Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:24:53 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada
wrote:

>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
> Yup. It was an electronic feedback constant vacuum carb.

Nice to see someone who knows what he's talking about.
IIRC, my '83 had a similar system.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:13:20 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
> wrote:

>> My question was not the effect of the oil on emissions per-se, but that
>> that oil that got aspirated was carrying dirt that it had filtered out
>> of the incoming air stream - i.e., the purpose of a filter is to prevent
>> the entry of dirt into the engine, yet the very media that captures (and
>> holds?) the dirt is being ingested to some degree.
>>
>> Are you saying, or would you say, that (1) The dirt captured by the oil
>> for the most part is not in suspension (i.e., it settles out), and (2)
>> The amount of oil ingested (proportionally containing very little
>> suspended dirt?) is not significant - the total effect being that the
>> dirt entering the engine with the ingested oil is very small - much
>> smaller than would occur with a good paper filter?
>>
>> You're looking at on the order of 97-98% efficiency of a good paper
>> filter. When you're talking a couple of percent, even small amounts
>> getting thru (by ingestion of the oil) could have significant effects on
>> the total efficiency numbers (for oil bath filters). To really know
>> what that is, the typical total ingestion rate (dirt contained in the
>> inadvertently ingested oil drops) would need to be quantified.
>>
>> Bill Putney
>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> address with the letter 'x')
> The oil injested would be from the surface of the oiled media. The
> VAST majority of the captured dirt settles in the "sump". The injested
> oil is basically "vapour" - and as I stated is almost unmeasurable -
> insignificant. Particals of dirt would be such a low fraction of that
> extremely small amount that it would be barely a blip on the radar.
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

OK - thanks.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

Retired VIP wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:13:20 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Retired VIP wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> My question was not the effect of the oil on emissions per-se, but that
>> that oil that got aspirated was carrying dirt that it had filtered out
>> of the incoming air stream - i.e., the purpose of a filter is to prevent
>> the entry of dirt into the engine, yet the very media that captures (and
>> holds?) the dirt is being ingested to some degree.
>
> You really should read my response. I addressed that by saying, and I
> quote myself:
>
> "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."
>
>> Are you saying, or would you say, that (1) The dirt captured by the oil
>> for the most part is not in suspension (i.e., it settles out), and (2)
>> The amount of oil ingested (proportionally containing very little
>> suspended dirt?) is not significant - the total effect being that the
>> dirt entering the engine with the ingested oil is very small - much
>> smaller than would occur with a good paper filter?
>
> What I'm saying is that very, very little oil would make it through
> the filter and into the engine. What little did make it into the
> engine would be relatively clean. All of this presupposes that the
> filter is properly serviced.
>> You're looking at on the order of 97-98% efficiency of a good paper
>> filter. When you're talking a couple of percent, even small amounts
>> getting thru (by ingestion of the oil) could have significant effects on
>> the total efficiency numbers (for oil bath filters). To really know
>> what that is, the typical total ingestion rate (dirt contained in the
>> inadvertently ingested oil drops) would need to be quantified.
>
> When you quantify the efficiency of a filter, you have to spec the
> size of the particles you're talking about. The efficiency of a good
> paper filter would be 0% if you're talking about virus and 100% if
> you're talking about 1/2 inch stones.
>
> This conversation, while interesting, is rather pointless. No car
> manufactured today uses an oil-bath air cleaner so it's efficiency is
> meaningless.
>
> I would be interested in seeing some scientific tests comparing paper
> filters to oil-bath under real-life conditions. Both regarding
> maximum particle size that makes it through the filter as well as
> total amount of dirt removed during the service life. That would
> answer your questions as well as mine.
>
> Jack

Got it - thanks.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:53:31 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada
wrote:

>>>> 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.
>
> Not sure which car he's talking about here, but the Tercel was known
> to run better/give better gas mileage on premium IN SOME CASES. Driven
> consistantly hard there was no advantage. But the little buggers were
> "cokers" if babied, and the carbon buildup in the cyls of a lightly
> driven Tercel DID increase the octane requirement significantly.

LOL! He don't know me very well, do he? :)

"Baby" my cars? Not likely. I found the car actually did very well at
80-85 MPH, but decided saving a few $$$ in gas wasn't worth paying for it
for 6 years in insurance premiums.

I live in an area where most of my driving is done >=45 MPH, and I take
full advantage of that. I also know where most of the cops hang out at
any given time of day, and take advantage of *that*, too.

