|
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: >> 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') The oil injested would be from the surface of the oiled media. The VAST majority of the captured dirt settles in the "sump". The injested oil is basically "vapour" - and as I stated is almost unmeasurable - insignificant. Particals of dirt would be such a low fraction of that extremely small amount that it would be barely a blip on the radar. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:16:52 GMT, Hachiroku +O+A+m+/
<Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote: >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 ~$220 in fuel by using premium gas. Not sure which car he's talking about here, but the Tercel was known to run better/give better gas mileage on premium IN SOME CASES. Driven consistantly hard there was no advantage. But the little buggers were "cokers" if babied, and the carbon buildup in the cyls of a lightly driven Tercel DID increase the octane requirement significantly. We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake) and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well. BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on hightest, and left running fine on regular. Pinging really kills the fuel mileage, as well as power (and eventually the engine) >> >> classic! a car that doesn't have the sensors necessary for an ignition >> timing adjustment strategy, or compression ratio necessary to take >> advantage of high octane, but it gives higher mileage!!! tell me, 'cos >> i'm dying to know, exactly how does that work then? > >What do you mean, 'doesn't have the sensors"? Of course it has the >sensors, Jackass. '95 Twin Cam EFI. > >And compression ratio doesn't have a lot to do with it. But you wouldn't >know that. > > > >> >> >> >> >>> Now, tell me why that's wrong, Genius... >> >> er, well, if i may be so bold as to copy your argument style, "because >> it is". how was that? > >I had it all down in the book in the glove box. See, other than talking >out of my ass, I actually make notes of changes (cause) and results >(effect). That way I can make statements as to my observations, instead >of just pulling statements out of my ass. > >"But I have data showing that can't work!" Yeah, and I have Real World >data that shows you're wrong, Jackass. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Ed White wrote:
> "hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in message > news:gQl3k.273$ul.157@trndny08... >> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:14:23 -0400, C. E. White wrote: >> >>> Look back at your log book >>> - does the fuel economy decrease measurably between cleanings of the >>> oiled >>> gauze filter? >> >> Nope. Stayed a steady 43-45 MPG. > > Don't you think that is unusual, assuming that changing the air filter was > the readon for a large increase in fuel economy? If reducing the air filter > restriction could increase fuel economy by 10%, don't you think you should > see the fuel economy decrease as the filter accumulates dirt and the filter > restriction increases? I know you said your filter was not a K&N, but I > assume it is similar. K&Ns own data shows a substantial increase in the > filter restricition as it accumulates dirt. K&N shows a dirty K&N filter to > be more restricitive than a clean paper filter. It seems to me you can't get > a 10% increase in fuel economy by changing to a less restricitive filter and > not also get a measurable decrease in fuel economy as that filter loads up > with dirt. > > Ed I'm puzzled about one thing that i used to experience sort of related to this, so I'll pose it here: In the late 80's/early 90's, I lived in Colorado - periodic emissions inspections were required. I had an '86 MPFI turbocharged Subaru station wagon at the time. On two occasions, it failed the emissions isnpection - and both times the technician asked if the air filter had been changed recently. On those two occasions, the answer was 'no'. I changed the filter both times, and it passed the re-test with flying colors. After that, I made sure to replace the filter just before taking it for inspection if it had not been changed recently, and it always passed with no problem. So my question is: If the computer can compensate for the slightly clogged filter for normal driving, why can't it do so for emissions measurements (idling situation)? 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:
> ...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. Not inherently. Fiber diameter is fiber diameter. Particle size implies the space between the fibers. But there would be a connection between small fiber size and getting minimum filtered particle size down while at the same time *not* causing undue restriction levels, IOW a very low particle size-restriction product (product as in multiplication). If filtered particle size is decreased but fiber size remains the same, restriction levels goes up - a tradeoff. So smaller fiber size relaxes that tradeoff and gives you a competitive advantage. 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, 10 Jun 2008 16:36:16 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada
wrote: >>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? I sure do. I used to work in farming and in industrial environments when I was in high school and college, and oil bath air filters were in use a lot on the diesel motors used in a lot of the equipment. One thing I will say: a poor design for the filter was a friggin' MESS! There are still some on the market for older diesel engines. Wix still makes them and sells them through CarQuest, or they did 6 years ago. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:24:53 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada
wrote: >>> Actually, the 82HP 1.5 liter in 1994 was carbureted. The 1995 93HP 1.5 >>> liter engine was injected. >> >>wow, that's got to be one of the last carburetted cars on the road! for >>north america at any rate. >> >> >> > Yup. It was an electronic feedback constant vacuum carb. Nice to see someone who knows what he's talking about. IIRC, my '83 had a similar system. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:13:20 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> > wrote: >> 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') > The oil injested would be from the surface of the oiled media. The > VAST majority of the captured dirt settles in the "sump". The injested > oil is basically "vapour" - and as I stated is almost unmeasurable - > insignificant. Particals of dirt would be such a low fraction of that > extremely small amount that it would be barely a blip on the radar. > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** OK - thanks. 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 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 Got it - thanks. 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, 10 Jun 2008 16:53:31 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada
wrote: >>>> 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. > > Not sure which car he's talking about here, but the Tercel was known > to run better/give better gas mileage on premium IN SOME CASES. Driven > consistantly hard there was no advantage. But the little buggers were > "cokers" if babied, and the carbon buildup in the cyls of a lightly > driven Tercel DID increase the octane requirement significantly. LOL! He don't know me very well, do he? :) "Baby" my cars? Not likely. I found the car actually did very well at 80-85 MPH, but decided saving a few $$$ in gas wasn't worth paying for it for 6 years in insurance premiums. I live in an area where most of my driving is done >=45 MPH, and I take full advantage of that. I also know where most of the cops hang out at any given time of day, and take advantage of *that*, too. But, I don't pound the snot out of my cars, either. The Tercel was purchased because I needed a car to drive so I could get my aging '85 Corolla GTS off the road so I could do some work on it. Unfortunately, 2.5 years after buying the Tercel an '88 Supra came up for sale for $600, and I sold the Tercel to buy the Supra, and it's been taking up the bulk of my 'repair' money. It rarely goes over 55 MPH, maybe a few runs on the highway here and there (I did get stopped the first week I put it on the road for the summer in '06 at 88 MPH, but when the officer saw the registration was 4 days old he wrote me up for 72 and said Keep the speed down!) In the meantime I've had a Celica GTS (85 in good condition) and a '90 240 SX to keep me 'happy'. > > We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard > at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake) > and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well. > BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on > hightest, and left running fine on regular. Pinging really kills the > fuel mileage, as well as power (and eventually the engine) Hmmm...you work for a Toyota dealer? We were using BG to clean the sludged Camry/Sienna engines, but the BG44K I hadn't heard of until it was advertised on XM radio recently. Is it any good? If I have some fuel system problems I use Techron. Been using it for years, since it first came out. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:42:51 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
> I'm puzzled about one thing that i used to experience sort of related to > this, so I'll pose it here: In the late 80's/early 90's, I lived in > Colorado - periodic emissions inspections were required. I had an '86 > MPFI turbocharged Subaru station wagon at the time. On two occasions, > it failed the emissions isnpection - and both times the technician asked > if the air filter had been changed recently. On those two occasions, > the answer was 'no'. I changed the filter both times, and it passed the > re-test with flying colors. After that, I made sure to replace the > filter just before taking it for inspection if it had not been changed > recently, and it always passed with no problem. > > So my question is: If the computer can compensate for the slightly > clogged filter for normal driving, why can't it do so for emissions > measurements (idling situation)? Basically because a clogged filter is a clogged filter, and if the engine isn't getting enough air it's going to run a little richer than it should. Those cars had a somewhat rudimentary ECM and could lean the car out under normal circumstances, but they sure didn't work as well as ECMs today do. You can only compensate for so much. I own an '89 GL Coupe, but I went through the car when I bought it and did all the maintenance on it before I put it on the road. It passed the emission test with flying colors with only one of the two factory cats installed! |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:53:31 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada > wrote: >> ...We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard >> at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake) >> and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well. >> BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on >> hightest, and left running fine on regular. Pinging really kills the >> fuel mileage, as well as power (and eventually the engine) > > Hmmm...you work for a Toyota dealer? We were using BG to clean the > sludged Camry/Sienna engines, but the BG44K I hadn't heard of until it > was advertised on XM radio recently. Is it any good? > > If I have some fuel system problems I use Techron. Been using it for > years, since it first came out. Techron, Sea Foam, Marvel Mystery Oil, ATF - all work well. 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, 10 Jun 2008 19:57:27 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
> Hachiroku ハチク wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:53:31 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot >> canada wrote: > >>> ...We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven >>> hard at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the >>> intake) and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as >>> well. BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on >>> hightest, and left running fine on regular. Pinging really kills the >>> fuel mileage, as well as power (and eventually the engine) >> >> Hmmm...you work for a Toyota dealer? We were using BG to clean the >> sludged Camry/Sienna engines, but the BG44K I hadn't heard of until it >> was advertised on XM radio recently. Is it any good? >> >> If I have some fuel system problems I use Techron. Been using it for >> years, since it first came out. > > Techron, Sea Foam, Marvel Mystery Oil, ATF - all work well. I use Techron for fuel system problems, Sea Foam for tranny problems (works wonders in Suby AWD trannies...) but only did the ATF trick once on a Chrysler engine that was making horrendous noises, but managed to put 10,000 miles on that one, too. I used to mix MMO with Castrol GTX in my cars; for a 1 gallon car like the GTS I would put in 3.5 QTS of Castrol GTX and 1/2 QT of MMO. I believe it makes starting easier, although once the engine's been run it all mixes together, I guess. Does the MMO separate out again? I don't think so... I also put it in the tank on the older cars occasionally. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:57:27 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
wrote: >Hachiroku ???? wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:53:31 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada >> wrote: > >>> ...We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard >>> at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake) >>> and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well. >>> BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on >>> hightest, and left running fine on regular. Pinging really kills the >>> fuel mileage, as well as power (and eventually the engine) >> >> Hmmm...you work for a Toyota dealer? We were using BG to clean the >> sludged Camry/Sienna engines, but the BG44K I hadn't heard of until it >> was advertised on XM radio recently. Is it any good? Used to be Toyota service manager - for 10 years of my 25 years as an auto mechanic. The 44K is EXCELLENT stuff >> >> If I have some fuel system problems I use Techron. Been using it for >> years, since it first came out. > >Techron, Sea Foam, Marvel Mystery Oil, ATF - all work well. All work well for different problems. The 44k, in my experience, is matched only (possibly) by Techron for removing engine (combustion chamber) deposits. The sea foam is excellent for cleaning the fuel system, and I hear it is pretty good on engine deposits as well. Sea Foam and MMO are both good for crankcase deposits. Techron and SeaFoam were not readily available up here when I was "actively" involved. 44K was. MMO availability has always been spotty up here - I buy mine in the states any time I go down (for less than half what we pay for it up here WHEN we can get it. > >Bill Putney >(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >address with the letter 'x') ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:57:27 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
wrote: >Hachiroku ???? wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:53:31 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada >> wrote: > >>> ...We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard >>> at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake) >>> and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well. >>> BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on >>> hightest, and left running fine on regular. Pinging really kills the >>> fuel mileage, as well as power (and eventually the engine) >> >> Hmmm...you work for a Toyota dealer? We were using BG to clean the >> sludged Camry/Sienna engines, but the BG44K I hadn't heard of until it >> was advertised on XM radio recently. Is it any good? >> >> If I have some fuel system problems I use Techron. Been using it for >> years, since it first came out. > >Techron, Sea Foam, Marvel Mystery Oil, ATF - all work well. > >Bill Putney Never used any of that stuff. Although I did use some Kerosene once to free up a stuck valve on a Corvar flat six. Poured it down the carb on the side with the stuck valve. Worked great too. ATF probably would have work just as well. Jack |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:10:32 -0400, wrote:
>>> >>> Hmmm...you work for a Toyota dealer? We were using BG to clean the >>> sludged Camry/Sienna engines, but the BG44K I hadn't heard of until it >>> was advertised on XM radio recently. Is it any good? > > Used to be Toyota service manager - for 10 years of my 25 years as an auto > mechanic. Whereabouts? I'm on the East Coast. I thought there might have been some professionalism there. I take it you're in the Camry group. We're having a discussion in Toyota about dealerships 'double dipping' using AllData when it comes to replacing timing belts and water pumps. I've seen Toyota dealers quote ~3 hours to replace the belt, and then again to replace the water pump, even though they're doing both operations at the same time! Any insight? |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:16:52 GMT, Hachiroku +O+A+m+/ > <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote: > >> 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. > > Not sure which car he's talking about here, but the Tercel was known > to run better/give better gas mileage on premium IN SOME CASES. > Driven consistantly hard there was no advantage. But the little > buggers were "cokers" if babied, and the carbon buildup in the cyls of > a lightly driven Tercel DID increase the octane requirement > significantly. > > We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard > at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake) > and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well. > BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on > hightest, and left running fine on regular. which reinforces the point i made but which our friend snipped - the engine computer doesn't have a knock sensor to look at, so it can't take proper advantage of high octane by adjusting its ignition timing strategy. > Pinging really kills the fuel mileage, as well as power (and > eventually the engine) >>> 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. > > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Bill Putney wrote:
> Ed White wrote: >> "hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:gQl3k.273$ul.157@trndny08... >>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:14:23 -0400, C. E. White wrote: >>> >>>> Look back at your log book >>>> - does the fuel economy decrease measurably between cleanings of the >>>> oiled >>>> gauze filter? >>> >>> Nope. Stayed a steady 43-45 MPG. >> >> Don't you think that is unusual, assuming that changing the air filter >> was the readon for a large increase in fuel economy? If reducing the >> air filter restriction could increase fuel economy by 10%, don't you >> think you should see the fuel economy decrease as the filter >> accumulates dirt and the filter restriction increases? I know you said >> your filter was not a K&N, but I assume it is similar. K&Ns own data >> shows a substantial increase in the filter restricition as it >> accumulates dirt. K&N shows a dirty K&N filter to be more restricitive >> than a clean paper filter. It seems to me you can't get a 10% increase >> in fuel economy by changing to a less restricitive filter and not also >> get a measurable decrease in fuel economy as that filter loads up with >> dirt. >> >> Ed > > I'm puzzled about one thing that i used to experience sort of related to > this, so I'll pose it here: In the late 80's/early 90's, I lived in > Colorado - periodic emissions inspections were required. I had an '86 > MPFI turbocharged Subaru station wagon at the time. On two occasions, > it failed the emissions isnpection - and both times the technician asked > if the air filter had been changed recently. On those two occasions, > the answer was 'no'. I changed the filter both times, and it passed the > re-test with flying colors. After that, I made sure to replace the > filter just before taking it for inspection if it had not been changed > recently, and it always passed with no problem. > > So my question is: If the computer can compensate for the slightly > clogged filter for normal driving, why can't it do so for emissions > measurements (idling situation)? the effect on air flow at idle, even for an ancient clogged filter, is absolutely minimal. the only explanation i can think of could be that subaru, for some odd reason, don't go closed loop with the oxygen sensor at idle, but revert to some preset value instead. absolutely bizarre. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> 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... > reading comprehension is evidently not your strongest skill. nor is putting false words in the mouth of someone else. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:57:47 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard >> at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake) >> and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well. >> BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on >> hightest, and left running fine on regular. > > which reinforces the point i made but which our friend snipped - the > engine computer doesn't have a knock sensor to look at, so it can't take > proper advantage of high octane by adjusting its ignition timing strategy. Right. First part I replaced on the car. Back side of the block under the intake runners: http://www2.partstrain.com/store/ima...1604175OES.JPG TWO-DIGIT CODE 52 KNOCK SENSOR SIGNAL--OPEN OR SHORT IN KNOCK SENSOR SIGNAL --KNOCK SENSOR/CIRCUIT Keep showing how dumb you are. That's OK. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Bill Putney wrote:
> jim beam wrote: > >> ...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. > > Not inherently. Fiber diameter is fiber diameter. Particle size > implies the space between the fibers. But there would be a connection > between small fiber size and getting minimum filtered particle size down > while at the same time *not* causing undue restriction levels, they use progressively dense layers sandwiched together. the coarse layers filter the larger particles, and so on. i assume this helps retain air flow rate better as the filter does its job. assuming the filter media is installed the correct way around of course! > IOW a > very low particle size-restriction product (product as in multiplication). > > If filtered particle size is decreased but fiber size remains the same, > restriction levels goes up - a tradeoff. So smaller fiber size relaxes > that tradeoff and gives you a competitive advantage. > |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:24:53 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada > wrote: > >>>> Actually, the 82HP 1.5 liter in 1994 was carbureted. The 1995 93HP 1.5 >>>> liter engine was injected. >>> wow, that's got to be one of the last carburetted cars on the road! for >>> north america at any rate. >>> >>> >>> >> Yup. It was an electronic feedback constant vacuum carb. > > Nice to see someone who knows what he's talking about. > IIRC, my '83 had a similar system. "he"? |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:57:47 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>> We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard >>> at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake) >>> and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well. >>> BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on >>> hightest, and left running fine on regular. >> which reinforces the point i made but which our friend snipped - the >> engine computer doesn't have a knock sensor to look at, so it can't take >> proper advantage of high octane by adjusting its ignition timing strategy. > > > Right. First part I replaced on the car. Back side of the block under the > intake runners: > > http://www2.partstrain.com/store/ima...1604175OES.JPG > > TWO-DIGIT CODE 52 KNOCK SENSOR SIGNAL--OPEN OR SHORT IN KNOCK SENSOR > SIGNAL > > --KNOCK SENSOR/CIRCUIT > > > Keep showing how dumb you are. That's OK. > > so explain how a car with a knock sensor can still exhibit detonation... |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:57:47 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard >> at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake) >> and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well. >> BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on >> hightest, and left running fine on regular. > > which reinforces the point i made but which our friend snipped - the > engine computer doesn't have a knock sensor to look at, so it can't take > proper advantage of high octane by adjusting its ignition timing strategy. Oh, BTW, my *85* Celica GTS 2.4 had a knock sensor. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:16:38 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> Right. First part I replaced on the car. Back side of the block under >> the intake runners: >> >> http://www2.partstrain.com/store/ima...1604175OES.JPG >> >> TWO-DIGIT CODE 52 KNOCK SENSOR SIGNAL--OPEN OR SHORT IN KNOCK SENSOR >> SIGNAL >> >> --KNOCK SENSOR/CIRCUIT >> >> >> Keep showing how dumb you are. That's OK. >> >> >> > so explain how a car with a knock sensor can still exhibit detonation... By using GAS. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:16:38 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>> Right. First part I replaced on the car. Back side of the block under >>> the intake runners: >>> >>> http://www2.partstrain.com/store/ima...1604175OES.JPG >>> >>> TWO-DIGIT CODE 52 KNOCK SENSOR SIGNAL--OPEN OR SHORT IN KNOCK SENSOR >>> SIGNAL >>> >>> --KNOCK SENSOR/CIRCUIT >>> >>> >>> Keep showing how dumb you are. That's OK. >>> >>> >>> >> so explain how a car with a knock sensor can still exhibit detonation... > > > By using GAS. > > so explain, since the engine is supposed to have a knock sensor, and the computer is supposed to adjust the timing accordingly, how can " GAS" cause detonation??? |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:02:22 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> Go have a look in the Honda group. What kind of balance shaft does a '91 >> Accord have? >> >> "...you must be thinking about a Toyota Camry..." >> >> (Paraphrasing:) >> "Gee, I didn't know I spent 6 years and 225,000 miles driving a Toyota >> Camry I thought was a Honda Accord..." >> >> Looks like you don't know your ass from a hole in the wall in the Honda >> group, either... >> >> > reading comprehension is evidently not your strongest skill. nor is > putting false words in the mouth of someone else. On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:00:59 -0700, jim beam wrote: > > and you can't destroy an "harmonic balancer" on a 91 accord - it doesn't > have one, it's an ordinary pulley wheel. On Sat, 31 May 2008 10:51:19 -0700, jim beam wrote: > Net Doctor wrote: >> JB..it's a 2 piece pulley, inner and outer hub separated by rubber. Call >> it what we will..it will fly apart with too much pressure on it. > > yes, the 2-piece ones will, but the 91 accord is a single-piece, all > steel, pulley wheel, not a balancer. maybe you're thinking toyota? On Sat, 31 May 2008 21:52:41 -0400, Net Doctor wrote: > /sarcasm on > > My gosh..since you put it that way..it becomes clear to me that I was > mistaken. > > Apparently that wasn't a '92 Honda Accord that I put a $300 > distributor > on. Perhaps I put a new harmonic balancer pulley on a Camry because my > original one flew apart. I must have been driving a Toyota Camry all those > 225,000 miles. In fact, I'm betting all 6 of my Honda Accords are really > Camrys under the skin. > In fact..oh my gosh, I hadn't even considered this!...maybe, just > maybe..I haven't really been working for Honda for the last 21 years, but > just showing up at a plant that says Honda on the front of the building > when really...(OMG!) my pay checks were underwritten by Toyota. > > Them bastards! > > It is amazing how crystal clear things become when somebody lays it > out > there for you in black and white. > > /sarcasm off But then, being a Dumbass, you wouldn't remember this, would you? Remember, this thread is about repeatedly running something low. You appear to be running you mouth with your brain low on working cells. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:21:38 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>>> >>> so explain how a car with a knock sensor can still exhibit >>> detonation... >> >> >> By using GAS. >> >> >> > so explain, since the engine is supposed to have a knock sensor, and the > computer is supposed to adjust the timing accordingly, how can " GAS" > cause detonation??? Phew, you really are friggin' stupid, aren't you? |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:02:22 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>> Go have a look in the Honda group. What kind of balance shaft does a '91 >>> Accord have? >>> >>> "...you must be thinking about a Toyota Camry..." >>> >>> (Paraphrasing:) >>> "Gee, I didn't know I spent 6 years and 225,000 miles driving a Toyota >>> Camry I thought was a Honda Accord..." >>> >>> Looks like you don't know your ass from a hole in the wall in the Honda >>> group, either... >>> >>> >> reading comprehension is evidently not your strongest skill. nor is >> putting false words in the mouth of someone else. > > > > On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:00:59 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >> and you can't destroy an "harmonic balancer" on a 91 accord - it doesn't >> have one, it's an ordinary pulley wheel. > > > On Sat, 31 May 2008 10:51:19 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >> Net Doctor wrote: >>> JB..it's a 2 piece pulley, inner and outer hub separated by rubber. Call >>> it what we will..it will fly apart with too much pressure on it. >> yes, the 2-piece ones will, but the 91 accord is a single-piece, all >> steel, pulley wheel, not a balancer. maybe you're thinking toyota? > > > > On Sat, 31 May 2008 21:52:41 -0400, Net Doctor wrote: > >> /sarcasm on >> >> My gosh..since you put it that way..it becomes clear to me that I was >> mistaken. >> >> Apparently that wasn't a '92 Honda Accord that I put a $300 >> distributor >> on. Perhaps I put a new harmonic balancer pulley on a Camry because my >> original one flew apart. I must have been driving a Toyota Camry all those >> 225,000 miles. In fact, I'm betting all 6 of my Honda Accords are really >> Camrys under the skin. >> In fact..oh my gosh, I hadn't even considered this!...maybe, just >> maybe..I haven't really been working for Honda for the last 21 years, but >> just showing up at a plant that says Honda on the front of the building >> when really...(OMG!) my pay checks were underwritten by Toyota. >> >> Them bastards! >> >> It is amazing how crystal clear things become when somebody lays it >> out >> there for you in black and white. >> >> /sarcasm off > > > But then, being a Dumbass, you wouldn't remember this, would you? > > Remember, this thread is about repeatedly running something low. You > appear to be running you mouth with your brain low on working cells. i remember it perfectly. but it still makes no sense as to why your argument that something "just happens because you say so" has any credibility. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:21:38 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>>> so explain how a car with a knock sensor can still exhibit >>>> detonation... >>> >>> By using GAS. >>> >>> >>> >> so explain, since the engine is supposed to have a knock sensor, and the >> computer is supposed to adjust the timing accordingly, how can " GAS" >> cause detonation??? > > > Phew, you really are friggin' stupid, aren't you? sorry, was that a technical explanation? "because i said so" won't get you onto any nasa payroll. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
jim beam wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote: >> Ed White wrote: >>> "hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:gQl3k.273$ul.157@trndny08... >>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:14:23 -0400, C. E. White wrote: >>>> >>>>> Look back at your log book >>>>> - does the fuel economy decrease measurably between cleanings of >>>>> the oiled >>>>> gauze filter? >>>> >>>> Nope. Stayed a steady 43-45 MPG. >>> >>> Don't you think that is unusual, assuming that changing the air >>> filter was the readon for a large increase in fuel economy? If >>> reducing the air filter restriction could increase fuel economy by >>> 10%, don't you think you should see the fuel economy decrease as the >>> filter accumulates dirt and the filter restriction increases? I know >>> you said your filter was not a K&N, but I assume it is similar. K&Ns >>> own data shows a substantial increase in the filter restricition as >>> it accumulates dirt. K&N shows a dirty K&N filter to be more >>> restricitive than a clean paper filter. It seems to me you can't get >>> a 10% increase in fuel economy by changing to a less restricitive >>> filter and not also get a measurable decrease in fuel economy as that >>> filter loads up with dirt. >>> >>> Ed >> >> I'm puzzled about one thing that i used to experience sort of related >> to this, so I'll pose it here: In the late 80's/early 90's, I lived in >> Colorado - periodic emissions inspections were required. I had an '86 >> MPFI turbocharged Subaru station wagon at the time. On two occasions, >> it failed the emissions isnpection - and both times the technician >> asked if the air filter had been changed recently. On those two >> occasions, the answer was 'no'. I changed the filter both times, and >> it passed the re-test with flying colors. After that, I made sure to >> replace the filter just before taking it for inspection if it had not >> been changed recently, and it always passed with no problem. >> >> So my question is: If the computer can compensate for the slightly >> clogged filter for normal driving, why can't it do so for emissions >> measurements (idling situation)? > > > the effect on air flow at idle, even for an ancient clogged filter, is > absolutely minimal. the only explanation i can think of could be that > subaru, for some odd reason, don't go closed loop with the oxygen sensor > at idle, but revert to some preset value instead. absolutely bizarre. Maybe so. I did get the distinct impression that, whatever the explanation, it was not something that was unique to Subarus, but was a generalization that maybe the techs were trained in, or perhaps that particular tech had learned from experience (that a slightly restricted air filter would cause an increase in whatever parameter it was that was the problem). Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:11:21 -0700, jim beam wrote:
> Hachiroku ハチク wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:24:53 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot >> canada wrote: >> >>>>> Actually, the 82HP 1.5 liter in 1994 was carbureted. The 1995 93HP >>>>> 1.5 liter engine was injected. >>>> wow, that's got to be one of the last carburetted cars on the road! >>>> for north america at any rate. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Yup. It was an electronic feedback constant vacuum carb. >> >> Nice to see someone who knows what he's talking about. IIRC, my '83 had >> a similar system. > > > "he"? Whatever. But the person knows what s/he is talking about, instead of shotgunning in the dark. You should try learning something, too! It might actually make you credible, and then you'd know better than to say a '95 Tercel doesn't have a knock sensor. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:35:07 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>> so explain, since the engine is supposed to have a knock sensor, and >>> the computer is supposed to adjust the timing accordingly, how can >>> " GAS" cause detonation??? >> >> >> Phew, you really are friggin' stupid, aren't you? > > sorry, was that a technical explanation? "because i said so" No, I actually had the data to prove it. See, that's the difference between actually doing something and sitting behind a keyboard guessing. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:55:10 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>> the effect on air flow at idle, even for an ancient clogged filter, is >> absolutely minimal. the only explanation i can think of could be that >> subaru, for some odd reason, don't go closed loop with the oxygen >> sensor at idle, but revert to some preset value instead. absolutely >> bizarre. > > Maybe so. I did get the distinct impression that, whatever the > explanation, it was not something that was unique to Subarus, but was a > generalization that maybe the techs were trained in, or perhaps that > particular tech had learned from experience (that a slightly restricted > air filter would cause an increase in whatever parameter it was that was > the problem). Well, I had one of my Corollas fail once, and the tech looked at the test results and asked when the last time I changed spark plugs, wires, or the air filter was. Since the car had platinum plugs and only had 60,000 miles on it, I replaced the AF and it passed magnificently. But, the tech knew how to read and interpret data, something Mr Bean...er, BEAM needs to learn... |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:11:21 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >> Hachiroku ハチク wrote: >>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:24:53 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot >>> canada wrote: >>> >>>>>> Actually, the 82HP 1.5 liter in 1994 was carbureted. The 1995 93HP >>>>>> 1.5 liter engine was injected. >>>>> wow, that's got to be one of the last carburetted cars on the road! >>>>> for north america at any rate. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Yup. It was an electronic feedback constant vacuum carb. >>> Nice to see someone who knows what he's talking about. IIRC, my '83 had >>> a similar system. >> >> "he"? > > Whatever. But the person knows what s/he is talking about, instead of > shotgunning in the dark. > > You should try learning something, too! It might actually make you > credible, and then you'd know better than to say a '95 Tercel doesn't > have a knock sensor. > the knock sensor that allows the engine to knock? that's funny! |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:35:07 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>>> so explain, since the engine is supposed to have a knock sensor, and >>>> the computer is supposed to adjust the timing accordingly, how can >>>> " GAS" cause detonation??? >>> >>> Phew, you really are friggin' stupid, aren't you? >> sorry, was that a technical explanation? "because i said so" > > No, I actually had the data to prove it. See, that's the difference > between actually doing something and sitting behind a keyboard guessing. > but you haven't presented any data -just a number and "because i said so". |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:34:28 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> No, I actually had the data to prove it. See, that's the difference >> between actually doing something and sitting behind a keyboard guessing. >> >> > NO YOU DI'IN'T!!! Yes, I did. > NO YOU DI'IN'T!!! Yes, I did. > NO YOU DI'IN'T!!! whatever... |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:32:34 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> Whatever. But the person knows what s/he is talking about, instead of >> shotgunning in the dark. >> >> You should try learning something, too! It might actually make you >> credible, and then you'd know better than to say a '95 Tercel doesn't >> have a knock sensor. >> >> > NO YOU DI'IN'T!!! yes, I did. > NO YOU DI'IN'T!!! yes, I did. > NO YOU DI'IN'T!!! whatever... |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:33:05 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> But then, being a Dumbass, you wouldn't remember this, would you? >> >> Remember, this thread is about repeatedly running something low. You >> appear to be running you mouth with your brain low on working cells. > > NO YOU DI'IN'T!!! yes, I did. > NO YOU DI'IN'T!!! yes, I did. > NO YOU DI'IN'T!!! whatever... |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:34:28 -0700, jim beam wrote: > >>> No, I actually had the data to prove it. See, that's the difference >>> between actually doing something and sitting behind a keyboard guessing. >>> >>> >> NO YOU DI'IN'T!!! > > Yes, I did. > >> NO YOU DI'IN'T!!! > > Yes, I did. > >> NO YOU DI'IN'T!!! > > whatever... > > don't misquote, and don't snip without notation. basic usenet etiquette. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 03:06:37 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@ae86.GTS>
wrote: >On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:10:32 -0400, wrote: > >>>> >>>> Hmmm...you work for a Toyota dealer? We were using BG to clean the >>>> sludged Camry/Sienna engines, but the BG44K I hadn't heard of until it >>>> was advertised on XM radio recently. Is it any good? >> >> Used to be Toyota service manager - for 10 years of my 25 years as an auto >> mechanic. > > >Whereabouts? I'm on the East Coast. > >I thought there might have been some professionalism there. > >I take it you're in the Camry group. We're having a discussion in Toyota >about dealerships 'double dipping' using AllData when it comes to >replacing timing belts and water pumps. I've seen Toyota dealers quote ~3 >hours to replace the belt, and then again to replace the water pump, even >though they're doing both operations at the same time! > >Any insight? > I'm in Waterloo Ontario. Not on the Camry group. As far as the "double dipping" it goes on all the time - at Ford dealerships, Chrysler dealerships, VW dealerships, Mazda dealerships, Mercedes dealerships, and even, sadly, at some Toyota dealerships. Never happened at mine when I was in charge. (My shop was not flat rate 'till after I left) The time for the belt should be about 3 hours. The time for the pump should be about 4 hours. The time for both should be the time for the pump - or the time for the belt plus 1 hour. If you catch your dealer pulling a fast one, call him on it. If he doesn't make it right REAL QUICK call your local media and prepare to meet him in small claims court. Approach the situation calmly and with your facts well prepared - in other words - professionally. Helps if you can have either the Alldata, Toyota, or other flat rate operation codes and numbers to present. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:58 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands