 | |
Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser
Chrysler Dodge, Plymouth, Jeep, Eagle, etc info/talk (rec.autos.makers.chrysler)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser -
11-04-2009
, 08:10 AM
|
I suppose we could split hairs over the quality of the lock washers too. It is what it is and is what it was. Today's clearances are much tighter, the engines are cleaner burning, etc. |
as if the tighter clearances couldn't have been achieved in the 60's.
But if you have an engine that is producing internal carbon deposits
tight clearances can be fatal to engine life. It is not as if those
clearances used then were not there by design. It was possible to make
engines with tighter clearances in the 60's but tests showed that
brought with it a bunch of reliability problems.
Quote:
|
Sure, if you want to take a complete system (today's engines) that was designed for today's technology, and remove part of it and substitute parts it was never designed to use, sure, you can make it worse. |
difference to illustrate a point. Conversely you could take an engine
from the 60's and put a modern fuel and ignition system and if done
right it would eliminate the ring and valve problems that you claim are
inherent from a weak engine design.
What is different today is the engine management system and
manufacturing management systems. One of the results of all that is
cheaper materials go into building a car. For instance, in a car there
is a lot less metal all around. That extra metal that used to be in cars
40-50 years ago was not making the car weaker as you claim. The simple
fact is that an engine of the 60's could be expected to spend a
considerable amount of its life running with the timing off the mark and
the fuel mixture out of balance and an unpredictable amount of carbon in
the cylinders. In order to make an engine last under those variable
conditions it had to be over-engineered. That over-engineering
disappeared as the electronics got better and better.
Quote:
|
Next you be singing the praises of wooden wagon wheels over modern tires because the wooden ones never blew out from being run low on air. |
this one. I was disputing your incorrect assertion about engine design:
"Up until the mid/late sixties, engines
were so weak that it was common for them
to need valve jobs before 100K and for
many of them they needed both rings and
valves before that point."
The cause of valve and ring problems of which you speak can be entirely
attributed to the fuel and ignition management used back then. Back
then, an engine that was meticulously kept in tune lasted much much
longer than 100k. But most engines weren't.
-jim
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:00:35 -0600, Don Stauffer stauffer (AT) usfamily (DOT) net> wrote: Ashton Crusher wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:16:06 -0600, Don Stauffer stauffer (AT) usfamily (DOT) net> wrote: Ashton Crusher wrote: I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I filled up yesterday I put premium in it instead of regular. It's too early for a definitive answer but so far it looks like it's down 2 mpg over what I'd been getting. About what I expected but I thought I'd test it out. I had a Neon RT. I did an extensive milage test early on. I did ten tankfuls of regular, then ten of premium, figuring the variance of each set. The milage with premium was down a little, but less than one mpg. However, the variance in each set of runs was over 1.5 mpg, so I had to conclude it made no difference. I think the Neon engine was very similar to that in the PT (though mine had the DOHC heads). My preliminary assessment is that it's down at least 2 mpg and possibly as much as 3 or 4. That is a lot! How many tankfuls and what is the variance of the test? Just a few. But keep in mind that unlike having to run several full tanks over similar but not identical courses, and then calculate the overall mpg, I can get immediate readout from the computer in the car. That's mainly what I'm looking at. I can run on the exact same street at the exact same speed, resetting the computer at the start, and immediately get the mpg results. Ditto on my "high speed" daily commute. So it was immediately apparent that the mpg was down just about as soon as I left the gas station after filling up. It's been the same every day, whatever I was getting as "instant" mpg with regular gas is down about 2 mpg now that it's burning premium. When this tank runs out and I go back to regular if it goes back up it will be just as immediately obvious. I'm looking at the trend, not particularly an exact number. |
throttle position and not on actual fuel metering. If there is a way to
reset the display to defaults and let it relearn, try that. To really know,
you need to get out the old paper & pencil and calculate it over a few tanks
of gas.
#23
| |||||
| |||||
|
| Ashton Crusher wrote: I suppose we could split hairs over the quality of the lock washers too. It is what it is and is what it was. Today's clearances are much tighter, the engines are cleaner burning, etc. But that is a result entirely of the electronic improvements. It is not as if the tighter clearances couldn't have been achieved in the 60's. But if you have an engine that is producing internal carbon deposits tight clearances can be fatal to engine life. It is not as if those clearances used then were not there by design. It was possible to make engines with tighter clearances in the 60's but tests showed that brought with it a bunch of reliability problems. you keep missing the point. Sure, if you want to take a complete system (today's engines) that was designed for today's technology, and remove part of it and substitute parts it was never designed to use, sure, you can make it worse. I suggest only substituting the parts that were really making the difference to illustrate a point. Conversely you could take an engine from the 60's and put a modern fuel and ignition system and if done right it would eliminate the ring and valve problems that you claim are inherent from a weak engine design. |
non-hardened valve seats and all the other factory parts of the day
you would continue to expect early burning of valves and early wear
out of the rings.
The keep talking about how if you CHANGE things on the old engines you
can make them better. Well DUH. And how if you CHANGE things on new
engines you can make them worse. DUH again.
Quote:
|
What is different today is the engine management system and manufacturing management systems. One of the results of all that is cheaper materials go into building a car. For instance, in a car there is a lot less metal all around. That extra metal that used to be in cars 40-50 years ago was not making the car weaker as you claim. |
engine. But if you want to see how far off the mark you are go watch
this crash test of a big ol heavy full of metal 59 bel aire against a
much smaller cheaply made modern car
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
The simple
Quote:
|
fact is that an engine of the 60's could be expected to spend a considerable amount of its life running with the timing off the mark and the fuel mixture out of balance and an unpredictable amount of carbon in the cylinders. In order to make an engine last under those variable conditions it had to be over-engineered. That over-engineering disappeared as the electronics got better and better. |
similar to today's cars except that aluminum was rarely used.
Quote:
| Next you be singing the praises of wooden wagon wheels over modern tires because the wooden ones never blew out from being run low on air. Don't try to change to a different argument because you think you lost this one. I was disputing your incorrect assertion about engine design: |
living in a fantasy world.
Quote:
|
"Up until the mid/late sixties, engines were so weak that it was common for them to need valve jobs before 100K and for many of them they needed both rings and valves before that point." The cause of valve and ring problems of which you speak can be entirely attributed to the fuel and ignition management used back then. Back then, an engine that was meticulously kept in tune lasted much much longer than 100k. But most engines weren't. -jim |
#24
| |||
| |||
|
| On 11/3/09 11:37 PM, in article de42f5tottgaidulbacgamp3s6ppbe570c (AT) 4ax (DOT) com, "Ashton Crusher" <demi (AT) moore (DOT) net> wrote: On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:00:35 -0600, Don Stauffer stauffer (AT) usfamily (DOT) net> wrote: Ashton Crusher wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:16:06 -0600, Don Stauffer stauffer (AT) usfamily (DOT) net> wrote: Ashton Crusher wrote: I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I filled up yesterday I put premium in it instead of regular. It's too early for a definitive answer but so far it looks like it's down 2 mpg over what I'd been getting. About what I expected but I thought I'd test it out. I had a Neon RT. I did an extensive milage test early on. I did ten tankfuls of regular, then ten of premium, figuring the variance of each set. The milage with premium was down a little, but less than one mpg. However, the variance in each set of runs was over 1.5 mpg, so I had to conclude it made no difference. I think the Neon engine was very similar to that in the PT (though mine had the DOHC heads). My preliminary assessment is that it's down at least 2 mpg and possibly as much as 3 or 4. That is a lot! How many tankfuls and what is the variance of the test? Just a few. But keep in mind that unlike having to run several full tanks over similar but not identical courses, and then calculate the overall mpg, I can get immediate readout from the computer in the car. That's mainly what I'm looking at. I can run on the exact same street at the exact same speed, resetting the computer at the start, and immediately get the mpg results. Ditto on my "high speed" daily commute. So it was immediately apparent that the mpg was down just about as soon as I left the gas station after filling up. It's been the same every day, whatever I was getting as "instant" mpg with regular gas is down about 2 mpg now that it's burning premium. When this tank runs out and I go back to regular if it goes back up it will be just as immediately obvious. I'm looking at the trend, not particularly an exact number. That might be your problem. The immediate readout on most cars is based on throttle position and not on actual fuel metering. If there is a way to reset the display to defaults and let it relearn, try that. To really know, you need to get out the old paper & pencil and calculate it over a few tanks of gas. |
I've already done that and the readout is very close to the total tank
average. And as I said, my main comparison is steady state driving,
constant speed, on the same road with the two different gas's. It
will give an accurate relative difference between the two gas's but
both might be 0.4 mpg low (or high). The last tank pen and pencil
average was 25 mpg whereas the computer said 24.6.
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
Ashton Crusher wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:25:45 -0500, elmer <e@f.udd> wrote: I don't understand you claims of "junk" engines. Today's engines are far better in pretty much every way then everything that came before them including durability. That's a general statement, there will always be a few bad designs. Up until the mid/late sixties, engines were so weak that it was common for them to need valve jobs before 100K and for many of them they needed both rings and valves before that point. There used to be a thriving industry doing ring and valve jobs there was such a demand for it. But that has nothing to with the engine itself. To claim that burning rings and valves is evidence of a "weak" engine is silly. |
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
#26
| |||
| |||
|
|
jim wrote: Ashton Crusher wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:25:45 -0500, elmer <e@f.udd> wrote: I don't understand you claims of "junk" engines. Today's engines are far better in pretty much every way then everything that came before them including durability. That's a general statement, there will always be a few bad designs. Up until the mid/late sixties, engines were so weak that it was common for them to need valve jobs before 100K and for many of them they needed both rings and valves before that point. There used to be a thriving industry doing ring and valve jobs there was such a demand for it. But that has nothing to with the engine itself. To claim that burning rings and valves is evidence of a "weak" engine is silly. 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 |
Stupid "send" button ;-)
If you put it into use with today's synthetic oils, you'd find that it
runs as long or maybe longer than anything modern. If my '66 engine went
180,000 miles with the kind of "group 1 or less" oils it had early in
its life, imagine how well it would do with group IV synthetics right
out of the box.
#27
| |||
| |||
|
|
It is what it is and is what it was. Today's clearances are much tighter, |
on my '1966 and 2005 engines are virtually identical.
Quote:
|
the engines are cleaner burning, etc. |
design (manifolding, heads, chambers, valves) and fuel management (EFI
instead of carburetors).
#28
| |||
| |||
|
|
I think the Neon engine was very similar to that in the PT (though mine had the DOHC heads). |
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.
#29
| |||
| |||
|
|
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 |
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.
#30
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <-NydnQPDm9rTim7XnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d (AT) texas (DOT) net>, Steve <no (AT) spam (DOT) 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. |
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)
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.