Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser
in [Cars]
|
From: Bill Putney on 11 Nov 2009 17:44 Steve wrote: > >> >> 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. 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. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Bill Putney on 11 Nov 2009 18:01 Steve wrote: > Bill Putney wrote: >> Steve wrote: >> 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, > > 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%99s-%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. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Kevin on 14 Nov 2009 11:40 Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote in news:7m0u2pF3g0456U1(a)mid.individual.net: > Steve wrote: >> Bill Putney wrote: >>> Steve wrote: > >>> 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, >> >> 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%99s-%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. > I haven`t had a dam cfl last more than a year yet. KB -- THUNDERSNAKE #9 Protect your rights or "Lose" them The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others
From: Ashton Crusher on 14 Nov 2009 12:22 On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:40:28 +0000 (UTC), Kevin <kevyNOSPAM(a)netins.net> wrote: >Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote in >news:7m0u2pF3g0456U1(a)mid.individual.net: > >> Steve wrote: >>> Bill Putney wrote: >>>> Steve wrote: >> >>>> 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, >>> >>> 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%99s-%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. >> > >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.
From: Licker on 14 Nov 2009 18:57
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. |