|
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:10:51 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>> I keep a book in my cars showing oil changes, mintenance (air filters, >>> etc) and every time I fill up. Prior to switching the air filter over I >>> was getting 38-40 MPG, and after ~44/45. And I didn't let my foot up at >>> all! You should know *THAT* by now, too! >>> >>> >>> >> I'm an ! > > He's an , what an ! > >> I'm an ! > > He's the world's biggest ! > >> I'm an and proud of it! > > Yeah, we can tell... > here, let me reinsert what you clipped: "b.s." there you go. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:56:33 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>> you, evidently. >> >> >> Not really. >> >> >> > the way you keep biting contradicts that. Well, why don't you post your data, Blowhole? Make some use of yourself other than being the backside of a mule. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:32:46 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>> I'm an and proud of it! >> >> And you prove it daily. >> >> >> >> > hmmm, bullshit and misquotes. and you wonder why people don't take you > seriously! Only you, Jackass... |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:07:04 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>> It could also be that you have your head up your ass and haven't the >>> first clue of what you're talking about. >>> >>> Come back when you get some real experience, along with data. I kept a >>> log in the car of fuel economy, and it clearly went up after changing >>> the filter and the intake. >>> >>> You don't believe it, fine. Why don't you go try one and get back to us >>> with your findings? >>> >>> Until then, feel free to STFU... >>> >>> >>> >> whoops, busted - no cars here on planet bulldetector. but you're giving >> me /so/ much ammo, even i can hit you from here in the dark smelly wastes >> of interstellar space. > > > I'm beginning to think you don't even know what a car is... er, i just told you, we don't have cars here on planet bulldetector. and i don't even /need/ to know what a car is to be able to fling your excrement back at you. > > Why don't you actually go *DO* something and then let us know how it works > for you? flinging your own effluent back at you seems to be working excellently! |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:35:58 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> I'm beginning to think you don't even know what a car is... > > er, i just told you, we don't have cars here Probably the first true thing you've said all along. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:09:26 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>> From a dead stop. You could feel the difference. Any lag that had been >>> there before was gone. I was surprised. I mean, obviously, with a 1.5 >>> liter "F" engine I wasn't expecting a fire-breathing monster, but starts >>> from a dead stop were quicker on the uptake. >>> >>> It also had a small but noticeable effect on passing at speed, >50-60 >>> MPH. >> so, given that efi controls the engine management, and the throttle is a >> much more significant restriction on air intake than any but the most >> seriously clogged filter, how exactly can that be happening? > > > Easy, it did. You're in the Honda group, right? Don't you ever talk to any > of the guys that modify their Hondas? They're all over the place. > > Oh, forget it. You're a keyboard Know-It-All, and don't actually talk to > real people. > > "it did"??? ground control to cmdr young: "how exactly to you propose to get apollo 13 back to earth?" cmdr young to ground control: "er, don't know, but i changed the air intake on my car once and..." you did used to work for nasa, right? |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:56:33 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>>> you, evidently. >>> >>> Not really. >>> >>> >>> >> the way you keep biting contradicts that. > > > Well, why don't you post your data, Blowhole? > > Make some use of yourself other than being the backside of a mule. > > what do you want me to post? i haven't made bullshit claims about air filters decreasing fuel consumption, so you're the one that needs to be posting data. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:04:41 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>> Do you have any real world experience doing anything at all, or are you >>> just Mr Know-It-All? >>> >>> >>> >> nope - we don't have cars on planet bulldetector. > > I believe it. That's why you're such a moron. > > does not compute. lack of cars here on planet bulldetector has nothing to do with i.q. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:32:46 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>>> I'm an and proud of it! >>> And you prove it daily. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> hmmm, bullshit and misquotes. and you wonder why people don't take you >> seriously! > > > Only you, Jackass... > > i think you need to disable that "jim beam only" filter you have on your newsreader there buddy - it's blocking everybody else that's calling you on the b.s. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:49:10 -0700, jim beam wrote:
