|
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:40:33 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> 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. There must be some reason for going from in-line to in the tank. My guess is to keep the pump bathed in gasoline. So I do. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:34:36 +1000, John Henderson 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 But inconclusive: Although based on limited data, the finding could be significant, and verification should be pursued. If the finding is verified, the mechanisms should be determined, and ramifications with respect to oil change intervals, filter involvement, and additive packages should be considered. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:44:01 +0000, Retired VIP wrote:
> How did I get engines to last over 100,000 miles changing the oil and > filter every 3,000 to 3,500 miles? Three engines over 240,000 miles... |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:15:31 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> >> 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. I don't have a problem. Yours is obvious: http://www.blackfive.net/main/images...ead_up_ |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:12:56 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>> 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. You know, maybe you're right. But I don't really care, becuase you're so friggin' smug about it. You have the personality of a Grizzly Bear. I say "I'm not always right, but I'm never wrong", but I'm kidding. You think it applies to you as Gospel. Get some civility. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:25:31 -0500, Ray O wrote:
> > "hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in message > news:Ovg1k.2160$BV.72@trndny05... >> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:04:59 -0500, Ray O wrote: >> >>>> But...But...Ray told me I was in danger of burning out my fuel pump in >>>> my Supra when I got it because the tank had so many holes I had to >>>> keep it below 1/4 tank. >>>> >>>> I trust what Ray says... >>>> >>>> >>> Sorry, Hachi... >>> >>> 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. >> >> On the Supra it is quite well into the tank, probably an inch or two >> from the bottom. This discussion came up a couple years ago when I still >> had my 'holey' tank and could only run 1/4 tank at a time, and you >> recommended fixing it posthaste as this condition could be detrimental >> to the pump. >> >> Since I take what you say as Gospel ( ;) ), I repaired the tank ASAP >> (Also in an effort to keep at that time $1.78/gallon gas from just >> evaporating into thin air...). >> >> Better safe than sorry, esp @ $199 for an OEM Denso pump! >> >> > Running the pump dry repeatedly will eventually ruin the pump, but once or > twice probably won't cause a problem. Having holes in the fuel tank can > introduce a lot of moisture in the tank, and of course, the gas fumes that > could escape from the holes are not the best thing to have in a garage. You got that right! The first winter was murder! But I ran the tank so far down that it stopped smelling after a few weeks. No problem now! I can fill the tank to the top! |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:40:33 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>> 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. > > > There must be some reason for going from in-line to in the tank. > > My guess is to keep the pump bathed in gasoline. > > So I do. It's to save money for the manufacturer. Anytime they can have a supplier consolidate multiple parts/sub-assemblies into a single larger assembly, it is cheaper for vehicle manufacturer, which is actually just an assembler of the components and assemblies that the suppliers actually manufacture and ship to them. Think of the steps in assembling an in-line pump *plus* the sender unit *plus* the regulator *plus* the filter vs. assembling the one sender/pump/regulator/filter assembly into the tank. Plus the vehicle manufacturer has greatly cut their costs of negotiating and administering contracts by having one line item to deal with vs. many line items of the multiple components/subassemblies. Keep in mind that the overhead and labor costs of the suppliers are much less than the cost of the vehicle manufacturers (for several reasons: union/non-union, regional labor rates, Mexico labor rates, etc.). So there is a net gain with having the supplier deal with the multiple parts than the vehicle manufacturer receiving them in, inventorying, unpacking, shuttling around, and installing in their plant. I know this for a fact first hand. The bathing of the pump in fuel certainly doesn't do it any harm. But I strongly suspect that the overwhelmingly primary motivation on moving the pump to the tank was consolidating more parts into fewer assemblies to be installed into the vehicle. Also, high level of integration and overall compactness is a real premium in cars these days (space and weight are at premium) - they're trying to pack 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag so to speak. 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:
> 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? None of the above silliness. That's clearly not how it works. > How did I get engines to last over 100,000 miles changing the > oil and filter every 3,000 to 3,500 miles? Easy. You've got only slightly more wear than you otherwise _could_ have. > In case you haven't guessed, I think the above is BS. Looks > like an April fool article to me. You're welcome to cling onto your own preconceptions, of course. I've followed manufacturer's recommendations for oil change periods always. The only car I ever had engine wear problems with at anything like such a low mileage (100,000) with was an air-cooled VW Beetle back in the early 60s, with oil changed at the recommended 3,000 miles. And that involved overheating in the dry tropics. John |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Bill Putney wrote:
> 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') Hmmm, I don't think you have an experience living in an extreme cold climate. Ever used a gas line anti freeze? Ever experienced frozen up carburetor in old days? You have to open the cap to fill, some times it rains/snows, etc. Tank is metal, when cold it always causes cendensation. Does your car have insulated tank? I am talking about at least -30 degree temperature. I guarantee any fuel tank has some water at the bottom. Sloshing around means driving in rough terrain, winding mountain roads, up and down hill, etc. Just running low on fuel too often is generally bad thing to do. What if you got stuck in a traffic jam? You may run out of gas, right? |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message news:Xns9AB3CB39BB914tegger@208.90.168.18... > "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 > 2 big fuel dispenser brands around here are Gilbarco and Tokheim, and it looks most of their models take fuel filters like these http://www.jmesales.com/department/1888/1/Filters.aspx so my guess is that in addtion to the pickup screen/sock, they also have a replaceable filter. Of course, that assumes that gas stations replace the filters on a periodic basis and that there is no bypass mechanism if flow through the filter is diminished. The tanks being installed around here appear to be made of fiberglass like the ones on this site: http://www.rng.com/rng/zcl/rngss31.html -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply) |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Bill Putney wrote:
> Hachiroku ハチク wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:40:33 -0700, jim beam wrote: >> >>>> 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. >> >> >> There must be some reason for going from in-line to in the tank. >> My guess is to keep the pump bathed in gasoline. >> So I do. > > It's to save money for the manufacturer. Anytime they can have a > supplier consolidate multiple parts/sub-assemblies into a single larger > assembly, it is cheaper for vehicle manufacturer, which is actually just > an assembler of the components and assemblies that the suppliers > actually manufacture and ship to them. Think of the steps in assembling > an in-line pump *plus* the sender unit *plus* the regulator *plus* the > filter vs. assembling the one sender/pump/regulator/filter assembly into > the tank. Plus the vehicle manufacturer has greatly cut their costs of > negotiating and administering contracts by having one line item to deal > with vs. many line items of the multiple components/subassemblies. > > Keep in mind that the overhead and labor costs of the suppliers are much > less than the cost of the vehicle manufacturers (for several reasons: > union/non-union, regional labor rates, Mexico labor rates, etc.). So > there is a net gain with having the supplier deal with the multiple > parts than the vehicle manufacturer receiving them in, inventorying, > unpacking, shuttling around, and installing in their plant. I know this > for a fact first hand. > > The bathing of the pump in fuel certainly doesn't do it any harm. But I > strongly suspect that the overwhelmingly primary motivation on moving > the pump to the tank was consolidating more parts into fewer assemblies > to be installed into the vehicle. no, its vapor lock avoidance. if the pump is at the top of a long suction column, the liquid in the column can separate and once there's vapor, pumping is seriously impaired. you could draw from the bottom of the tank, but then you get guaranteed particle blockage and much greater chance of damage. > > Also, high level of integration and overall compactness is a real > premium in cars these days (space and weight are at premium) - they're > trying to pack 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag so to speak. > > 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?
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:15:31 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>> 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. > > > I don't have a problem. but you do - you just posted three different replies the same comment - that's definitive evidence of a problem with your cognitive function. > Yours is obvious: > > http://www.blackfive.net/main/images...ead_up_ but you, somewhat hypocritically, just wrote, quote: "Get some civility." now, shall we go back to you supposedly not having a problem again? |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Ray O wrote:
> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message > news:Xns9AB3CB39BB914tegger@208.90.168.18... >> "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 >> > > 2 big fuel dispenser brands around here are Gilbarco and Tokheim, and it > looks most of their models take fuel filters like these > http://www.jmesales.com/department/1888/1/Filters.aspx so my guess is that > in addtion to the pickup screen/sock, they also have a replaceable filter. > Of course, that assumes that gas stations replace the filters on a periodic > basis and that there is no bypass mechanism if flow through the filter is > diminished. > > The tanks being installed around here appear to be made of fiberglass like > the ones on this site: http://www.rng.com/rng/zcl/rngss31.html and around here. there's been a huge tank replacement program here in california for some years now. very few metals tanks left, if at all. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
John Henderson 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 > interesting links! |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:MdqdndoTpso0xNrVnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > Bill Putney wrote: <snipped> >> The bathing of the pump in fuel certainly doesn't do it any harm. But I >> strongly suspect that the overwhelmingly primary motivation on moving the >> pump to the tank was consolidating more parts into fewer assemblies to be >> installed into the vehicle. > > no, its vapor lock avoidance. if the pump is at the top of a long suction > column, the liquid in the column can separate and once there's vapor, > pumping is seriously impaired. you could draw from the bottom of the > tank, but then you get guaranteed particle blockage and much greater > chance of damage. > Vapor lock was not a problem when electric fuel pumps for fuel injected engines were not integrated in the fuel tank, so it doesn't make sense to make a change for a problem that didn't exist. Vapor lock could occur in the old mechanical fuel pumps that produced less than 10 PSI. Electric fuel pumps for fuel injected engines run over 40 PSI so vapor lock is not a problem. Bill Putney's explanation is much more feasible. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply) |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:31 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands