Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
#241
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:10:51 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> 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'm an !
>
> He's an , what an !
>
>> I'm an !
>
> He's the world's biggest !
>
>> I'm an and proud of it!
>
> Yeah, we can tell...
>
here, let me reinsert what you clipped:
"b.s."
there you go.
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:10:51 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> 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'm an !
>
> He's an , what an !
>
>> I'm an !
>
> He's the world's biggest !
>
>> I'm an and proud of it!
>
> Yeah, we can tell...
>
here, let me reinsert what you clipped:
"b.s."
there you go.
#242
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:56:33 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>> you, evidently.
>>
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>>
>>
> the way you keep biting contradicts that.
Well, why don't you post your data, Blowhole?
Make some use of yourself other than being the backside of a mule.
>>> you, evidently.
>>
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>>
>>
> the way you keep biting contradicts that.
Well, why don't you post your data, Blowhole?
Make some use of yourself other than being the backside of a mule.
#243
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:32:46 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>> I'm an and proud of it!
>>
>> And you prove it daily.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> hmmm, bullshit and misquotes. and you wonder why people don't take you
> seriously!
Only you, Jackass...
>>> I'm an and proud of it!
>>
>> And you prove it daily.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> hmmm, bullshit and misquotes. and you wonder why people don't take you
> seriously!
Only you, Jackass...
#244
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:07:04 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> 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...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> whoops, busted - no cars here on planet bulldetector. but you're giving
>> me /so/ much ammo, even i can hit you from here in the dark smelly wastes
>> of interstellar space.
>
>
> I'm beginning to think you don't even know what a car is...
er, i just told you, we don't have cars here on planet bulldetector.
and i don't even /need/ to know what a car is to be able to fling your
excrement back at you.
>
> Why don't you actually go *DO* something and then let us know how it works
> for you?
flinging your own effluent back at you seems to be working excellently!
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:07:04 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> 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...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> whoops, busted - no cars here on planet bulldetector. but you're giving
>> me /so/ much ammo, even i can hit you from here in the dark smelly wastes
>> of interstellar space.
>
>
> I'm beginning to think you don't even know what a car is...
er, i just told you, we don't have cars here on planet bulldetector.
and i don't even /need/ to know what a car is to be able to fling your
excrement back at you.
>
> Why don't you actually go *DO* something and then let us know how it works
> for you?
flinging your own effluent back at you seems to be working excellently!
#245
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:35:58 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> I'm beginning to think you don't even know what a car is...
>
> er, i just told you, we don't have cars here
Probably the first true thing you've said all along.
>> I'm beginning to think you don't even know what a car is...
>
> er, i just told you, we don't have cars here
Probably the first true thing you've said all along.
#246
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:09:26 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>> so, given that efi controls the engine management, and the throttle is a
>> much more significant restriction on air intake than any but the most
>> seriously clogged filter, how exactly can that be happening?
>
>
> Easy, it did. You're in the Honda group, right? Don't you ever talk to any
> of the guys that modify their Hondas? They're all over the place.
>
> Oh, forget it. You're a keyboard Know-It-All, and don't actually talk to
> real people.
>
>
"it did"???
ground control to cmdr young: "how exactly to you propose to get apollo
13 back to earth?"
cmdr young to ground control: "er, don't know, but i changed the air
intake on my car once and..."
you did used to work for nasa, right?
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:09:26 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>> so, given that efi controls the engine management, and the throttle is a
>> much more significant restriction on air intake than any but the most
>> seriously clogged filter, how exactly can that be happening?
>
>
> Easy, it did. You're in the Honda group, right? Don't you ever talk to any
> of the guys that modify their Hondas? They're all over the place.
>
> Oh, forget it. You're a keyboard Know-It-All, and don't actually talk to
> real people.
>
>
"it did"???
ground control to cmdr young: "how exactly to you propose to get apollo
13 back to earth?"
cmdr young to ground control: "er, don't know, but i changed the air
intake on my car once and..."
you did used to work for nasa, right?
#247
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:56:33 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> you, evidently.
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> the way you keep biting contradicts that.
>
>
> Well, why don't you post your data, Blowhole?
>
> Make some use of yourself other than being the backside of a mule.
>
>
what do you want me to post? i haven't made bullshit claims about air
filters decreasing fuel consumption, so you're the one that needs to be
posting data.
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:56:33 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> you, evidently.
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> the way you keep biting contradicts that.
>
>
> Well, why don't you post your data, Blowhole?
>
> Make some use of yourself other than being the backside of a mule.