> hachiroku wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:09:26 -0700, jim beam wrote: >> >>>> From a dead stop. You could feel the difference. Any lag that had been >>>> there before was gone. I was surprised. I mean, obviously, with a 1.5 >>>> liter "F" engine I wasn't expecting a fire-breathing monster, but >>>> starts from a dead stop were quicker on the uptake. >>>> >>>> It also had a small but noticeable effect on passing at speed, >50-60 >>>> MPH. >>> so, given that efi controls the engine management, and the throttle is >>> a much more significant restriction on air intake than any but the most >>> seriously clogged filter, how exactly can that be happening? >> >> >> Easy, it did. You're in the Honda group, right? Don't you ever talk to >> any of the guys that modify their Hondas? They're all over the place. >> >> Oh, forget it. You're a keyboard Know-It-All, and don't actually talk to >> real people. >> >> >> > "it did"??? > > ground control to cmdr young: "how exactly to you propose to get apollo 13 > back to earth?" > > cmdr young to ground control: "er, don't know, but i changed the air > intake on my car once and..." > > you did used to work for nasa, right? Gee, I was just thinking about that. No, not NASA, United Technologies. You remind me of an engineer we had. He'd draw up a circuit and give it to us to build. Invairably, the circuit would usually fail on the first try. Then he'd give the tech a good dressing down in front of everyone and walk away muttering. What we soon realized was he would often bump all the components up against their 10% tolerances. Occasionally his designs would work off the bat, but fail in testing because when the components were stressed they'd come up against the tolerances and fail. One of the more artistic guys drew a cartton of an anguished looking guy with his hands around his head and a name tag that said simply "Engineer" and the caption was, "Oh GAWD!!! You built it just like I told you to!" Like you, he thought he knew more than anyone else, but when it came to practical application he had his head up his ass. Why don't you push yourself back from the keyboard and actually try something instaed of being such a ing Know-It-All? |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:52:25 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>> nope - we don't have cars on planet bulldetector. >> >> I believe it. That's why you're such a moron. >> >> >> > does not compute. lack of cars here on planet bulldetector has nothing to > do with i.q. In your case it certainly does, since it seems you don't really know much of anything. But, you keep telling us how smart you are, 'K? |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:51:13 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> Well, why don't you post your data, Blowhole? >> >> Make some use of yourself other than being the backside of a mule. >> >> >> > what do you want me to post? i haven't made bullshit claims about air > filters decreasing fuel consumption, so you're the one that needs to be > posting data. You said you have data showing the difference between oiled filters and paper filters. So, where is it, *MOUTH*? Did you forget you said that? I'm beginning to believe who the actual bullshitter is here. Put up or shut up. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:55:09 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> Only you, Jackass... >> >> >> > > i think you need to disable that "jim beam only" filter you have on your > newsreader there buddy - it's blocking everybody else that's calling you > on the b.s. Nobody's calling me on anything. Ed's questioning what I did and what the results were. I'm giving him the results of two year's worth of driving the car. See, I actually *have* a car. I actually have a few of them. I do most of my own work. I try different things to see if they work, and I keep the results in the car's log. Some of us here sit behind a keyboard and question everything; other of us actually do stuff and see how it works. Push yourself back from the keyboard and actually try something. Hey, here's something else you won't believe, too. I actually got better mileage when I switched from 89 octane to 93 octane. That was documented in the book too. And the sheet I made from the data indicated I actually saved ~$220 in fuel by using premium gas. Now, tell me why that's wrong, Genius... |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:50:02 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote: >On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:44:06 -0400, C. E. White wrote: > >> I think Toyota did the right >> thing when they eliminated the normal / severe service schedules and just >> went to a 5K across the board schedule. > > >This was because people were going 10-12,000 miles between changes and >sludging their engines. > >I was there when the campaign was on. > The Honda recommended oil change ( semi synthetic) intervals for Hondas (at least the Civics) built and sold in the UK is 12 months or 12,000 miles. I have changed the oil in my Civic (2002) every 12 months and as far as I can see the engine is pristine. Are driving/climatic conditions in the US that much more onerous to require a more frequent oil change? |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Edward W. Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:50:02 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote: > >> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:44:06 -0400, C. E. White wrote: >> >>> I think Toyota did the right >>> thing when they eliminated the normal / severe service schedules and just >>> went to a 5K across the board schedule. >> >> This was because people were going 10-12,000 miles between changes and >> sludging their engines. >> >> I was there when the campaign was on. >> > > The Honda recommended oil change ( semi synthetic) intervals for > Hondas (at least the Civics) built and sold in the UK is 12 months or > 12,000 miles. I have changed the oil in my Civic (2002) every 12 > months and as far as I can see the engine is pristine. Are > driving/climatic conditions in the US that much more onerous to > require a more frequent oil change? apparently they are in greenfield, mass.! |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:51:13 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>> Well, why don't you post your data, Blowhole? >>> >>> Make some use of yourself other than being the backside of a mule. >>> >>> >>> >> what do you want me to post? i haven't made bullshit claims about air >> filters decreasing fuel consumption, so you're the one that needs to be >> posting data. > > > You said you have data showing the difference between oiled filters and > paper filters. So, where is it, *MOUTH*? Did you forget you said that? > > I'm beginning to believe who the actual bullshitter is here. Put up or > shut up. whoops, busted, no books here on planet bulldetector either! and the conversation with clare is for "oil", not "oiled". thanks. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:52:25 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>>> nope - we don't have cars on planet bulldetector. >>> I believe it. That's why you're such a moron. >>> >>> >>> >> does not compute. lack of cars here on planet bulldetector has nothing to >> do with i.q. > > > In your case it certainly does, since it seems you don't really know much > of anything. > > But, you keep telling us how smart you are, 'K? jeepers, i could have /so/ much fun with that! |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:49:10 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >> hachiroku wrote: >>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:09:26 -0700, jim beam wrote: >>> >>>>> From a dead stop. You could feel the difference. Any lag that had been >>>>> there before was gone. I was surprised. I mean, obviously, with a 1.5 >>>>> liter "F" engine I wasn't expecting a fire-breathing monster, but >>>>> starts from a dead stop were quicker on the uptake. >>>>> >>>>> It also had a small but noticeable effect on passing at speed, >50-60 >>>>> MPH. >>>> so, given that efi controls the engine management, and the throttle is >>>> a much more significant restriction on air intake than any but the most >>>> seriously clogged filter, how exactly can that be happening? >>> >>> Easy, it did. You're in the Honda group, right? Don't you ever talk to >>> any of the guys that modify their Hondas? They're all over the place. >>> >>> Oh, forget it. You're a keyboard Know-It-All, and don't actually talk to >>> real people. >>> >>> >>> >> "it did"??? >> >> ground control to cmdr young: "how exactly to you propose to get apollo 13 >> back to earth?" >> >> cmdr young to ground control: "er, don't know, but i changed the air >> intake on my car once and..." >> >> you did used to work for nasa, right? > > > Gee, I was just thinking about that. No, not NASA, United Technologies. > > You remind me of an engineer we had. He'd draw up a circuit and give it to > us to build. Invairably, the circuit would usually fail on the first try. > Then he'd give the tech a good dressing down in front of everyone and walk > away muttering. > > What we soon realized was he would often bump all the components up > against their 10% tolerances. Occasionally his designs would work off the > bat, but fail in testing because when the components were stressed they'd > come up against the tolerances and fail. > > One of the more artistic guys drew a cartton of an anguished looking guy > with his hands around his head and a name tag that said simply "Engineer" > and the caption was, "Oh GAWD!!! You built it just like I told you to!" > > Like you, he thought he knew more than anyone else, but when it came to > practical application he had his head up his ass. > > Why don't you push yourself back from the keyboard and actually try > something instaed of being such a ing Know-It-All? if this guy was having problems why didn't you redesign it for him? 'cos you did know more than he did, right? i can't help you right now though of course - i kinda have my tentacles full... |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:30:46 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> Why don't you push yourself back from the keyboard and actually try >> something instaed of being such a ing Know-It-All? > > if this guy was having problems why didn't you redesign it for him? 'cos > you did know more than he did, right? Now you're confusing me with yourself. No, I don't know how to design circuits. But I know how to analyze and come up with conclusions. That's how I got the job after only 6 months as an electronics tech. Something you don't seem to be able to do very well. > > i can't help you right now though of course - i kinda have my tentacles > full... Yeah, it's kinda tough keeping up the bullshit line, isn't it? |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:26:37 -0700, jim beam wrote:
> hachiroku wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:52:25 -0700, jim beam wrote: >> >>>>> nope - we don't have cars on planet bulldetector. >>>> I believe it. That's why you're such a moron. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> does not compute. lack of cars here on planet bulldetector has nothing >>> to do with i.q. >> >> >> In your case it certainly does, since it seems you don't really know >> much of anything. >> >> But, you keep telling us how smart you are, 'K? > > jeepers, i could have /so/ much fun with that! 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... |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:25:21 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> You said you have data showing the difference between oiled filters and >> paper filters. So, where is it, *MOUTH*? Did you forget you said that? >> >> I'm beginning to believe who the actual bullshitter is here. Put up or >> shut up. > > whoops, busted, no books here That seems fairly evident. As far as 'oil' or 'oiled', you're assuming I actually am paying attention to what you're spewing. I couldn't care less, cause you're a blowhard and a moron. Tell me something: if JDM engines are so good, WHAT ARE THEY DOING IN JUNKYARDS, moron?!?! Now, post the data you were going to post, or STFU. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:55:09 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>> Only you, Jackass... >>> >>> >>> >> i think you need to disable that "jim beam only" filter you have on your >> newsreader there buddy - it's blocking everybody else that's calling you >> on the b.s. > > > Nobody's calling me on anything. Ed's questioning what I did and what the > results were. I'm giving him the results of two year's worth of driving > the car. > oh, when you said "it did", i thought you were bullshitting since that's not a recognizable data point here on planet bulldetector! my mistake! > See, I actually *have* a car. I actually have a few of them. I do most of > my own work. I try different things to see if they work, and I keep the > results in the car's log. i don't. like i told you, we don't have cars here on planet bulldetector. > > Some of us here sit behind a keyboard and question everything; other of us > actually do stuff and see how it works. so how do you do that then??? > > 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. 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? > > 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? |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:25:21 -0700, jim beam wrote:
> hachiroku wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:51:13 -0700, jim beam wrote: >> >>>> Well, why don't you post your data, Blowhole? >>>> >>>> Make some use of yourself other than being the backside of a mule. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> what do you want me to post? i haven't made bullshit claims about air >>> filters decreasing fuel consumption, so you're the one that needs to be >>> posting data. >> >> >> You said you have data showing the difference between oiled filters and >> paper filters. So, where is it, *MOUTH*? Did you forget you said that? >> >> I'm beginning to believe who the actual bullshitter is here. Put up or >> shut up. > > whoops, busted, no books here on planet bulldetector either! > > and the conversation with clare is for "oil", not "oiled". thanks. > The best air filter yet is still the old oil bath type - where the > ironcurls soaked in oil trapped the dirt. NOTHING filters better than a > properly serviced oil bath cleaner. >> 2. oil filters let though more dirt as the flow rate increases. that's >> why paper filters are used so much these days - filtration remains the >> same regardless of flow rate. >> >> > No, the reason oil bath cleaners are no longer used boils down to > expense. The labour required to properly service them and the expense of > disposing of the "toxic waste" produced by that service. sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it. paper is better for the reasons stated. Let's see. "The best air filter yet is the old oil bath type..." Oil? Oiled? Again, you don't seem to know WTF you're talking about. But, we've grown accustomed to that, he said pendantically... |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:26:37 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >> hachiroku wrote: >>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:52:25 -0700, jim beam wrote: >>> >>>>>> nope - we don't have cars on planet bulldetector. >>>>> I believe it. That's why you're such a moron. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> does not compute. lack of cars here on planet bulldetector has nothing >>>> to do with i.q. >>> >>> In your case it certainly does, since it seems you don't really know >>> much of anything. >>> >>> But, you keep telling us how smart you are, 'K? >> jeepers, i could have /so/ much fun with that! > > > 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? |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:30:46 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>> Why don't you push yourself back from the keyboard and actually try >>> something instaed of being such a ing Know-It-All? >> if this guy was having problems why didn't you redesign it for him? 'cos >> you did know more than he did, right? > > Now you're confusing me with yourself. > > No, I don't know how to design circuits. But I know how to analyze and > come up with conclusions. That's how I got the job after only 6 > months as an electronics tech. Something you don't seem to be able to do > very well. that's a classic! you don't know what you're looking at, but you're qualified to comment on it! you could /definitely/ talk your way into nasa with that one buddy! > > >> i can't help you right now though of course - i kinda have my tentacles >> full... > > Yeah, it's kinda tough keeping up the bullshit line, isn't it? tough keeping up /with/ the bullshit you mean? yep, sure is! maybe i need to evolve another couple of hundred tentacles 'cos you're pretty damned productive tonight... |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:56:33 -0700, jim beam wrote:
