Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
#211
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
jim beam wrote:
> 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.
Yeah - I saw that after I posted.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> 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.
Yeah - I saw that after I posted.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#212
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> 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 **
I drove a '65 International Travelall with the oil bath air filter from
my mid teens until the early 80's when I sold it, so I am familiar with
this type of filter.
You had me at "More:", but did you shoot your argument for its efficacy
in the foot when you said "and they tend to increase exhaust emissions
of unburned hydrocarbons due to oil aspiration when used on
sark-ignition engines", being that that oil that would thus be aspirated
would have been the medium that contains all the dirt that was caught?
I think I see the answer to my question in your explanation, but I want
to see what you will say. This is a very intersting discussion.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> 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 **
I drove a '65 International Travelall with the oil bath air filter from
my mid teens until the early 80's when I sold it, so I am familiar with
this type of filter.
You had me at "More:", but did you shoot your argument for its efficacy
in the foot when you said "and they tend to increase exhaust emissions
of unburned hydrocarbons due to oil aspiration when used on
sark-ignition engines", being that that oil that would thus be aspirated
would have been the medium that contains all the dirt that was caught?
I think I see the answer to my question in your explanation, but I want
to see what you will say. This is a very intersting discussion.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#213
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
jim beam wrote in message ...
>Norman Webb wrote:
>> Bill Putney wrote in message <6ai0kvF37k2jlU1@mid.individual.net>...
>>> Don't Taze Me, Bro! wrote:
>>>> Consider filling up your tank and not letting it drop below halfway,
>> instead
>>>> of keeping it on low and only putting in 2 gallons here and there...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361347,00.html
>>>>
>>>> Not because you could run out of gas and get stranded but because
>> repeatedly
>>>> running on low tends to ruin the fuel pump.
>>> I see that thing about running low on fuel damaging fuel pumps posted
>>> all over the internet, but personally I think that's total b.s.
>>>
>>> All the critical parts in the fuel pump - bearings (bushings), armature,
>>> brushes/commutator, pumping elements (vanes, rotors, or rollers) - are
>>> constantly bathed in the fuel as it flows thru the pump. That
>>> lubricates and cools the parts regardless of fuel level in the tank.
>>>
>>> With regulator bypass pumping/circulation that modern cars have, there
>>> is full volume of fuel going thru the pump at all times it is running
>>> regardless of engine demand. The only effect of low fuel in the tank is
>>> a slight temperature rise of the volume of fuel in the tank (due to same
>>> electrical power dissipated in the pump being absorbed by less mass of
>>> fuel), and that rise will be very small - power used by fuel pump is
>>> small - temperature rise of the fuel in the tank and the tank itself
>>> will be very small - lots of mass compared to the power being
dissipated.
>>>
>>> *BUT* - again - the fuel is constantly flowing thru and around all
>>> internal components of the pump whenever it is running providing cooling
>>> (unless you actually run out and the engine stops - but that is a
>>> different scenario altogether, and even then, the pump will still be
>>> full of fuel at that point with a full column of fuel from its lowest
>>> end to the fuel rail - only the pickup will be filled with air, and
>>> there won't be any flow - and most cars turn the pump off when the
>>> computer senses that the engine is no longer running).
>>>
>>> If anyone wants to argue this, be sure of your facts beforehand - I used
>>> to design automotive fuel pump components.
>>>
>>> Bill Putney
>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>> address with the letter 'x')
>>
>>
>> My LPG fueled cars keep the fuel pump going ALL the time. Loaned a car to
my
>> penniless son for sometime and he only put LPG in it. Ran out of fuel and
>> cooked the pump.
>>
>> My Mitsubishi van broke a fule lead 150 km from a town. I didn't realize
>> fuel pump kept running and cooked another bloody pump.
>>
>> Keep some fuel in it.
>
>er, why would anyone leave the ignition in the "run" position after the
>fuel's gone and the vehicle's stopped? because that's the only
>condition under which you could theoretically "cook" a pump. /and/
>that's assuming the engine computer doesn't turn the pump off for you,
>which pretty much /any/ engine computer would do btw.
>
Nuh,
We're talking duel fuel cars
When you switch over to LPG from petrol the petrol pump keeps running.
