Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
#151
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Commentator wrote:
> Ray O wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:RPCdnYTxjp98-trVnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> Ray O wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:MdqdndoTpso0xNrVnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>>> <snipped>
>>>>>> The bathing of the pump in fuel certainly doesn't do it any harm.
>>>>>> But I strongly suspect that the overwhelmingly primary motivation
>>>>>> on moving the pump to the tank was consolidating more parts into
>>>>>> fewer assemblies to be installed into the vehicle.
>>>>> no, its vapor lock avoidance. if the pump is at the top of a long
>>>>> suction column, the liquid in the column can separate and once
>>>>> there's vapor, pumping is seriously impaired. you could draw from
>>>>> the bottom of the tank, but then you get guaranteed particle
>>>>> blockage and much greater chance of damage.
>>>>>
>>>> Vapor lock was not a problem when electric fuel pumps for fuel
>>>> injected engines were not integrated in the fuel tank, so it
>>>> doesn't make sense to make a change for a problem that didn't
>>>> exist. Vapor lock could occur in the old mechanical fuel pumps
>>>> that produced less than 10 PSI. Electric fuel pumps for fuel
>>>> injected engines run over 40 PSI so vapor lock is not a problem.
>>> i'm talking about the sucking side, not the pushing side. if you
>>> suck hard enough on any liquid, the column separates. if it's a
>>> liquid full of volatiles, especially on a hot day at high altitude,
>>> you'll not have to suck very hard. hence you attempt to keep the
>>> column rise as close to zero as possible. putting the pump down in
>>> the tank achieves exactly that.
>> I have no experience with fluid dynamics so I'll have to take your
>> word about the phenomenon. I would imagine that while 40+ PSI is
>> enough to prevent vapor lock on the pushing side, it isn't enough to
>> cause the column separation that you are describing since I've never
>> heard of that happening either. Wouldn't increasing the diameter of
>> the suction side reduce the pressure and therefore the tendency of
>> the column to separte? If so, it seems like that would be a simpler
>> solution than re-designing the fuel pump, tank, and mounting hardware.
>>
>> In other words, it seems to me that lowering assembly costs would be
>> the primary reason for mounting the fuel pump in the tank, and
>> reducing the phenomenon you are describing would be a secondary side
>> benefit.
>
> I would think not just assembly costs, but overall costs - a pump n the
> tank, I would think, should be able to utilize a cheaper and lighter casing
> as it does not need to stand up to the elements any longer. FWIW, it would
> also result in fewer connection points outside the tank, thereby allowing
> for fewer failure points.
That too - yes - fewer connection points help in reliability *and* they
help in initial assembly costs (the more important factor to the auto
manufacturer) - less line items to receive in, inventory, control, move
around, connect up, etc. in their plant.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> Ray O wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:RPCdnYTxjp98-trVnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> Ray O wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:MdqdndoTpso0xNrVnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>>> <snipped>
>>>>>> The bathing of the pump in fuel certainly doesn't do it any harm.
>>>>>> But I strongly suspect that the overwhelmingly primary motivation
>>>>>> on moving the pump to the tank was consolidating more parts into
>>>>>> fewer assemblies to be installed into the vehicle.
>>>>> no, its vapor lock avoidance. if the pump is at the top of a long
>>>>> suction column, the liquid in the column can separate and once
>>>>> there's vapor, pumping is seriously impaired. you could draw from
>>>>> the bottom of the tank, but then you get guaranteed particle
>>>>> blockage and much greater chance of damage.
>>>>>
>>>> Vapor lock was not a problem when electric fuel pumps for fuel
>>>> injected engines were not integrated in the fuel tank, so it
>>>> doesn't make sense to make a change for a problem that didn't
>>>> exist. Vapor lock could occur in the old mechanical fuel pumps
>>>> that produced less than 10 PSI. Electric fuel pumps for fuel
>>>> injected engines run over 40 PSI so vapor lock is not a problem.
>>> i'm talking about the sucking side, not the pushing side. if you
>>> suck hard enough on any liquid, the column separates. if it's a
>>> liquid full of volatiles, especially on a hot day at high altitude,
>>> you'll not have to suck very hard. hence you attempt to keep the
>>> column rise as close to zero as possible. putting the pump down in
>>> the tank achieves exactly that.
>> I have no experience with fluid dynamics so I'll have to take your
>> word about the phenomenon. I would imagine that while 40+ PSI is
>> enough to prevent vapor lock on the pushing side, it isn't enough to
>> cause the column separation that you are describing since I've never
>> heard of that happening either. Wouldn't increasing the diameter of
>> the suction side reduce the pressure and therefore the tendency of
>> the column to separte? If so, it seems like that would be a simpler
>> solution than re-designing the fuel pump, tank, and mounting hardware.
>>
>> In other words, it seems to me that lowering assembly costs would be
>> the primary reason for mounting the fuel pump in the tank, and
>> reducing the phenomenon you are describing would be a secondary side
>> benefit.
>
> I would think not just assembly costs, but overall costs - a pump n the
> tank, I would think, should be able to utilize a cheaper and lighter casing
> as it does not need to stand up to the elements any longer. FWIW, it would
> also result in fewer connection points outside the tank, thereby allowing
> for fewer failure points.
