Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
#196
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:29:48 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> 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.
>
> sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it.
> paper is better for the reasons stated.
Who gives a ?
>> 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.
>
> sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it.
> paper is better for the reasons stated.
Who gives a ?
#197
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:29:48 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>> sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it.
>> paper is better for the reasons stated.
>
>
> Who gives a ?
>
>
you, evidently.
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:29:48 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>> sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it.
>> paper is better for the reasons stated.
>
>
> Who gives a ?
>
>
you, evidently.
#198
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:29:26 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> What I noticed was a better throttle response off the line (it certainly
>>> didn't turn it into a fire-breating monster! But you could feel the
>>> difference) and the increase in gas mileage.
>> bullshit.
>
>
> What is it with people (especially *YOU*) telling ME what I experienced
> and didn't experience?!?!
>
> Listen, BOZO, *I* had the ing car, *I* put the intake in it, and *I*
> was driving it! If I recall correctly, *YOU* were nowhere to be seen!
>
> What a ing moron.
you're demonstrating that there's a world of difference between what
someone says on a newsgroup and reality.
bottom line, you're bullshitting, either on purpose or because you're
mistaken. technically of course, it's also possible that you could be
the new einstein with a new paradigm in combustion chemistry and
thermodynamics, but somehow, based on your contribution history and the
lack of documentation for your claim, i doubt that.
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:29:26 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> What I noticed was a better throttle response off the line (it certainly
>>> didn't turn it into a fire-breating monster! But you could feel the
>>> difference) and the increase in gas mileage.
>> bullshit.
>
>
> What is it with people (especially *YOU*) telling ME what I experienced
> and didn't experience?!?!
>
> Listen, BOZO, *I* had the ing car, *I* put the intake in it, and *I*
> was driving it! If I recall correctly, *YOU* were nowhere to be seen!
>
> What a ing moron.
you're demonstrating that there's a world of difference between what
someone says on a newsgroup and reality.
bottom line, you're bullshitting, either on purpose or because you're
mistaken. technically of course, it's also possible that you could be
the new einstein with a new paradigm in combustion chemistry and
thermodynamics, but somehow, based on your contribution history and the
lack of documentation for your claim, i doubt that.
#199
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:51:53 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> All I know is, after adding the CAI, the mileage went up! Unlike our
>>> friend jim beam, I'm not wasting a lot of time figuring why, I just know
>>> it worked!
>> you just spent your weekend arguing with people that know a lot better
>> than you, and this is all you have to say? time you went back to your old
>> schools and burned them down - they seriously failed you.
>
>
> And you keep coming back and arguing with me, Dipweed.
>
maybe that's part of your problem if you think i'm arguing with you.
you keep bullshitting, and i simply enjoy correcting your inevitable
mistakes!
> I think *I* know better what my car did than you do.
what you think and what is real are not the same. like someone watching
a monochrome tv tube claiming that it shows full color, what you're
claiming is simply impossible.
>
> I hate these 'experts' that think things can't work if *THEY* say so.
no, you just want to bullshit. i took the trouble to look up some of
your posts on a.a.toyota. frankly, signal to noise ratio over there is
scary low, and you're one of the biggest reasons.
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:51:53 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> All I know is, after adding the CAI, the mileage went up! Unlike our
>>> friend jim beam, I'm not wasting a lot of time figuring why, I just know
>>> it worked!
>> you just spent your weekend arguing with people that know a lot better
>> than you, and this is all you have to say? time you went back to your old
>> schools and burned them down - they seriously failed you.
>
>
> And you keep coming back and arguing with me, Dipweed.
>
maybe that's part of your problem if you think i'm arguing with you.
you keep bullshitting, and i simply enjoy correcting your inevitable
mistakes!
> I think *I* know better what my car did than you do.
what you think and what is real are not the same. like someone watching
a monochrome tv tube claiming that it shows full color, what you're
claiming is simply impossible.
>
> I hate these 'experts' that think things can't work if *THEY* say so.
no, you just want to bullshit. i took the trouble to look up some of
your posts on a.a.toyota. frankly, signal to noise ratio over there is
scary low, and you're one of the biggest reasons.
#200
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
jim beam wrote:
> hachiroku wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:59:59 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>> Yes, I had forgotten that.
>> Perhaps it's the velocity of the air, but you'd think the vaves would
>> restrict that, too.
>>
>> All I know is, after adding the CAI, the mileage went up! Unlike our
>> friend jim beam, I'm not wasting a lot of time figuring why, I
>> just know it worked!
>
> you just spent your weekend arguing with people that know a lot better
> than you, and this is all you have to say? time you went back to your
> old schools and burned them down - they seriously failed you.
Was it not determined that the vehicle he's talking about was
carbureted, in which case the mileage could have been affected?
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> hachiroku wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:59:59 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>> Yes, I had forgotten that.
>> Perhaps it's the velocity of the air, but you'd think the vaves would
>> restrict that, too.
>>
>> All I know is, after adding the CAI, the mileage went up! Unlike our
>> friend jim beam, I'm not wasting a lot of time figuring why, I
>> just know it worked!
>
> you just spent your weekend arguing with people that know a lot better
> than you, and this is all you have to say? time you went back to your
> old schools and burned them down - they seriously failed you.
Was it not determined that the vehicle he's talking about was
carbureted, in which case the mileage could have been affected?
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#201
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Bill Putney wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> hachiroku wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:59:59 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> Yes, I had forgotten that.
>>> Perhaps it's the velocity of the air, but you'd think the vaves would
>>> restrict that, too.
>>>
>>> All I know is, after adding the CAI, the mileage went up! Unlike our
>>> friend jim beam, I'm not wasting a lot of time figuring why, I
>>> just know it worked!
>>
>> you just spent your weekend arguing with people that know a lot better
>> than you, and this is all you have to say? time you went back to your
>> old schools and burned them down - they seriously failed you.
>
> Was it not determined that the vehicle he's talking about was
> carbureted, in which case the mileage could have been affected?
>
"'95 EFI.", so no.
> jim beam wrote:
>> hachiroku wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:59:59 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> Yes, I had forgotten that.
>>> Perhaps it's the velocity of the air, but you'd think the vaves would
>>> restrict that, too.
>>>
>>> All I know is, after adding the CAI, the mileage went up! Unlike our
>>> friend jim beam, I'm not wasting a lot of time figuring why, I
>>> just know it worked!
>>
>> you just spent your weekend arguing with people that know a lot better
>> than you, and this is all you have to say? time you went back to your
>> old schools and burned them down - they seriously failed you.
>
> Was it not determined that the vehicle he's talking about was
> carbureted, in which case the mileage could have been affected?
>
"'95 EFI.", so no.
#202
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
"hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
newsan.2008.06.06.14.13.39.156000@ae86.GTS...
> The oil traps the finer particles. That why Yamamha used this system on
> their dirt bikes. It allowed performance without sacrificing the engine.
Oiled foam filters and oiled gauze filters are not equivalent. You can't
apply the experience with one to another.
......
> 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.
Police cars spend a lot of time idling....exactly the sort of condition that
should trigger more frequent oil changes. The normal maintenance schedule
assumes a direct relationship between the number of miles traveled and
number of engine revolutions. Any activity that involves a lot of idling
drastically changes this relationship.
> What do you think of someone who changes his oil every 12,000 miles based
> on a couple of analysis?
Big trucks do things like that all the time. My last GM car included an oil
life monitor. Initially I did not trust it, but I once went almost 7500
miles before I changed the oil (the light never came on). I sent the oil off
for analysis and the analysis that came back indicated the oil was still in
good condition and certainly could have gone another 3000 miles. Given
today's oils and engines, I think 3000 miles is a ridiculously conservative
oil change interval for most drivers. Oil change places keep promoting
excessive oil changes by misstating the severe service requirements
published by most manufacturers. I think Toyota did the right thing when
they eliminated the normal / severe service schedules and just went to a 5K
across the board schedule. My Nissan has a 7.5K normal, 5K severe service
schedule,but I usually just stick with the 5K schedule (simpler). My Ford
has a 5K/3K schedule, but I also stick to the 5K schedule for it. I am not
doing anything that would remotely qualify as severe service. My SO and
Sister but have RAV4's. These vehicles have a 5K maintenance indicator
light, which is very convenient. It is not as nice as the GM oil change
indicator, but certainly better than depending on memory.
>
> That guy's a fool...
People that blindly do 3K oil changes are wasting a lot of money....does
that make them a fool?
Ed
#203
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
<clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada> wrote in message
news:dbnj445q1dcdr5tmllangt04u97vj950hi@4ax.com...