Don't know if the car computer monitors fuel pressure and that's why they
keep the fuel pump working. I was running on LPG and the petrol was pissing
out of a break in the petrol line.
#214
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:21:04 +0800, "Norman Webb"
<tekrec@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>jim beam wrote in message ...
>>Norman Webb wrote:
>>> Bill Putney wrote in message <6ai0kvF37k2jlU1@mid.individual.net>...
>>>> Don't Taze Me, Bro! wrote:
>>>>> Consider filling up your tank and not letting it drop below halfway,
>>> instead
>>>>> of keeping it on low and only putting in 2 gallons here and there...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361347,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Not because you could run out of gas and get stranded but because
>>> repeatedly
>>>>> running on low tends to ruin the fuel pump.
>>>> I see that thing about running low on fuel damaging fuel pumps posted
>>>> all over the internet, but personally I think that's total b.s.
>>>>
>>>> All the critical parts in the fuel pump - bearings (bushings), armature,
>>>> brushes/commutator, pumping elements (vanes, rotors, or rollers) - are
>>>> constantly bathed in the fuel as it flows thru the pump. That
>>>> lubricates and cools the parts regardless of fuel level in the tank.
>>>>
>>>> With regulator bypass pumping/circulation that modern cars have, there
>>>> is full volume of fuel going thru the pump at all times it is running
>>>> regardless of engine demand. The only effect of low fuel in the tank is
>>>> a slight temperature rise of the volume of fuel in the tank (due to same
>>>> electrical power dissipated in the pump being absorbed by less mass of
>>>> fuel), and that rise will be very small - power used by fuel pump is
>>>> small - temperature rise of the fuel in the tank and the tank itself
>>>> will be very small - lots of mass compared to the power being
>dissipated.
>>>>
>>>> *BUT* - again - the fuel is constantly flowing thru and around all
>>>> internal components of the pump whenever it is running providing cooling
>>>> (unless you actually run out and the engine stops - but that is a
>>>> different scenario altogether, and even then, the pump will still be
>>>> full of fuel at that point with a full column of fuel from its lowest
>>>> end to the fuel rail - only the pickup will be filled with air, and
>>>> there won't be any flow - and most cars turn the pump off when the
>>>> computer senses that the engine is no longer running).
>>>>
>>>> If anyone wants to argue this, be sure of your facts beforehand - I used
>>>> to design automotive fuel pump components.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Putney
>>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>>> address with the letter 'x')
>>>
>>>
>>> My LPG fueled cars keep the fuel pump going ALL the time. Loaned a car to
>my
>>> penniless son for sometime and he only put LPG in it. Ran out of fuel and
>>> cooked the pump.
>>>
>>> My Mitsubishi van broke a fule lead 150 km from a town. I didn't realize
>>> fuel pump kept running and cooked another bloody pump.
>>>
>>> Keep some fuel in it.
>>
>>er, why would anyone leave the ignition in the "run" position after the
>>fuel's gone and the vehicle's stopped? because that's the only
>>condition under which you could theoretically "cook" a pump. /and/
>>that's assuming the engine computer doesn't turn the pump off for you,
>>which pretty much /any/ engine computer would do btw.
>>
>
>Nuh,
>We're talking duel fuel cars
>
>When you switch over to LPG from petrol the petrol pump keeps running.
>Don't know if the car computer monitors fuel pressure and that's why they
>keep the fuel pump working. I was running on LPG and the petrol was pissing
>out of a break in the petrol line.
>
All kinds of LPG conversions - but THAT one would never pass in
Ontario. Only one fuel source can be "live" at any one time. Shutting
off the injectors alone is NOT adequate. No EFI system I am aware of
senses fuel pressure.
Some EFI engines are difficult to dual fuel because the computer
(which controls fuel AND spark) needs to see the load on the injector
circuit to avoid throwing a code.You need the computer "happy" to
operate the spark timing.
Also, if the mixture goes off, the computer cannot correct unless you
are using a "piggyback" liquid injection system. (or a propane
"augmentation" system - which feeds the engine propane, but on the
lean side - and the gasoline injection system corrects the mixture
with gasoline.
I have not seen a commercial system that works that way, which would
be the only reason for running the fuel pump while burning LPG.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
<tekrec@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>jim beam wrote in message ...