That too - yes - fewer connection points help in reliability *and* they
help in initial assembly costs (the more important factor to the auto
manufacturer) - less line items to receive in, inventory, control, move
around, connect up, etc. in their plant.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#152
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:24:56 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> I dunno about the K&N filters...
>>>
>>> I had a '95 Tercel, and got a cold air intake for it for $50. Now, I
>>> didn't put a K&N on it, but it was a similar filter, and my gas mileage
>>> went from ~40 to ~45 MPG. And I did notice a better throttle response
>>> off the line, too.
>> And more dirt was ingested by the engine, which is OK as long as you
>> realize the tradeoffs in making the decision to use it. Problem is, most
>> people believe the advertising hype but are ignorant of its inferior
>> dirt-catching qualities.
>
>
> I don't know about that...
>
> If you read the instructions, you soak the filter with oil before
> installing it. The oil helps the material catch dirt.
>
> I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
> bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
> honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear, and
> most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
>
> The key is keeping the filter oiled. Their recommendation was 12 months or
> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
> every 6,000 miles...)
>
> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
> the stock air box.
See: http://www.duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm
The paper that came with the K&N I used to use said it was not
recommended in areas with "agricultural dust". Makes sense - you can
imagine a lot of dust wicking up the oil very quickly and then
subsequent dust zipping on thru the holes.
I work in a mining area with lots of dust. After I read that study, I
went back to a good paper filter.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:24:56 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> I dunno about the K&N filters...
>>>
>>> I had a '95 Tercel, and got a cold air intake for it for $50. Now, I
>>> didn't put a K&N on it, but it was a similar filter, and my gas mileage
>>> went from ~40 to ~45 MPG. And I did notice a better throttle response
>>> off the line, too.
>> And more dirt was ingested by the engine, which is OK as long as you
>> realize the tradeoffs in making the decision to use it. Problem is, most
>> people believe the advertising hype but are ignorant of its inferior
>> dirt-catching qualities.
>
>
> I don't know about that...
>
> If you read the instructions, you soak the filter with oil before
> installing it. The oil helps the material catch dirt.
>
> I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
> bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
> honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear, and
> most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
>
> The key is keeping the filter oiled. Their recommendation was 12 months or
> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
> every 6,000 miles...)
>
> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
> the stock air box.
See: http://www.duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm
The paper that came with the K&N I used to use said it was not
recommended in areas with "agricultural dust". Makes sense - you can
imagine a lot of dust wicking up the oil very quickly and then
subsequent dust zipping on thru the holes.
I work in a mining area with lots of dust. After I read that study, I
went back to a good paper filter.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#153
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:40:36 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>> you'll never have a chance of fixing a problem if you don't realize you
>>> have one. you have a problem. go fix it.
>>
>>
>> I'm trying, but you keep coming back for more...
>>
>>
>
> no, i'm serious. you need to work with a professional.
I am a professional. There's a name for it. Are you now using a body
hammer with a sharp point on it?
>>>>
>>> you'll never have a chance of fixing a problem if you don't realize you
>>> have one. you have a problem. go fix it.
>>
>>
>> I'm trying, but you keep coming back for more...
>>
>>
>
> no, i'm serious. you need to work with a professional.
I am a professional. There's a name for it. Are you now using a body
hammer with a sharp point on it?
#154
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:40:21 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>> lack of comprehension. projection of own inadequacy. get help.
>>
>>
>> You can't even remember what you said 5 posts ago,,,
>
> au contraire, that's /your/ problem. and worse, you can't even use google.
Sure I can. Why would I have to?
>>> lack of comprehension. projection of own inadequacy. get help.
>>
>>
>> You can't even remember what you said 5 posts ago,,,
>
> au contraire, that's /your/ problem. and worse, you can't even use google.
Sure I can. Why would I have to?
#155
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:11:58 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
> Hachiroku wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:24:56 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>>> I dunno about the K&N filters...
>>>>
>>>> I had a '95 Tercel, and got a cold air intake for it for $50. Now, I
>>>> didn't put a K&N on it, but it was a similar filter, and my gas mileage
>>>> went from ~40 to ~45 MPG. And I did notice a better throttle response
>>>> off the line, too.
>>> And more dirt was ingested by the engine, which is OK as long as you
>>> realize the tradeoffs in making the decision to use it. Problem is, most
>>> people believe the advertising hype but are ignorant of its inferior
>>> dirt-catching qualities.
>>
>>
>> I don't know about that...
>>
>> If you read the instructions, you soak the filter with oil before
>> installing it. The oil helps the material catch dirt.
>>
>> I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
>> bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
>> honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear, and
>> most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
>>
>> The key is keeping the filter oiled. Their recommendation was 12 months or
>> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
>> every 6,000 miles...)
>>
>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
>> the stock air box.
>
> See: http://www.duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm
>
> The paper that came with the K&N I used to use said it was not
> recommended in areas with "agricultural dust". Makes sense - you can
> imagine a lot of dust wicking up the oil very quickly and then
> subsequent dust zipping on thru the holes.
