 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / November 2009Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser
I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I filled up yesterday I put premium in it instead of regular. It's too early for a definitive answer but so far it looks like it's down 2 mpg over what I'd been getting. About what I expected but I thought I'd test it out. > I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect > from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I > filled up yesterday I put premium in it instead of regular. It's too > early for a definitive answer but so far it looks like it's down 2 mpg > over what I'd been getting. About what I expected but I thought I'd > test it out. I don't know for sure, but there are those that would say that you have to give your PCM time to adjust to the different fuel to make a meaningful mileage measurement.  SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect >> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to give your PCM time to adjust to the different fuel to make a > meaningful mileage measurement. if the motor is not knocking with regular fuel,then changing to hi-test isn't going to make any difference.ECUs don't have any way of discerning octane levels,and the O2 sensor will not read different for hi-test. that is why running hi-test in a car designed to use regular is a waste of money. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com > >> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect > >> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > isn't going to make any difference.ECUs don't have any way of discerning > octane levels,and the O2 sensor will not read different for hi-test. Actually the computer does have a way of detecting octane - it is called the knock sensor. And the O2 sensor may read differently if the fuel oxygen content is different, which may or may not be the case depending on where you get the fuel. > that is why running hi-test in a car designed to use regular is a waste of > money. It may or may not be a waste of money (the only way to find out for sure is to try it). The EPA specifies higher octane fuel for its fuel economy tests - so it would stand to reason that some cars designed for regular fuel would get slightly better mileage with increased octane. -jim > > that is why running hi-test in a car designed to use regular is a > > waste of money. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -jim You've got that exactly backwards. Octane is a measure of the fuel's resistance to pre-ignition (knock). This means higher octane fuel doesn't burn as easily. Thus, if you put high octane fuel in a car designed to run on regular (like U.S. 87) then your fuel economy is likely to DECREASE slightly. While this isn't technically correct, you could think of high octane fuel as having less potential energy. The reason high octane fuel does OK (mileage wise) in a car designed to used high octane fuel is that high octane engines tend to be high compression. Thus, the engine gets more energy out of the fuel. -Dave > > > that is why running hi-test in a car designed to use regular is a > > > waste of money. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > resistance to pre-ignition (knock). This means higher octane fuel > doesn't burn as easily. Octane is measured by experimentation with a standard test engine ( incidentally, that standard engine was designed in 1909). It has nothing to do with burning easily (whatever you imagine that to mean). Hydrogen and methane seem to burn plenty easily as far as I can tell. How easily do kerosene and diesel fuel burn?. Which of those fuels has higher octane rating? > Thus, if you put high octane fuel in a car > designed to run on regular (like U.S. 87) then your fuel economy is > likely to DECREASE slightly. That is your belief... > While this isn't technically correct, you could think of high octane > fuel as having less potential energy. I could think that if I wanted to be wrong some of the time. > The reason high octane fuel does > OK (mileage wise) in a car designed to used high octane fuel is that > high octane engines tend to be high compression. Thus, the engine gets > more energy out of the fuel. The EPA Fuel economy test uses 91 octane fuel. For a few years after the Car manufacturers started using knock sensors the EPA considered an administrative rule that a manufacturer could not make an engine that which got better mileage on 91 octane if the manufacturers recommendation for the car was to use regular fuel. This was because it was understood by everyone that with the presence of a knock sensor the engine management system could now be designed to learn to accommodate to the fuel octane. After some debate about whether the EPA should be requiring auto-makers to derate the potential gas mileage of their engines, they quietly dropped the idea. The current EPA policy on whether regular rated engines get better mileage on premium fuel is 'don't ask don't tell'. The EPA and the engine designers do not hold the same beliefs you do. There is a significant financial incentive for car manufacturers to design engines that get better mileage on 91 octane than they do on regular gasoline. -jim >> > > that is why running hi-test in a car designed to use regular is a >> > > waste of money. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Octane is measured by experimentation with a standard test engine ( > incidentally, that standard engine was designed in 1909). > It has nothing to do with burning easily (whatever you imagine > that to mean). the above is wrong. octane is a measure of a fuel's ignition characteristics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating from answers.com; octane number n. A numerical representation of the antiknock properties of motor fuel, compared with a standard reference fuel, such as isooctane, > Hydrogen and methane seem to burn plenty easily as far as I can tell. > How easily do kerosene and diesel fuel burn?. Which of those fuels has [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > premium fuel is 'don't ask don't tell'. > The EPA and the engine designers do not hold the same beliefs you do. > There is > a significant financial incentive for car manufacturers to design > engines that get better mileage on 91 octane than they do on regular > gasoline. > > -jim Oh? What is that "financial incentive"? cites,please. It seems to me that manufacturers have a greater financial incentive to design cars for regular grade fuel. would you get enough of a mileage increase using premium to offset the added cost of premium fuel? SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com > >> > > that is why running hi-test in a car designed to use regular is a > >> > > waste of money. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > characteristics. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating That article in the wikipedia was written by an ignorant amateur. The length of stroke has nothing to do with compression ratio of an engine. There are high and low compression versions of the same engine (in case you don't know what that means - they both have the same stroke length). And there is no direct relation ship between how fast a fuel burns and detonation. Hydrogen burns faster than gasoline (the combustion spreads faster), yet it also has a much higher octane rating. > from answers.com; > octane number n. A numerical representation of the antiknock properties of > motor fuel, compared with a standard reference fuel, such as isooctane, Yeah, so how does that statement support your mistaken beliefs? > > Hydrogen and methane seem to burn plenty easily as far as I can tell. > > How easily do kerosene and diesel fuel burn?. Which of those fuels has [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Oh? What is that "financial incentive"? cites,please. Did you just crawl out of the cardboard box you have been living in the last 40 years? You want me to prove to you that the car manufacturers have a financial stake in the fuel economy numbers they put on every new car they sell? Do your own research. > It seems to me that manufacturers have a greater financial incentive to > design cars for regular grade fuel. > > would you get enough of a mileage increase using premium to offset the > added cost of premium fuel? I didn't say you will get any better mileage. Some cars do some don't. One things for sure - You won't find out if your car does get better mileage by asking on usenet. -jim >> >> > > that is why running hi-test in a car designed to use regular >> >> > > is a waste of money. [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > > Do your own research. UseNet convention says if you make a claim,YOU back it up with facts;cites. you CANT support your claim; >> > There is >> > a significant financial incentive for car manufacturers to design >> > engines that get better mileage on 91 octane than they do on >> > regular gasoline. >> > >> > -jim I fail to see how getting better mileage on higher octanes than specified would gain auto makers any financial gain.It's an UNKNOWN,as you stated,and thus people would not have that "fact" to influence their purchases. It doesn't make sense. You lose. >> It seems to me that manufacturers have a greater financial incentive >> to design cars for regular grade fuel. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I didn't say you will get any better mileage. Some cars do some don't. IOW,you just stated gibberish,unsupportable nonsense. > One things for sure - You won't find out if your car does get better > mileage by asking on usenet. > > -jim We won't find out anything from your worthless statements. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com > UseNet convention says if you make a claim,YOU back it up with facts;cites. Cite...? > you CANT support your claim; Duh. > We won't find out anything from your worthless statements. So refute, you f.cking moron. ----- - gpsman > UseNet convention says if you make a claim,YOU back it up with facts;cites. > you CANT support your claim; My claim is that car companies have a financial interest in getting the best possible fuel economy rating. What kind of idiot would ask for evidence to support that statement? > >> > There is > >> > a significant financial incentive for car manufacturers to design [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > thus people would not have that "fact" to influence their purchases. > It doesn't make sense. The fuel economy test is conducted with higher octane fuel. If the engine gets better mileage with the fuel used in the test, it will get a better fuel economy rating. > You lose. You demonstrate incompetence. > >> It seems to me that manufacturers have a greater financial incentive > >> to design cars for regular grade fuel. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > IOW,you just stated gibberish,unsupportable nonsense. Probably would sound like gibberish to a salamander also. -jim > > One things for sure - You won't find out if your car does get better > > mileage by asking on usenet. > > > > -jim > > We won't find out anything from your worthless statements. > -- > Jim Yanik > jyanik > at > localnet > dot com > I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect > from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I > filled up yesterday I put premium in it instead of regular. It's too > early for a definitive answer but so far it looks like it's down 2 mpg > over what I'd been getting. About what I expected but I thought I'd > test it out. It should be down a little. Premium has less energy per unit volume. >> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to >> expect [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It should be down a little. Premium has less energy per unit volume. That used to be true (say 30 years ago), but these days it is not ture. Ed >>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to >>> expect [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That used to be true (say 30 years ago), but these days it is not > ture. If higher octane ratings are achieved through oxygenates it certainly will be lower because those high octane oxygenates have less energy/volume. I think it is highly unlikely that higher octane ratings would be achieved through aromatics these days for fuels one can buy at regular gas station. http://www.epa.gov/oms/rfgecon.htm http://books.google.com/books?id=J_AkNu-Y1wQC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=energy+content +of+gasolines&source=bl&ots=j-Dw6PAVcq&sig=ZQI4tXkW_YZMjLf2epOMuDAA3OE&hl=en&ei= TeruSs7BOIuQMefywIQM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCcQ6AEwCTgK#v =onepage&q=energy%20content%20of%20gasolines&f=false >>>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to >>>> expect [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >http://www.epa.gov/oms/rfgecon.htm >http://books.google.com/books?id=J_AkNu-Y1wQC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=energy+content +of+gasolines&source=bl&ots=j-Dw6PAVcq&sig=ZQI4tXkW_YZMjLf2epOMuDAA3OE&hl=en&ei= TeruSs7BOIuQMefywIQM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCcQ6AEwCTgK#v =onepage&q=energy%20content%20of%20gasolines&f=false That's what I was thinking. I wonder how much alcohol they are allowed to put in basic gasoline. Maybe the main difference between regular and premium these days is the amount of alcohol they put in it. > That's what I was thinking. I wonder how much alcohol they are > allowed to put in basic gasoline. Maybe the main difference between > regular and premium these days is the amount of alcohol they put in > it. In our town, they can put up to 10% ethanol in the gas. I think it's some kind of scam the state is taking part in but that's the brakes. There is a slight drop in gas mileage but the good news is that I can use the lowest grade of gas in my cars without knocking. Previously, the cars had to use mid-grade. >> That's what I was thinking. I wonder how much alcohol they are >> allowed to put in basic gasoline. Maybe the main difference between [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > use the lowest grade of gas in my cars without knocking. Previously, the > cars had to use mid-grade. Gas suppliers HAVE to add some oxygenate to meet emissions specs,and alcohol was the replacement for MBTE which was polluting the environment. I believe non-flex-fuel vehicles cannot reliably tolerate much more than 10% alcohol without modification. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com >>> That's what I was thinking. I wonder how much alcohol they are >>> allowed to put in basic gasoline. Maybe the main difference between [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Gas suppliers HAVE to add some oxygenate to meet emissions specs,and > alcohol was the replacement for MBTE which was polluting the environment. The gas here in Hawaii works fine with alcohol. I don't recall the reason for going through all that trouble to ship the stuff in from the mainland but I reckon that somebody's getting rich off of this nutty scheme. It might make a little more sense if we were making alcohol from sugar cane or pineapples locally. :-) > I believe non-flex-fuel vehicles cannot reliably tolerate much more than > 10% alcohol without modification. Back in the 80's the reason for this was that the fuel lines would be damaged by alcohol. Gee - is this still true? >>> That's what I was thinking. I wonder how much alcohol they are >>> allowed to put in basic gasoline. Maybe the main difference between [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Gas suppliers HAVE to add some oxygenate to meet emissions specs,and >alcohol was the replacement for MBTE which was polluting the environment. True. But it's been years since the addition was actually needed because the emissions controls are now good enough that you don't need oxygenated gas anymore. But the scam to benefit corn growers continues. And we pay for it in higher taxes, higher gas prices, and lowered gas mileage. >I believe non-flex-fuel vehicles cannot reliably tolerate much more than >10% alcohol without modification. >>>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to >>>> expect [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > http://www.epa.gov/oms/rfgecon.htm > http://books.google.com/books?id=J_AkNu-Y1wQC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=energy+content +of+gasolines&source=bl&ots=j-Dw6PAVcq&sig=ZQI4tXkW_YZMjLf2epOMuDAA3OE&hl=en&ei= TeruSs7BOIuQMefywIQM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCcQ6AEwCTgK#v =onepage&q=energy%20content%20of%20gasolines&f=false http://www.chevron.com/products/ourfuels/prodserv/fuels/technical_safety_bulleti ns/ogfe_enrgycon.aspx From http://www.chevron.com/products/ourfuels/prodserv/fuels/documents/69083_MotorGas _Tech%20Review.pdf : "Conventional fuels always have varied in heating value. One cause is the formulation differences among batches and among refiners. A survey of 1990-1991 conventional gasolines found that the heating value of summer gasolines varied over an 8 percent range. Heating value also varies by grade and by season. On average, the heating value of premium-grade gasoline is about 0.7 percent higher than regular grade because premium grade, in general, contains more aromatic hydrocarbons, the class of hydrocarbons with the highest densities. The heating value of winter gasoline is about 1.5 percent lower than summer gasoline because winter gasoline contains more volatile, less dense hydrocarbons. "Oxygenated gasolines (see page 53) have lower heating values because the heating values of the oxygenate components are lower than those of the hydrocarbons they displace. The percentage decrease in heating value is close to the mass percent oxygen in the gasoline. For example, in keeping with federal regulations, gasoline in carbon monoxide nonattainment areas in the U.S. is oxygenated to a minimum of 2.7 mass percent oxygen during four or five winter months. The heating value of the oxygenated product is about 2.7 mass percent lower than that of conventional gasoline. In addition, federal RFG and California Phase 3 RFG in federal RFG areas are typically oxygenated year-round to an average oxygen content of about 2 mass percent. The resulting heating values are about 2 percent lower than that of conventional gasoline. California Phase 3 RFG also has limits on distillation temperatures and aromatics content, which has the secondary effect of lowering the density of the fuel. These limits reduce heating value by about another 1 percent. "The gasolines that produced the results displayed in Figure 1.3 were specially formulated to span a wide range of compositions. The compositional variations were much greater than those separating conventional and reformulated commercial gasolines. Thus, the results provide solid evidence that RFG does not exert an unusual effect on fuel economy. Individual drivers have reported decreases of 10 percent, 15 percent, and even 20 percent in fuel economy when they began using RFG. Not surprisingly, many of the claims are anecdotal. Most drivers do not keep continuous fuel-economy records, so they don't have a meaningful fuel-economy baseline for the gasoline they previously used. Even with a baseline, a fuel-economy value based on the consumption of a single tank of gasoline can be misleading. Drivers interested in fuel economy should average results over several tanks of gasoline or, better yet, over several months of driving." From http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/gasoline/gasoline-octane.cfm : "Gasoline with a higher heating value (energy content) provides better fuel economy. Traditionally, premium gasoline has had a slightly higher heating value than regular, and, thus, provides slightly better fuel economy, but it is difficult to detect in normal driving. There can be even larger differences in heating value between batches of gasoline from the same refinery, between summer and winter volatility classes, or between brands of gasoline from different refineries because of compositional differences. The differences are small and there is no practical way for the consumer to identify gasoline with a higher-than-average heating value." >>>>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to >>>>> expect [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > there is no practical way for the consumer to identify gasoline with a > higher-than-average heating value." I saw some of that on my own. it's just longer ways of saying the same thing and some additional detail. RFG has been around for 14 years now. Even when I've been out in the middle of no where, well outside the RFG mandated areas ( http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg/whereyoulive.htm ) the fuels have at the very least contained ethanol if not fully RFG compliant. Do any refineries make anything else now? (I thought ethanol was a federal requirement anyway) Once adding that stuff the easier way to higher octane is just putting in more of it. >> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect >> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It should be down a little. Premium has less energy per unit volume. High Octane has the same energy. It has a higher OCTANE and is wasted or may not be burned as completly in a low compression motor or with retarded or less advance in the timing of ignition. It burns slower and does not detonate under heat of compression as easily as regular. Fuel that uses more ethanol to increase octane has less energy. Regular fuel with ethanol has less energy. A 12 to 1 compression or even 14 to 1 compression motor burning 105 octane or higher will get better mileage and torque if the ignition curve etc are right. Just like diesel the motor has to be built for the stress. What we have now and for a long time is junk engines designed to be built as cheaply as possible and to run on junk fuel as per EPA or California really. The electronics are good at getting the most from junk. Just imagine what great engine structure and electronics would do with great fuel. >>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect >>> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >junk. Just imagine what great engine structure and electronics would do >with great fuel. I don't understand you claims of "junk" engines. Today's engines are far better in pretty much every way then everything that came before them including durability. That's a general statement, there will always be a few bad designs. Up until the mid/late sixties, engines were so weak that it was common for them to need valve jobs before 100K and for many of them they needed both rings and valves before that point. There used to be a thriving industry doing ring and valve jobs there was such a demand for it. > ...Up until the mid/late sixties, engines > were so weak that it was common for them to need valve jobs before > 100K and for many of them they needed both rings and valves before > that point. There used to be a thriving industry doing ring and valve > jobs there was such a demand for it. They also finally figured out how to and/or decided to make CV joint boots that could generally last the life of the car. They had to replace those recurring multi-hundred $$ maintenance needs with something else. That's when some genius said "Hey! I've got it! Let's start driving the cams with timing belts in almost every engine, *AND* let's bury the water pump inside the engine and have it be driven by the timing belt! And to really mess up a few people's bank accounts, let's make those same engines with the cams driven by high-tech rubber bands to be interference!!". :) SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect >>>> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > that point. There used to be a thriving industry doing ring and valve > jobs there was such a demand for it. Remember the Hemi of the late 60s, not the mid sixties. It put out an honest 800 hp and 860 ft lbs according to modern testing a year or so ago. They came apart because that much power and trying to rev past 8000 rpm. If you kept it at 7000 or below everytime it stayed together. However the head block gasket would seep a little bit of oil, if constantly stressed. Name me one engine that puts out that torque that you can afford. I've got one of the modern high hp jobs. It revs like crazy but hasn't got any torque. Next time you get a chance ride in a 70 442 w 410 gears, or a Hemi Cuda properly tuned. A 429 Cobra Jet or a 428 for that Matter, or a high winding 427 or a bunch more. The new engines don't come apart becaause they don't put out power that will break them. you 3.3 mph per second regulated electronic throttle is a wuse. A hemi with modern developments could probably push 900 hp. Street Rod Standards are now in the 1000 hp range. Try that with a Mercedes engine short of 6.3 twin turbo. None of them will survive. The reason the don't run 186 mph or above is rear gearing and no overdrives in the gearbox. A 440 or hemi and a number of others would do 155 at 8000 but don't expect it to live. Ride in a 427 Vette and wish it had the gearing etc box of the new Vette. The technology is far more developed today but it is not applied but who "needs" a 250 mph 900-1000 hp Hemi. The new Hemi is more a Polsphere head It has an unfinished area to hold heat and twin plugs to burn junk fuel. >>>>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect >>>>> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >The new Hemi is more a Polsphere head It has an unfinished area to hold >heat and twin plugs to burn junk fuel. Now you're just being silly. Talking about 800 hp engines the comprised 0.002% of the market is meaningless. In the 60's your primary engines were the Chevy and ford 6's and small block v8s and similar in the upscale cars like Buick, Lincoln, etc. Not only the engines but the cars themselves were often worn out within 10 years/100K miles. If you want to talk about power, consider that back in the day a typical 6.6+ Liter muscle car might do 0-60 in 6.6 seconds, I forget their quarter mile numbers. My 99 GT with 4.6L motor can do the same 6.6 and quarter, more or less. And instead of getting 13 mpg I can get 18 mpg or better. Heck, people with new Corvettes that will blow the doors off the Corvettes from back in the day, have reported 30 mpg on trips. You are living on some other planet if you believe what you are writing. > >>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect > >>> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > that point. There used to be a thriving industry doing ring and valve > jobs there was such a demand for it. But that has nothing to with the engine itself. To claim that burning rings and valves is evidence of a "weak" engine is silly. That definition would mean the weakest engines are the ones used in dragsters and race cars. Take a hundred of what you think are the best built car engines today and install a breaker-point ignition and a carburetor on them and you'll find out the rings and valves don't hold up as well as the cars that were designed with those old fuel and ignition systems. The point that I think was being made was that toady's manufacturers and oil companies are delivering cheaper quality to the consumer, but the electronics used today more than compensate for that. -jim >> >>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect >> >>> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > >-jim I suppose we could split hairs over the quality of the lock washers too. It is what it is and is what it was. Today's clearances are much tighter, the engines are cleaner burning, etc. Sure, if you want to take a complete system (today's engines) that was designed for today's technology, and remove part of it and substitute parts it was never designed to use, sure, you can make it worse. Next you be singing the praises of wooden wagon wheels over modern tires because the wooden ones never blew out from being run low on air. > I suppose we could split hairs over the quality of the lock washers > too. It is what it is and is what it was. Today's clearances are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > singing the praises of wooden wagon wheels over modern tires because > the wooden ones never blew out from being run low on air. The wagon wheels with metal treads have an order of magnitude less rolling resistance too - so better fuel mileage, but of course their traction (cornering, accelerating, braking) sucks. Sounds like a gubmint solution to some serious problems - something Al Gore and Obama might be interested in having legislated (except, of course, Congressmen and Senators would be exempt from having to use them). :) SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> I suppose we could split hairs over the quality of the lock washers >> too. It is what it is and is what it was. Today's clearances are [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >might be interested in having legislated (except, of course, Congressmen >and Senators would be exempt from having to use them). :) Be careful what you say. If Gore overhears you he'll want to mandate that we all switch to nitrogen filled tires with heavy fines for using "air". >>> I suppose we could split hairs over the quality of the lock washers >>> too. It is what it is and is what it was. Today's clearances are [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > that we all switch to nitrogen filled tires with heavy fines for using > "air". Hmm - what if we mandated that you had to fill all tires with CO2. Gore could have an exclusive franchise on the special equipment that would be required at every filling station and tire servicing facility in the country that would separate out CO2 from the ambient air for people to use to inflate and top off their tires. That way we could starve the earth and those pesky plants from that awful CO2, and an entire industry (owned and controlled by Gore, and taxed by the gubmint) would be created - a new job stimulus program that would shuffle money around and accomplish nothing like everything else they are trying to do - another entire false economy built on the "merchant's broken window" principle. This should be made part of cap and trade - OH - I'm sorry! I forgot the new euphemism for that is the "Clean Energy and Security Act". SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > This should be made part of cap and trade - OH - I'm sorry! I forgot > the new euphemism for that is the "Clean Energy and Security Act". that should be the "NO energy and NO security Act". SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com > I suppose we could split hairs over the quality of the lock washers > too. It is what it is and is what it was. Today's clearances are > much tighter, the engines are cleaner burning, etc. But that is a result entirely of the electronic improvements. It is not as if the tighter clearances couldn't have been achieved in the 60's. But if you have an engine that is producing internal carbon deposits tight clearances can be fatal to engine life. It is not as if those clearances used then were not there by design. It was possible to make engines with tighter clearances in the 60's but tests showed that brought with it a bunch of reliability problems. > Sure, if you want > to take a complete system (today's engines) that was designed for > today's technology, and remove part of it and substitute parts it was > never designed to use, sure, you can make it worse. I suggest only substituting the parts that were really making the difference to illustrate a point. Conversely you could take an engine from the 60's and put a modern fuel and ignition system and if done right it would eliminate the ring and valve problems that you claim are inherent from a weak engine design. What is different today is the engine management system and manufacturing management systems. One of the results of all that is cheaper materials go into building a car. For instance, in a car there is a lot less metal all around. That extra metal that used to be in cars 40-50 years ago was not making the car weaker as you claim. The simple fact is that an engine of the 60's could be expected to spend a considerable amount of its life running with the timing off the mark and the fuel mixture out of balance and an unpredictable amount of carbon in the cylinders. In order to make an engine last under those variable conditions it had to be over-engineered. That over-engineering disappeared as the electronics got better and better. > Next you be > singing the praises of wooden wagon wheels over modern tires because > the wooden ones never blew out from being run low on air. Don't try to change to a different argument because you think you lost this one. I was disputing your incorrect assertion about engine design: "Up until the mid/late sixties, engines were so weak that it was common for them to need valve jobs before 100K and for many of them they needed both rings and valves before that point." The cause of valve and ring problems of which you speak can be entirely attributed to the fuel and ignition management used back then. Back then, an engine that was meticulously kept in tune lasted much much longer than 100k. But most engines weren't. -jim >> I suppose we could split hairs over the quality of the lock washers >> too. It is what it is and is what it was. Today's clearances are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >engines with tighter clearances in the 60's but tests showed that >brought with it a bunch of reliability problems. you keep missing the point. >> Sure, if you want >> to take a complete system (today's engines) that was designed for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >right it would eliminate the ring and valve problems that you claim are >inherent from a weak engine design. No it wouldn't. If you used the original factory rings and non-hardened valve seats and all the other factory parts of the day you would continue to expect early burning of valves and early wear out of the rings. The keep talking about how if you CHANGE things on the old engines you can make them better. Well DUH. And how if you CHANGE things on new engines you can make them worse. DUH again. >What is different today is the engine management system and >manufacturing management systems. One of the results of all that is >cheaper materials go into building a car. For instance, in a car there >is a lot less metal all around. That extra metal that used to be in cars >40-50 years ago was not making the car weaker as you claim. Now you have wandered off into the entirety of the car rather then the engine. But if you want to see how far off the mark you are go watch this crash test of a big ol heavy full of metal 59 bel aire against a much smaller cheaply made modern car http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g The simple >fact is that an engine of the 60's could be expected to spend a >considerable amount of its life running with the timing off the mark and >the fuel mixture out of balance and an unpredictable amount of carbon in >the cylinders. In order to make an engine last under those variable >conditions it had to be over-engineered. That over-engineering >disappeared as the electronics got better and better. They weren't over engineered. The basic block and heads were very similar to today's cars except that aluminum was rarely used. >> Next you be >> singing the praises of wooden wagon wheels over modern tires because >> the wooden ones never blew out from being run low on air. > >Don't try to change to a different argument because you think you lost >this one. I was disputing your incorrect assertion about engine design: I don't think I lost this one since I'm obviously right and you are living in a fantasy world. >"Up until the mid/late sixties, engines >were so weak that it was common for them [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >-jim Sorry but you are wrong overall. > It is what it is and is what it was. Today's clearances are > much tighter, No. They're not. Bearing, ring gap, and piston-to-bore clearance specs on my '1966 and 2005 engines are virtually identical. > the engines are cleaner burning, etc. THAT is true, but has nothing to do with "strength." That's airflow design (manifolding, heads, chambers, valves) and fuel management (EFI instead of carburetors). >> I don't understand you claims of "junk" engines. Today's engines are >> far better in pretty much every way then everything that came before [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But that has nothing to with the engine itself. To claim that burning > rings and valves is evidence of a "weak" engine is silly. Also left out of the discussion is the fact the the VERY BEST motor oil you could buy in the late 60's wouldn't qualify as chainsaw bar oil today. Lubricants have come WAY further than engine design- at least in terms of bearings, rings, and other "hard" parts. Fuel managment systems have come as far as the oils or even further. If you could find a "pickled" (preserved, never run) factory engine from 1965 and put it into use with today's synthetic oils >>> I don't understand you claims of "junk" engines. Today's engines are >>> far better in pretty much every way then everything that came before [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > "pickled" (preserved, never run) factory engine from 1965 and put it > into use with today's synthetic oils Stupid "send" button ;-) If you put it into use with today's synthetic oils, you'd find that it runs as long or maybe longer than anything modern. If my '66 engine went 180,000 miles with the kind of "group 1 or less" oils it had early in its life, imagine how well it would do with group IV synthetics right out of the box. >Also left out of the discussion is the fact the the VERY BEST motor oil >you could buy in the late 60's wouldn't qualify as chainsaw bar oil [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"pickled" (preserved, never run) factory engine from 1965 and put it >into use with today's synthetic oils It would fail in short order without good old tetraethyl lead in the fuel; no hardened valve seats in an engine from that era. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. >>Also left out of the discussion is the fact the the VERY BEST motor oil >>you could buy in the late 60's wouldn't qualify as chainsaw bar oil [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It would fail in short order without good old tetraethyl lead in the > fuel; no hardened valve seats in an engine from that era. That turned out to be a very overstated problem; the valve seats would last a long time without lead. OK, a valve job would be needed long before anything else on the engine needed replacement, but that would still be after many miles. SignatureAs we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin) > >>Also left out of the discussion is the fact the the VERY BEST motor oil > >>you could buy in the late 60's wouldn't qualify as chainsaw bar oil [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > before anything else on the engine needed replacement, but that would > still be after many miles. Hey, Stellite!. Stelliiite!! * *with apologies to Tennessee Williams >>Also left out of the discussion is the fact the the VERY BEST motor oil >>you could buy in the late 60's wouldn't qualify as chainsaw bar oil [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It would fail in short order without good old tetraethyl lead in the > fuel; no hardened valve seats in an engine from that era. I'm not so sure about that. it seems that such wear isn't as bad as was once believed. >>>Also left out of the discussion is the fact the the VERY BEST motor oil >>>you could buy in the late 60's wouldn't qualify as chainsaw bar oil [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I'm not so sure about that. it seems that such wear isn't as bad as was >once believed. What was found was that if you ran leaded fuel for a few thousand miles it built up a coating that could provide protection for a long time after that even if you burned unleaded. But if you took a new 66 engine that had never been run and started it off on unleaded it would burn the valves relatively quickly. That's why when leaded gas was phased out there wasn't the problem people thought there would be - all the already in service cars had been run on leaded for a long time and the new ones had hardened valve seats. > >>>Also left out of the discussion is the fact the the VERY BEST motor oil > >>>you could buy in the late 60's wouldn't qualify as chainsaw bar oil [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > miles it built up a coating that could provide protection for a long > time after that even if you burned unleaded. That's BS. I suppose next your claim that when you rebuild an old engine that protective lead coating penetrates even deeper than the metal removal from grinding the valves. The protection of a lead coating is Voodoo. > But if you took a new 66 > engine that had never been run and started it off on unleaded it would > burn the valves relatively quickly. That's why when leaded gas was > phased out there wasn't the problem people thought there would be - > all the already in service cars had been run on leaded for a long time > and the new ones had hardened valve seats. More BS. It is not as if valve seat recession didn't occur when engines were using leaded fuel. In fact back then it happened frequently. One of the reasons was the breaker point ignition always meant that the engine spent a considerable amount of its life with late timing due to breaker points wearing down. Subject a modern engine to the same late timing and it will burn valves also. And detonation is hard on the intake valves so advancing the timing in anticipation of the expected wear would also cause problems. The simple fact is that in order to make a 60's engine last as long as a modern engine you need to do a tune-up with the same frequency as you change oil. Where is the evidence for these engines that burn or recess valves without leaded fuel? If you install a properly working electronic ignition in an old style engine you are probably doing more to protect the valves from burning than hardened valve seats will. This whole business of lead protecting valves was a made up lie in the first place. It is a fairy tale designed to scare the public into continuing to poison itself. What protects valves is efficient combustion. The octane increase from lead made efficient combustion possible. Raising octane by other means can accomplish the same thing. There is no protective coating from lead. In fact the byproducts of burning lead have been shown to accelerate engine wear. -jim The simple fact is that in order to make a 60's engine > last as long as a modern engine you need to do a tune-up with the same > frequency as you change oil. OK, let's separate the problem here. Theres the hard mechanical parts of an old engine (rings, bearings, pistons) and then there's accessories (carburetion, ignition). The internal hard parts are not terribly different from today, but the accessories and lubricants ARE. That's my real point. I use a 1966 engine as a daily driver. I rebuilt it several years ago and went back to a very stock configuration in all regards. The biggest deviation from box-stock is that it has electronic ignition (a $100 investment and about 2 hours work) and that it has hardened valve seats in the head (which only raised the cost of the overhaul by about $50) It now gets about the same maintenance schedule as my wife's 05 PT Cruiser. I recently had an oil analysis done on both, and the old engine only had one wear metal that was higher (iron), probably attributable to the fact that it's a 7+ liter V8 with more than twice the ring-to-cylinder friction area and has the same volume of oil. Its copper and lead wear numbers were actually LOWER than the 2005. > Where is the evidence for these engines that burn or recess valves > without leaded fuel? (raising hand...) I had another engine (1966 383) that I converted to electronic ignition, but it still burned 2 exhaust valves. At the time I was doing a great deal of sustained high-speed driving with it. From the other old car drivers I've talked to and my own experience, sustained high speed operation is *much* harder on non-hardened valves than city driving. Especially if you're starting with a higher-compression higher-power old engine than something like a base slant-6 or 318. I had a third engine (1969 440) in a restoration project that didn't have any burned valves and still had great compression, but when I pulled the valve covers for some work (all the valve umbrella seals were rotted from age) and laid a straightedge across the valve stems, they were all at randomly different heights- lots of recession on many of the exhaust valves. So my quick saturday morning valve seal swap turned into a valve job and more hardened seats. Actually, it cascaded into months of work I hadn't planned to do for another year or so, but that's pretty typical for my projects it seems... ;-) > The simple fact is that in order to make a 60's engine > > last as long as a modern engine you need to do a tune-up with the same [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > different from today, but the accessories and lubricants ARE. That's my > real point. That's more or less true, but the question was what causes the wear on internal engine parts. It has been shown that leaded gas at the levels used in the 60's causes significant increase in soot and ash and some increase in salts and acids in engine lubricants. And the difference is not anywhere near insignificant in terms of engine wear. > I use a 1966 engine as a daily driver. I rebuilt it several years ago > and went back to a very stock configuration in all regards. The biggest > deviation from box-stock is that it has electronic ignition (a $100 > investment and about 2 hours work) and that it has hardened valve seats > in the head (which only raised the cost of the overhaul by about $50) So these are just case hardened seats not stellite? > It now gets about the same maintenance schedule as my wife's 05 PT > Cruiser. I recently had an oil analysis done on both, and the old engine [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > (raising hand...) That's not evidence. Hell I know somebody with a 2003 subaru that burnt a valve at 60k. What does that prove? > I had another engine (1966 383) that I converted to electronic ignition, > but it still burned 2 exhaust valves. At the time I was doing a great [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Especially if you're starting with a higher-compression higher-power old > engine than something like a base slant-6 or 318. The government of Thailand did some testing when they were deciding to switch over to lead free gas back around 1990. They ran engines from lots of different manufacturers (all asian and european) under high speed heavy load conditions (since that was the only circumstance where lead is supposed to make a difference). They found to there surprise that some valves in some engines without hardened valve seats held up better with no lead gas than others with hardened seats. Across the board they came to the conclusion there was no significant benefit to valves from lead. They also at the same time tested the additives that are added nowadays to European lead free gas that are supposed to replace the valve coating action of lead and found no significant benefit with those additives either. The only thing that has been proven conclusively is that lead raises octane. > I had a third engine (1969 440) in a restoration project that didn't > have any burned valves and still had great compression, but when I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of work I hadn't planned to do for another year or so, but that's pretty > typical for my projects it seems... ;-) I met a guy in the 70's that ran a volkswagon only repair shop. He was from germany and VW factory trained in germany. He had been working on VW bugs for 20 years. He claimed that none of his regular customers had ever burned a valve in a vw beetle engine that he maintained regularly. In fact he would guarantee it. Many of them getting over 200k without any engine trouble. His secret he said was a tuneup and oil change every 1500 miles. I told him that was a pretty tall claim given that those engines had a reputation for needing a valve jobs or more consistently at 60k . He said that was easy to explain: at about 60k the diaphragm in the vacuum advance would develop a leak. After that happens, drive it another 5-10k and the next stop is the junkyard or an engine overhaul. So the next time I was at a junk yard and saw a bunch VW bugs sitting in the same area and I ask if they would mind if I did a little snooping around in the beetle section. I checked about 20 vehicles and not a single one had a working vacuum advance. So after that whenever I happened to be at a gas station or a service garage or met anyone who claimed to be a mechanic I asked if they ever heard of a vacuum advance go bad on a VW or any other car for that matter. I never met a single mechanic who ever heard of a vacuum advance going bad. A few were honest and said they never had bothered to check if they worked or not. but the vast majority just blustered something like "oh No those never go bad they will last the life of the car" I guess that's sorta true. I can tell you for a fact that sustained high speed driving with a bad distributor or bad carb has a whole lot much greater impact on valves than lead or hardened seats. Running too much fuel or too little fuel or too advanced or to retarded spark at sustained high speed driving is going to make the issue of what kind of valves or seats or fuel additive completely irrelevant. The only significant effect that lead ever had on fuel was its effect on octane. -jim >> The simple fact is that in order to make a 60's engine >>> last as long as a modern engine you need to do a tune-up with the same [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > increase in salts and acids in engine lubricants. And the difference is > not anywhere near insignificant in terms of engine wear. Probably true, but then that falls in the same category as 60's oil not being good enough to use in a weed-whacker these days. My whole point was: given that these engines lasted >100k miles back then, it should be no surprise that modern engines last even longer. Furthermore, OLD engines built to OLD ENGINE SPECs also last far longer on today's fuels and oils, even with carburetion still in play instead of fuel injection. >> I use a 1966 engine as a daily driver. I rebuilt it several years ago >> and went back to a very stock configuration in all regards. The biggest [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So these are just case hardened seats not stellite? Beats me, I subbed that out to the machine shop. They're an over-the-counter part specifically for vintage engines. Pressed in, just like modern hard seats are done. >>> Where is the evidence for these engines that burn or recess valves >>> without leaded fuel? >> (raising hand...) > > That's not evidence. Hell I know somebody with a 2003 subaru that burnt > a valve at 60k. What does that prove? There are plenty of burned valves out there, not just mine. There is also a known, understood, and well-described failure mechanism when the valve seats are not sufficiently hard (microwelding leading to roughness and erosion, leading leakage, leading to "torching" through the valve/seat junction under peak combustion pressure). The fact that SOME engines (probably the majority, in fact) never had trouble with unleaded fuel doesn't invalidate the need for hard valve seats. > ...the breaker point ignition always meant that the engine > spent a considerable amount of its life with late timing due to breaker > points wearing down... Hmmm - Being that the spark occurs when the points *open*, worn breaker points would make the timing advanced (reduced dwell, but advanced timing). Unless you're going to say that the wear block wears down faster than the points burn back - which I don't think is generally the case. That's my buttal. Do you have a rebuttal? SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > > ...the breaker point ignition always meant that the engine > > spent a considerable amount of its life with late timing due to breaker [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > faster than the points burn back - which I don't think is generally the > case. I see what your saying, but it doesn't work that way. Try checking the timing on an engine with well used set of points. Or just observe the gap of a worn set of points - is the gap wider or narrower? And yes I suppose wear to the rubbing block accounts for most of it - transfer of metal plays a role too. -jim > That's my buttal. Do you have a rebuttal? > > -- > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') >>> ...the breaker point ignition always meant that the engine >>> spent a considerable amount of its life with late timing due to breaker [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Try checking the timing on an engine with well used set of points. Hah! If you can show me where to find one. Except, I do own a 1942 Gravely that has points in the magneto - never used a timing light on it - always followed the book on statically timing it. > Or > just observe the gap of a worn set of points - is the gap wider or > narrower? And yes I suppose wear to the rubbing block accounts for most > of it - transfer of metal plays a role too. > -jim Of course, as you no doubt know, when you get metal transfer, you get peaks and valleys on the points and then feeler gages (or a 3x5 card) don't tell you anything with any accuracy. >> That's my buttal. Do you have a rebuttal? >> >> -- >> Bill Putney >> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >> address with the letter 'x') SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > >>> ...the breaker point ignition always meant that the engine > >>> spent a considerable amount of its life with late timing due to breaker [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Gravely that has points in the magneto - never used a timing light on it > - always followed the book on statically timing it. Yeah I haven't put a timing light on a small engine much either and I'm not sure if points and magneto behave the same as points and coil as far as wear patterns. > > Or > > just observe the gap of a worn set of points - is the gap wider or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > peaks and valleys on the points and then feeler gages (or a 3x5 card) > don't tell you anything with any accuracy. Well i did say observe not use a feeler gauge. Also i expect to some extent the metal transfer also produces some porosity which takes up more space than the original metal and may account for some of the closing of the gap. -jim > >> That's my buttal. Do you have a rebuttal? > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') > What was found was that if you ran leaded fuel for a few thousand > miles it built up a coating that could provide protection for a long [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > all the already in service cars had been run on leaded for a long time > and the new ones had hardened valve seats. That's probably true. Plus hardened seats were snuck into production a number of years before the actual requirement. Chrysler started putting induction hardened seats in some engines around 1970, and lead wasn't finally eliminated until the 80s. >What was found was that if you ran leaded fuel for a few thousand >miles it built up a coating that could provide protection for a long >time after that even if you burned unleaded. But if you took a new 66 >engine that had never been run and started it off on unleaded it would >burn the valves relatively quickly. That was my impression, though I admit I haven't researched the issue thoroughly. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. > >What was found was that if you ran leaded fuel for a few thousand > >miles it built up a coating that could provide protection for a long [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That was my impression, though I admit I haven't researched the issue > thoroughly. Well that whole theory that a tankful of leaded fuel protected the valves forever was crafted in hindsight, after it became clear that old engines were not burning valves with unleaded gasoline as had been predicted. If you do research you might look at the studies done by those who build engines designed to run on LPG. What those studies demonstrated is that soot makes some difference in wear on valves. Hardened valves were used in LPG engines long before they were used in gasoline engines because LPG engines eat valves more than gasoline engines. The reason LP gas engines erode valves faster is because they burn so cleanly. The valves erode because of the clean metal on metal contact. Tests have shown that you can counter the valve wear problem in LPG engines by just burning a tiny amount of oil along with the LPG. The soot produced protects the valves. It should be obvious that 1960's gasoline engines did not have this problem of burning fuel too cleanly. If you do your research you will note that the tests that showed the benefit of lead were all done under very extreme conditions where engines were run at extremely high rpm high load conditions. It has never been demonstrated that lead makes a noticeable difference in valve wear under normal driving conditions. Where TEL did make a clear difference was in oil refinery economics. It allowed the oil companies to produce and sell the mix of products that maximized profits. In simple terms, it was a way to increase demand plus lower production cost. Another big difference that has resulted from removing lead from gasoline is engines last longer without lead, oil change intervals can be made longer and spark plugs last considerably longer. Those changes have been documented in side by side comparisons of the same engines on the 2 types of fuel. Those differences are directly related to removing lead from the fuel and not changes in engine design or changes in materials used. -jim > >Also left out of the discussion is the fact the the VERY BEST motor oil > >you could buy in the late 60's wouldn't qualify as chainsaw bar oil [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It would fail in short order without good old tetraethyl lead in the > fuel; no hardened valve seats in an engine from that era. That isn't true. There was a lot of concern about that at the time of the switch over from leaded to unleaded. But just like the Y2K scare that problem never seemed to materialize. I know a guy who put 300K on a '49 willies jeep after lead was phased out without any valve or ring problems and no increase in oil consumption. I myself ran a '66 chevy 283 for 20 years after lead was gone and didn't have any valve problems. The real issue was lead was a lot cheaper way to boost octane than any thing else. The scare tactic was just to keep lead in gasoline as long as possible and it worked. If the problem had been truthfully posed as do we continue to spew lead across the country only to benefit the oil companies, then it would have been eliminated 20 years earlier. the exact same thing can be said of MTBE. -jim > -- > The problem with socialism is there's always > someone with less ability and more need. >> >Also left out of the discussion is the fact the the VERY BEST motor oil >> >you could buy in the late 60's wouldn't qualify as chainsaw bar oil [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > companies, then it would have been eliminated 20 years earlier. the > exact same thing can be said of MTBE. In fairness, Y2K was a huge problem, but it was seen coming just barely far enough away that companies were able to put a huge amount of effort in and fix (or band-aid) their code so that almost nobody outside was inconvenienced. Had the work not gone into fixing it, the dire predictions would have come true. Likewise my impression remains that the concerns about valve life were real, and not just oil company propaganda. But while the concerns were real, they turned out to be unfounded. SignatureAs we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin) > >> >Also left out of the discussion is the fact the the VERY BEST motor oil > >> >you could buy in the late 60's wouldn't qualify as chainsaw bar oil [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > real, and not just oil company propaganda. But while the concerns were > real, they turned out to be unfounded. Effective propaganda may produce real concerns. But consider the facts - It was well known that lead was a poison when it was first added to gas in 1920. and it was well known that lead is a substance that never biodegrades when it is placed into the environment. It turned out that there were considerable financial advantages to the automakers and oil companies but hardly a shred of true evidence there was any advantage to the consumer or driver of cars. Yet most people had been convinced it did have advantages. But your right this wasn't oil company propaganda The serious lying came from the auto manufacturers. The lead in gasoline got there by agreement between Congress, auto makers and oil refiners. The automakers wanted higher octane fuel the oil companies didn't want to bear the large expense of the extra processing to make high octane fuel. Back then it would have more than doubled the cost. The deal they arrived at was simple. Put lead in the gas. To sell this to the public the automakers would claim that their cars would fall apart without lead and congress and the oil companies would go about selling the public on the health benefits of lead in gasoline. The main reason that the automakers made a big deal out of coming out with newly designed valves and other components when unleaded fuel was first started to be sold in the 70's was that they had claimed 50 years prior that they had a mountain of scientific evidence that bad things would happen to engines without lead. They couldn't now just ignore those claims they had stated as scientific fact. Modern studies have revealed that those early studies were probably complete frauds. One 2003 study showed that adding Tetra ethyl lead to gasoline reduces engine life by 50%. The current extended spark plug change intervals are really almost entirely due to the removal of lead from gasoline. Typically spark plugs electrodes and insulators erode 4 times as fast when using leaded gasoline. One interesting side note is the role ethanol played in this. Initially the oil companies rejected the idea of creating higher octane fuel by adding a well known poison to their fuel and told the automakers to take a hike and they didn't give a damn about octane that was the automakers problem not theirs. After all why should they compromise the image of their product for the benefit of the automakers. So automakers (mostly ford & GM) started fooling around with mixing ethanol as a fuel. That got the oil companies attention and suddenly the oil companies saw the light and started supporting the lead additive. Ethanol as a fuel disappeared for quite a while. It took 80 years and 7 million tons of lead blown out the tail pipes of cars but eventually ethanol made a come back. -jim > -- > As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should > be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; > and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin) >Effective propaganda may produce real concerns. But consider the facts - >It was well known that lead was a poison when it was first added to gas [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >did have advantages. But your right this wasn't oil company propaganda >The serious lying came from the auto manufacturers. No, there were _major_ advantages to ethyl. It not only made high octane gas much cheaper to make, it made high octane gas _practical_ to make. Yeah, it's possible to make 90 octane gas from casing head, but it evaporates right from your tank and it's substantially less safe to transport. Higher octane gas means higher performance engines for the consumer, and the consumer demanded that. A side effect was the fact that valve seats lasted a whole lot longer because of the lubrication the lead provided. And yes, everybody knew lead was toxic, but I don't think anyone had any notion just how toxic it was. Remember only 20 years before, lead acetate was a common ingredient in cakes and candies. On top of that, nobody had any idea that the auto industry would explode to the point where emissions were a big issue. > The lead in gasoline got there by agreement between Congress, auto >makers and oil refiners. The automakers wanted higher octane fuel the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >would go about selling the public on the health benefits of lead in >gasoline. In retrospect, it turned out to be a bad idea, but I don't think you can blame folks at the time. For a while, you could buy gas with and without ethyl; they coexisted in the marketplace. But as I said, it's just not practical to make high octane gas without an octane enhancer. And the first convenient one that was found was lead. > The main reason that the automakers made a big deal out of coming out >with newly designed valves and other components when unleaded fuel was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Typically spark plugs electrodes and insulators erode 4 times as fast >when using leaded gasoline. I'd like to see a cite to that 2003 study. I'd also be curious if that study used an engine with modern hardened valve seats or typical 1960s soft seats. > One interesting side note is the role ethanol played in this. Initially >the oil companies rejected the idea of creating higher octane fuel by [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >lead blown out the tail pipes of cars but eventually ethanol made a come >back. Again, I have seen plenty of ads from the thirties promoting ethyl in gas, but I have never seen any of them promoting ethanol in gas. I'm not sure anyone ever knew about it in the general public. Ethanol didn't make a comeback, though, until after lead was replaced by MTBE, and then MTBE turned out to be even worse than lead was. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > >Effective propaganda may produce real concerns. But consider the facts - > >It was well known that lead was a poison when it was first added to gas [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Higher octane gas means higher performance engines for the consumer, and > the consumer demanded that. So do consumers no longer demand that anymore??.. > A side effect was the fact that valve seats lasted a whole lot longer > because of the lubrication the lead provided. Which has proven to be a bunch of blarney. Maybe in an engine racing at 200mph it makes a difference but not an ordinary car. > And yes, everybody knew lead was toxic, but I don't think anyone had any > notion just how toxic it was. Remember only 20 years before, lead acetate > was a common ingredient in cakes and candies. On top of that, nobody had > any idea that the auto industry would explode to the point where emissions > were a big issue. Actually there were very accurate predictions made in the congressional hearings in the 20's. > > The lead in gasoline got there by agreement between Congress, auto > >makers and oil refiners. The automakers wanted higher octane fuel the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > practical to make high octane gas without an octane enhancer. And the > first convenient one that was found was lead. Except for ethanol. Lead never lived up to its claims. Lead didn't lead to better gas mileage, didn't burn cleaner but they said they had scientifc evidence it did. > > The main reason that the automakers made a big deal out of coming out > >with newly designed valves and other components when unleaded fuel was [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > study used an engine with modern hardened valve seats or typical 1960s > soft seats. No you are confused. The lead didn't cause any unusual wear to the valve seats. That was about the only internal component in the engine that had the same wear as unleaded. The study showed the rest of the engine does see accelerated wear when run on leaded fuel. The tests were done on modern engine comparing modern fuel to fuel of the same octane formulated with TEL. The study may have been funded by the UN. Lead is still used in some third world countries and there is some efforts to encourage them to stop. > > One interesting side note is the role ethanol played in this. Initially > >the oil companies rejected the idea of creating higher octane fuel by [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > gas, but I have never seen any of them promoting ethanol in gas. I'm > not sure anyone ever knew about it in the general public. If you mean in the public in the thirties how was ethanol supposed to get in their gas? It was prohibition and the oil companies and automakers had already perjured themselves in front of congress declaring there was no possible substitute for lead. You gotta love that about ethanol. Despite the best efforts of all the big players to make it look bad - it is the only one left standing. > Ethanol didn't make a comeback, though, until after lead was replaced by > MTBE, and then MTBE turned out to be even worse than lead was. Again ethanol was rejected for MTBE because it was just plain more profitable for the oil companies. And ethanol is cutting into petroleum sales. And the government and the oil companies again knew all about the hazards of MTBE from the beginning and again the lies eventually didn't hold up. -jim > --scott > > -- > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > ...No you are confused. The lead didn't cause any unusual wear to the valve > seats... I thought the opposite was being claimed. Did you mis-type there? SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >No you are confused. The lead didn't cause any unusual wear to the valve >seats. That was about the only internal component in the engine that had [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >still used in some third world countries and there is some efforts to >encourage them to stop. I never said you implied that. I said that the lack of lead should in fact cause unusual wear to the valve seats, so I am curious where the added engine lifetime came from here. Cite, please? --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > ...And yes, everybody knew lead was toxic, but I don't think anyone had any > notion just how toxic it was. Remember only 20 years before, lead acetate > was a common ingredient in cakes and candies... I bet most people aren't aware that today, lead is one of the powdered ingredients in many brushes in the d.c. motors and alternators on our cars. I was amazed to learn that when I worked as an engineer/engineering manager in a brush manufacturing company supplying 60% of the brushes to the U.S. auto industry. Think about it - lead in the brushes - brushes that wear and create dust that gets blown about into the air. Who'd a thunk that they would allow that - but it's a fact and you never hear anything about it. Whyizthat? SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > I bet most people aren't aware that today, lead is one of the powdered > ingredients in many brushes in the d.c. motors and alternators on our [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > would allow that - but it's a fact and you never hear anything about > it. Whyizthat? perhaps the amount of lead emitted from alternator brushes is not significant,compared to that emitted from leaded gasoline. (BTW,I encountered my first steel wheelweight the other day.While out walking or biking,I pick up wheelweights I spot,and melt them down into ingots.One would not melt,even with a torch applied directly.Turns out it was steel.I didn't know they were dropping the use of lead in wheelweights.) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com >> ...And yes, everybody knew lead was toxic, but I don't think anyone >> had any [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that gets blown about into the air. Who'd a thunk that they would allow > that - but it's a fact and you never hear anything about it. Whyizthat? And of course elemental lead and mercury have an entirely different toxicity level than lead and mercury compounds. Handling or working with metallic lead is very different from eating lead compounds in paint, for example. A senior co-worker tells of how he used to bite the end of leaded solder wire to flatten it when he was fabricating circuits back in the 50s, and in my own generation we used to play with balls of mercury dipped from the open-beaker barometer in the school science lab. I don't recommend either practice and I'm glad we're more aware of toxins these days, but it does make me laugh my head off when someone panics and practically calls in the hazmat squad over the breaking of a compact fluorescent lamp. :-p >> I bet most people aren't aware that today, lead is one of the powdered >> ingredients in many brushes in the d.c. motors and alternators on our [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > panics and practically calls in the hazmat squad over the breaking of a > compact fluorescent lamp. :-p Oh - you just wait. I guarandamntee you that Al Gore or someone like him is just biding their time for a few years until we're 99% committed to the flourescents. *THEN* - just when we're over that transition (i.e., getting used to reduced light levels that are claimed to be the same light levels, and too late to re-tool and re-legislate for incandescents), someone will release the latest shocking "scientific" studies to start a HUGE environmental panic over the mercury being "released into the environment" from those bulbs (manufacturing, breakage, discarding into landfills, yadda, yadda, yadda), and some marvelous saviour will be waiting in the wings to "fix" the problem with a solution that he just happens to have ready, and charge us huge bucks in the process. Anybody want to take bets on this? SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>> I bet most people aren't aware that today, lead is one of the powdered >>> ingredients in many brushes in the d.c. motors and alternators on our [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Anybody want to take bets on this? No. because that's how the central control political-business partnership works. We will all be forced into even more expensive LED lamps. The funny thing is that it's easy to find made in the USA incandescents. Being an older technology I'll guess it's largely automated so it makes no sense to move it to china. The costs would probably go up. However, the CFL's being expensive to make (and seemed pretty good when made in the USA and Germany) with the Hg content are now all or practically all made in China and pretty much crap all around. Just another blow to US manufacturing. To get this back on the automotive topic, Al Gore is a major player in the companies that will be doing the carbon trading. No shock there. It must be nice to be able to pass tax legislation that allows one to personally profit from the money taken from people. Don't pay Al Gore? Go to prison. >incandescents), someone will release the latest shocking "scientific" >studies to start a HUGE environmental panic over the mercury being [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >a solution that he just happens to have ready, and charge us huge bucks >in the process. And said fix will be a bulb which relies on the incandescence of an electrically heated metal filament immersed in an inert gas sealed in a glass envelope. Sure, it uses a little more energy, but it's SAFER, and more ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY don't you know :-) Unfortunately GE gave up their research into high-efficiency incandescents. I think Phillips is still working on theirs, though, both the quartz-capsule HIRs inside a standard bulb envelope and exotic filament treaatments. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. > ...I think Phillips is still working on theirs, though, > both the quartz-capsule HIRs inside a standard bulb envelope and > exotic filament treaatments. I have HIR's in one of my Concordes. Apparently they haven't caught on yet. I think they even quit making the hi beam (9006) bulb in it. But I do have a spare on the shelf (actually was planning on putting that in my second Concorde, but haven't gotten aroundtuit since the headlight assembly has to be modified slightly to accept angle-based bulbs). SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > Unfortunately GE gave up their research into high-efficiency > incandescents. Damn. I didn't know GE had bailed on that... too bad. I think Phillips is still working on theirs, though, > both the quartz-capsule HIRs inside a standard bulb envelope and > exotic filament treaatments. Actually I've seen a few Philips products already on the market. ie., their 45W PAR20 that matches 55W conventional incandescent PAR20 in lumen output. >> And of course elemental lead and mercury have an entirely different >> toxicity level than lead and mercury compounds. Handling or working [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > (i.e., getting used to reduced light levels that are claimed to be the > same light levels, Actually I don't find that to be a problem with current generation CFLs anymore. What I still don't like is the fact that initial light output is VERY low until the tube heats up. I'm even more impressed with the LED replacement fixtures I've seen- in terms of color rendering AND in terms of light output as well as being truly instant-on. What doesn't impress me (at least not positively...) is the $50 cost of a PAR-30 LED flood in 50-watt equivalent light output. Gads. Even I'm smart enough to know that it won't really last the 10+ years it would need to break even... I'll lose the darn thing or replace the lamp it fits before then! I do believe the cost will drop, though. The big problem I see for LEDs is getting them to work in a non-flood configuration (ie, radiate light uniformly like a regular round bulb does.) and too late to re-tool and re-legislate for > incandescents), someone will release the latest shocking "scientific" > studies to start a HUGE environmental panic over the mercury being [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Anybody want to take bets on this? Google a bit, extreme environuts are ALREADY whining about CFLs, although it amuses me how conflicted and angsty they seem to be over it. >> Oh - you just wait. I guarandamntee you that Al Gore or someone like >> him is just biding their time for a few years until we're 99% [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Actually I don't find that to be a problem with current generation CFLs > anymore... I know I heard a news report within the last month about class action suits being filed or threatened regarding overstated and fraudulent claims of equivalent light output. I caught the report on the fly - wish I had caught more details about who was the sue-ee and who was the sue-er. After a little Googling, perhaps it was this story that I heard a version of - sounds vaguely familiar, but not what I was thinking it was: http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2009/10/09/ohio-repeats-maryland%e2%80%99 s-%e2%80%98take-this-bulb-and-shove-it%e2%80%99-fiasco/ But in my Googling, I did come across lots of comments about CFL's not living up to its promises of life and light output. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>> Oh - you just wait. I guarandamntee you that Al Gore or someone >>> like him is just biding their time for a few years until we're 99% [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > But in my Googling, I did come across lots of comments about CFL's not > living up to its promises of life and light output. I haven`t had a dam cfl last more than a year yet. KB SignatureTHUNDERSNAKE #9 Protect your rights or "Lose" them The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others >>>> Oh - you just wait. I guarandamntee you that Al Gore or someone >>>> like him is just biding their time for a few years until we're 99% [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >I haven`t had a dam cfl last more than a year yet. KB That was my experience up to about 18 months ago. Since then they seem to have gotten a lot better. The only problem for me is that I have a lot of rooms with dimmers and dimming CFL's are pricey and from what I read they don't work very well. Someone wrote: I haven`t had a dam cfl last more than a year yet. I guess I been fortunate, I built a new home 5 years ago and I installed CFL in a every light socket except for a hand full that took specialty bulbs. I only had to change maybe one or two. I had more halogen flood lights burn out then CFL. I also have three fluorescent lights installed in different location in my home and never had to change a bulb yet. > ...The current extended spark plug change intervals are > really almost entirely due to the removal of lead from gasoline. > Typically spark plugs electrodes and insulators erode 4 times as fast > when using leaded gasoline. I wasn't aware of the faster electrode erosion with lead, but I do know that quite often spark plug life was limited because of the lead being vapor deposited onto the insulator that bridges the electrodes such that eventually the surface of the insulator became conductive and would short out the voltage before ionization/spark could occur. That's what I saw more than anything forcing spark plug replacement when I was a much younger DIY'er. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > > ...The current extended spark plug change intervals are > > really almost entirely due to the removal of lead from gasoline. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I saw more than anything forcing spark plug replacement when I was a > much younger DIY'er. Again this is an issue of efficient combustion which tended to be hit or miss back in the 60's. So there was a whole science to how your engine was running (or how it could be improved) depending on how the spark plugs deteriorated. -jim > -- > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') On 11/5/09 3:56 PM, in article 1bd43wocta.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net, "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: >>>> Also left out of the discussion is the fact the the VERY BEST motor oil >>>> you could buy in the late 60's wouldn't qualify as chainsaw bar oil [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > inconvenienced. Had the work not gone into fixing it, the dire > predictions would have come true. You can't possibly believe that. > Likewise my impression remains that the concerns about valve life were > real, and not just oil company propaganda. But while the concerns were > real, they turned out to be unfounded. > On 11/5/09 3:56 PM, in article > 1bd43wocta.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net, "Joe Pfeiffer" > <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: >> In fairness, Y2K was a huge problem, but it was seen coming just barely >> far enough away that companies were able to put a huge amount of effort [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You can't possibly believe that. Having worked with software engineers who previously spent a fair chunk of their career fixing Y2K problems before Y2K, I not only believe it I KNOW it. Anyone that thinks Y2K wouldn't have been a problem if corrective measures hadn't been put in place is, frankly, clueless. It wasn't a problem because a huge effort was committed to fixing it in time. "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message news:FZednfV4srBJ- > Anyone that thinks Y2K wouldn't have been a problem if corrective measures > hadn't been put in place is, frankly, clueless. It wasn't a problem > because a huge effort was committed to fixing it in time. I appreciate your opinion. A lot of work WAS done, and a lot of money was spent, and in the end there wasnt much of a problem, if any. And the millenium passed, there was no apocalypse, no battle of Armageddon. The next end of the world scenario, I understand, is supposed to be 11-11-09, after which we will focus on the Mayan predictions. > "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message news:FZednfV4srBJ- >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I appreciate your opinion. A lot of work WAS done, and a lot of money > was spent, and in the end there wasnt much of a problem, if any. Not being in Y2K-related sofware, my direct experience was that it was quite hard to hire experienced software developers in the couple of years prior to Y2K. They had ample opportunities for work... for employers that were in a serious bind and would pay handsomely. It amazes me that anyone today doesn't realize what a massive effort went into fixing all the possible Y2K problems before they happened. I guess thats gratitude for you.... :-( "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message > It amazes me that anyone today doesn't realize what a massive effort went > into fixing all the possible Y2K problems before they happened. I guess > thats gratitude for you.... :-( I think you are right in a sense. There is no gratitude. Did we not see the millenium coming for the entire history of modern computing??? Duh... > "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > see the > millenium coming for the entire history of modern computing??? For a programmer in the 1960s, trying to save space (which cost lots of both money and time) in a program *today* was important. The idea that the same code might really still be in use in 2000 -- when the programmer would be long retired -- was remote enough not to worry about. I haven't seen any real figures on percentage of new code needing fixes, but I expect somewhere around 1980 it probably started to decline, and aroung 1990 to decline sharply. Any programmer who wrote anything after about 1995 that needed to be fixed should be taken out back and shot. SignatureAs we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin) >For a programmer in the 1960s, trying to save space (which cost lots of >both money and time) in a program *today* was important. The idea that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >anything after about 1995 that needed to be fixed should be taken out >back and shot. The problem was the many data files that still contained a 2 digit year. All those files had to be converted. And any program reading them had to changed and compiled or assembled to accommodate the new file format. Even if the program did nothing with the date. Yes, there were - and probably still are - assembler programs running in major apps. I was called recently about taking an assembler job. If you think about how much of business data contains a start date - birthday, policy, account, etc, etc, etc, and the old data files with 2 digit years, it's pretty easy to see the scope of the problem. Those data files had to plugged with 19 before the calendar flipped to 20, and of course everything had to be tested up the yazoo first. Most stuff was addressed well before crunch time, but there was plenty to do in the last 2 years when push came to shove. DB2 - the major mainframe database - was designed with 8 digit dates, so presented no problem. It was all the old tape and disk files and the programs that touched them that posed the problem. --Vic > "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Duh... But, much as the designers of the 1957 BelAir and 1968 Roadrunner didn't expect those vehicles to remain hugely popular in 2009 and didn't design them for that kind of lifespan and maintainability, software developers in 1988 didn't REALLY expect their code snippets (or hell, whole programs!) to still be running in 1999/2000. >> "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 1988 didn't REALLY expect their code snippets (or hell, whole programs!) > to still be running in 1999/2000. Strange.. that would be only 12 years, and the millenium change would have been rather obvious, I think, especially in light of all the importance that was given to it at the last moment. >It amazes me that anyone today doesn't realize what a massive effort >went into fixing all the possible Y2K problems before they happened. I >guess thats gratitude for you.... :-( I see some still deny it was a big issue. They obviously don't know how most mainframe systems with mmddyy dates did date calcs. I remember seeing it as a looming problem in the distance when I started programming in 1980. I was happy that I would be gone from that business by then. I put in century checks anyway on anything I wrote and anything I maintained doing date calcs. Still couldn't cover everything, most obviously birthdays. And I was still there when it came about. Not doing the changes, but marveling at what a boondoggle the contracting firms "specializing" in providing Y2K changes were pulling off. What a clusterfuck. But business began selling off their responsibilities in the '90's by paying premium prices for others to do the work and take the fall for anything that went wrong. Part of the "shareholder value" fantasy. Without widespread system changes which began in 1998 the major insurance company I worked at would have ground to a halt. I imagine there were plenty of other companies that would have suffered the same fate. --Vic >> It amazes me that anyone today doesn't realize what a massive effort >> went into fixing all the possible Y2K problems before they happened. I [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > --Vic Of course, idiots think that that type of work creates/increases wealth, when in fact it drains wealth. Just a variation of the "merchant's broken window" economic false-philosophy that a lot of idiots today, including, unfortunately, voters and Congressmen, believe in. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message news:FZednfV4srBJ- >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 11-11-09, > after which we will focus on the Mayan predictions. According to my very level-headed daughter (who is into studying all kinds of ancient cultures), the truth behind that is that the Mayan priests were into writing predictive calendars that went far into the future - *AND* their civilization collapsed about the time they had their calendars written up to whatever year it is that modern "geniuses" are saying the Mayans predicted the end of the world. IOW - the Mayans had only gotten that far in extending their calendar when their own civilization collapsed and they stopped adding to the calendar - but when "modern" man looks at that in retrospect, his interpretation of that observation is that the Mayans stopped updating the calendars at the point because they "knew" things were going to end at that point - i.e., there was no more work needed on the calendar, their work was finished. I thought the Mayan prediction was sometime in 2012 - could be wrong. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > IOW - the Mayans had only gotten that far in extending their calendar > when their own civilization collapsed and they stopped adding to the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > at that point - i.e., there was no more work needed on the calendar, > their work was finished. Actually it's not where they just randomly stopped. It's the end of a cycle. The calendar is driven by astronomy with short and long cycles. It is a greater knowledge than conventional thought believed possible. These larger cycles were not unique to Maya but appear in many cultures. Anyway, the end of world as many people put it isn't so much the end of the world, but at worst the end of the world as we know it. The old cycle will end and the new cycle will begin. This may be about as eventful as new years' eve. What people fear is that solar system is entering into a 'bad neigborhood' as it moves through the galaxy and that with it perhaps some event which we will have no power over will occur. We shall see :) Some others think it will just be some sort of spirital change in society, again sparked by whatever 'neighborhood' the solor system is moving through. The funny thing is, the sun is behaving rather odd already. Whatever is coming it's based on the movement of this planet through the universe and there ain't anything to do but ride it out :) > I thought the Mayan prediction was sometime in 2012 - could be wrong. I think your date of 2012 is correct for the Maya predictions. There was another prediction recently which claimed a disaster event for 11-11-09. On that date I will watch "Law and Order", most likely, and go to bed. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091011/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_mexico_apocalypse2012 >> I thought the Mayan prediction was sometime in 2012 - could be wrong. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > date I > will watch "Law and Order", most likely, and go to bed. > I think your date of 2012 is correct for the Maya predictions. There was > another > prediction recently which claimed a disaster event for 11-11-09. On that > date I > will watch "Law and Order", most likely, and go to bed. The major disaster that will happen on 11-11-09 is that almost everyone will forget the anniversary of the armistice. People need to remember what happens when countries get embroiled in badly-thought-out wars. That's what the day is all about... --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." On 11/6/09 12:11 PM, in article FZednfV4srBJ-2nXnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@texas.net, >> On 11/5/09 3:56 PM, in article >> 1bd43wocta.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net, "Joe Pfeiffer" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > measures hadn't been put in place is, frankly, clueless. It wasn't a > problem because a huge effort was committed to fixing it in time. I AM a software engineer who worked on that stuff since 1968 and worked on several of these alleged Y2K problems. Every one was total crap. Absolutely nothing would have happened. > On 11/6/09 12:11 PM, in article FZednfV4srBJ-2nXnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@texas.net, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > several of these alleged Y2K problems. Every one was total crap. > Absolutely nothing would have happened. Practically any critical system could have been put back in operation by having the date set to something like 1-1-1970. The data to be fixed could easily be identified by the date and fixed later once patches were done. Now the real event comes in 2038 ;) time() returns 2147483647 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem ) > ...Practically any critical system could have been put back in operation by > having the date set to something like 1-1-1970. The data to be fixed > could easily be identified by the date and fixed later once patches were > done... I have no opinion or knowledge on if it was real or not, but it would seem obvious to me that if it was real, your statement would be wrong about, say, the banking industry. Can you imagine the world calamity if interest calculations were all screwed up - even for a day? Stock market...? SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> ...Practically any critical system could have been put back in operation by >> having the date set to something like 1-1-1970. The data to be fixed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > interest calculations were all screwed up - even for a day? Stock > market...? Well I was speaking of life and death systems such as air traffic control and the like. Systems that really don't need to know what year it is. Banks would have had an entire holiday to come up with some sort of patch for business on the 2nd. I really didn't think the world as we knew it would have ended. Although, I wish I had stocked up gold and silver then... look at the price today! :) > Practically any critical system could have been put back in operation by > having the date set to something like 1-1-1970. The data to be fixed > could easily be identified by the date and fixed later once patches were > done. Like banking systems, where the rules to apply depend on the date? Set back to 1970, and refigure retirement year maybe? > Now the real event comes in 2038 ;) time() returns 2147483647 > ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem ) Both from picking 1970, and from mentioning the Y38K problem, it sounds like you're a Unix guy (as am I, by the way, which is why I'm quoting statistics rather than regaling you with war stories) -- very few of the serious problems were in the sort of scientific and server enviroments where Unix is commonly used. It was in legacy databases. SignatureAs we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin) >> Practically any critical system could have been put back in operation by >> having the date set to something like 1-1-1970. The data to be fixed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Like banking systems, where the rules to apply depend on the date? Set > back to 1970, and refigure retirement year maybe? I guess I just don't consider that a critical system that couldn't be fixed later. I'm talking about planes crashing into each other, traffic lights going green for all directions at the same time, etc... things that could get people killed, not a day or two without working ATMs. >> Now the real event comes in 2038 ;) time() returns 2147483647 >> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem ) > Both from picking 1970, and from mentioning the Y38K problem, it sounds > like you're a Unix guy (as am I, by the way, which is why I'm quoting > statistics rather than regaling you with war stories) -- very few of the > serious problems were in the sort of scientific and server enviroments > where Unix is commonly used. It was in legacy databases. I know. unix had little problem with Y2K. Although I needed to patch up my NeXT boxes. I think the patch was mostly to be able to set the correct date and stuff like that. I don't think anything major would have stopped working. >>> Practically any critical system could have been put back in operation by >>> having the date set to something like 1-1-1970. The data to be fixed [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > lights going green for all directions at the same time, etc... things > that could get people killed, not a day or two without working ATMs. Different industry, different priorities. Almost none of the Y2K problem was in control systems, embedded systems, or the like (a mailling list I'm on was considering creating "Certified Y2K compliant" stickers to put on our pre-electronic engine management cars. We were also considering "Warning: this automobile has not been tested for Y2K compliance" stickers to put on cars on used-car lots, but I digress). It was almost all in the financial, insurance, and government-regulatory etc areas. But even given that, I'm not quite sure why you think waiting until your bank was suddenly in regulatory non-compliance on 1/1/2000 and starting to fix it then would have been better than spending a couple of years getting it fixed so the customers (and more importantly, the regulators) didn't notice -- the fixes had to happen in any event, the only issue was when and how panicked. As for your ATM example: if you'd been the manager in charge of the software for those machines for your bank and they'd quit working on 1/1/2000, you'd have been looking for work by some time early that morning. And firing you would have been the vice-president you report to's last official act (with probably several layers of severed heads in between) as well. The only things more important than keeping uptime for customers are backup and regulatory compliance (and in banking, regulatory compliance includes backups). >>> Now the real event comes in 2038 ;) time() returns 2147483647 >>> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem ) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > correct date and stuff like that. I don't think anything major would > have stopped working. Nor on my machines. But (1) my machines don't have anything major on them by the standards I'm describing, and (2) everything had been fixed in advance -- which is the point. SignatureAs we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin) > Different industry, different priorities. Almost none of the Y2K > problem was in control systems, embedded systems, or the like (a > mailling list I'm on was considering creating "Certified Y2K compliant" > stickers to put on our pre-electronic engine management cars. I remember that ;-) Didn't someone actually make up a few stickers? Its certainly true that Y2K had no affect whatsoever on my Carter AVS carburetors.... >Both from picking 1970, and from mentioning the Y38K problem, it sounds >like you're a Unix guy (as am I, by the way, which is why I'm quoting >statistics rather than regaling you with war stories) -- very few of the >serious problems were in the sort of scientific and server enviroments >where Unix is commonly used. It was in legacy databases. Unix systems got bit, just not as much. I ran into one... a version control system which would corrupt the database if it was ever run after Y2K. Repairing that (proprietary and undocumented) database to the point where we could get the code out of it was not fun. I wish I remembered the name of the VCS so I could denigrate it properly, but the company is long since out of business anyway. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. >Both from picking 1970, and from mentioning the Y38K problem, it sounds >like you're a Unix guy (as am I, by the way, which is why I'm quoting >statistics rather than regaling you with war stories) -- very few of the >serious problems were in the sort of scientific and server enviroments >where Unix is commonly used. It was in legacy databases. I did some cleanup work for some people who had a realtime factory automation system written in COBOL running on a VMS machine. Don't ask how it got that way. Updating VMS to V5.5 fixed all of the OS-related Y2K issues, none of which really mattered anyway since none of the code used the system date. The code, however, accepted a human-entered Julian date in the form of two digits for the year, then three digits for the number of days since Jan 1. It treated the Julian date number as an integer and the only acceptance testing it did on the date was that it couldn't be lower than 85000. Which of course was a problem when the date turned to 00001. Nobody had any of the source code for this mess, so I patched the binary so it compared it with 0 instead of 85000. Problem solved. Actual coding time about 10 minutes, time to figure out what the code actually did (a combination of the operators really having no clue how the system worked and a lack of documentation) about two weeks. If I'd had the source code, it wouldn't have been a big deal to fix it so it calculated the actual Julian date from the system date, but I really didn't want to work with this stuff any more than necessary. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >Now the real event comes in 2038 ;) time() returns 2147483647 >( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem ) Not going to be a big problem. The time_t type is 64-bits on any modern Unix system. Even Windows uses 64 bits. I make no promises for Y10k. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. >> Now the real event comes in 2038 ;) time() returns 2147483647 >> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem ) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I make no promises for Y10k. Hah! Yeah - that one's really got me worried. Something tells me there will be bigger things to be worried about by then - or maybe all problems will be over by then. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > I AM a software engineer who worked on that stuff since 1968 and worked on > several of these alleged Y2K problems. Every one was total crap. > Absolutely nothing would have happened. Well - hey then - it's a darn good thing we had others besides you working on it!! (just kidding - I have no idea if the potential problems were real or not) SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') On 11/6/09 6:48 PM, in article 7ljudvF3di77pU2@mid.individual.net, "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote: >> I AM a software engineer who worked on that stuff since 1968 and worked on >> several of these alleged Y2K problems. Every one was total crap. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > working on it!! (just kidding - I have no idea if the potential > problems were real or not) My personal feeling, based on observation, is that the world was and is at much greater risk due to unspec'd, untested & unverified software being hacked out in third world countries than anything we could ever conceive related to two digit date years. All that Y2K hype sure did keep a bunch of SW people employed for a year or so though. >My personal feeling, based on observation, is that the world was and is at >much greater risk due to unspec'd, untested & unverified software being >hacked out in third world countries than anything we could ever conceive >related to two digit date years. All that Y2K hype sure did keep a bunch of >SW people employed for a year or so though. What the Y2K hype did was cause a lot of people to go back and go through some of their old code and do documentation and maintenance work that was years if not decades overdue. People who get badly-designed and badly-tested code from the lowest bidder are indeed a problem. But people who think they don't need to do spend money to properly document what they have, and don't think they need to spend money to keep what they have up to date, they're just as much of one. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > People who get badly-designed and badly-tested code from the lowest bidder > are indeed a problem. With all due respect, Scott, we get badly designed and poorly debugged code even from MicroSoft. Windows Vista sucks buffalo whangs. But I know what you mean.. Our VP in charge of communications cut a deal several years ago with Lotus for our corporate software. They paid $50 per user to Lotus, and this was some of the worst software I ever saw. After several years of bitching and groaning, the Lotus software upgrades brought it into respectable performance. Then, the Information Services jerks cancelled it and bought Microsoft. This caused a LOT of older data, reports, etc to move quickly to incompatible formats. I have one personal computer running Linux and using Open Office. I may never buy another Microsoft based OS or bit of software if I can help it. >> People who get badly-designed and badly-tested code from the lowest bidder >> are indeed a problem. > > With all due respect, Scott, we get badly designed and poorly debugged > code even > from MicroSoft. You say it like you're disagreeing. SignatureAs we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin) >>> People who get badly-designed and badly-tested code from the lowest >>> bidder [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You say it like you're disagreeing. Microsoft was thought to be the cream of the crop by many people. It isnt, and they arent even the lowest bidder. If software had the same sort of exposure that medicine had, these people would perfect their crappy code before maneuvering people into a position that they practically are forced to buy it. >If software had the same sort of exposure that medicine had, these people >would >perfect their crappy code before maneuvering people into a position that >they >practically are forced to buy it. Just ask your doctor about cholesterol-lowering drugs. Microsoft isn't the only outfit pushing inadequate and untested products on the market. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>>> People who get badly-designed and badly-tested code from the >>>> lowest bidder [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > that they > practically are forced to buy it. Sorry, I guess I forgot a smiley. I've got exactly two applications that force me to run Windows in a virtual machine environment: a schematic diagram drawing program and PCB layout program needed to submit work to expresspcb.com, an extremely inexpensive source for small numbers of custom PC boards. Anybody got a comparable source that will take a gerber file? SignatureAs we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin) >Sorry, I guess I forgot a smiley. I've got exactly two applications >that force me to run Windows in a virtual machine environment: a >schematic diagram drawing program and PCB layout program needed to >submit work to expresspcb.com, an extremely inexpensive source for small >numbers of custom PC boards. Anybody got a comparable source that will >take a gerber file? There are a bunch of them out there. Start with the ads in the back of AudioXPress magazine. Most of them do the same thing expresspcb.com does, and batch up hundreds of boards together in one run. Some of them send them to China, though, so you have a week or two turnaround, but you usually save bigtime in the process. Thing is, I like the expresspcb.com layout program a lot. It's nowhere near as cumbersome as Eagle... but Eagle will run on Unix boxes... --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>Sorry, I guess I forgot a smiley. I've got exactly two applications >>that force me to run Windows in a virtual machine environment: a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > them to China, though, so you have a week or two turnaround, but you > usually save bigtime in the process. I've been looking (mostly in the back of Circuit Cellar), but haven't come across one really comparable: send off the layout and my credit card number, 2 days (IIRC) and ~$75 later (including shipping) I've got three circuit boards on my doorstep. All the others I've come across seem to want to go through a "request a quote" step, or have a setup charge, or something... > Thing is, I like the expresspcb.com layout program a lot. It's nowhere > near as cumbersome as Eagle... but Eagle will run on Unix boxes... Their schematic program, their layout program, and especially the linking between the two, is really nice. SignatureAs we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin) >>> Sorry, I guess I forgot a smiley. I've got exactly two applications >>> that force me to run Windows in a virtual machine environment: a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Their schematic program, their layout program, and especially the > linking between the two, is really nice. I also have been using expresspcb.com. Great for low quantity boards as you said. That reminds me - I have a defective board to talk to them about. First one I've had, so I don't know how they're going to handle it. Too much set up to make just one board, so I suspect they will just refund the incremental cost that I paid for the one board. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > Microsoft was thought to be the cream of the crop by many people. Glad I don't know any of those people.... Don't get me wrong, I'm not a feral Microsoft hater. Some of their products have surprised me (a properly configured version of Windows Embedded, for example, that will boot in <20 seconds on a 500 MHz embedded processor, run for months on end, supports very easy development, and has a tiny footprint- so far we haven't been able to match all that with Linux for this application) But "cream of the crop?" Egads. What a narrow view of the software world THAT must be! >> People who get badly-designed and badly-tested code from the lowest bidder >> are indeed a problem. > >With all due respect, Scott, we get badly designed and poorly debugged code >even >from MicroSoft. You mean "especially" from Microsoft, don't you? >Windows Vista sucks buffalo whangs. Yes, but that's a different thing. That's what you get when the marketing department designs software. The end result is something that looks really nice, but has major compromises underneath to make it look nice. Actually making an operating system that has normal operating system features is not a priority... look how long it took for Microsoft to come up with pre-emptive multitasking, as used by real operating systems since the early seventies. >But I know what you mean.. Our VP in charge of communications cut a deal >several [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >This caused >a LOT of older data, reports, etc to move quickly to incompatible formats. Businesses look on computer systems as expenses, they don't think so much about what they are getting for their money. Consequently you see a lot of this kind of thing, but let me say it is MUCH worse when businesses which are not technology-driven contract out for custom software. Sometimes, if they have one smart person in charge of the contract, it works out really well. Most of the time it does not. >I have one personal computer running Linux and using Open Office. I may >never buy >another Microsoft based OS or bit of software if I can help it. I had a very bad support experience with Microsoft in 1978 and have not used any products of theirs since. I'm not a big Linux fan, and my number one complaint with Linux is the same as my number one complaint with Microsoft: poor documentation of internals. At least with Linux you can read the source code if you have to, but you shouldn't have to. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > I AM a software engineer who worked on that stuff since 1968 and worked on > several of these alleged Y2K problems. Every one was total crap. > Absolutely nothing would have happened. You had an astonishingly unusual experience, at variance both with all the statistics and every other software engineer I've talked to who was involved. SignatureAs we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin) >Having worked with software engineers who previously spent a fair chunk >of their career fixing Y2K problems before Y2K, I not only believe it I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >measures hadn't been put in place is, frankly, clueless. It wasn't a >problem because a huge effort was committed to fixing it in time. Yep. The fact that those in the business knew it was coming long before the public caught on didn't hurt either. Now the "general wisdom" is that Y2K was a "boy who cried wolf" scenario, when actually the wolf DID arrive, only to find wolf-proof brick walls and cranky called-out-of-retirement COBOL programmers with shotguns :-) (they're mostly safely back in retirement now, in a better position for the Y2K money...) SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. > On 11/5/09 3:56 PM, in article > 1bd43wocta.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net, "Joe Pfeiffer" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You can't possibly believe that. Yes, I can. And I do. Here's an example: http://news.cnet.com/Y2K-cost-estimate-cut-by-2-billion/2100-1091_3-235131.html And, of course, that's the smallest estimate I've seen by a wide margin. Here's another, quoting the Commerce Department at $100B. http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001nuR I guess we can argue about whether these numbers are "huge" or not, but not about how badly broken things would have been if it wasn't spent. SignatureAs we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin) >> Also left out of the discussion is the fact the the VERY BEST motor oil >> you could buy in the late 60's wouldn't qualify as chainsaw bar oil [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It would fail in short order without good old tetraethyl lead in the > fuel; no hardened valve seats in an engine from that era. Both my '65 Corvairs do, stock. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 >> Also left out of the discussion is the fact the the VERY BEST motor oil >> you could buy in the late 60's wouldn't qualify as chainsaw bar oil [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It would fail in short order without good old tetraethyl lead in the > fuel; no hardened valve seats in an engine from that era. Possibly. A lot of people have run a *lot* of miles without trouble. Unfortunately I wasn't one of them- lost a valve and had to put in hardened seats. Still made it to over 200k miles on that engine though. >>> I don't understand you claims of "junk" engines. Today's engines are >>> far better in pretty much every way then everything that came before [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > could find a "pickled" (preserved, never run) factory engine from 1965 > and put it into use with today's synthetic oils I don't know what you intended to write here, but I can tell you that the cam would likely fail in very short time due to the reduction of ZDDP additives in todays oils. I ran down one lobe on a 351C in Italy (I'm from Sweden) in 2004 while using Mobil 1 5W-50 oil, and a lot of 351C owners have had flat tappet cams fail in very short time, some even during cam break in, using modern oils. I'm now running a hydraulic roller cam and roller rockers, and it has at least survived a trip to France. Thomas >>>> I don't understand you claims of "junk" engines. Today's engines are >>>> far better in pretty much every way then everything that came before [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the cam would likely fail in very short time due to the reduction of > ZDDP additives in todays oils. THAT is the single most overblown piece of misinformation out there. A substantial percentage of the cam failures initially attributed to inadequate ZDDP were in fact probably related to substandard material and processing of a whole lot of lifters and cam blanks. That's a risk when you're down to only one or 2 vendors still making flat-face lifters... I'm running my flat-cammed Jeep and 1966 440 on SM-rated modern motor oils just fine. So long as the cam is properly broken in (the first 20-minute run-in) with the proper break-in lubricant, ~800 PPM of ZDDP is PERFECTLY good for everything short of extremely high-lift high spring-pressure cams. And there are other additives now being used to compensate for ZDDP. Don't forget that there is *still* a flat-tappet cam test required for any oil to get an API rating, including the "low phosphorous" SM rating. >> I don't know what you intended to write here, but I can tell you that >> the cam would likely fail in very short time due to the reduction of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > cam test required for any oil to get an API rating, including the "low > phosphorous" SM rating. I'm not an expert in this area, but street rumor over the years was that GM cams wore out so suddenly because they nitrided the cams (surface treatment). Nitride is super hard, but once it wore thru that layer, the cams wore like butter. I did have to replace a cam in a 1980 GM vehicle at about the mileage that "they" said was typical of the wearout. I don't know if that relates to anything posted, but thought I'd throw that out there for comment. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > I'm not an expert in this area, but street rumor over the years was that > GM cams wore out so suddenly because they nitrided the cams (surface > treatment). Nitride is super hard, but once it wore thru that layer, > the cams wore like butter. I did have to replace a cam in a 1980 GM > vehicle at about the mileage that "they" said was typical of the wearout. OK, I'm a little beyond my depth of knowledge here, but AFAIK *ALL* flat-tappet cams have to be hardened (usually nitrided or some other surface process) after the cam lobes are ground on the blank. Too much material has to be removed when the lobes are ground to shape to use a pre-grind hardening process- all the hardening would be removed except on the very tip of the lobe and it would get undercut very quickly. I'm sure that the quality and thickness of the hardening can vary, though. In addition GM (Chevrolet division engines in particular) up through the end of factory flat-tappet cams had comparatively high cam wear because they used a smaller diameter lifter than Ford, Chrysler, AMC, and (I think) some of the other GM divisions like Oldsmobile and Cadillac. >> I'm not an expert in this area, but street rumor over the years was >> that GM cams wore out so suddenly because they nitrided the cams [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > on the very tip of the lobe and it would get undercut very quickly. I'm > sure that the quality and thickness of the hardening can vary, though. Yes - of course the nitriding was done after grinding - the treatment is only microns thick. I'm just telling you what the word on the street was - I have to think it would have trickled down from someone with engineering level understanding - the typical guy on the street back then wouldn't have thought up the nitriding explanation on his own. Perhaps that long ago, it was a new process that has been greatly improved over the years. If other manufacturers were nitriding at the time, perhaps GM's process or their vendor's process was inferior. But I know it was a consistent rumor for years. Whether the stated cause was wrong, it was universally accepted that GM cams had such a problem that other manufacturer's vehicles didn't - maybe for the reason you state in your next paragraph... > In addition GM (Chevrolet division engines in particular) up through the > end of factory flat-tappet cams had comparatively high cam wear because > they used a smaller diameter lifter than Ford, Chrysler, AMC, and (I > think) some of the other GM divisions like Oldsmobile and Cadillac. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect > from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I > filled up yesterday I put premium in it instead of regular. It's too > early for a definitive answer but so far it looks like it's down 2 mpg > over what I'd been getting. About what I expected but I thought I'd > test it out. I had a Neon RT. I did an extensive milage test early on. I did ten tankfuls of regular, then ten of premium, figuring the variance of each set. The milage with premium was down a little, but less than one mpg. However, the variance in each set of runs was over 1.5 mpg, so I had to conclude it made no difference. I think the Neon engine was very similar to that in the PT (though mine had the DOHC heads). >> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect >> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I think the Neon engine was very similar to that in the PT (though mine >had the DOHC heads). My preliminary assessment is that it's down at least 2 mpg and possibly as much as 3 or 4. >>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect >>> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > My preliminary assessment is that it's down at least 2 mpg and > possibly as much as 3 or 4. That is a lot! How many tankfuls and what is the variance of the test? >>>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect >>>> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >That is a lot! How many tankfuls and what is the variance of the test? Just a few. But keep in mind that unlike having to run several full tanks over similar but not identical courses, and then calculate the overall mpg, I can get immediate readout from the computer in the car. That's mainly what I'm looking at. I can run on the exact same street at the exact same speed, resetting the computer at the start, and immediately get the mpg results. Ditto on my "high speed" daily commute. So it was immediately apparent that the mpg was down just about as soon as I left the gas station after filling up. It's been the same every day, whatever I was getting as "instant" mpg with regular gas is down about 2 mpg now that it's burning premium. When this tank runs out and I go back to regular if it goes back up it will be just as immediately obvious. I'm looking at the trend, not particularly an exact number. On 11/3/09 11:37 PM, in article de42f5tottgaidulbacgamp3s6ppbe570c@4ax.com, >>>>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect >>>>> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > be just as immediately obvious. I'm looking at the trend, not > particularly an exact number. That might be your problem. The immediate readout on most cars is based on throttle position and not on actual fuel metering. If there is a way to reset the display to defaults and let it relearn, try that. To really know, you need to get out the old paper & pencil and calculate it over a few tanks of gas. >On 11/3/09 11:37 PM, in article de42f5tottgaidulbacgamp3s6ppbe570c@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >you need to get out the old paper & pencil and calculate it over a few tanks >of gas. I've already done that and the readout is very close to the total tank average. And as I said, my main comparison is steady state driving, constant speed, on the same road with the two different gas's. It will give an accurate relative difference between the two gas's but both might be 0.4 mpg low (or high). The last tank pen and pencil average was 25 mpg whereas the computer said 24.6. > I think the Neon engine was very similar to that in the PT (though mine > had the DOHC heads). The PT used the 2.4 DOHC engine as the base version, the turbo 2.4 DOHC was the option. Same engines as the biggest Neon option. The Neon came variously with the 2.0 SOHC, 2.0 DOHC, 2.4 DOHC, and 2.4 DOHC turbo. >I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect >from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I >filled up yesterday I put premium in it instead of regular. It's too >early for a definitive answer but so far it looks like it's down 2 mpg >over what I'd been getting. About what I expected but I thought I'd >test it out. Filled it up today. The pencil and paper answer is that I got about 1 mpg less on the premium. The electronic info center readout says it was about 2 mpg less. Not a huge difference obviously. Certainly it would indicate that there is no point to using premium since it's at best a wash and the performance was no better by seat of the pants. Nothing surprising. "Ashton Crusher" <demi@moore.net> wrote in message > Filled it up today. The pencil and paper answer is that I got about 1 > mpg less on the premium. The electronic info center readout says it > was about 2 mpg less. Not a huge difference obviously. Certainly it > would indicate that there is no point to using premium since it's at > best a wash and the performance was no better by seat of the pants. > Nothing surprising. I think the rule of thumb is still in effect, that if your car doesnt need the octane rating of the premium fuels then it is money wasted. For what it is worth http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-07-30-premiumgas_x.htm |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.