Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
#301
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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"?
> 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"?
#302
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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.
>
>
> 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...
#303
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Oh, BTW, my *85* Celica GTS 2.4 had a knock sensor.
>> 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.
#304
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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.
>> 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.
#305
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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 21:16:38 -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???
#306
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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.
>> 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.
#307
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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?
>>>>
>>> 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?
#308
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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.
> 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.
#309
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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.
> 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.
#310
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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')
> 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')
#311
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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.
> 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.
#312
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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.
>>> 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.
#313
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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...
>> 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...
#314
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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!
> 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!
#315
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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".
> 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".