Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:fPCdnaQbFdhgJdjVnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@earthlink.co m...
>
> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:G_adnYO148I_SNnVnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>> I don't remember what I said before, but the danger in burning out the
>> fuel pump is if you let it run dry repeatedly. Toyota electric fuel
>> pumps are cooled and lubricated by the fuel flowing through it, not by
>> the fuel around it. Since it is mounted on top of the tank, where it
>> would only be submerged when the tank is fuel, it wouldn't make sense to
>> have to rely on it being submerged all the time when it would only be
>> submerged when the tank is full. Running with a low tank will not have
>> any measurable effect on fuel pump life.
>
> While it might be mounted throught the top of the tank, I believe in most
> cases the pump is actully near the bottom of the tank. I looked at my shop
> manual for the Camry and it appears that the fuel pump stack is set up so
> that the pump is mounted directly on top of the pick-up sock. This implies
> it is almost always surrounded by some fuel unless level in the tank is
> very low. Here is a picture of a Camry Fuel Pump assembly -
> http://info.rockauto.com/getimage/ge...imageurl=http%
>
> Ed

I couldn't open the link, but I'll take your word for it and eat some crow
;-)
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

jim beam wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:

>> You are talking to the guy who designed and power limit-tested the
>> EMI/RFI coils on a certain GM gerotor pump. Believe me: The wire was
>> sized minimally for reliable life in fuel (for cooling) - 24 ga. solid
>> copper magnet wire carrying approx. 5 amps. I also designed the
>> plastic brush holder which also served as the motor/pump end cap. The
>> "bearing" (bushing) on that end is merely a hole precision-molded into
>> the plastic. The fuel is needed for lubrication for the bearings and
>> shaft to last a reasonable period without the armature rattling around
>> and crashing into the magnets. With fuel, bearing/shaft life is
>> reasonable. Without fuel, it would not be. You would not get away
>> with a metal shaft/plastic bushing bearing design on a windshield
>> wiper motor - because of the lubrication, you can on a fuel pump.
>>
>> The powders that go into the molded brushes are specifically designed
>> for use in gasoline. You would *not* use the same materials in the
>> brushes for use in gasoline as for use in air. High current-density
>> brushes (like in starter motors) have a *lot* of copper in them. Fuel
>> pump brushes are almost pure carbon/graphite.

>> In general you may be right. However, there are some specific motors
>> in very recent years that are extremely sensitive (in a negative way)
>> to oil changes much beyond 3000 miles. Examples: Chrysler 2.7L,
>> certain Toyota engines, and I believe certain Honda engines. Try
>> running those on 10k miles change intervals, and they will totally
>> sludge up and fail before 100k miles (typically 60-80k miles). I know
>> almost nothing of the Toyota and Honda problems beyond what I read,
>> but I am more familiar with the Chrysler 2.7L and its sludge/failure
>> problems.

>> As for running pump with fuel low in the tank, I was glad to see Ray
>> O. point out that many pumps are actually positioned very high in the
>> tank so that it is impractical to keep the fuel high enough to
>> guarantee that they're submerged all the time. I suspected as much,
>> but wasn't sure, so I kept quiet on that point - until today.

> while informative, there's nothing new in what you say. the vast
> majority of detroit's r&d over the last 20+ years has been into life
> limitation, and everything you describe is entirely a part of that
> process.

I didn't realize that I addressed that. Frankly, my working with the
tier 1 manufacturers was the opposite - they wanted things to last as
long as possible. I never saw pressure to design to fail soon after the
warranty duration or things of that nature. However there were things,
like annual 5% price cuts on parts forced on suppliers by Ford that had
the unintended consequence of resulting in bad designs and bad/blatantly
faked quality control on the line (think "Explorer/Firestone").

> the japanese otoh don't haven't had the same manufacturing
> objectives, or at least, if they do have an end life in mind, it's an
> order of magnitude further out than detroit's. [i think japanese intent
> is to simply *bore* you into new sales with gross reliability rather
> than bankrupt and disillusion which is how we do it.]

Again, I didn't see that as an overt goal on the engineering side. But
I did see cost cutting that had the same or more devastating results as
an unintended consequence - the Ford dictated cost cuts that I mentioned
and the GM PICOS program left over from the Lopez days. Uncontrolled
MBA's are bad for a company overall.

> i think attributing detroit's faults to japanese vehicles is like
> punishing your daughter because you caught your son smoking - somewhat
> unjustified.

I have no problem with you saying that - but be clear that you are not
attributing that to me. Not saying you were, but someone might read it
as such.

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?
 

jim beam wrote:
> None4You wrote:
>> "Craig M" <craig_6444@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:bba1k.4428$jI5.1145@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>> I live on the Gulf coast, and this time of year, we keep our tanks
>>> full, never know when your going to have to pack up the wife, dogs,
>>> clothes, ect and make a run for it, still have memories of Rita back
>>> in 05 arround here in Texas.
>>> Keep tank full, and eye to the sky.
>>> "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N00One187@NoWhere.Com> wrote in message
>>> news:%HP0k.6360$%Z1.4068@trnddc05...
>>>> Consider filling up your tank and not letting it drop below halfway,
>>>> instead of keeping it on low and only putting in 2 gallons here and
>>>> there...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361347,00.html
>>>>
>>>> Not because you could run out of gas and get stranded but because
>>>> repeatedly running on low tends to ruin the fuel pump.
>>>>
>>> I'm not going to agree that running the tank below 1/2 will damage a
>>> fuel pump . Unless a filter is restricting flow and the extra weight
>>> or pressure in the fuel tank is keeping it fueled. I will agree that
>>> its fuel cooled and can be damaged by starving it of fuel. (Running
>>> out of gas)On electric pumps. On another note. My dumbass drunken
>>> brother ran my Toyota out of fuel. The car is under warranty. The
>>> Dealer stated I needed to bring the car in and have the fuel filter
>>> removed and inspected for metal particles. As the fuel pump wasn't
>>> supposed to be run dry. If none were found the warranty would
>>> continue with new filter . If some were found the pump had to be
>>> replaced or the warranty would not be honored. Because the filter
>>> would get holes from the particles being in there. And something
>>> could happened to the engine later. Like the fuel injection system
>>> malfunctioning later . Or injectors plugging or stuck. The filter had
>>> nothing in it. Vehicle is good to go.
>
> of course it is - that whole charade was just the dealer looking to jerk
> off toyota or you for the replacement. running dry isn't going to put
> holes in a filter - nor will particles. and particles don't suddenly
> appear when the tank is dry - they're there all the time.
>
> as for the rest of the pump, running dry tends to stop once the engine
> stops running, so it's not like the motor has 100+ hours of non-fueled
> running in it. in fact, there was probably more contamination to the
> system from disassembly than anything else!
>
> next time, if there is a next time, just gas the thing up and forget
> about it.

Exactly.

Plus, as I've previously stated, the pumps are designed with the pumping
section at the very bottom. When you run it out of gas, there is a
solid column of fuel all the way from the pumping section, thru the
pump, to the injectors. The air starts at the very bottom of the
pumping section, with the column of fuel "dancing" on the pumping
element (whatever it might be) - and that's even if the pump keeps
running - which it doesn't.

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, 03 Jun 2008 19:23:55 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> hachiroku wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:01:54 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> a little updated fact into the room.
>>>
>>> i understand that you cant force dumb people to be smart, but you can
>>> sure encourage them to be silent!
>>
>> So why don't you STFU, then?
>>
>
> three replies to the same post? what is it with you???


Three separate 'ideas'. Wanted to make sure you didn't get too confused.
It seems to happen to you quite often.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:22:32 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>> When it comes between listening to you, or a former Toyota Factory
>> Service rep, guess who wins?
>> (HINT: it's not you!)
>>
>> You already proved how much you know with your 12,000 mile whether-it-
>> needs-it-or-not oil changes...
>>
>
> get your facts straight - i'm not "whether-it-needs-it-or-not", that's
> you with your 3k mile oil changes.

You're right. You wait until it's full of metal particles and starts to
gel...