>>Norman Webb wrote:
>>> Bill Putney wrote in message <6ai0kvF37k2jlU1@mid.individual.net>...
>>>> Don't Taze Me, Bro! wrote:
>>>>> Consider filling up your tank and not letting it drop below halfway,
>>> instead
>>>>> of keeping it on low and only putting in 2 gallons here and there...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361347,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Not because you could run out of gas and get stranded but because
>>> repeatedly
>>>>> running on low tends to ruin the fuel pump.
>>>> I see that thing about running low on fuel damaging fuel pumps posted
>>>> all over the internet, but personally I think that's total b.s.
>>>>
>>>> All the critical parts in the fuel pump - bearings (bushings), armature,
>>>> brushes/commutator, pumping elements (vanes, rotors, or rollers) - are
>>>> constantly bathed in the fuel as it flows thru the pump. That
>>>> lubricates and cools the parts regardless of fuel level in the tank.
>>>>
>>>> With regulator bypass pumping/circulation that modern cars have, there
>>>> is full volume of fuel going thru the pump at all times it is running
>>>> regardless of engine demand. The only effect of low fuel in the tank is
>>>> a slight temperature rise of the volume of fuel in the tank (due to same
>>>> electrical power dissipated in the pump being absorbed by less mass of
>>>> fuel), and that rise will be very small - power used by fuel pump is
>>>> small - temperature rise of the fuel in the tank and the tank itself
>>>> will be very small - lots of mass compared to the power being
>dissipated.
>>>>
>>>> *BUT* - again - the fuel is constantly flowing thru and around all
>>>> internal components of the pump whenever it is running providing cooling
>>>> (unless you actually run out and the engine stops - but that is a
>>>> different scenario altogether, and even then, the pump will still be
>>>> full of fuel at that point with a full column of fuel from its lowest
>>>> end to the fuel rail - only the pickup will be filled with air, and
>>>> there won't be any flow - and most cars turn the pump off when the
>>>> computer senses that the engine is no longer running).
>>>>
>>>> If anyone wants to argue this, be sure of your facts beforehand - I used
>>>> to design automotive fuel pump components.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Putney
>>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>>> address with the letter 'x')
>>>
>>>
>>> My LPG fueled cars keep the fuel pump going ALL the time. Loaned a car to
>my
>>> penniless son for sometime and he only put LPG in it. Ran out of fuel and
>>> cooked the pump.
>>>
>>> My Mitsubishi van broke a fule lead 150 km from a town. I didn't realize
>>> fuel pump kept running and cooked another bloody pump.
>>>
>>> Keep some fuel in it.
>>
>>er, why would anyone leave the ignition in the "run" position after the
>>fuel's gone and the vehicle's stopped? because that's the only
>>condition under which you could theoretically "cook" a pump. /and/
>>that's assuming the engine computer doesn't turn the pump off for you,
>>which pretty much /any/ engine computer would do btw.
>>
>
>Nuh,
>We're talking duel fuel cars
>
>When you switch over to LPG from petrol the petrol pump keeps running.
>Don't know if the car computer monitors fuel pressure and that's why they
>keep the fuel pump working. I was running on LPG and the petrol was pissing
>out of a break in the petrol line.
>
All kinds of LPG conversions - but THAT one would never pass in
Ontario. Only one fuel source can be "live" at any one time. Shutting
off the injectors alone is NOT adequate. No EFI system I am aware of
senses fuel pressure.
Some EFI engines are difficult to dual fuel because the computer
(which controls fuel AND spark) needs to see the load on the injector
circuit to avoid throwing a code.You need the computer "happy" to
operate the spark timing.
Also, if the mixture goes off, the computer cannot correct unless you
are using a "piggyback" liquid injection system. (or a propane
"augmentation" system - which feeds the engine propane, but on the
lean side - and the gasoline injection system corrects the mixture
with gasoline.
I have not seen a commercial system that works that way, which would
be the only reason for running the fuel pump while burning LPG.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
#215
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> 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.
wow, that's got to be one of the last carburetted cars on the road! for
north america at any rate.
> 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.
wow, that's got to be one of the last carburetted cars on the road! for
north america at any rate.
#216
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> 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 **
the principle of how oil baths work is not at issue [centrifugal, et
al]. what /is/ at issue is their efficacy - it varies with flow rate.
none of your cites address that issue.
as an aside, it's odd to see that a paint shop is supposed use a water
baffle for hydrocarbon vapors - many of which are not typically regarded
as water soluble are they?