>
> I work in a mining area with lots of dust. After I read that study, I
> went back to a good paper filter.
>
I didn't have that problem. I had read all the evidence pro and con and
kept a good eye on the filter. It never got really dirty.
Had a lot of bugs in it, though!
> Hachiroku wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:24:56 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>>> I dunno about the K&N filters...
>>>>
>>>> I had a '95 Tercel, and got a cold air intake for it for $50. Now, I
>>>> didn't put a K&N on it, but it was a similar filter, and my gas mileage
>>>> went from ~40 to ~45 MPG. And I did notice a better throttle response
>>>> off the line, too.
>>> And more dirt was ingested by the engine, which is OK as long as you
>>> realize the tradeoffs in making the decision to use it. Problem is, most
>>> people believe the advertising hype but are ignorant of its inferior
>>> dirt-catching qualities.
>>
>>
>> I don't know about that...
>>
>> If you read the instructions, you soak the filter with oil before
>> installing it. The oil helps the material catch dirt.
>>
>> I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
>> bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
>> honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear, and
>> most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
>>
>> The key is keeping the filter oiled. Their recommendation was 12 months or
>> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
>> every 6,000 miles...)
>>
>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
>> the stock air box.
>
> See: http://www.duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm
>
> The paper that came with the K&N I used to use said it was not
> recommended in areas with "agricultural dust". Makes sense - you can
> imagine a lot of dust wicking up the oil very quickly and then
> subsequent dust zipping on thru the holes.
>
> I work in a mining area with lots of dust. After I read that study, I
> went back to a good paper filter.
>
I didn't have that problem. I had read all the evidence pro and con and
kept a good eye on the filter. It never got really dirty.
Had a lot of bugs in it, though!
#156
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:42:53 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
>> bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
>> honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear,
>
> subjective waffle. define. quantify.
>
>
>> and
>> most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
>
> no, 2-stroke does not necessarily mean wear.
Oh, sure it doesn't. That's why they have to be torn down and honed
occasionally.
>
>
>>
>> The key is keeping the filter oiled.
>
> 1. the pores remain the same size, regardless of oil content. that
> defines particle size.
The oil traps the finer particles. That why Yamamha used this system on
their dirt bikes. It allowed performance without sacrificing the engine.
Of course, you had to maintain the filter on a regular basis. They gave a
recommendation as to how often to check the filter. I checked the filter
more often than recommended, and cleaned it more often than recommended.
Most people would follow the recommendation. Of course, some would have
the filter analyzed and then go double the manufacturer's recommendation.
>
> 2. oil filters let though more dirt as the flow rate increases. that's
> why paper filters are used so much these days - filtration remains the
> same regardless of flow rate.
>
>
>> Their recommendation was 12 months or
>> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
>> every 6,000 miles...)
>>
>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
>> the stock air box.
>
> that's not quantitative.
No, it's preventative.
I was talking to a maintenance guy at a State Police barracks the other
day. He said they change the oil in the cruisers every 3,000 miles. I
said, but those are mostly high-speed, highway miles. Isn't that kind of
driving better for the motors and the oil?
Sure, but we would rather do PM and make sure the cars are OK than have to
tear an engine down and replace a lot of parts. It's cheaper and easier to
just change the oil every 3,000 miles.
What do you think of someone who changes his oil every 12,000 miles based
on a couple of analysis?
That guy's a fool...
>> I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
>> bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
>> honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear,
>
> subjective waffle. define. quantify.
>
>
>> and
>> most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
>
> no, 2-stroke does not necessarily mean wear.
Oh, sure it doesn't. That's why they have to be torn down and honed
occasionally.
>
>
>>
>> The key is keeping the filter oiled.
>
> 1. the pores remain the same size, regardless of oil content. that
> defines particle size.
The oil traps the finer particles. That why Yamamha used this system on
their dirt bikes. It allowed performance without sacrificing the engine.
Of course, you had to maintain the filter on a regular basis. They gave a
recommendation as to how often to check the filter. I checked the filter
more often than recommended, and cleaned it more often than recommended.
Most people would follow the recommendation. Of course, some would have
the filter analyzed and then go double the manufacturer's recommendation.
>
> 2. oil filters let though more dirt as the flow rate increases. that's
> why paper filters are used so much these days - filtration remains the
> same regardless of flow rate.
>
>
>> Their recommendation was 12 months or
>> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
>> every 6,000 miles...)
>>
>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
>> the stock air box.
>
> that's not quantitative.
No, it's preventative.
I was talking to a maintenance guy at a State Police barracks the other
day. He said they change the oil in the cruisers every 3,000 miles. I
said, but those are mostly high-speed, highway miles. Isn't that kind of
driving better for the motors and the oil?
Sure, but we would rather do PM and make sure the cars are OK than have to
tear an engine down and replace a lot of parts. It's cheaper and easier to
just change the oil every 3,000 miles.
What do you think of someone who changes his oil every 12,000 miles based
on a couple of analysis?
That guy's a fool...
#157
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:37:22 -0500, "Ray O"
<rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>
>"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
>news:Xns9AB4C7583370Ategger@208.90.168.18...
>> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in
>> news:9p-dnYVndtpdy9rVnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9AB3CB39BB914tegger@208.90.168.18...