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

hachiroku wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:22:32 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> When it comes between listening to you, or a former Toyota Factory
>>> Service rep, guess who wins?
>>> (HINT: it's not you!)
>>>
>>> You already proved how much you know with your 12,000 mile whether-it-
>>> needs-it-or-not oil changes...
>>>
>> get your facts straight - i'm not "whether-it-needs-it-or-not", that's
>> you with your 3k mile oil changes.
>
> You're right. You wait until it's full of metal particles and starts to
> gel...

how would /you/ know? you don't test! it's like saying you /know/ how
much gas is in the tank without looking at the gauge!

and metal particles don't cause gelling - it's water vapor condensation
acting with oil detergent from insufficient warmup - the same kind of
reaction that creates mayonnaise. unless the filter is so clogged it's
in bypass mode, or its got a defective drainback valve, metal particles
reside in oil filters where it's safe.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

hachiroku wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:23:55 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> hachiroku wrote:
>>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:01:54 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> a little updated fact into the room.
>>>>
>>>> i understand that you cant force dumb people to be smart, but you can
>>>> sure encourage them to be silent!
>>> So why don't you STFU, then?
>>>
>> three replies to the same post? what is it with you???
>
>
> Three separate 'ideas'. Wanted to make sure you didn't get too confused.
> It seems to happen to you quite often.

so you make three separate trips to the supermarket in one day? that's
not too smart.

btw, don't accuse me of /your/ confusion problem. see above. thanks.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

Bill Putney wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> You are talking to the guy who designed and power limit-tested the
>>> EMI/RFI coils on a certain GM gerotor pump. Believe me: The wire was
>>> sized minimally for reliable life in fuel (for cooling) - 24 ga.
>>> solid copper magnet wire carrying approx. 5 amps. I also designed
>>> the plastic brush holder which also served as the motor/pump end
>>> cap. The "bearing" (bushing) on that end is merely a hole
>>> precision-molded into the plastic. The fuel is needed for
>>> lubrication for the bearings and shaft to last a reasonable period
>>> without the armature rattling around and crashing into the magnets.
>>> With fuel, bearing/shaft life is reasonable. Without fuel, it would
>>> not be. You would not get away with a metal shaft/plastic bushing
>>> bearing design on a windshield wiper motor - because of the
>>> lubrication, you can on a fuel pump.
>>>
>>> The powders that go into the molded brushes are specifically designed
>>> for use in gasoline. You would *not* use the same materials in the
>>> brushes for use in gasoline as for use in air. High current-density
>>> brushes (like in starter motors) have a *lot* of copper in them.
>>> Fuel pump brushes are almost pure carbon/graphite.
>
>>> In general you may be right. However, there are some specific motors
>>> in very recent years that are extremely sensitive (in a negative way)
>>> to oil changes much beyond 3000 miles. Examples: Chrysler 2.7L,
>>> certain Toyota engines, and I believe certain Honda engines. Try
>>> running those on 10k miles change intervals, and they will totally
>>> sludge up and fail before 100k miles (typically 60-80k miles). I
>>> know almost nothing of the Toyota and Honda problems beyond what I
>>> read, but I am more familiar with the Chrysler 2.7L and its
>>> sludge/failure problems.
>
>>> As for running pump with fuel low in the tank, I was glad to see Ray
>>> O. point out that many pumps are actually positioned very high in the
>>> tank so that it is impractical to keep the fuel high enough to
>>> guarantee that they're submerged all the time. I suspected as much,
>>> but wasn't sure, so I kept quiet on that point - until today.
>
>> while informative, there's nothing new in what you say. the vast
>> majority of detroit's r&d over the last 20+ years has been into life
>> limitation, and everything you describe is entirely a part of that
>> process.
>
> I didn't realize that I addressed that. Frankly, my working with the
> tier 1 manufacturers was the opposite - they wanted things to last as
> long as possible. I never saw pressure to design to fail soon after the
> warranty duration or things of that nature.

but did you not have mileage/hour lifetime specs? you pretty much have
to if you're cutting everything down to the bleeding edge - what you
were doing. otherwise you'd be there with a much more robust design
able to withstand all operating conditions with 100% reliability.


> However there were things,
> like annual 5% price cuts on parts forced on suppliers by Ford that had
> the unintended consequence of resulting in bad designs and bad/blatantly
> faked quality control on the line (think "Explorer/Firestone").

the exploder was an unspeakable shameful debacle. no vehicle should
roll just because of a flat. period. firestone had nothing to do with
it. and no vehicle should have the cabin crush, even if it does roll.

this behavior was known before the exploder even shipped. this whole
thing was a disgraceful political whitewash with thousands of innocent
american families killed or maimed. just because some unscrupulous jerk
did the math on projected profits exceeding projected compensation
payouts. the "investigation" was a sham and our representatives hosed
us. if i had my way, there would be asses in the electric chair. enron
pales in significance.


>
>> the japanese otoh don't haven't had the same manufacturing objectives,
>> or at least, if they do have an end life in mind, it's an order of
>> magnitude further out than detroit's. [i think japanese intent is to
>> simply *bore* you into new sales with gross reliability rather than
>> bankrupt and disillusion which is how we do it.]
>
> Again, I didn't see that as an overt goal on the engineering side. But
> I did see cost cutting that had the same or more devastating results as
> an unintended consequence - the Ford dictated cost cuts that I mentioned
> and the GM PICOS program left over from the Lopez days. Uncontrolled
> MBA's are bad for a company overall.
>
>> i think attributing detroit's faults to japanese vehicles is like
>> punishing your daughter because you caught your son smoking - somewhat
>> unjustified.
>
> I have no problem with you saying that - but be clear that you are not
> attributing that to me. Not saying you were, but someone might read it
> as such.

no, not you. but the general bleating here before you came along was
the usual misguided crap about immersion, with people citing failures
for specific vehicles and trying to extrapolate to the whole population.
i'm grateful you injected some reason into the debate.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

ToMh wrote:
> On Jun 2, 4:51 pm, Bill Putney <b...@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>>ToMh wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 2, 2:12 am, "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N00One...@NoWhere.Com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Consider filling up your tank and not letting it drop below halfway, instead
>>>>of keeping it on low and only putting in 2 gallons here and there...
>>
>>>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361347,00.html
>>
>>>>Not because you could run out of gas and get stranded but because repeatedly
>>>>running on low tends to ruin the fuel pump.
>>
>>>The fuel pump is like any other fluid pump. it requires the liquid
>>>running through it to lubricate and cool it. If you run a pump dry,
>>>its seals can burn out fast.
>>
>>No. There are no dynamic seals in fuel pumps like in a typical
>>automotive water pump. Running dry (not a credible situation in
>>general) would not affect case seals (which are static crimped seals).
>
>
>
>
>>>But as long as there is fluid running
>>>through it, it will be fine. So as long as there is gas running
>>>through the pump, it won't get damaged, but I could certainly see how
>>>it could be damaged if you let it run out of gas...
>>
>>Not likely since the pumping section is at the bottom of the pump, so
>>when you "run out of gas", there is a column of fuel extending from the
>>pumping section of the pump (at its very bottom), thru the pump, all the
>>way to the fuel rail and injectors. Granted that column of fuel is not
>>moving, but it's there nonetheless. And the engine dies, and the
>>computer turns the pump off in a matter of seconds. No real chance for
>>significant damage from heat or lack of lubrication.
>>
>>
>>>Just having a low
>>>tank, without the pump running dry, can't possibly cause any
>>>problems.
>>
>>I'll buy that.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for the info. It sounds like you'd have to practically let all
> the gas evaporate before it causes a problem.
>
Hi,
In cold weather too low fuel in the tank causes condensation which leads
to water. There is high possibility at the bottom of tank is some water.
I never go lower than 1/4 full on gauge at any time year round. If
liquid sloshes around, there is a possibility the pump can run dry
momentarily or water can be sucked in. Also there could be some rust
particles/debris which could cause clog. Just my two bits.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

hachiroku wrote:

> You're right. You wait until it's full of metal particles and
> starts to gel...

jim's right. Real-world data relating wear to oil change
frequency agree that wear is greatest for some time just after
an oil change.

"Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear
debris, produced less wear than testing with clean oil. This
finding was unexpected and initially confusing (further inquiry
suggested that the result was not so surprising, as many oil
chemistries require time and temperature to enhance their
effectiveness)."
http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm

"Contrary to common perception, changing oil more often than
recommended has been shown to increase engine wear. An ongoing
University of Michigan study has shown that the greatest wear
occurs in the first 3000km of an oil's life in any engine!"
http://tinyurl.com/32653c

John

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:34:36 +1000, John Henderson
<jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote:

>hachiroku wrote:
>
>> You're right. You wait until it's full of metal particles and
>> starts to gel...
>
>jim's right. Real-world data relating wear to oil change
>frequency agree that wear is greatest for some time just after
>an oil change.
>
>"Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear
>debris, produced less wear than testing with clean oil. This
>finding was unexpected and initially confusing (further inquiry
>suggested that the result was not so surprising, as many oil
>chemistries require time and temperature to enhance their
>effectiveness)."
>http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm
>
>"Contrary to common perception, changing oil more often than
>recommended has been shown to increase engine wear. An ongoing
>University of Michigan study has shown that the greatest wear
>occurs in the first 3000km of an oil's life in any engine!"
>http://tinyurl.com/32653c
>
>John

Those two links are very interesting. Who would have thought that
dirty, old oil was better at lubricating an engine than clean fresh
oil? How much sand would you recommend I add to the crankcase when I
change my oil to eliminate that dreaded first 3000 km of wear? I
wonder if just not replacing the oil filter would help reduce engine
wear?

How did I get engines to last over 100,000 miles changing the oil and
filter every 3,000 to 3,500 miles?

In case you haven't guessed, I think the above is BS. Looks like an
April fool article to me.

Jack

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

jim beam wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>>> You are talking to the guy who designed and power limit-tested the
>>>> EMI/RFI coils on a certain GM gerotor pump. Believe me: The wire
>>>> was sized minimally for reliable life in fuel (for cooling) - 24 ga.
>>>> solid copper magnet wire carrying approx. 5 amps. I also designed
>>>> the plastic brush holder which also served as the motor/pump end
>>>> cap. The "bearing" (bushing) on that end is merely a hole
>>>> precision-molded into the plastic. The fuel is needed for
>>>> lubrication for the bearings and shaft to last a reasonable period
>>>> without the armature rattling around and crashing into the magnets.
>>>> With fuel, bearing/shaft life is reasonable. Without fuel, it would
>>>> not be. You would not get away with a metal shaft/plastic bushing
>>>> bearing design on a windshield wiper motor - because of the
>>>> lubrication, you can on a fuel pump.
>>>>
>>>> The powders that go into the molded brushes are specifically
>>>> designed for use in gasoline. You would *not* use the same
>>>> materials in the brushes for use in gasoline as for use in air.
>>>> High current-density brushes (like in starter motors) have a *lot*
>>>> of copper in them. Fuel pump brushes are almost pure carbon/graphite.
>>
>>>> In general you may be right. However, there are some specific
>>>> motors in very recent years that are extremely sensitive (in a
>>>> negative way) to oil changes much beyond 3000 miles. Examples:
>>>> Chrysler 2.7L, certain Toyota engines, and I believe certain Honda
>>>> engines. Try running those on 10k miles change intervals, and they
>>>> will totally sludge up and fail before 100k miles (typically 60-80k
>>>> miles). I know almost nothing of the Toyota and Honda problems
>>>> beyond what I read, but I am more familiar with the Chrysler 2.7L
>>>> and its sludge/failure problems.
>>
>>>> As for running pump with fuel low in the tank, I was glad to see Ray
>>>> O. point out that many pumps are actually positioned very high in
>>>> the tank so that it is impractical to keep the fuel high enough to
>>>> guarantee that they're submerged all the time. I suspected as much,
>>>> but wasn't sure, so I kept quiet on that point - until today.
>>
>>> while informative, there's nothing new in what you say. the vast
>>> majority of detroit's r&d over the last 20+ years has been into life
>>> limitation, and everything you describe is entirely a part of that
>>> process.
>>
>> I didn't realize that I addressed that. Frankly, my working with the
>> tier 1 manufacturers was the opposite - they wanted things to last as
>> long as possible. I never saw pressure to design to fail soon after
>> the warranty duration or things of that nature.
>
> but did you not have mileage/hour lifetime specs? you pretty much have
> to if you're cutting everything down to the bleeding edge - what you
> were doing. otherwise you'd be there with a much more robust design
> able to withstand all operating conditions with 100% reliability.

IIRC, they were shooting for 200+k miles. Seriously - the pressure was
not on us to design for limited life per-se. The direction was
maximizing that life within the myriad of constraints that always come
into play (cost, weight, volume, etc.). Unfortunately it seems the
MBA's are always doing the prioritization of those constraints.