> 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 **
the principle of how oil baths work is not at issue [centrifugal, et
al]. what /is/ at issue is their efficacy - it varies with flow rate.
none of your cites address that issue.
as an aside, it's odd to see that a paint shop is supposed use a water
baffle for hydrocarbon vapors - many of which are not typically regarded
as water soluble are they?
#217
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Norman Webb wrote:
> jim beam wrote in message ...
>> Norman Webb wrote:
>>> Bill Putney wrote in message <6ai0kvF37k2jlU1@mid.individual.net>...
>>>> Don't Taze Me, Bro! wrote:
>>>>> Consider filling up your tank and not letting it drop below halfway,
>>> instead
>>>>> of keeping it on low and only putting in 2 gallons here and there...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361347,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Not because you could run out of gas and get stranded but because
>>> repeatedly
>>>>> running on low tends to ruin the fuel pump.
>>>> I see that thing about running low on fuel damaging fuel pumps posted
>>>> all over the internet, but personally I think that's total b.s.
>>>>
>>>> All the critical parts in the fuel pump - bearings (bushings), armature,
>>>> brushes/commutator, pumping elements (vanes, rotors, or rollers) - are
>>>> constantly bathed in the fuel as it flows thru the pump. That
>>>> lubricates and cools the parts regardless of fuel level in the tank.
>>>>
>>>> With regulator bypass pumping/circulation that modern cars have, there
>>>> is full volume of fuel going thru the pump at all times it is running
>>>> regardless of engine demand. The only effect of low fuel in the tank is
>>>> a slight temperature rise of the volume of fuel in the tank (due to same
>>>> electrical power dissipated in the pump being absorbed by less mass of
>>>> fuel), and that rise will be very small - power used by fuel pump is
>>>> small - temperature rise of the fuel in the tank and the tank itself
>>>> will be very small - lots of mass compared to the power being
> dissipated.
>>>> *BUT* - again - the fuel is constantly flowing thru and around all
>>>> internal components of the pump whenever it is running providing cooling
>>>> (unless you actually run out and the engine stops - but that is a
>>>> different scenario altogether, and even then, the pump will still be
>>>> full of fuel at that point with a full column of fuel from its lowest
>>>> end to the fuel rail - only the pickup will be filled with air, and
>>>> there won't be any flow - and most cars turn the pump off when the
>>>> computer senses that the engine is no longer running).
>>>>
>>>> If anyone wants to argue this, be sure of your facts beforehand - I used
>>>> to design automotive fuel pump components.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Putney
>>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>>> address with the letter 'x')
>>>
>>> My LPG fueled cars keep the fuel pump going ALL the time. Loaned a car to
> my
>>> penniless son for sometime and he only put LPG in it. Ran out of fuel and
>>> cooked the pump.
>>>
>>> My Mitsubishi van broke a fule lead 150 km from a town. I didn't realize
>>> fuel pump kept running and cooked another bloody pump.
>>>
>>> Keep some fuel in it.
>> er, why would anyone leave the ignition in the "run" position after the
>> fuel's gone and the vehicle's stopped? because that's the only
>> condition under which you could theoretically "cook" a pump. /and/
>> that's assuming the engine computer doesn't turn the pump off for you,
>> which pretty much /any/ engine computer would do btw.
>>
>
> Nuh,
> We're talking duel fuel cars
>
> When you switch over to LPG from petrol the petrol pump keeps running.
not if it's controlled by the computer it doesn't. maybe yours was
rigged in some way, but if it was, it's hardly fair to blame pump
burnout on the pump because it's not designed to run dry and is
protected from doing so by the computer under any normal application.
> Don't know if the car computer monitors fuel pressure and that's why they
> keep the fuel pump working. I was running on LPG and the petrol was pissing
> out of a break in the petrol line.
that's extremely dangerous [obviously]. i don't think the people that
did your conversion knew what they were doing or that would never have
happened.
> jim beam wrote in message ...
>> Norman Webb wrote:
>>> Bill Putney wrote in message <6ai0kvF37k2jlU1@mid.individual.net>...