>>>> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in
>>>> news:FNWdnWduiuxhqNvVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Gas stations generally filter the fuel before
>>>>> delivering it to vehicles, so it is not likely that the rust came
>>>>> from the gas station.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gas dispensers (pumps) have a sort of basket filter and nothing more.
>>>> The screen on the filter is fairly crude, maybe four times smaller
>>>> than a window screen. Small rust particles could easily get through
>>>> that, but would be caught by the sock, which is a much finer mesh
>>>> than the pump filter.
>>>>
>>>> Having said all that, the gas station tanks I've seen appear not to
>>>> be made
>>>> of metal. Maybe they do have a metal inner lining. But if they did,
>>>> these would either be awfully big stampings or have lots of
>>>> leak-prone weld seams. Anybody know for sure?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 2 big fuel dispenser brands around here are Gilbarco and Tokheim,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In my neck of the wodds it seems to be mostly Gilbarco.
>>
>>
>>
>>> and
>>> it looks most of their models take fuel filters like these
>>> http://www.jmesales.com/department/1888/1/Filters.aspx
>>
>>
>>
>> These look nothing like the pump filters I was shown. The filters I saw
>> more resembled a larger and somewhat coarser version of the basket
>> filter that goes in some Toyotas' windshield washer reservoir filler
>> necks.
>>
>>
>>
>>> so my guess is
>>> that in addtion to the pickup screen/sock, they also have a
>>> replaceable filter. Of course, that assumes that gas stations replace
>>> the filters on a periodic basis and that there is no bypass mechanism
>>> if flow through the filter is diminished.
>>
>>
>>
>> It was explained to me that the primary problem with underground tanks
>> is not dirt or rust, but stirred-up water in freshly-filled tanks.
>> Apparently tanks are supposed to be taken offline for a couple of hours
>> to let water settle out, but nobody actually does that. Gas stations do
>> not filter water out, it seems.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The tanks being installed around here appear to be made of fiberglass
>>> like the ones on this site: http://www.rng.com/rng/zcl/rngss31.html
>>
>>
>>
>> I see similar ones, but the ones I see are a much lighter green, even
>> almost white.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tegger
>>
>
>I suspect that most, if not all, of the underground tanks around here were
>changed over to the fiberglass kind because the penalties and cleanup costs
>from a leaking underground storage tank could easily exceed the cost of
>installing a newer tank with leak detection sensors.
>
>It doesn't look like any tanks are taken off-line here either, probably
>because they don't want to lose the income.
Several years ago (>10?) the EPA required all underground tanks that
were of steel construction be replaced with fiberglass. They had to
be put into vaults that would contain any leakage and they had to have
remote monitoring of product and/or leak detection.
The company I used to work for had underground diesel storage tanks
for their emergency generators. Almost all of them had to be pulled
and replaced. The company elected to replace them with above-ground
vaults. They also installed Veeder-Root (sp) remote monitoring
stations.
I would be very surprised if you could find any metal underground
storage tanks at any gas stations today in the USofA.
Jack
<rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>
>"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
>news:Xns9AB4C7583370Ategger@208.90.168.18...
>> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in
>> news:9p-dnYVndtpdy9rVnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9AB3CB39BB914tegger@208.90.168.18...
>>>> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in
>>>> news:FNWdnWduiuxhqNvVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Gas stations generally filter the fuel before
>>>>> delivering it to vehicles, so it is not likely that the rust came
>>>>> from the gas station.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gas dispensers (pumps) have a sort of basket filter and nothing more.
>>>> The screen on the filter is fairly crude, maybe four times smaller
>>>> than a window screen. Small rust particles could easily get through
>>>> that, but would be caught by the sock, which is a much finer mesh
>>>> than the pump filter.
>>>>
>>>> Having said all that, the gas station tanks I've seen appear not to
>>>> be made
>>>> of metal. Maybe they do have a metal inner lining. But if they did,
>>>> these would either be awfully big stampings or have lots of
>>>> leak-prone weld seams. Anybody know for sure?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 2 big fuel dispenser brands around here are Gilbarco and Tokheim,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In my neck of the wodds it seems to be mostly Gilbarco.
>>
>>
>>
>>> and
>>> it looks most of their models take fuel filters like these
>>> http://www.jmesales.com/department/1888/1/Filters.aspx
>>
>>
>>
>> These look nothing like the pump filters I was shown. The filters I saw
>> more resembled a larger and somewhat coarser version of the basket
>> filter that goes in some Toyotas' windshield washer reservoir filler
>> necks.
>>
>>
>>
>>> so my guess is
>>> that in addtion to the pickup screen/sock, they also have a
>>> replaceable filter. Of course, that assumes that gas stations replace
>>> the filters on a periodic basis and that there is no bypass mechanism
>>> if flow through the filter is diminished.
>>
>>
>>
>> It was explained to me that the primary problem with underground tanks
>> is not dirt or rust, but stirred-up water in freshly-filled tanks.
>> Apparently tanks are supposed to be taken offline for a couple of hours
>> to let water settle out, but nobody actually does that. Gas stations do
>> not filter water out, it seems.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The tanks being installed around here appear to be made of fiberglass
>>> like the ones on this site: http://www.rng.com/rng/zcl/rngss31.html
>>
>>
>>
>> I see similar ones, but the ones I see are a much lighter green, even
>> almost white.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tegger
>>
>
>I suspect that most, if not all, of the underground tanks around here were
>changed over to the fiberglass kind because the penalties and cleanup costs
>from a leaking underground storage tank could easily exceed the cost of
>installing a newer tank with leak detection sensors.
>
>It doesn't look like any tanks are taken off-line here either, probably
>because they don't want to lose the income.
Several years ago (>10?) the EPA required all underground tanks that
were of steel construction be replaced with fiberglass. They had to
be put into vaults that would contain any leakage and they had to have
remote monitoring of product and/or leak detection.
The company I used to work for had underground diesel storage tanks
for their emergency generators. Almost all of them had to be pulled
and replaced. The company elected to replace them with above-ground
vaults. They also installed Veeder-Root (sp) remote monitoring
stations.
I would be very surprised if you could find any metal underground
storage tanks at any gas stations today in the USofA.
Jack
#158
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 03:43:10 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@ae86.GTS>
wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:24:56 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> I dunno about the K&N filters...
>>>
>>> I had a '95 Tercel, and got a cold air intake for it for $50. Now, I
>>> didn't put a K&N on it, but it was a similar filter, and my gas mileage
>>> went from ~40 to ~45 MPG. And I did notice a better throttle response
>>> off the line, too.
>>
>> And more dirt was ingested by the engine, which is OK as long as you
>> realize the tradeoffs in making the decision to use it. Problem is, most
>> people believe the advertising hype but are ignorant of its inferior
>> dirt-catching qualities.
>
>
>I don't know about that...
>
>If you read the instructions, you soak the filter with oil before
>installing it. The oil helps the material catch dirt.
>
>I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
>bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
>honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear, and
>most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
>
>The key is keeping the filter oiled. Their recommendation was 12 months or
>12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
>every 6,000 miles...)
>
>I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
>the stock air box.
>
Most cars used an oil-bath air cleaner up until about 1955. It was a
round tank with a "U" profile. A matching, inverted tank was inserted
in the first tank. The first tank held about a pint of engine oil and
the second tank was packed with steel wool. The air made two 180
degree shifts in direction which helped to drop the dust and dirt into
the oil. Vibration would splash the oil up on the steel wool which
also helped filter the air.
The filter system worked great but took some maintenance at each oil
change and it generated some additional dirty oil. It was also
expensive to produce compared with paper filters.
Jack
wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:24:56 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> I dunno about the K&N filters...
>>>
>>> I had a '95 Tercel, and got a cold air intake for it for $50. Now, I
>>> didn't put a K&N on it, but it was a similar filter, and my gas mileage
>>> went from ~40 to ~45 MPG. And I did notice a better throttle response
>>> off the line, too.
>>
>> And more dirt was ingested by the engine, which is OK as long as you
>> realize the tradeoffs in making the decision to use it. Problem is, most
>> people believe the advertising hype but are ignorant of its inferior
>> dirt-catching qualities.
>
>
>I don't know about that...
>
>If you read the instructions, you soak the filter with oil before
>installing it. The oil helps the material catch dirt.
>
>I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
>bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
>honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear, and
>most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
>
>The key is keeping the filter oiled. Their recommendation was 12 months or
>12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
>every 6,000 miles...)
>
>I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
>the stock air box.
>
Most cars used an oil-bath air cleaner up until about 1955. It was a
round tank with a "U" profile. A matching, inverted tank was inserted
in the first tank. The first tank held about a pint of engine oil and
the second tank was packed with steel wool. The air made two 180
degree shifts in direction which helped to drop the dust and dirt into
the oil. Vibration would splash the oil up on the steel wool which
also helped filter the air.
The filter system worked great but took some maintenance at each oil
change and it generated some additional dirty oil. It was also
expensive to produce compared with paper filters.
Jack
#159
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Retired VIP wrote:
> Most cars used an oil-bath air cleaner up until about 1955. It was a
> round tank with a "U" profile. A matching, inverted tank was inserted
> in the first tank. The first tank held about a pint of engine oil and
> the second tank was packed with steel wool. The air made two 180
> degree shifts in direction which helped to drop the dust and dirt into
> the oil. Vibration would splash the oil up on the steel wool which
> also helped filter the air.
>
> The filter system worked great but took some maintenance at each oil
> change and it generated some additional dirty oil. It was also
> expensive to produce compared with paper filters.
Hah! As a teenager, I drove a 1965 International Travelall that had
that type of oil bath air cleaner as well as the canister type oil
filter that preceded the screw-on type filters. I learned early how to
get my hands dirty!
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> Most cars used an oil-bath air cleaner up until about 1955. It was a
> round tank with a "U" profile. A matching, inverted tank was inserted
> in the first tank. The first tank held about a pint of engine oil and
> the second tank was packed with steel wool. The air made two 180
> degree shifts in direction which helped to drop the dust and dirt into
> the oil. Vibration would splash the oil up on the steel wool which
> also helped filter the air.
>
> The filter system worked great but took some maintenance at each oil
> change and it generated some additional dirty oil. It was also
> expensive to produce compared with paper filters.
Hah! As a teenager, I drove a 1965 International Travelall that had
that type of oil bath air cleaner as well as the canister type oil
filter that preceded the screw-on type filters. I learned early how to
get my hands dirty!
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#160
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
"Ray O" ...
>
> I suspect that most, if not all, of the underground tanks around here were
> changed over to the fiberglass kind because the penalties and cleanup
> costs from a leaking underground storage tank could easily exceed the cost
> of installing a newer tank with leak detection sensors.
>
> It doesn't look like any tanks are taken off-line here either, probably
> because they don't want to lose the income.
I see all the time stations with a tanker filling up the tank in the ground
and half a dozen cars filling up at the pumps at that same moment. It is
one of the things I look for in pulling into a station and hoping that one
did not just leave.
Tomes
#161
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:42:53 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>1. the pores remain the same size, regardless of oil content. that
>defines particle size.
>
Except there is NO straight path for the dirt to follow, and as it
"negatiates the turns" the dirt DOES get caught on the oily fibers.
The best air filter yet is still the old oil bath type - where the
ironcurls soaked in oil trapped the dirt. NOTHING filters better than
a properly serviced oil bath cleaner.
>2. oil filters let though more dirt as the flow rate increases. that's
>why paper filters are used so much these days - filtration remains the
>same regardless of flow rate.
>
No, the reason oil bath cleaners are no longer used boils down to
expense. The labour required to properly service them and the expense
of disposing of the "toxic waste" produced by that service.
>
>> Their recommendation was 12 months or
>> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
>> every 6,000 miles...)
>>
>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
>> the stock air box.
>
>that's not quantitative.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>1. the pores remain the same size, regardless of oil content. that
>defines particle size.
>
Except there is NO straight path for the dirt to follow, and as it
"negatiates the turns" the dirt DOES get caught on the oily fibers.
The best air filter yet is still the old oil bath type - where the
ironcurls soaked in oil trapped the dirt. NOTHING filters better than
a properly serviced oil bath cleaner.
>2. oil filters let though more dirt as the flow rate increases. that's
>why paper filters are used so much these days - filtration remains the
>same regardless of flow rate.
>
No, the reason oil bath cleaners are no longer used boils down to
expense. The labour required to properly service them and the expense
of disposing of the "toxic waste" produced by that service.
>
>> Their recommendation was 12 months or
>> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
>> every 6,000 miles...)
>>
>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
>> the stock air box.
>
>that's not quantitative.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
#162
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
"Tomes" <ask.me@here.net> wrote in
news:g2cmf3$ou8$1@registered.motzarella.org:
>
> "Ray O" ...
>>
>> I suspect that most, if not all, of the underground tanks around here
>> were changed over to the fiberglass kind because the penalties and
>> cleanup costs from a leaking underground storage tank could easily
>> exceed the cost of installing a newer tank with leak detection
>> sensors.
>>
>> It doesn't look like any tanks are taken off-line here either,
>> probably because they don't want to lose the income.
>
> I see all the time stations with a tanker filling up the tank in the
> ground and half a dozen cars filling up at the pumps at that same
> moment. It is one of the things I look for in pulling into a station
> and hoping that one did not just leave.
> Tomes
>
>
Me too, actually. I'll even go up to the driver and ask him if he's filling
the tanks that hold what I want.
--
Tegger
news:g2cmf3$ou8$1@registered.motzarella.org:
>
> "Ray O" ...
>>
>> I suspect that most, if not all, of the underground tanks around here
>> were changed over to the fiberglass kind because the penalties and
>> cleanup costs from a leaking underground storage tank could easily
>> exceed the cost of installing a newer tank with leak detection
>> sensors.
>>
>> It doesn't look like any tanks are taken off-line here either,
>> probably because they don't want to lose the income.
>
> I see all the time stations with a tanker filling up the tank in the
> ground and half a dozen cars filling up at the pumps at that same
> moment. It is one of the things I look for in pulling into a station
> and hoping that one did not just leave.
> Tomes
>
>
Me too, actually. I'll even go up to the driver and ask him if he's filling
the tanks that hold what I want.
--
Tegger
#163
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Retired VIP wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 03:43:10 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@ae86.GTS>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:24:56 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>>> I dunno about the K&N filters...
>>>>
>>>> I had a '95 Tercel, and got a cold air intake for it for $50. Now, I
>>>> didn't put a K&N on it, but it was a similar filter, and my gas mileage
>>>> went from ~40 to ~45 MPG. And I did notice a better throttle response
>>>> off the line, too.
>>> And more dirt was ingested by the engine, which is OK as long as you
>>> realize the tradeoffs in making the decision to use it. Problem is, most
>>> people believe the advertising hype but are ignorant of its inferior
>>> dirt-catching qualities.
>>
>> I don't know about that...
>>
>> If you read the instructions, you soak the filter with oil before
>> installing it. The oil helps the material catch dirt.
>>
>> I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
>> bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
>> honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear, and
>> most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
>>
>> The key is keeping the filter oiled. Their recommendation was 12 months or
>> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
>> every 6,000 miles...)
>>
>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
>> the stock air box.
>>
>
> Most cars used an oil-bath air cleaner up until about 1955. It was a
> round tank with a "U" profile. A matching, inverted tank was inserted
> in the first tank. The first tank held about a pint of engine oil and
> the second tank was packed with steel wool. The air made two 180
> degree shifts in direction which helped to drop the dust and dirt into
> the oil. Vibration would splash the oil up on the steel wool which
> also helped filter the air.
>
> The filter system worked great
actually, they don't work very well. they permit a broad spectrum of
particle sizes and filtration rates decrease as flow rates increase.
that's why paper is used today - absolute control over particle size and
constant filter effectiveness across the full flow rate band.
> but took some maintenance at each oil
> change and it generated some additional dirty oil. It was also
> expensive to produce compared with paper filters.
>
> Jack
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 03:43:10 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@ae86.GTS>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:24:56 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>>> I dunno about the K&N filters...
>>>>
>>>> I had a '95 Tercel, and got a cold air intake for it for $50. Now, I
>>>> didn't put a K&N on it, but it was a similar filter, and my gas mileage
>>>> went from ~40 to ~45 MPG. And I did notice a better throttle response
>>>> off the line, too.
>>> And more dirt was ingested by the engine, which is OK as long as you
>>> realize the tradeoffs in making the decision to use it. Problem is, most
>>> people believe the advertising hype but are ignorant of its inferior
>>> dirt-catching qualities.
>>
>> I don't know about that...
>>
>> If you read the instructions, you soak the filter with oil before
>> installing it. The oil helps the material catch dirt.
>>
>> I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
>> bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
>> honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear, and
>> most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
>>
>> The key is keeping the filter oiled. Their recommendation was 12 months or
>> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
>> every 6,000 miles...)
>>
>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
>> the stock air box.
>>
>
> Most cars used an oil-bath air cleaner up until about 1955. It was a
> round tank with a "U" profile. A matching, inverted tank was inserted
> in the first tank. The first tank held about a pint of engine oil and
> the second tank was packed with steel wool. The air made two 180
> degree shifts in direction which helped to drop the dust and dirt into
> the oil. Vibration would splash the oil up on the steel wool which
> also helped filter the air.
>
> The filter system worked great
actually, they don't work very well. they permit a broad spectrum of
particle sizes and filtration rates decrease as flow rates increase.
that's why paper is used today - absolute control over particle size and
constant filter effectiveness across the full flow rate band.
> but took some maintenance at each oil
> change and it generated some additional dirty oil. It was also
> expensive to produce compared with paper filters.
>
> Jack
#164
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:11:58 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> Hachiroku wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:24:56 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I dunno about the K&N filters...
>>>>>
>>>>> I had a '95 Tercel, and got a cold air intake for it for $50. Now, I
>>>>> didn't put a K&N on it, but it was a similar filter, and my gas mileage
>>>>> went from ~40 to ~45 MPG. And I did notice a better throttle response
>>>>> off the line, too.
>>>> And more dirt was ingested by the engine, which is OK as long as you
>>>> realize the tradeoffs in making the decision to use it. Problem is, most
>>>> people believe the advertising hype but are ignorant of its inferior
>>>> dirt-catching qualities.
>>>
>>> I don't know about that...
>>>
>>> If you read the instructions, you soak the filter with oil before
>>> installing it. The oil helps the material catch dirt.
>>>
>>> I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
>>> bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
>>> honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear, and
>>> most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
>>>
>>> The key is keeping the filter oiled. Their recommendation was 12 months or
>>> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
>>> every 6,000 miles...)
>>>
>>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
>>> the stock air box.
>> See: http://www.duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm
>>
>> The paper that came with the K&N I used to use said it was not
>> recommended in areas with "agricultural dust". Makes sense - you can
>> imagine a lot of dust wicking up the oil very quickly and then
>> subsequent dust zipping on thru the holes.
>>
>> I work in a mining area with lots of dust. After I read that study, I
>> went back to a good paper filter.
>>
>
> I didn't have that problem. I had read all the evidence pro and con and
> kept a good eye on the filter. It never got really dirty.
that's non-quantitative. but you won't care if science means nothing.
>
> Had a lot of bugs in it, though!
>
>
>
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:11:58 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> Hachiroku wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:24:56 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I dunno about the K&N filters...
>>>>>
>>>>> I had a '95 Tercel, and got a cold air intake for it for $50. Now, I
>>>>> didn't put a K&N on it, but it was a similar filter, and my gas mileage
>>>>> went from ~40 to ~45 MPG. And I did notice a better throttle response
>>>>> off the line, too.
>>>> And more dirt was ingested by the engine, which is OK as long as you
>>>> realize the tradeoffs in making the decision to use it. Problem is, most
>>>> people believe the advertising hype but are ignorant of its inferior
>>>> dirt-catching qualities.
>>>
>>> I don't know about that...
>>>
>>> If you read the instructions, you soak the filter with oil before
>>> installing it. The oil helps the material catch dirt.
>>>
>>> I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
>>> bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
>>> honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear, and
>>> most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
>>>
>>> The key is keeping the filter oiled. Their recommendation was 12 months or
>>> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
>>> every 6,000 miles...)
>>>
>>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
>>> the stock air box.
>> See: http://www.duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm
>>
>> The paper that came with the K&N I used to use said it was not
>> recommended in areas with "agricultural dust". Makes sense - you can
>> imagine a lot of dust wicking up the oil very quickly and then
>> subsequent dust zipping on thru the holes.
>>
>> I work in a mining area with lots of dust. After I read that study, I
>> went back to a good paper filter.
>>
>
> I didn't have that problem. I had read all the evidence pro and con and
> kept a good eye on the filter. It never got really dirty.
that's non-quantitative. but you won't care if science means nothing.
>
> Had a lot of bugs in it, though!
>
>
>
#165
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:42:53 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
>>> bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
>>> honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear,
>> subjective waffle. define. quantify.
>>
>>
>>> and
>>> most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
>> no, 2-stroke does not necessarily mean wear.
>
> Oh, sure it doesn't. That's why they have to be torn down and honed
> occasionally.
but so do 4-strokes!!!
>
>
>>
>>> The key is keeping the filter oiled.
>> 1. the pores remain the same size, regardless of oil content. that
>> defines particle size.
>
> The oil traps the finer particles. That why Yamamha used this system on
> their dirt bikes. It allowed performance without sacrificing the engine.
no, it's because it's cheap, and buyers [you] evidently don't know any
better.
and oil soaked foam is not an effective filter. i have a book with some
particle throughput vs. flow rate tables in it somewhere. particle size
and volumes increase with flow rate. that's bad. i might scan it when
i get back from vacation. or you could use google. [!]
>
> Of course, you had to maintain the filter on a regular basis. They gave a
> recommendation as to how often to check the filter. I checked the filter
> more often than recommended, and cleaned it more often than recommended.
> Most people would follow the recommendation. Of course, some would have
> the filter analyzed and then go double the manufacturer's recommendation.
>
>
>> 2. oil filters let though more dirt as the flow rate increases. that's
>> why paper filters are used so much these days - filtration remains the
>> same regardless of flow rate.
>>
>>
>>> Their recommendation was 12 months or
>>> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
>>> every 6,000 miles...)
>>>
>>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
>>> the stock air box.
>> that's not quantitative.
>
> No, it's preventative.
eh? "have a look" is not quantitative. or preventative.
>
> I was talking to a maintenance guy at a State Police barracks the other
> day. He said they change the oil in the cruisers every 3,000 miles. I
> said, but those are mostly high-speed, highway miles. Isn't that kind of
> driving better for the motors and the oil?
>
> Sure, but we would rather do PM and make sure the cars are OK than have to
> tear an engine down and replace a lot of parts. It's cheaper and easier to
> just change the oil every 3,000 miles.
>
> What do you think of someone who changes his oil every 12,000 miles based
> on a couple of analysis?
>
> That guy's a fool...
that's right, science means nothing!!!
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:42:53 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
>>> bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
>>> honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear,
>> subjective waffle. define. quantify.
>>
>>
>>> and
>>> most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
>> no, 2-stroke does not necessarily mean wear.
>
> Oh, sure it doesn't. That's why they have to be torn down and honed
> occasionally.
but so do 4-strokes!!!
>
>
>>
>>> The key is keeping the filter oiled.
>> 1. the pores remain the same size, regardless of oil content. that
>> defines particle size.
>
> The oil traps the finer particles. That why Yamamha used this system on
> their dirt bikes. It allowed performance without sacrificing the engine.
no, it's because it's cheap, and buyers [you] evidently don't know any
better.
and oil soaked foam is not an effective filter. i have a book with some
particle throughput vs. flow rate tables in it somewhere. particle size
and volumes increase with flow rate. that's bad. i might scan it when
i get back from vacation. or you could use google. [!]
>
> Of course, you had to maintain the filter on a regular basis. They gave a
> recommendation as to how often to check the filter. I checked the filter
> more often than recommended, and cleaned it more often than recommended.
> Most people would follow the recommendation. Of course, some would have
> the filter analyzed and then go double the manufacturer's recommendation.
>
>
>> 2. oil filters let though more dirt as the flow rate increases. that's
>> why paper filters are used so much these days - filtration remains the
>> same regardless of flow rate.
>>
>>
>>> Their recommendation was 12 months or
>>> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
>>> every 6,000 miles...)
>>>
>>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
>>> the stock air box.
>> that's not quantitative.
>
> No, it's preventative.
eh? "have a look" is not quantitative. or preventative.
>
> I was talking to a maintenance guy at a State Police barracks the other
> day. He said they change the oil in the cruisers every 3,000 miles. I
> said, but those are mostly high-speed, highway miles. Isn't that kind of
> driving better for the motors and the oil?
>
> Sure, but we would rather do PM and make sure the cars are OK than have to
> tear an engine down and replace a lot of parts. It's cheaper and easier to
> just change the oil every 3,000 miles.
>
> What do you think of someone who changes his oil every 12,000 miles based
> on a couple of analysis?
>
> That guy's a fool...
that's right, science means nothing!!!