The quality and longevity of parts would have been better if tier 1 had
not put so much emphasis on quality systems that were the buzz word of
the decade and in the end only caused faking of data because the ever
decreasing price structures (think Lopez,; think GM PICOS; think Ford
demanding - no - unilaterally *taking* - 5% out of what they paid your
for each part year after year after year with no basis in reality for
doing so) wouldn't support the ever increasing complexity and costs of,
in the majority of cases, no-value-added make-work CYA (for them)
so-called quality documentation and paperwork (sorry for the run-on
sentence). IOW, there was no way to meet the b.s. fake quality system
requirements (unnecessarily increased overhead costs like crazy) *and*
deliver a true quality product with the forced decrease in accounts
receivables. The supplier had a choice to either fake it or go out of
business (or possibly fake it *and* go out of business anyway - like the
company I worked for eventually did).

The above is an over-simplification. I could add many details and
war-stories that would reinforce what I'm saying.

>> However there were things, like annual 5% price cuts on parts forced
>> on suppliers by Ford that had the unintended consequence of resulting
>> in bad designs and bad/blatantly faked quality control on the line
>> (think "Explorer/Firestone").
>
> the exploder was an unspeakable shameful debacle. no vehicle should
> roll just because of a flat. period. firestone had nothing to do with
> it. and no vehicle should have the cabin crush, even if it does roll.

Fair enough. However, having been somewhat of an insider in the
industry, the part about Firestone faking the QA data in production
leading to bad product getting out the door has a tremendous ring of
truth to my ears - someone making up b.s. for the public spin wouldn't
have included that particular part if it had not been true, IMO. You
know how it is when you hear a story that is part b.s. and part truth,
and having had experience in the area, you can separate the two with
surgical accuracy?

> this behavior was known before the exploder even shipped. this whole
> thing was a disgraceful political whitewash with thousands of innocent
> american families killed or maimed.

Wow - was it really that many? I did not realize.

> just because some unscrupulous jerk
> did the math on projected profits exceeding projected compensation
> payouts. the "investigation" was a sham and our representatives hosed
> us. if i had my way, there would be asses in the electric chair. enron
> pales in significance.
..
..
..

>>> i think attributing detroit's faults to japanese vehicles is like
>>> punishing your daughter because you caught your son smoking -
>>> somewhat unjustified.

>> I have no problem with you saying that - but be clear that you are not
>> attributing that to me. Not saying you were, but someone might read it
>> as such.
>
> no, not you. but the general bleating here before you came along was
> the usual misguided crap about immersion, with people citing failures
> for specific vehicles and trying to extrapolate to the whole population.
> i'm grateful you injected some reason into the debate.

Well thanks. I try.

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?
 

"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in
news:FNWdnWduiuxhqNvVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com:

> Gas stations generally filter the fuel before
> delivering it to vehicles, so it is not likely that the rust came from
> the gas station.



Gas dispensers (pumps) have a sort of basket filter and nothing more. The
screen on the filter is fairly crude, maybe four times smaller than a
window screen. Small rust particles could easily get through that, but
would be caught by the sock, which is a much finer mesh than the pump
filter.

Having said all that, the gas station tanks I've seen appear not to be made
of metal. Maybe they do have a metal inner lining. But if they did, these
would either be awfully big stampings or have lots of leak-prone weld
seams. Anybody know for sure?



--
Tegger

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

Tony Hwang wrote:
> ToMh wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 4:51 pm, Bill Putney <b...@kinez.net> wrote:
>>
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 2, 2:12 am, "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N00One...@NoWhere.Com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Consider filling up your tank and not letting it drop below
>>>>> halfway, instead
>>>>> of keeping it on low and only putting in 2 gallons here and there...
>>>
>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361347,00.html
>>>
>>>>> Not because you could run out of gas and get stranded but because
>>>>> repeatedly
>>>>> running on low tends to ruin the fuel pump.
>>>
>>>> The fuel pump is like any other fluid pump. it requires the liquid
>>>> running through it to lubricate and cool it. If you run a pump dry,
>>>> its seals can burn out fast.
>>>
>>> No. There are no dynamic seals in fuel pumps like in a typical
>>> automotive water pump. Running dry (not a credible situation in
>>> general) would not affect case seals (which are static crimped seals).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> But as long as there is fluid running
>>>> through it, it will be fine. So as long as there is gas running
>>>> through the pump, it won't get damaged, but I could certainly see how
>>>> it could be damaged if you let it run out of gas...
>>>
>>> Not likely since the pumping section is at the bottom of the pump, so
>>> when you "run out of gas", there is a column of fuel extending from the
>>> pumping section of the pump (at its very bottom), thru the pump, all the
>>> way to the fuel rail and injectors. Granted that column of fuel is not
>>> moving, but it's there nonetheless. And the engine dies, and the
>>> computer turns the pump off in a matter of seconds. No real chance for
>>> significant damage from heat or lack of lubrication.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Just having a low
>>>> tank, without the pump running dry, can't possibly cause any
>>>> problems.
>>>
>>> I'll buy that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the info. It sounds like you'd have to practically let all
>> the gas evaporate before it causes a problem.
>>
> Hi,
> In cold weather too low fuel in the tank causes condensation which leads
> to water. There is high possibility at the bottom of tank is some water.
> I never go lower than 1/4 full on gauge at any time year round. If
> liquid sloshes around, there is a possibility the pump can run dry
> momentarily or water can be sucked in. Also there could be some rust
> particles/debris which could cause clog. Just my two bits.

Sloshing around is no problem. Copying my comments from a previous post
9that you inluded above):
>>> Not likely since the pumping section is at the bottom of the pump, so
>>> when you "run out of gas", there is a column of fuel extending from the
>>> pumping section of the pump (at its very bottom), thru the pump,
all the
>>> way to the fuel rail and injectors...

As far as condensation - it is not the problem it used to be. It used
to be that the tank was "open" to the air, and was able to "breathe" as
the ambient temperatures warmed and cooled (and air moved in and out of
the tank) with time of day. This brought in a continuous fresh supply
of moisture-laden air to condense out in the tank. With sealed tanks,
you do get moisture coming in, but only as the tank emptied as the level
dropped. That amount of moisture is a fraction of what would come in in
a "breathing" system. The small amount generally does not overload the
fuel and is able to be handled without noticeable symptoms. In some
colder climates, it might be advisable to put in a can of Dri-Gas
periodically. Also - don't forget plastic tanks (that don't rust.

However - it's certainly fine with you keeping your level above 1/4 - no
harm, and arguably some extra margin against problems.

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 Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:34:36 +1000, John Henderson
> <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote:
>
>> hachiroku wrote:
>>
>>> You're right. You wait until it's full of metal particles and
>>> starts to gel...
>> jim's right. Real-world data relating wear to oil change
>> frequency agree that wear is greatest for some time just after
>> an oil change.
>>
>> "Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear
>> debris, produced less wear than testing with clean oil. This
>> finding was unexpected and initially confusing (further inquiry
>> suggested that the result was not so surprising, as many oil
>> chemistries require time and temperature to enhance their
>> effectiveness)."
>> http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm
>>
>> "Contrary to common perception, changing oil more often than
>> recommended has been shown to increase engine wear. An ongoing
>> University of Michigan study has shown that the greatest wear
>> occurs in the first 3000km of an oil's life in any engine!"
>> http://tinyurl.com/32653c
>>
>> John
>
> Those two links are very interesting. Who would have thought that
> dirty, old oil was better at lubricating an engine than clean fresh
> oil? How much sand would you recommend I add to the crankcase when I
> change my oil to eliminate that dreaded first 3000 km of wear? I
> wonder if just not replacing the oil filter would help reduce engine
> wear?

Only if the filter isn't working properly. Filters have tiny holes in
them that dirt is able to flow through when a filter is new. After a
while, the hole plug up, and the filter does a better job of filtering oil.

> How did I get engines to last over 100,000 miles changing the oil and
> filter every 3,000 to 3,500 miles?

You appear to be making the false assumption that the engine would not
have lasted 100,000 mi if you changed the oil at say 5000 mi intervals.
My Contour has gone over 150k mi with 5,000 mi intervals and synthetic oil.

> In case you haven't guessed, I think the above is BS. Looks like an
> April fool article to me.
>
> Jack