>>>> Don't Taze Me, Bro! wrote:
>>>>> Consider filling up your tank and not letting it drop below halfway,
>>> instead
>>>>> of keeping it on low and only putting in 2 gallons here and there...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361347,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Not because you could run out of gas and get stranded but because
>>> repeatedly
>>>>> running on low tends to ruin the fuel pump.
>>>> I see that thing about running low on fuel damaging fuel pumps posted
>>>> all over the internet, but personally I think that's total b.s.
>>>>
>>>> All the critical parts in the fuel pump - bearings (bushings), armature,
>>>> brushes/commutator, pumping elements (vanes, rotors, or rollers) - are
>>>> constantly bathed in the fuel as it flows thru the pump. That
>>>> lubricates and cools the parts regardless of fuel level in the tank.
>>>>
>>>> With regulator bypass pumping/circulation that modern cars have, there
>>>> is full volume of fuel going thru the pump at all times it is running
>>>> regardless of engine demand. The only effect of low fuel in the tank is
>>>> a slight temperature rise of the volume of fuel in the tank (due to same
>>>> electrical power dissipated in the pump being absorbed by less mass of
>>>> fuel), and that rise will be very small - power used by fuel pump is
>>>> small - temperature rise of the fuel in the tank and the tank itself
>>>> will be very small - lots of mass compared to the power being
> dissipated.
>>>> *BUT* - again - the fuel is constantly flowing thru and around all
>>>> internal components of the pump whenever it is running providing cooling
>>>> (unless you actually run out and the engine stops - but that is a
>>>> different scenario altogether, and even then, the pump will still be
>>>> full of fuel at that point with a full column of fuel from its lowest
>>>> end to the fuel rail - only the pickup will be filled with air, and
>>>> there won't be any flow - and most cars turn the pump off when the
>>>> computer senses that the engine is no longer running).
>>>>
>>>> If anyone wants to argue this, be sure of your facts beforehand - I used
>>>> to design automotive fuel pump components.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Putney
>>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>>> address with the letter 'x')
>>>
>>> My LPG fueled cars keep the fuel pump going ALL the time. Loaned a car to
> my
>>> penniless son for sometime and he only put LPG in it. Ran out of fuel and
>>> cooked the pump.
>>>
>>> My Mitsubishi van broke a fule lead 150 km from a town. I didn't realize
>>> fuel pump kept running and cooked another bloody pump.
>>>
>>> Keep some fuel in it.
>> er, why would anyone leave the ignition in the "run" position after the
>> fuel's gone and the vehicle's stopped? because that's the only
>> condition under which you could theoretically "cook" a pump. /and/
>> that's assuming the engine computer doesn't turn the pump off for you,
>> which pretty much /any/ engine computer would do btw.
>>
>
> Nuh,
> We're talking duel fuel cars
>
> When you switch over to LPG from petrol the petrol pump keeps running.
not if it's controlled by the computer it doesn't. maybe yours was
rigged in some way, but if it was, it's hardly fair to blame pump
burnout on the pump because it's not designed to run dry and is
protected from doing so by the computer under any normal application.
> Don't know if the car computer monitors fuel pressure and that's why they
> keep the fuel pump working. I was running on LPG and the petrol was pissing
> out of a break in the petrol line.
that's extremely dangerous [obviously]. i don't think the people that
did your conversion knew what they were doing or that would never have
happened.
#218
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:58:50 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
wrote:
>clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>
>> 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 **
>
>I drove a '65 International Travelall with the oil bath air filter from
>my mid teens until the early 80's when I sold it, so I am familiar with
>this type of filter.
>
>You had me at "More:", but did you shoot your argument for its efficacy
> in the foot when you said "and they tend to increase exhaust emissions
>of unburned hydrocarbons due to oil aspiration when used on
>sark-ignition engines", being that that oil that would thus be aspirated
>would have been the medium that contains all the dirt that was caught?
>I think I see the answer to my question in your explanation, but I want
>to see what you will say. This is a very intersting discussion.
>
>Bill Putney
The oil in the filter media was constantly washed out and replaced by
clean oil from the bath. So the dirt trapped by the oil was deposited
in the oil tank. Remember that the filter media was very course,
somewhat like steel wool, so dry media would be next to useless as an
air filter.