But, I don't pound the snot out of my cars, either. The Tercel was
purchased because I needed a car to drive so I could get my aging '85
Corolla GTS off the road so I could do some work on it. Unfortunately,
2.5 years after buying the Tercel an '88 Supra came up for sale for $600,
and I sold the Tercel to buy the Supra, and it's been taking up the bulk
of my 'repair' money. It rarely goes over 55 MPH, maybe a few runs on the
highway here and there (I did get stopped the first week I put it on the
road for the summer in '06 at 88 MPH, but when the officer saw the
registration was 4 days old he wrote me up for 72 and said Keep the speed
down!)

In the meantime I've had a Celica GTS (85 in good condition) and a '90
240 SX to keep me 'happy'.

>
> We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard
> at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake)
> and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well.
> BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on
> hightest, and left running fine on regular. Pinging really kills the
> fuel mileage, as well as power (and eventually the engine)

Hmmm...you work for a Toyota dealer? We were using BG to clean the
sludged Camry/Sienna engines, but the BG44K I hadn't heard of until it
was advertised on XM radio recently. Is it any good?

If I have some fuel system problems I use Techron. Been using it for
years, since it first came out.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:42:51 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:


> I'm puzzled about one thing that i used to experience sort of related to
> this, so I'll pose it here: In the late 80's/early 90's, I lived in
> Colorado - periodic emissions inspections were required. I had an '86
> MPFI turbocharged Subaru station wagon at the time. On two occasions,
> it failed the emissions isnpection - and both times the technician asked
> if the air filter had been changed recently. On those two occasions,
> the answer was 'no'. I changed the filter both times, and it passed the
> re-test with flying colors. After that, I made sure to replace the
> filter just before taking it for inspection if it had not been changed
> recently, and it always passed with no problem.
>
> So my question is: If the computer can compensate for the slightly
> clogged filter for normal driving, why can't it do so for emissions
> measurements (idling situation)?

Basically because a clogged filter is a clogged filter, and if the engine
isn't getting enough air it's going to run a little richer than it
should. Those cars had a somewhat rudimentary ECM and could lean the car
out under normal circumstances, but they sure didn't work as well as ECMs
today do. You can only compensate for so much.

I own an '89 GL Coupe, but I went through the car when I bought it and
did all the maintenance on it before I put it on the road. It passed the
emission test with flying colors with only one of the two factory cats
installed!

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:53:31 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada
> wrote:

>> ...We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard
>> at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake)
>> and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well.
>> BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on
>> hightest, and left running fine on regular. Pinging really kills the
>> fuel mileage, as well as power (and eventually the engine)
>
> Hmmm...you work for a Toyota dealer? We were using BG to clean the
> sludged Camry/Sienna engines, but the BG44K I hadn't heard of until it
> was advertised on XM radio recently. Is it any good?
>
> If I have some fuel system problems I use Techron. Been using it for
> years, since it first came out.

Techron, Sea Foam, Marvel Mystery Oil, ATF - all work well.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:57:27 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:

> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:53:31 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
>> canada wrote:
>
>>> ...We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven
>>> hard at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the
>>> intake) and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as
>>> well. BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on
>>> hightest, and left running fine on regular. Pinging really kills the
>>> fuel mileage, as well as power (and eventually the engine)
>>
>> Hmmm...you work for a Toyota dealer? We were using BG to clean the
>> sludged Camry/Sienna engines, but the BG44K I hadn't heard of until it
>> was advertised on XM radio recently. Is it any good?
>>
>> If I have some fuel system problems I use Techron. Been using it for
>> years, since it first came out.
>
> Techron, Sea Foam, Marvel Mystery Oil, ATF - all work well.


I use Techron for fuel system problems, Sea Foam for tranny problems
(works wonders in Suby AWD trannies...) but only did the ATF trick once on
a Chrysler engine that was making horrendous noises, but managed to put
10,000 miles on that one, too.

I used to mix MMO with Castrol GTX in my cars; for a 1 gallon car like the
GTS I would put in 3.5 QTS of Castrol GTX and 1/2 QT of MMO. I believe it
makes starting easier, although once the engine's been run it all mixes
together, I guess. Does the MMO separate out again? I don't think so...

I also put it in the tank on the older cars occasionally.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:57:27 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
wrote:

>Hachiroku ???? wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:53:31 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada
>> wrote:
>
>>> ...We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard
>>> at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake)
>>> and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well.
>>> BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on
>>> hightest, and left running fine on regular. Pinging really kills the
>>> fuel mileage, as well as power (and eventually the engine)
>>
>> Hmmm...you work for a Toyota dealer? We were using BG to clean the
>> sludged Camry/Sienna engines, but the BG44K I hadn't heard of until it
>> was advertised on XM radio recently. Is it any good?