> hachiroku wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:18:23 -0700, jim beam wrote: >> >>>> Who gives a ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> you, evidently. >> >> >> Not really. >> >> > > the way you keep biting contradicts that. Bite this you stalking pisswit. -- #1 Offishul Ruiner of Usenet, March 2007 #1 Usenet , March 2007 #10 Most hated Usenetizen of all time Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2004 Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, May 2008 COOSN-266-06-25794 |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Retired VIP wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:58:50 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> > wrote: > >> clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote: >> >>> More: >>> Oil Bath: >>> An oil bath air cleaner consists of a round base bowl containing a >>> pool of oil, and a round insert which is filled with fibre, mesh, >>> foam, or another coarse filter media. When the cleaner is assembled, >>> the media-containing body of the insert sits a short distance above >>> the surface of the oil pool. The rim of the insert overlaps the rim of >>> the base bowl. This arrangement forms a labyrinthine path through >>> which the air must travel in a series of U-turns: up through the gap >>> between the rims of the insert and the base bowl, down through the gap >>> between the outer wall of the insert and the inner wall of the base >>> bowl, and up through the filter media in the body of the insert. This >>> U-turn takes the air at high velocity across the surface of the oil >>> pool. Larger and heavier dust and dirt particles in the air cannot >>> make the turn due to their inertia, so they fall into the oil and >>> settle to the bottom of the base bowl. Lighter and smaller particles >>> are trapped by the filtration media in the insert, which is wetted by >>> oil droplets aspirated thereinto by normal airflow. >>> >>> Oil bath air cleaners were very widely used in automotive and >>> small-engine applications until the wide industry adoption of >>> the paper filter in the early 1960s. Such cleaners are still used in >>> off-road equipment where very high levels of dust are encountered, for >>> oil bath air cleaners can sequester a great deal of dirt relative to >>> their overall size, without loss of filtration efficacy or airflow. >>> However, the liquid oil makes cleaning and servicing such air cleaners >>> messy and inconvenient, they must be relatively large to avoid >>> excessive restriction at high airflow rates, and they tend to increase >>> exhaust emissions of unburned hydrocarbons due to oil aspiration when >>> used on spark-ignition engines. >>> >>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >> I drove a '65 International Travelall with the oil bath air filter from >> my mid teens until the early 80's when I sold it, so I am familiar with >> this type of filter. >> >> You had me at "More:", but did you shoot your argument for its efficacy >> in the foot when you said "and they tend to increase exhaust emissions >> of unburned hydrocarbons due to oil aspiration when used on >> sark-ignition engines", being that that oil that would thus be aspirated >> would have been the medium that contains all the dirt that was caught? >> I think I see the answer to my question in your explanation, but I want >> to see what you will say. This is a very intersting discussion. >> >> 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. 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') |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:33:15 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:29:48 -0700, jim beam >> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >> >>> sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it. >>> paper is better for the reasons stated. >>> >>> >>>>>> Their recommendation was 12 months or >>>>>> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you, >>>>>> every 6,000 miles...) >>>>>> >>>>>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than >>>>>> the stock air box. >>>>> that's not quantitative. >>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >> >> Well, Here is some pretty good information that would tend to support >> my position over yours.: >> >> The oil-bath air-cleaner is a classic example of a two-stage' kinetic >> filtering element, removing virtually all particulate contaminants >> from the air at all engine speeds. >> >> Incoming air is forced to follow a vertical descending path toward the >> pool of oil then drawn upwards. Having a mass several million times >> that of a molecule of air, the inertia of the dust particles makes it >> impossible for them to follow the abrupt change of direction in the >> air-stream, causing the particles to strike the pool of oil where they >> become trapped. This works best at high rates of air-flow. >> >> The coir filter element, which forms what is termed a 'labyrinth >> filter', applies the same principle but in a different manner. The >> coir element forces the air to change direction many times. The fibers >> are coated with kerosene. Dust particles collide with the fibers and >> are trapped by the kerosene. >> >> The spec for cleaning the coir filter is to immerse it in kerosene, >> allowing it to soak for up to half an hour. It is then sloshed >> repeatedly and allowed to drain. This was done twice a year under >> normal driving conditions, as often as deemed necessary under dusty >> conditions. >> >> In use, particles of dust trapped in the oil bath cause the level of >> the oil to rise. Under severe conditions it may require cleaning on a >> daily basis. (Moisture does the same thing. In a rainy climate it >> isn't unusual for the air cleaner to accumulate a quart of water per >> month.) >> >> Under Volkswagen's original apprenticeship training program the >> effectiveness of the oil-bath air-cleaner was demonstrated by removing >> the sludge from a the oil-bath and coir filter, flushing it with >> solvent and examining the residue. A low-power microscope was needed >> to observe the smallest particles. >> >> The same principle is used to clean the air for large stationary >> engines and for air conditioning applications, in which a >> recirculating water-bath may be used instead of oil, and the air may >> be forced past as many as two dozen up-down baffles, removing even >> microscopic particles of low density such as