I would tend to doubt that engine emissions would be effected to any
great amount by oil drawn into the intake manifold. Unless the tank
was over filled, I just don't think enough oil would make it out of
the filter.
Jack
wrote:
>clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>
>> 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 **
>
>I drove a '65 International Travelall with the oil bath air filter from
>my mid teens until the early 80's when I sold it, so I am familiar with
>this type of filter.
>
>You had me at "More:", but did you shoot your argument for its efficacy
> in the foot when you said "and they tend to increase exhaust emissions
>of unburned hydrocarbons due to oil aspiration when used on
>sark-ignition engines", being that that oil that would thus be aspirated
>would have been the medium that contains all the dirt that was caught?
>I think I see the answer to my question in your explanation, but I want
>to see what you will say. This is a very intersting discussion.
>
>Bill Putney
The oil in the filter media was constantly washed out and replaced by
clean oil from the bath. So the dirt trapped by the oil was deposited
in the oil tank. Remember that the filter media was very course,
somewhat like steel wool, so dry media would be next to useless as an
air filter.
I would tend to doubt that engine emissions would be effected to any
great amount by oil drawn into the intake manifold. Unless the tank
was over filled, I just don't think enough oil would make it out of
the filter.
Jack
#219
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:03:47 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>> 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.
Man, you should know I'm pretty up on my maintenance. The paper filter was
about 6 months old when I did the swap.
And no change in the MIL.
>
> 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.
I keep a book in my cars showing oil changes, mintenance (air filters,
etc) and every time I fill up. Prior to switching the air filter over I
was getting 38-40 MPG, and after ~44/45. And I didn't let my foot up at
all! You should know *THAT* by now, too!
>> 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.
Man, you should know I'm pretty up on my maintenance. The paper filter was
about 6 months old when I did the swap.
And no change in the MIL.
>
> 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.
I keep a book in my cars showing oil changes, mintenance (air filters,
etc) and every time I fill up. Prior to switching the air filter over I
was getting 38-40 MPG, and after ~44/45. And I didn't let my foot up at
all! You should know *THAT* by now, too!
#221
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:20:09 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>> 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.
From a dead stop. You could feel the difference. Any lag that had been
there before was gone. I was surprised. I mean, obviously, with a 1.5
liter "F" engine I wasn't expecting a fire-breathing monster, but starts
from a dead stop were quicker on the uptake.
It also had a small but noticeable effect on passing at speed, >50-60 MPH.
>> 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.
From a dead stop. You could feel the difference. Any lag that had been
there before was gone. I was surprised. I mean, obviously, with a 1.5
liter "F" engine I wasn't expecting a fire-breathing monster, but starts
from a dead stop were quicker on the uptake.
It also had a small but noticeable effect on passing at speed, >50-60 MPH.
#222
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:18:55 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> 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.
It could also be that you have your head up your *** and haven't the first
clue of what you're talking about.
Come back when you get some real experience, along with data. I kept a log
in the car of fuel economy, and it clearly went up after changing the
filter and the intake.
You don't believe it, fine. Why don't you go try one and get back to us
with your findings?
Until then, feel free to STFU...
>> 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.
It could also be that you have your head up your *** and haven't the first
clue of what you're talking about.
Come back when you get some real experience, along with data. I kept a log
in the car of fuel economy, and it clearly went up after changing the
filter and the intake.
You don't believe it, fine. Why don't you go try one and get back to us
with your findings?
Until then, feel free to STFU...
#223
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:30:20 -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 never bullshit, Jackass. If I say I did something and it did this, then
it did.
>
>
>> 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.
Um, book in the glove box? Increase from 38 MPG to 44 MPG? What part
aren't you quite getting here?
Do you have any real world experience doing anything at all, or are you
just Mr Know-It-All?
>>>> 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 never bullshit, Jackass. If I say I did something and it did this, then
it did.
>
>
>> 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.
Um, book in the glove box? Increase from 38 MPG to 44 MPG? What part
aren't you quite getting here?
Do you have any real world experience doing anything at all, or are you
just Mr Know-It-All?
#225
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:44:06 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
> 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.
This was because people were going 10-12,000 miles between changes and
sludging their engines.
I was there when the campaign was on.
> 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.
This was because people were going 10-12,000 miles between changes and
sludging their engines.
I was there when the campaign was on.