>
>
what do you want me to post? i haven't made bullshit claims about air
filters decreasing fuel consumption, so you're the one that needs to be
posting data.
#248
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:04:41 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> Do you have any real world experience doing anything at all, or are you
>>> just Mr Know-It-All?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> nope - we don't have cars on planet bulldetector.
>
> I believe it. That's why you're such a moron.
>
>
does not compute. lack of cars here on planet bulldetector has nothing
to do with i.q.
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:04:41 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> Do you have any real world experience doing anything at all, or are you
>>> just Mr Know-It-All?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> nope - we don't have cars on planet bulldetector.
>
> I believe it. That's why you're such a moron.
>
>
does not compute. lack of cars here on planet bulldetector has nothing
to do with i.q.
#249
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:32:46 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> I'm an and proud of it!
>>> And you prove it daily.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> hmmm, bullshit and misquotes. and you wonder why people don't take you
>> seriously!
>
>
> Only you, Jackass...
>
>
i think you need to disable that "jim beam only" filter you have on your
newsreader there buddy - it's blocking everybody else that's calling you
on the b.s.
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:32:46 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> I'm an and proud of it!
>>> And you prove it daily.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> hmmm, bullshit and misquotes. and you wonder why people don't take you
>> seriously!
>
>
> Only you, Jackass...
>
>
i think you need to disable that "jim beam only" filter you have on your
newsreader there buddy - it's blocking everybody else that's calling you
on the b.s.
#250
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:49:10 -0700, jim beam wrote:
> hachiroku wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:09:26 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>> so, given that efi controls the engine management, and the throttle is
>>> a much more significant restriction on air intake than any but the most
>>> seriously clogged filter, how exactly can that be happening?
>>
>>
>> Easy, it did. You're in the Honda group, right? Don't you ever talk to
>> any of the guys that modify their Hondas? They're all over the place.
>>
>> Oh, forget it. You're a keyboard Know-It-All, and don't actually talk to
>> real people.
>>
>>
>>
> "it did"???
>
> ground control to cmdr young: "how exactly to you propose to get apollo 13
> back to earth?"
>
> cmdr young to ground control: "er, don't know, but i changed the air
> intake on my car once and..."
>
> you did used to work for nasa, right?
Gee, I was just thinking about that. No, not NASA, United Technologies.
You remind me of an engineer we had. He'd draw up a circuit and give it to
us to build. Invairably, the circuit would usually fail on the first try.
Then he'd give the tech a good dressing down in front of everyone and walk
away muttering.
What we soon realized was he would often bump all the components up
against their 10% tolerances. Occasionally his designs would work off the
bat, but fail in testing because when the components were stressed they'd
come up against the tolerances and fail.
One of the more artistic guys drew a cartton of an anguished looking guy
with his hands around his head and a name tag that said simply "Engineer"
and the caption was, "Oh GAWD!!! You built it just like I told you to!"
Like you, he thought he knew more than anyone else, but when it came to
practical application he had his head up his ***.
Why don't you push yourself back from the keyboard and actually try
something instaed of being such a ing Know-It-All?
> hachiroku wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:09:26 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>> so, given that efi controls the engine management, and the throttle is
>>> a much more significant restriction on air intake than any but the most
>>> seriously clogged filter, how exactly can that be happening?
>>
>>
>> Easy, it did. You're in the Honda group, right? Don't you ever talk to
>> any of the guys that modify their Hondas? They're all over the place.
>>
>> Oh, forget it. You're a keyboard Know-It-All, and don't actually talk to
>> real people.
>>
>>
>>
> "it did"???
>
> ground control to cmdr young: "how exactly to you propose to get apollo 13
> back to earth?"
>
> cmdr young to ground control: "er, don't know, but i changed the air
> intake on my car once and..."
>
> you did used to work for nasa, right?
Gee, I was just thinking about that. No, not NASA, United Technologies.
You remind me of an engineer we had. He'd draw up a circuit and give it to
us to build. Invairably, the circuit would usually fail on the first try.
Then he'd give the tech a good dressing down in front of everyone and walk
away muttering.
What we soon realized was he would often bump all the components up
against their 10% tolerances. Occasionally his designs would work off the
bat, but fail in testing because when the components were stressed they'd
come up against the tolerances and fail.
One of the more artistic guys drew a cartton of an anguished looking guy
with his hands around his head and a name tag that said simply "Engineer"
and the caption was, "Oh GAWD!!! You built it just like I told you to!"
Like you, he thought he knew more than anyone else, but when it came to
practical application he had his head up his ***.
Why don't you push yourself back from the keyboard and actually try
something instaed of being such a ing Know-It-All?