Used to be Toyota service manager - for 10 years of my 25 years as an
auto mechanic.

The 44K is EXCELLENT stuff
>>
>> If I have some fuel system problems I use Techron. Been using it for
>> years, since it first came out.
>
>Techron, Sea Foam, Marvel Mystery Oil, ATF - all work well.

All work well for different problems. The 44k, in my experience, is
matched only (possibly) by Techron for removing engine (combustion
chamber) deposits. The sea foam is excellent for cleaning the fuel
system, and I hear it is pretty good on engine deposits as well. Sea
Foam and MMO are both good for crankcase deposits.

Techron and SeaFoam were not readily available up here when I was
"actively" involved. 44K was. MMO availability has always been spotty
up here - I buy mine in the states any time I go down (for less than
half what we pay for it up here WHEN we can get it.

>
>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 **

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:57:27 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
wrote:

>Hachiroku ???? wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:53:31 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada
>> wrote:
>
>>> ...We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard
>>> at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake)
>>> and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well.
>>> BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on
>>> hightest, and left running fine on regular. Pinging really kills the
>>> fuel mileage, as well as power (and eventually the engine)
>>
>> Hmmm...you work for a Toyota dealer? We were using BG to clean the
>> sludged Camry/Sienna engines, but the BG44K I hadn't heard of until it
>> was advertised on XM radio recently. Is it any good?
>>
>> If I have some fuel system problems I use Techron. Been using it for
>> years, since it first came out.
>
>Techron, Sea Foam, Marvel Mystery Oil, ATF - all work well.
>
>Bill Putney

Never used any of that stuff. Although I did use some Kerosene once
to free up a stuck valve on a Corvar flat six. Poured it down the
carb on the side with the stuck valve. Worked great too. ATF
probably would have work just as well.

Jack

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:10:32 -0400, wrote:

>>>
>>> Hmmm...you work for a Toyota dealer? We were using BG to clean the
>>> sludged Camry/Sienna engines, but the BG44K I hadn't heard of until it
>>> was advertised on XM radio recently. Is it any good?
>
> Used to be Toyota service manager - for 10 years of my 25 years as an auto
> mechanic.


Whereabouts? I'm on the East Coast.

I thought there might have been some professionalism there.

I take it you're in the Camry group. We're having a discussion in Toyota
about dealerships 'double dipping' using AllData when it comes to
replacing timing belts and water pumps. I've seen Toyota dealers quote ~3
hours to replace the belt, and then again to replace the water pump, even
though they're doing both operations at the same time!

Any insight?

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:16:52 GMT, Hachiroku +O+A+m+/
> <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:40:04 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>
> Not sure which car he's talking about here, but the Tercel was known
> to run better/give better gas mileage on premium IN SOME CASES.
> Driven consistantly hard there was no advantage. But the little
> buggers were "cokers" if babied, and the carbon buildup in the cyls of
> a lightly driven Tercel DID increase the octane requirement
> significantly.
>
> We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard
> at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake)
> and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well.
> BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on
> hightest, and left running fine on regular.

which reinforces the point i made but which our friend snipped - the
engine computer doesn't have a knock sensor to look at, so it can't take
proper advantage of high octane by adjusting its ignition timing strategy.


> Pinging really kills the fuel mileage, as well as power (and
> eventually the engine)
>>> classic! a car that doesn't have the sensors necessary for an ignition
>>> timing adjustment strategy, or compression ratio necessary to take
>>> advantage of high octane, but it gives higher mileage!!! tell me, 'cos
>>> i'm dying to know, exactly how does that work then?
>> What do you mean, 'doesn't have the sensors"? Of course it has the
>> sensors, Jackass. '95 Twin Cam EFI.
>>
>> And compression ratio doesn't have a lot to do with it. But you wouldn't
>> know that.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now, tell me why that's wrong, Genius...
>>> er, well, if i may be so bold as to copy your argument style, "because
>>> it is". how was that?
>> I had it all down in the book in the glove box. See, other than talking
>> out of my ass, I actually make notes of changes (cause) and results
>> (effect). That way I can make statements as to my observations, instead
>> of just pulling statements out of my ass.
>>
>> "But I have data showing that can't work!" Yeah, and I have Real World
>> data that shows you're wrong, Jackass.
>
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

Bill Putney wrote:
> Ed White wrote:
>> "hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
>> news:gQl3k.273$ul.157@trndny08...
>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:14:23 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>>>
>>>> Look back at your log book
>>>> - does the fuel economy decrease measurably between cleanings of the
>>>> oiled
>>>> gauze filter?
>>>
>>> Nope. Stayed a steady 43-45 MPG.
>>
>> Don't you think that is unusual, assuming that changing the air filter
>> was the readon for a large increase in fuel economy? If reducing the
>> air filter restriction could increase fuel economy by 10%, don't you
>> think you should see the fuel economy decrease as the filter
>> accumulates dirt and the filter restriction increases? I know you said
>> your filter was not a K&N, but I assume it is similar. K&Ns own data
>> shows a substantial increase in the filter restricition as it
>> accumulates dirt. K&N shows a dirty K&N filter to be more restricitive
>> than a clean paper filter. It seems to me you can't get a 10% increase
>> in fuel economy by changing to a less restricitive filter and not also
>> get a measurable decrease in fuel economy as that filter loads up with
>> dirt.
>>
>> Ed
>
> I'm puzzled about one thing that i used to experience sort of related to
> this, so I'll pose it here: In the late 80's/early 90's, I lived in
> Colorado - periodic emissions inspections were required. I had an '86
> MPFI turbocharged Subaru station wagon at the time. On two occasions,
> it failed the emissions isnpection - and both times the technician asked
> if the air filter had been changed recently. On those two occasions,
> the answer was 'no'. I changed the filter both times, and it passed the
> re-test with flying colors. After that, I made sure to replace the
> filter just before taking it for inspection if it had not been changed
> recently, and it always passed with no problem.
>
> So my question is: If the computer can compensate for the slightly
> clogged filter for normal driving, why can't it do so for emissions
> measurements (idling situation)?


the effect on air flow at idle, even for an ancient clogged filter, is
absolutely minimal. the only explanation i can think of could be that
subaru, for some odd reason, don't go closed loop with the oxygen sensor
at idle, but revert to some preset value instead. absolutely bizarre.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:48:14 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> he said pendantically...
>>>
>>> You could if you were smart enough to figure the angle.
>>>
>>> Kinda looks like you don't have too many friends in the Honda group,
>>> either. Ever wonder why that is?
>>>
>>> When did Honda start making Camrys?
>>>
>>> Bozo...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> eh?
>
> Go have a look in the Honda group. What kind of balance shaft does a '91
> Accord have?
>
> "...you must be thinking about a Toyota Camry..."
>
> (Paraphrasing:)
> "Gee, I didn't know I spent 6 years and 225,000 miles driving a Toyota
> Camry I thought was a Honda Accord..."
>
> Looks like you don't know your ass from a hole in the wall in the Honda
> group, either...
>

reading comprehension is evidently not your strongest skill. nor is
putting false words in the mouth of someone else.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:57:47 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>> We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard
>> at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake)
>> and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well.
>> BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on
>> hightest, and left running fine on regular.
>
> which reinforces the point i made but which our friend snipped - the
> engine computer doesn't have a knock sensor to look at, so it can't take
> proper advantage of high octane by adjusting its ignition timing strategy.


Right. First part I replaced on the car. Back side of the block under the
intake runners:

http://www2.partstrain.com/store/ima...1604175OES.JPG

TWO-DIGIT CODE 52 KNOCK SENSOR SIGNAL--OPEN OR SHORT IN KNOCK SENSOR
SIGNAL

--KNOCK SENSOR/CIRCUIT


Keep showing how dumb you are. That's OK.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

Bill Putney wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> ...it also discusses nanofiber media with fiber diameters down to
>> 30-40nm, but it's unclear whether this means particles are also
>> filtered to that level or not.
>
> Not inherently. Fiber diameter is fiber diameter. Particle size
> implies the space between the fibers. But there would be a connection
> between small fiber size and getting minimum filtered particle size down
> while at the same time *not* causing undue restriction levels,

they use progressively dense layers sandwiched together. the coarse
layers filter the larger particles, and so on. i assume this helps
retain air flow rate better as the filter does its job. assuming the
filter media is installed the correct way around of course!


> IOW a
> very low particle size-restriction product (product as in multiplication).
>
> If filtered particle size is decreased but fiber size remains the same,
> restriction levels goes up - a tradeoff. So smaller fiber size relaxes
> that tradeoff and gives you a competitive advantage.
>