> 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.
NO WAY!!!! I lived with those for years on farm tractors. It is not even
close. Modern paper filters are far better.
Ed
#204
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
"hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
news:BaD2k.62$Jj1.13@trndny02...
> I know I managed to get >4 MPG more after I changed the filter.
There is only one reason why this should be true for a modern fuel injected
engine - it was so restrictive it limited your power. Otherwise it should
have no effect on fuel economy (compared to a properly serviced paper
filter). As long as you are talking about a properly serviced air filter,
the air filter restriction is no different than the throttle plate
restriction as far as the engine electronics are concerned. If the air
filter is so screwed up it could effect your fuel economy, it should also
trigger the check engine light.
When people claim unbelievable fuel economy improvements for air filters, I
usually assume it is due to poor data collection, poor maintenance of the
old filter, a change in driving habits (possibly triggered by more noise
associated with open cone filters), or just wishful thinking. Do you think
it is possible that Toyota did such a poor job of designing an intake
system, that some random aftermarket product could improve the fuel economy
by 4 mpg (more than 12%). Why would by a car from a company that would be
that incompetent? If improvements of this magnitude were obtained merely by
changing air filters, don't you think all the manufacturers would make the
switch? How happy would Ford be if they could up their CAFE average by even
a tenth of your claimed increase?
Ed
#205
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
"hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
news:bmE2k.71$Jj1.41@trndny02...
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 18:46:49 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> I didn't use a K&N filter, I used a different one, that came with the
>>> intake. Same principle. Maybe it was a better filter.
>>>
>>> I know I managed to get >4 MPG more after I changed the filter.
>>
>> Question: From the engine's standpoint, how is a less restrictive filter
>> with throttle body plate at a certain position any different than a more
>> restrictive filter with the throttle body open a little more?
>
>
> With the throttle body open further, the ECU is also injecting more gas.
Only if more air is being drawn into the engine, so that the PCM has to
inject more fuel to maintain the correct Air/Fuel ratio. The only sensor
that actually measures the throttle position is the throttle position
sensor. The throttle position sensor (TPS) is a very gross indicator. It's
primary purpose is to indicated changes in driver demand. Think of it more
as an accelerator pump and dashpot than as the primary device used to
determine the amount of fuel injected. In closed loop mode, the amount of
fuel injected is primarily controlled by the MAF, RPM, temp, and O2 sensors.
In order to make sure the engine runs correctly in open loop mode, the PCM
collects data and learns offsets during closed loop mode that are used to
correct sensor data when running in open loop mode. Think of it this
ay -the difference in restriction between a dirty oiled gauze filter and a
clean paper filter is negligible. Look back at your log book - does the fuel
economy decrease measurably between cleanings of the oiled gauze filter?
> The less restrictive filter allows more air to pass.
Only at wide open throttle.
Ed
#206
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
"hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
news:_7I2k.112$WH.27@trndny05...
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:56:56 -0400, wrote:
>
>> Will a restricted (restrictive) air filter or intake affect power?
>> DSefinitely. Will it affect mileage? NOPE.
>>
>> Now, a cold air intake (or fresh air intake)? It WILL affect power, for
>> sure, and CAN affect mileage as well. However any INCREASE in mileage
>> would be extremely small. If you use the extra power, you will pay for it
>> in mileage. The extra power comes from higher air density (colder air)
>> allowing more fuel to be burned.
>
>
> Now, this was on a Tercel with a whopping 1.5L, 108 HP engine.
>
> What I noticed was a better throttle response off the line (it certainly
> didn't turn it into a fire-breating monster! But you could feel the
> difference) and the increase in gas mileage.
Better throttle response, or more noise? I sometimes think the two are
related. It is possible throttle response was improved but it seems
unlikely. To be honest, I am not even sure what improved throttle response
means.
Ed
#207
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:29:48 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it.
>paper is better for the reasons stated.
>
>
>>>> 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 **
Well, Here is some pretty good information that would tend to support
my position over yours.:
The oil-bath air-cleaner is a classic example of a two-stage' kinetic
filtering element, removing virtually all particulate contaminants
from the air at all engine speeds.
Incoming air is forced to follow a vertical descending path toward the
pool of oil then drawn upwards. Having a mass several million times
that of a molecule of air, the inertia of the dust particles makes it
impossible for them to follow the abrupt change of direction in the
air-stream, causing the particles to strike the pool of oil where they
become trapped. This works best at high rates of air-flow.
