AutosTalk Forums  

Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser

Chrysler Dodge, Plymouth, Jeep, Eagle, etc info/talk (rec.autos.makers.chrysler)


Discuss Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser in the Chrysler forum.



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old   
Steve
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser - 11-11-2009 , 10:25 AM






Matthew Russotto wrote:

Quote:
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,
Quote:
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.

Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old   
Steve
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser - 11-11-2009 , 10:29 AM






Quote:
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.

Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old   
hls
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser - 11-11-2009 , 12:04 PM



"Steve" <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote

Quote:
hls wrote:

"Steve" <no (AT) spam (DOT) 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...

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.
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.

Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old   
Bill Putney
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser - 11-11-2009 , 04:44 PM



Steve wrote:
Quote:

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...

Quote:
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')

Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old   
Bill Putney
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser - 11-11-2009 , 05:01 PM



Steve wrote:
Quote:
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')

Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old   
Kevin
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser - 11-14-2009 , 10:40 AM



Bill Putney <bptn (AT) kinez (DOT) net> wrote in
news:7m0u2pF3g0456U1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net:

Quote:
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

Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old   
Ashton Crusher
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser - 11-14-2009 , 11:22 AM



On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:40:28 +0000 (UTC), Kevin
<kevyNOSPAM (AT) netins (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:
Bill Putney <bptn (AT) kinez (DOT) net> wrote in
news:7m0u2pF3g0456U1 (AT) mid (DOT) 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.

Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old   
Licker
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser - 11-14-2009 , 05:57 PM



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.

Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old   
Steve
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser - 11-23-2009 , 07:54 AM



Kevin wrote:

Quote:
I haven`t had a dam cfl last more than a year yet. KB

I've got a few pushing 7-8 years now. But I've had more that didn't make
it 6 months and more than a few that died right out of the box. :-/

Reply With Quote
Reply




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.