pollen. In some systems >> the water-bath is sealed with a thin film of mineral oil. Trapped >> particles fall thru the oil and are removed by the recirculation of >> the water beneath the oil film. I understand special silicone-based >> oils are used in modern HVAC systems but non-human applications such >> as large stationary engines continue to use mineral oil. Residential >> HVAC systems typically use labyrinth-type filters, designed primarily >> to catch fibers rather than particles. >> >> Paper and foam filtering elements are based on the labyrinth >> principle. The effectiveness of the oil-bath air-cleaner is superior >> to that of the typical paper or foam filtering element. Paper >> air-filtering elements came into use when they became effective at >> trapping particles of a certain size. Oil-bath filters will trap >> smaller particles but there is no evidence of accelerated engine wear >> for particles below a certain critical size. >> >> Air filters for rough service (armored vehicles, farm machinery, etc) >> where an oil-bath would be unsuitable, and high-volume applications >> (turbines, etc) use the same physical principle of >> mass-differentiation, typically drawing the air through several stages >> of centrifuging during which the greater mass of the dust particles >> causes them to be separated from the air-stream. Although such >> air-cleaners may be powered or static, they are often called 'turbo' >> air-cleaners. They are often used in conjunction with disposable >> labyrinth-type filters. For Volkswagen owners running off-pavement, >> the static type of 'turbo' air-cleaner used on Ford tractors has >> proven most effective. >> >> Recent air-pollution legislation enacted here in California requires >> automotive paint shops to reduce their emission of vapor and >> particulate material. I mention this because the most cost effective >> means of doing so involves the use of high-volume, low-pressure >> spray-painting systems in conjunction with a multi-baffle water-bath >> air-cleaner that uses exactly the same principle as the air-cleaner on >> an early Volkswagen. >> >> -Bob Hoover -4 May 1997 >> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > >the principle of how oil baths work is not at issue [centrifugal, et >al]. what /is/ at issue is their efficacy - it varies with flow rate. >none of your cites address that issue. That's why there are two filter media. The oil in the tank is one and the 'steel wool' is the other. What dirt that isn't flung into the oil tank is captured by the oil-wetted fibers. > >as an aside, it's odd to see that a paint shop is supposed use a water >baffle for hydrocarbon vapors - many of which are not typically regarded >as water soluble are they? |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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 |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Retired VIP wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:33:15 -0700, jim beam > <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote: >>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:29:48 -0700, jim beam >>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it. >>>> paper is better for the reasons stated. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Their recommendation was 12 months or >>>>>>> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you, >>>>>>> every 6,000 miles...) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than >>>>>>> the stock air box. >>>>>> that's not quantitative. >>>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>> Well, Here is some pretty good information that would tend to support >>> my position over yours.: >>> >>> The oil-bath air-cleaner is a classic example of a two-stage' kinetic >>> filtering element, removing virtually all particulate contaminants >>> from the air at all engine speeds. >>> >>> Incoming air is forced to follow a vertical descending path toward the >>> pool of oil then drawn upwards. Having a mass several million times >>> that of a molecule of air, the inertia of the dust particles makes it >>> impossible for them to follow the abrupt change of direction in the >>> air-stream, causing the particles to strike the pool of oil where they >>> become trapped. This works best at high rates of air-flow. >>> >>> The coir filter element, which forms what is termed a 'labyrinth >>> filter', applies the same principle but in a different manner. The >>> coir element forces the air to change direction many times. The fibers >>> are coated with kerosene. Dust particles collide with the fibers and >>> are trapped by the kerosene. >>> >>> The spec for cleaning the coir filter is to immerse it in kerosene, >>> allowing it to soak for up to half an hour. It is then sloshed >>> repeatedly and allowed to drain. This was done twice a year under >>> normal driving conditions, as often as deemed necessary under dusty >>> conditions. >>> >>> In use, particles of dust trapped in the oil bath cause the level of >>> the oil to rise. Under severe conditions it may require cleaning on a >>> daily basis. (Moisture does the same thing. In a rainy climate it >>> isn't unusual for the air cleaner to accumulate a quart of water per >>> month.) >>> >>> Under Volkswagen's original apprenticeship training program the >>> effectiveness of the oil-bath air-cleaner was demonstrated by removing >>> the sludge from a the oil-bath and coir filter, flushing it with >>> solvent and examining the residue. A low-power microscope was needed >>> to observe the smallest particles. >>> >>> The same principle is used to clean the air for large stationary >>> engines and for air conditioning applications, in which a >>> recirculating water-bath may be used instead of oil, and the air may >>> be forced