The coir filter element, which forms what is termed a 'labyrinth
filter', applies the same principle but in a different manner. The
coir element forces the air to change direction many times. The fibers
are coated with kerosene. Dust particles collide with the fibers and
are trapped by the kerosene.
The spec for cleaning the coir filter is to immerse it in kerosene,
allowing it to soak for up to half an hour. It is then sloshed
repeatedly and allowed to drain. This was done twice a year under
normal driving conditions, as often as deemed necessary under dusty
conditions.
In use, particles of dust trapped in the oil bath cause the level of
the oil to rise. Under severe conditions it may require cleaning on a
daily basis. (Moisture does the same thing. In a rainy climate it
isn't unusual for the air cleaner to accumulate a quart of water per
month.)
Under Volkswagen's original apprenticeship training program the
effectiveness of the oil-bath air-cleaner was demonstrated by removing
the sludge from a the oil-bath and coir filter, flushing it with
solvent and examining the residue. A low-power microscope was needed
to observe the smallest particles.
The same principle is used to clean the air for large stationary
engines and for air conditioning applications, in which a
recirculating water-bath may be used instead of oil, and the air may
be forced past as many as two dozen up-down baffles, removing even
microscopic particles of low density such as pollen. In some systems
the water-bath is sealed with a thin film of mineral oil. Trapped
particles fall thru the oil and are removed by the recirculation of
the water beneath the oil film. I understand special silicone-based
oils are used in modern HVAC systems but non-human applications such
as large stationary engines continue to use mineral oil. Residential
HVAC systems typically use labyrinth-type filters, designed primarily
to catch fibers rather than particles.
Paper and foam filtering elements are based on the labyrinth
principle. The effectiveness of the oil-bath air-cleaner is superior
to that of the typical paper or foam filtering element. Paper
air-filtering elements came into use when they became effective at
trapping particles of a certain size. Oil-bath filters will trap
smaller particles but there is no evidence of accelerated engine wear
for particles below a certain critical size.
Air filters for rough service (armored vehicles, farm machinery, etc)
where an oil-bath would be unsuitable, and high-volume applications
(turbines, etc) use the same physical principle of
mass-differentiation, typically drawing the air through several stages
of centrifuging during which the greater mass of the dust particles
causes them to be separated from the air-stream. Although such
air-cleaners may be powered or static, they are often called 'turbo'
air-cleaners. They are often used in conjunction with disposable
labyrinth-type filters. For Volkswagen owners running off-pavement,
the static type of 'turbo' air-cleaner used on Ford tractors has
proven most effective.
Recent air-pollution legislation enacted here in California requires
automotive paint shops to reduce their emission of vapor and
particulate material. I mention this because the most cost effective
means of doing so involves the use of high-volume, low-pressure
spray-painting systems in conjunction with a multi-baffle water-bath
air-cleaner that uses exactly the same principle as the air-cleaner on
an early Volkswagen.
-Bob Hoover -4 May 1997
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it.
>paper is better for the reasons stated.
>
>
>>>> 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 **
Well, Here is some pretty good information that would tend to support
my position over yours.:
The oil-bath air-cleaner is a classic example of a two-stage' kinetic
filtering element, removing virtually all particulate contaminants
from the air at all engine speeds.
Incoming air is forced to follow a vertical descending path toward the
pool of oil then drawn upwards. Having a mass several million times
that of a molecule of air, the inertia of the dust particles makes it
impossible for them to follow the abrupt change of direction in the
air-stream, causing the particles to strike the pool of oil where they
become trapped. This works best at high rates of air-flow.
The coir filter element, which forms what is termed a 'labyrinth
filter', applies the same principle but in a different manner. The
coir element forces the air to change direction many times. The fibers
are coated with kerosene. Dust particles collide with the fibers and
are trapped by the kerosene.
The spec for cleaning the coir filter is to immerse it in kerosene,
allowing it to soak for up to half an hour. It is then sloshed
repeatedly and allowed to drain. This was done twice a year under
normal driving conditions, as often as deemed necessary under dusty
conditions.
In use, particles of dust trapped in the oil bath cause the level of
the oil to rise. Under severe conditions it may require cleaning on a
daily basis. (Moisture does the same thing. In a rainy climate it
isn't unusual for the air cleaner to accumulate a quart of water per
month.)
