Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ｯ wrote:
> 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.


"he"?

 

Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ｯ wrote:
> 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.
>
>

so explain how a car with a knock sensor can still exhibit detonation...

 

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.


Oh, BTW, my *85* Celica GTS 2.4 had a knock sensor.

 

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:16:38 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
> so explain how a car with a knock sensor can still exhibit detonation...


By using GAS.

 

Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ｯ wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:16:38 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> so explain how a car with a knock sensor can still exhibit detonation...
>
>
> By using GAS.
>
>

so explain, since the engine is supposed to have a knock sensor, and the
computer is supposed to adjust the timing accordingly, how can "
GAS" cause detonation???

 

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:02:22 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>> 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 *** 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.



On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:00:59 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>
> and you can't destroy an "harmonic balancer" on a 91 accord - it doesn't
> have one, it's an ordinary pulley wheel.


On Sat, 31 May 2008 10:51:19 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> Net Doctor wrote:
>> JB..it's a 2 piece pulley, inner and outer hub separated by rubber. Call
>> it what we will..it will fly apart with too much pressure on it.
>
> yes, the 2-piece ones will, but the 91 accord is a single-piece, all
> steel, pulley wheel, not a balancer. maybe you're thinking toyota?



On Sat, 31 May 2008 21:52:41 -0400, Net Doctor wrote:

> /sarcasm on
>
> My gosh..since you put it that way..it becomes clear to me that I was
> mistaken.
>
> Apparently that wasn't a '92 Honda Accord that I put a $300
> distributor
> on. Perhaps I put a new harmonic balancer pulley on a Camry because my
> original one flew apart. I must have been driving a Toyota Camry all those
> 225,000 miles. In fact, I'm betting all 6 of my Honda Accords are really
> Camrys under the skin.
> In fact..oh my gosh, I hadn't even considered this!...maybe, just
> maybe..I haven't really been working for Honda for the last 21 years, but
> just showing up at a plant that says Honda on the front of the building
> when really...(OMG!) my pay checks were underwritten by Toyota.
>
> Them bastards!
>
> It is amazing how crystal clear things become when somebody lays it
> out
> there for you in black and white.
>
> /sarcasm off


But then, being a Dumbass, you wouldn't remember this, would you?

Remember, this thread is about repeatedly running something low. You
appear to be running you mouth with your brain low on working cells.

 

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:21:38 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>>>>
>>> so explain how a car with a knock sensor can still exhibit
>>> detonation...
>>
>>
>> By using GAS.
>>
>>
>>
> so explain, since the engine is supposed to have a knock sensor, and the
> computer is supposed to adjust the timing accordingly, how can " GAS"
> cause detonation???


Phew, you really are friggin' stupid, aren't you?

 

Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ｯ wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:02:22 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> 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 *** 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.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:00:59 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> and you can't destroy an "harmonic balancer" on a 91 accord - it doesn't
>> have one, it's an ordinary pulley wheel.
>
>
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 10:51:19 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> Net Doctor wrote:
>>> JB..it's a 2 piece pulley, inner and outer hub separated by rubber. Call
>>> it what we will..it will fly apart with too much pressure on it.
>> yes, the 2-piece ones will, but the 91 accord is a single-piece, all
>> steel, pulley wheel, not a balancer. maybe you're thinking toyota?
>
>
>
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 21:52:41 -0400, Net Doctor wrote:
>
>> /sarcasm on
>>
>> My gosh..since you put it that way..it becomes clear to me that I was
>> mistaken.
>>
>> Apparently that wasn't a '92 Honda Accord that I put a $300
>> distributor
>> on. Perhaps I put a new harmonic balancer pulley on a Camry because my
>> original one flew apart. I must have been driving a Toyota Camry all those
>> 225,000 miles. In fact, I'm betting all 6 of my Honda Accords are really
>> Camrys under the skin.
>> In fact..oh my gosh, I hadn't even considered this!...maybe, just
>> maybe..I haven't really been working for Honda for the last 21 years, but
>> just showing up at a plant that says Honda on the front of the building
>> when really...(OMG!) my pay checks were underwritten by Toyota.
>>
>> Them bastards!
>>
>> It is amazing how crystal clear things become when somebody lays it
>> out
>> there for you in black and white.
>>
>> /sarcasm off
>
>
> But then, being a Dumbass, you wouldn't remember this, would you?
>
> Remember, this thread is about repeatedly running something low. You
> appear to be running you mouth with your brain low on working cells.

i remember it perfectly. but it still makes no sense as to why your
argument that something "just happens because you say so" has any
credibility.

 

Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ｯ wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:21:38 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> so explain how a car with a knock sensor can still exhibit
>>>> detonation...
>>>
>>> By using GAS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> so explain, since the engine is supposed to have a knock sensor, and the
>> computer is supposed to adjust the timing accordingly, how can " GAS"
>> cause detonation???
>
>
> Phew, you really are friggin' stupid, aren't you?

sorry, was that a technical explanation? "because i said so" won't get
you onto any nasa payroll.

 

jim beam wrote:
> 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.

Maybe so. I did get the distinct impression that, whatever the
explanation, it was not something that was unique to Subarus, but was a
generalization that maybe the techs were trained in, or perhaps that
particular tech had learned from experience (that a slightly restricted
air filter would cause an increase in whatever parameter it was that was
the problem).

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

 

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:11:21 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ｯ wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> "he"?

Whatever. But the person knows what s/he is talking about, instead of
shotgunning in the dark.

You should try learning something, too! It might actually make you
credible, and then you'd know better than to say a '95 Tercel doesn't
have a knock sensor.

 

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:35:07 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>>> so explain, since the engine is supposed to have a knock sensor, and
>>> the computer is supposed to adjust the timing accordingly, how can
>>> " GAS" cause detonation???
>>
>>
>> Phew, you really are friggin' stupid, aren't you?
>
> sorry, was that a technical explanation? "because i said so"

No, I actually had the data to prove it. See, that's the difference
between actually doing something and sitting behind a keyboard guessing.

 

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:55:10 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:

>> 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.
>
> Maybe so. I did get the distinct impression that, whatever the
> explanation, it was not something that was unique to Subarus, but was a
> generalization that maybe the techs were trained in, or perhaps that
> particular tech had learned from experience (that a slightly restricted
> air filter would cause an increase in whatever parameter it was that was
> the problem).

Well, I had one of my Corollas fail once, and the tech looked at the test
results and asked when the last time I changed spark plugs, wires, or the
air filter was. Since the car had platinum plugs and only had 60,000
miles on it, I replaced the AF and it passed magnificently.

But, the tech knew how to read and interpret data, something Mr
Bean...er, BEAM needs to learn...

 

Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ｯ wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:11:21 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ｯ wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> "he"?
>
> Whatever. But the person knows what s/he is talking about, instead of
> shotgunning in the dark.
>
> You should try learning something, too! It might actually make you
> credible, and then you'd know better than to say a '95 Tercel doesn't
> have a knock sensor.
>

the knock sensor that allows the engine to knock? that's funny!

 

Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ｯ wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:35:07 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> so explain, since the engine is supposed to have a knock sensor, and
>>>> the computer is supposed to adjust the timing accordingly, how can
>>>> " GAS" cause detonation???
>>>
>>> Phew, you really are friggin' stupid, aren't you?
>> sorry, was that a technical explanation? "because i said so"
>
> No, I actually had the data to prove it. See, that's the difference
> between actually doing something and sitting behind a keyboard guessing.
>

but you haven't presented any data -just a number and "because i said so".