Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser
in [Cars]
|
From: Steve on 5 Nov 2009 13:24 Ashton Crusher wrote: > 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).
From: Steve on 5 Nov 2009 13:26 Don Stauffer wrote: > > 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.
From: Matthew Russotto on 5 Nov 2009 14:02 In article <-NydnQPDm9rTim7XnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d(a)texas.net>, Steve <no(a)spam.thanks> 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 >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 It would fail in short order without good old tetraethyl lead in the fuel; no hardened valve seats in an engine from that era. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 5 Nov 2009 14:21 russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) writes: > In article <-NydnQPDm9rTim7XnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d(a)texas.net>, > Steve <no(a)spam.thanks> 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 >>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 > > 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. -- 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)
From: Brent on 5 Nov 2009 14:54
On 2009-11-05, Matthew Russotto <russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net> wrote: > In article <-NydnQPDm9rTim7XnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d(a)texas.net>, > Steve <no(a)spam.thanks> 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 >>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 > > 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. |