past as many as two dozen up-down baffles, removing even >>> microscopic particles of low density such as pollen. In some systems >>> the water-bath is sealed with a thin film of mineral oil. Trapped >>> particles fall thru the oil and are removed by the recirculation of >>> the water beneath the oil film. I understand special silicone-based >>> oils are used in modern HVAC systems but non-human applications such >>> as large stationary engines continue to use mineral oil. Residential >>> HVAC systems typically use labyrinth-type filters, designed primarily >>> to catch fibers rather than particles. >>> >>> Paper and foam filtering elements are based on the labyrinth >>> principle. The effectiveness of the oil-bath air-cleaner is superior >>> to that of the typical paper or foam filtering element. Paper >>> air-filtering elements came into use when they became effective at >>> trapping particles of a certain size. Oil-bath filters will trap >>> smaller particles but there is no evidence of accelerated engine wear >>> for particles below a certain critical size. >>> >>> Air filters for rough service (armored vehicles, farm machinery, etc) >>> where an oil-bath would be unsuitable, and high-volume applications >>> (turbines, etc) use the same physical principle of >>> mass-differentiation, typically drawing the air through several stages >>> of centrifuging during which the greater mass of the dust particles >>> causes them to be separated from the air-stream. Although such >>> air-cleaners may be powered or static, they are often called 'turbo' >>> air-cleaners. They are often used in conjunction with disposable >>> labyrinth-type filters. For Volkswagen owners running off-pavement, >>> the static type of 'turbo' air-cleaner used on Ford tractors has >>> proven most effective. >>> >>> Recent air-pollution legislation enacted here in California requires >>> automotive paint shops to reduce their emission of vapor and >>> particulate material. I mention this because the most cost effective >>> means of doing so involves the use of high-volume, low-pressure >>> spray-painting systems in conjunction with a multi-baffle water-bath >>> air-cleaner that uses exactly the same principle as the air-cleaner on >>> an early Volkswagen. >>> >>> -Bob Hoover -4 May 1997 >>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >> the principle of how oil baths work is not at issue [centrifugal, et >> al]. what /is/ at issue is their efficacy - it varies with flow rate. >> none of your cites address that issue. > > That's why there are two filter media. The oil in the tank is one and > the 'steel wool' is the other. What dirt that isn't flung into the > oil tank is captured by the oil-wetted fibers. actually, the steel wool is to capture oil droplets created by bubbling, not dirt. otherwise the oil level would constantly drop as it would be ingested by the engine - as still happens to a small degree anyway. >> as an aside, it's odd to see that a paint shop is supposed use a water >> baffle for hydrocarbon vapors - many of which are not typically regarded >> as water soluble are they? |
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. in terms of mass, according to the bosch automotive handbook, modern paper filters are 99.8% efficient for cars, 99.95% for trucks. 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. > > 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 |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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... |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:51:34 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> No, I don't know how to design circuits. But I know how to analyze and >> come up with conclusions. That's how I got the job after only 6 months >> as an electronics tech. Something you don't seem to be able to do very >> well. > > that's a classic! you don't know what you're looking at, but you're > qualified to comment on it! you could /definitely/ talk your way into > nasa with that one buddy! At least I can tell the difference between an Accord and a Camry, Bozo. What kind of balance shaft does a '91 Accord have, numbnutz? > > > > > > >>> i can't help you right now though of course - i kinda have my >>> tentacles full... >> >> Yeah, it's kinda tough keeping up the bullshit line, isn't it? > > tough keeping up /with/ the bullshit you mean? yep, sure is! maybe i > need to evolve another couple of hundred tentacles 'cos you're pretty > damned productive tonight... Naw, it's sifting through your own you're having the trouble with, Jackass. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
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. > > 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. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:33:36 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>> I'm an ! >> >> He's an , what an ! >> >>> I'm an ! >> >> He's the world's biggest ! >> >>> I'm an and proud of it! >> >> Yeah, we can tell... >> >> > here, let me reinsert what you clipped: > > "b.s." > > there you go. Yeah, you're correct. Everything you post is b.s. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:20:09 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>> Now, this was on a Tercel with a whopping 1.5L, 108 HP engine. >> >> What I noticed was a better throttle response off the line (it >> certainly didn't turn it into a fire-breating monster! But you could >> feel the difference) and the increase in gas mileage. > > Better throttle response, or more noise? I sometimes think the two are > related. It is possible throttle response was improved but it seems > unlikely. To be honest, I am not even sure what improved throttle > response means. > > Ed Here's the intake I installed on the car: http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.c..._2003_63837953 Here's an OEM style: http://www.car-stuff.com/store/image...s/beck_arnley/ BA-0421515-1.jpg You can see the outside diameter of the Pilot 'performance' air filter pretty much covers the area of the entire OEM style filter. Then you have the cone section, which adds about another 1/3. Now, for example, let's say the OEM allows 8 CFM airflow. The performance filter is ~1/3 larger, so should allow ~11 CFM. (These numbers are arbitrary.) For any given throttle plate opening, there will be more air trying to get to the combustion chambers with the high-flow filter than with the stock filter. More air entering the chamber should provide better performance, that's why most people looking for performance try to get more air into the intake plenum. With a higher airflow at any given throttle plate opening, more air is going to pass through with a less restrictive filter. Also, the tube is smooth rather than fluted like the stock intake, since noise really isn't an issue, so airflow is straight through and not interrupted by the fluting used to damp the sound. Also the tube was designed to place the opening in the end of the new filter at the hole in the fender where outside air is drawn into the stock airbox, and had a heat shield to try to block engine heat. It was also well away from the exhaust manifold and plumbing, so the engine was being allowed to intake cooler air faster. Also, while doing all this I pulled the fuse to the ECM, for about 20+ minutes, so when the car was started the parameters were reset to take into account the increased air flow. Flashing the prom would have taken even more advantage of the increased airflow, but I wasn't trying to turn a 1.5 liter engine into a Boy Racer, I was just looking for a little better performance than stock. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:42:43 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> 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. > > in terms of mass, according to the bosch automotive handbook, modern > paper filters are 99.8% efficient for cars, 99.95% for trucks. 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. WTF is Bosch going to say, "Our filters suck"? |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:32:19 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:53:05 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> >> wrote: >> >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> hachiroku wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:59:59 -0400, Bill Putney wrote: >>>>> Yes, I had forgotten that. >>>>> Perhaps it's the velocity of the air, but you'd think the vaves would >>>>> restrict that, too. >>>>> >>>>> All I know is, after adding the CAI, the mileage went up! Unlike our >>>>> friend jim beam, I'm not wasting a lot of time figuring why, I >>>>> just know it worked! ;) >>>> you just spent your weekend arguing with people that know a lot better >>>> than you, and this is all you have to say? time you went back to your >>>> old schools and burned them down - they seriously failed you. >>> Was it not determined that the vehicle he's talking about was >>> carbureted, in which case the mileage could have been affected? >> >> 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. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:33:15 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >as an aside, it's odd to see that a paint shop is supposed use a water >baffle for hydrocarbon vapors - many of which are not typically regarded >as water soluble are they? Not water soluable, but they get trapped very efficiently none the less. It WORKS and that's what matters. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 04:41:31 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:25:21 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >> hachiroku wrote: >>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:51:13 -0700, jim beam wrote: >>> >>>>> Well, why don't you post your data, Blowhole? >>>>> >>>>> Make some use of yourself other than being the backside of a mule. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> what do you want me to post? i haven't made bullshit claims about air >>>> filters decreasing fuel consumption, so you're the one that needs to be >>>> posting data. >>> >>> >>> You said you have data showing the difference between oiled filters and >>> paper filters. So, where is it, *MOUTH*? Did you forget you said that? >>> >>> I'm beginning to believe who the actual bullshitter is here. Put up or >>> shut up. >> >> whoops, busted, no books here on planet bulldetector either! >> >> and the conversation with clare is for "oil", not "oiled". thanks. > > >> The best air filter yet is still the old oil bath type - where the >> ironcurls soaked in oil trapped the dirt. NOTHING filters better than a >> properly serviced oil bath cleaner. >>> 2. oil filters let though more dirt as the flow rate increases. that's >>> why paper filters are used so much these days - filtration remains the >>> same regardless of flow rate. >>> >>> >> No, the reason oil bath cleaners are no longer used boils down to >> expense. The labour required to properly service them and the expense of >> disposing of the "toxic waste" produced by that service. > >sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it. >paper is better for the reasons stated. > >Let's see. "The best air filter yet is the old oil bath type..." > >Oil? Oiled? Again, you don't seem to know WTF you're talking about. > >But, we've grown accustomed to that, he said pendantically... > > Do you know what an OIL BATH air filter is? ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:01 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands