Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser
in [Cars]
|
From: jim on 7 Nov 2009 09:44 Matthew Russotto wrote: > > In article <sqc7f5hseslvplve2d031cd4uvv5o8iqod(a)4ax.com>, > Ashton Crusher <demi(a)moore.net> wrote: > > > >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. 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
From: Rob on 7 Nov 2009 11:59 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091011/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_mexico_apocalypse2012 "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in message news:NsKdnQVuN7l3_2jXnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Bill Putney" <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote in message > news:7lju6dF3di77pU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> hls wrote: > >> >> I thought the Mayan prediction was sometime in 2012 - could be wrong. >> >> -- >> Bill Putney > > 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.
From: Scott Dorsey on 7 Nov 2009 12:33 > 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 -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Scott Dorsey on 7 Nov 2009 17:32 E. Meyer <epmeyer50(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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 -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: hls on 7 Nov 2009 18:59
"Scott Dorsey" <kludge(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:hd4shd$bbv$1(a)panix2.panix.com... > 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. |