Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser
in [Cars]
|
From: jim on 5 Nov 2009 15:09 Matthew Russotto 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. 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.
From: Heron McKeister on 5 Nov 2009 15:20 "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message news:1bk4y47p66.fsf(a)snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net... > 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. Hey, Stellite!. Stelliiite!! * *with apologies to Tennessee Williams
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 5 Nov 2009 16:56 jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> writes: > Matthew Russotto 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. > > 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. 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. -- 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: AMuzi on 5 Nov 2009 19:17 Matthew Russotto 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. Both my '65 Corvairs do, stock. -- Andrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
From: jim on 5 Nov 2009 21:35
Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> writes: > > > Matthew Russotto 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. > > > > 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. > > 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. 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) |