Under Volkswagen's original apprenticeship training program the
effectiveness of the oil-bath air-cleaner was demonstrated by removing
the sludge from a the oil-bath and coir filter, flushing it with
solvent and examining the residue. A low-power microscope was needed
to observe the smallest particles.
The same principle is used to clean the air for large stationary
engines and for air conditioning applications, in which a
recirculating water-bath may be used instead of oil, and the air may
be forced past as many as two dozen up-down baffles, removing even
microscopic particles of low density such as pollen. In some systems
the water-bath is sealed with a thin film of mineral oil. Trapped
particles fall thru the oil and are removed by the recirculation of
the water beneath the oil film. I understand special silicone-based
oils are used in modern HVAC systems but non-human applications such
as large stationary engines continue to use mineral oil. Residential
HVAC systems typically use labyrinth-type filters, designed primarily
to catch fibers rather than particles.
Paper and foam filtering elements are based on the labyrinth
principle. The effectiveness of the oil-bath air-cleaner is superior
to that of the typical paper or foam filtering element. Paper
air-filtering elements came into use when they became effective at
trapping particles of a certain size. Oil-bath filters will trap
smaller particles but there is no evidence of accelerated engine wear
for particles below a certain critical size.
Air filters for rough service (armored vehicles, farm machinery, etc)
where an oil-bath would be unsuitable, and high-volume applications
(turbines, etc) use the same physical principle of
mass-differentiation, typically drawing the air through several stages
of centrifuging during which the greater mass of the dust particles
causes them to be separated from the air-stream. Although such
air-cleaners may be powered or static, they are often called 'turbo'
air-cleaners. They are often used in conjunction with disposable
labyrinth-type filters. For Volkswagen owners running off-pavement,
the static type of 'turbo' air-cleaner used on Ford tractors has
proven most effective.
Recent air-pollution legislation enacted here in California requires
automotive paint shops to reduce their emission of vapor and
particulate material. I mention this because the most cost effective
means of doing so involves the use of high-volume, low-pressure
spray-painting systems in conjunction with a multi-baffle water-bath
air-cleaner that uses exactly the same principle as the air-cleaner on
an early Volkswagen.
-Bob Hoover -4 May 1997
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
#208
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:29:48 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>> 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.
>
>sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it.
>paper is better for the reasons stated.
>
>
>>>> 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 **
More:
Oil Bath:
An oil bath air cleaner consists of a round base bowl containing a
pool of oil, and a round insert which is filled with fibre, mesh,
foam, or another coarse filter media. When the cleaner is assembled,
the media-containing body of the insert sits a short distance above
the surface of the oil pool. The rim of the insert overlaps the rim of
the base bowl. This arrangement forms a labyrinthine path through
which the air must travel in a series of U-turns: up through the gap
between the rims of the insert and the base bowl, down through the gap
between the outer wall of the insert and the inner wall of the base
bowl, and up through the filter media in the body of the insert. This
U-turn takes the air at high velocity across the surface of the oil
pool. Larger and heavier dust and dirt particles in the air cannot
make the turn due to their inertia, so they fall into the oil and
settle to the bottom of the base bowl. Lighter and smaller particles
are trapped by the filtration media in the insert, which is wetted by
oil droplets aspirated thereinto by normal airflow.
Oil bath air cleaners were very widely used in automotive and
small-engine applications until the wide industry adoption of
the paper filter in the early 1960s. Such cleaners are still used in
off-road equipment where very high levels of dust are encountered, for
oil bath air cleaners can sequester a great deal of dirt relative to
their overall size, without loss of filtration efficacy or airflow.
However, the liquid oil makes cleaning and servicing such air cleaners
messy and inconvenient, they must be relatively large to avoid
excessive restriction at high airflow rates, and they tend to increase
exhaust emissions of unburned hydrocarbons due to oil aspiration when
used on spark-ignition engines.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>> 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.
>
>sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it.
>paper is better for the reasons stated.
>
>
>>>> 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 **
More:
Oil Bath:
An oil bath air cleaner consists of a round base bowl containing a
pool of oil, and a round insert which is filled with fibre, mesh,
foam, or another coarse filter media. When the cleaner is assembled,
the media-containing body of the insert sits a short distance above
the surface of the oil pool. The rim of the insert overlaps the rim of
the base bowl. This arrangement forms a labyrinthine path through
which the air must travel in a series of U-turns: up through the gap
between the rims of the insert and the base bowl, down through the gap
between the outer wall of the insert and the inner wall of the base
bowl, and up through the filter media in the body of the insert. This
U-turn takes the air at high velocity across the surface of the oil
pool. Larger and heavier dust and dirt particles in the air cannot
make the turn due to their inertia, so they fall into the oil and
settle to the bottom of the base bowl. Lighter and smaller particles
are trapped by the filtration media in the insert, which is wetted by
oil droplets aspirated thereinto by normal airflow.
Oil bath air cleaners were very widely used in automotive and
small-engine applications until the wide industry adoption of
the paper filter in the early 1960s. Such cleaners are still used in
off-road equipment where very high levels of dust are encountered, for
oil bath air cleaners can sequester a great deal of dirt relative to
their overall size, without loss of filtration efficacy or airflow.
However, the liquid oil makes cleaning and servicing such air cleaners
messy and inconvenient, they must be relatively large to avoid
excessive restriction at high airflow rates, and they tend to increase
exhaust emissions of unburned hydrocarbons due to oil aspiration when
used on spark-ignition engines.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
#209
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:53:05 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
wrote:
>jim beam wrote:
>> hachiroku wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:59:59 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> Yes, I had forgotten that.
>>> Perhaps it's the velocity of the air, but you'd think the vaves would
>>> restrict that, too.
>>>
>>> All I know is, after adding the CAI, the mileage went up! Unlike our
>>> friend jim beam, I'm not wasting a lot of time figuring why, I
>>> just know it worked!
>>
>> you just spent your weekend arguing with people that know a lot better
>> than you, and this is all you have to say? time you went back to your
>> old schools and burned them down - they seriously failed you.
>
>Was it not determined that the vehicle he's talking about was
>carbureted, in which case the mileage could have been affected?
Actually, the 82HP 1.5 liter in 1994 was carbureted. The 1995 93HP 1.5
liter engine was injected.
>
>Bill Putney
>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with the letter 'x')
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
wrote:
>jim beam wrote:
>> hachiroku wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:59:59 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> Yes, I had forgotten that.
>>> Perhaps it's the velocity of the air, but you'd think the vaves would
>>> restrict that, too.
>>>
>>> All I know is, after adding the CAI, the mileage went up! Unlike our
>>> friend jim beam, I'm not wasting a lot of time figuring why, I
>>> just know it worked!
>>
>> you just spent your weekend arguing with people that know a lot better
>> than you, and this is all you have to say? time you went back to your
>> old schools and burned them down - they seriously failed you.
>
>Was it not determined that the vehicle he's talking about was
>carbureted, in which case the mileage could have been affected?
Actually, the 82HP 1.5 liter in 1994 was carbureted. The 1995 93HP 1.5
liter engine was injected.
>
>Bill Putney
>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with the letter 'x')
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
#210
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 13:47:45 -0400, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
><clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada> wrote in message
>news:dbnj445q1dcdr5tmllangt04u97vj950hi@4ax.com.. .
>
>> 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.
>
>NO WAY!!!! I lived with those for years on farm tractors. It is not even
>close. Modern paper filters are far better.
>
>Ed
>
>
I worked with them for years on farm and industrial equipment.(both as
user and mechanic) Properly serviced they WERE extremely effective.I'd
say properly sized they were more effective at filtering across the
broad spectrum, if slightly more restrictive.
Combined with a "turbo" pre-cleaner to catch the flies, bumblebees and
gravel stones not much dirt of any description got through. It took an
hour to properly service one though - and it was a DIRTY job.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
><clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada> wrote in message
>news:dbnj445q1dcdr5tmllangt04u97vj950hi@4ax.com.. .
>
>> 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.
>
>NO WAY!!!! I lived with those for years on farm tractors. It is not even
>close. Modern paper filters are far better.
>
>Ed
>
>
I worked with them for years on farm and industrial equipment.(both as
user and mechanic) Properly serviced they WERE extremely effective.I'd
say properly sized they were more effective at filtering across the
broad spectrum, if slightly more restrictive.
Combined with a "turbo" pre-cleaner to catch the flies, bumblebees and
gravel stones not much dirt of any description got through. It took an
hour to properly service one though - and it was a DIRTY job.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **