>
> I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I see it as both an annoyance and a
> potential for premature engine bearing failure. To most, it's just another
> pain in the butt to get around.