#251
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:52:25 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>> nope - we don't have cars on planet bulldetector.
>>
>> I believe it. That's why you're such a moron.
>>
>>
>>
> does not compute. lack of cars here on planet bulldetector has nothing to
> do with i.q.
In your case it certainly does, since it seems you don't really know much
of anything.
But, you keep telling us how smart you are, 'K?
>>> nope - we don't have cars on planet bulldetector.
>>
>> I believe it. That's why you're such a moron.
>>
>>
>>
> does not compute. lack of cars here on planet bulldetector has nothing to
> do with i.q.
In your case it certainly does, since it seems you don't really know much
of anything.
But, you keep telling us how smart you are, 'K?
#252
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:51:13 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> Well, why don't you post your data, Blowhole?
>>
>> Make some use of yourself other than being the backside of a mule.
>>
>>
>>
> what do you want me to post? i haven't made bullshit claims about air
> filters decreasing fuel consumption, so you're the one that needs to be
> posting data.
You said you have data showing the difference between oiled filters and
paper filters. So, where is it, *MOUTH*? Did you forget you said that?
I'm beginning to believe who the actual bullshitter is here. Put up or
shut up.
>> Well, why don't you post your data, Blowhole?
>>
>> Make some use of yourself other than being the backside of a mule.
>>
>>
>>
> what do you want me to post? i haven't made bullshit claims about air
> filters decreasing fuel consumption, so you're the one that needs to be
> posting data.
You said you have data showing the difference between oiled filters and
paper filters. So, where is it, *MOUTH*? Did you forget you said that?
I'm beginning to believe who the actual bullshitter is here. Put up or
shut up.
#253
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:55:09 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> Only you, Jackass...
>>
>>
>>
>
> i think you need to disable that "jim beam only" filter you have on your
> newsreader there buddy - it's blocking everybody else that's calling you
> on the b.s.
Nobody's calling me on anything. Ed's questioning what I did and what the
results were. I'm giving him the results of two year's worth of driving
the car.
See, I actually *have* a car. I actually have a few of them. I do most of
my own work. I try different things to see if they work, and I keep the
results in the car's log.
Some of us here sit behind a keyboard and question everything; other of us
actually do stuff and see how it works.
Push yourself back from the keyboard and actually try something.
Hey, here's something else you won't believe, too. I actually got better
mileage when I switched from 89 octane to 93 octane. That was documented
in the book too. And the sheet I made from the data indicated I
actually saved ~$220 in fuel by using premium gas.
Now, tell me why that's wrong, Genius...
>> Only you, Jackass...
>>
>>
>>
>
> i think you need to disable that "jim beam only" filter you have on your
> newsreader there buddy - it's blocking everybody else that's calling you
> on the b.s.
Nobody's calling me on anything. Ed's questioning what I did and what the
results were. I'm giving him the results of two year's worth of driving
the car.
See, I actually *have* a car. I actually have a few of them. I do most of
my own work. I try different things to see if they work, and I keep the
results in the car's log.
Some of us here sit behind a keyboard and question everything; other of us
actually do stuff and see how it works.
Push yourself back from the keyboard and actually try something.
Hey, here's something else you won't believe, too. I actually got better
mileage when I switched from 89 octane to 93 octane. That was documented
in the book too. And the sheet I made from the data indicated I
actually saved ~$220 in fuel by using premium gas.
Now, tell me why that's wrong, Genius...
#254
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:50:02 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote:
>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.
>
The Honda recommended oil change ( semi synthetic) intervals for
Hondas (at least the Civics) built and sold in the UK is 12 months or
12,000 miles. I have changed the oil in my Civic (2002) every 12
months and as far as I can see the engine is pristine. Are
driving/climatic conditions in the US that much more onerous to
require a more frequent oil change?
#255
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Edward W. Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:50:02 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> The Honda recommended oil change ( semi synthetic) intervals for
> Hondas (at least the Civics) built and sold in the UK is 12 months or
> 12,000 miles. I have changed the oil in my Civic (2002) every 12
> months and as far as I can see the engine is pristine. Are
> driving/climatic conditions in the US that much more onerous to
> require a more frequent oil change?
apparently they are in greenfield, mass.!
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:50:02 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> The Honda recommended oil change ( semi synthetic) intervals for
> Hondas (at least the Civics) built and sold in the UK is 12 months or
> 12,000 miles. I have changed the oil in my Civic (2002) every 12
> months and as far as I can see the engine is pristine. Are
> driving/climatic conditions in the US that much more onerous to
> require a more frequent oil change?
apparently they are in greenfield, mass.!