If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Lawrence Glickman wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2005 10:59:32 -0800, wrote: > > >> Piston slap is rare. > > > It seems to be the rule rather than the exception on GM vehicles. > do visit www.pistonslap.com for all the sordid details. > > Including the lawsuits against GM, > and the LAME TSB's from GM that state adding 4 quarts of oil ever 700 > miles is *normal* > > I'll keep my FORD, thanks anyhow. > > Lg I dunno if it's piston slap or something else, but there's something at work that makes every V-6 from the 2.8/3.1 family sound like utter and complete ****e. They're kinda like cockroaches though, they must last at least a while, because I sure see/hear enough of them. On the flip side, Ford seems to have figured out how to make an engine sound sweet, even if it isn't truly fast. I can't remember the last time I heard a bad-sounding V-8 Mustang. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:36:21 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote: >Lawrence Glickman wrote: > >> On 15 Feb 2005 10:59:32 -0800, wrote: >> >> >>> Piston slap is rare. >> >> >> It seems to be the rule rather than the exception on GM vehicles. >> do visit www.pistonslap.com for all the sordid details. >> >> Including the lawsuits against GM, >> and the LAME TSB's from GM that state adding 4 quarts of oil ever 700 >> miles is *normal* >> >> I'll keep my FORD, thanks anyhow. >> >> Lg > >I dunno if it's piston slap or something else, but there's something at >work that makes every V-6 from the 2.8/3.1 family sound like utter and >complete ****e. They're kinda like cockroaches though, they must last >at least a while, because I sure see/hear enough of them. > >On the flip side, Ford seems to have figured out how to make an engine >sound sweet, even if it isn't truly fast. I can't remember the last >time I heard a bad-sounding V-8 Mustang. > >nate I bought a $25,000 Fix Or Repair Daily, for a _hefty_ discount because it was a low mileage dealer demo and last year's model. I am a satisfied customer. My engine, you can hardly hear it with the hood up and standing right in front of it. An associate of mine bought a GM SUV in the High $30's, very high $30's, I am guessing $36 thousand plus, and my engine sounds better than his does, and his is brand new. I bet the reason his SUV sounds like a truck, is because it -is- a truck, and a piston-slapping GM. Add to that the 1.5 minute *NORMAL* piston slap at warm-up according to General Motors, and I would have put my checkbook back in my pocket and gone looking for something else, better, at 1/2 the price ( which is what I paid ). Look at what GM has to say about their shakey engines in the TSB's at www.pistonslap.com. Their own words! 1) I'll never buy a =brand= new vehicle, it is a total waste of money IMO 2) I'll never buy a GM vehicle, unless it's being given away at wholesale ( dealer cost ). My car does have its flaws ( which I have yet to encounter ). heater cores clog up, but this can be forestalled with backflushing it trannys are known to be very sensitive to the mix. Mercon V only, or say goodbye to it. Other than that, nothing a can of WD-40 can't fix. Lg |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
>I dunno if it's piston slap or something else, but there's something
at >work that makes every V-6 from the 2.8/3.1 family sound like utter and >complete ^$#@#&&*. Solid lifters in the Ford 2.8, at least. A German design. Got to adjust them just like in the good old days. Dan |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Lawrence Glickman > writes in article > dated Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:18:17 -0600:
>Including the lawsuits against GM, >and the LAME TSB's from GM that state adding 4 quarts of oil ever 700 >miles is *normal* 7500, I think you dropped a 5. -- spud_demon -at- thundermaker.net The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Lawrence Glickman wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2005 10:59:32 -0800, wrote: > > >> Piston slap is rare. > > > It seems to be the rule rather than the exception on GM vehicles. > do visit www.pistonslap.com for all the sordid details. > > Including the lawsuits against GM, > and the LAME TSB's from GM that state adding 4 quarts of oil ever 700 > miles is *normal* > > I'll keep my FORD, thanks anyhow. > To be fair, Ford had piston-slap and high oil consumption problems on the Modular v8 series *years* before GM had it. And for the same reasons- too hard to maintain the .002 max clearance tolerances needed by hypereutectic pistons in a mass-production environment. Ford is using coated pistons now, and have the problem down to the proverbial "dull roar" instead of the millions of screaming buyers that it was a few years ago. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:55:18 -0600, Steve > wrote:
>Lawrence Glickman wrote: > >> On 15 Feb 2005 10:59:32 -0800, wrote: >> >> >>> Piston slap is rare. >> >> >> It seems to be the rule rather than the exception on GM vehicles. >> do visit www.pistonslap.com for all the sordid details. >> >> Including the lawsuits against GM, >> and the LAME TSB's from GM that state adding 4 quarts of oil ever 700 >> miles is *normal* >> >> I'll keep my FORD, thanks anyhow. >> > >To be fair, Ford had piston-slap and high oil consumption problems on >the Modular v8 series *years* before GM had it. And for the same >reasons- too hard to maintain the .002 max clearance tolerances needed >by hypereutectic pistons in a mass-production environment. Ford is using >coated pistons now, and have the problem down to the proverbial "dull >roar" instead of the millions of screaming buyers that it was a few >years ago. I had another Mercury before this, a Tracer, which sounded like a tank compared to this Mercury Sable. It handled like one also. If there was a pebble in the road you felt it if you drove over it. This Ford/Lincoln/Mercury product has a much kinder and gentler ride to it. I'm not sorry I bought it, =yet=. Doesn't burn any oil at all as far as I can tell. And is quiet, comfortable to drive. There are better vehicles around, but I don't have the money for them. There are plenty of worse ones around also. The difference between the Sable and the Tracer is with the Sable you arrive at your destination without feeling banged-up, bruised, and exhausted. And road noise and engine noise can stress you out on any trip. Maybe that's why the put the engines in the -back- of busses instead of the front. Lg |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Steve wrote:
> Lawrence Glickman wrote: > >> On 15 Feb 2005 10:59:32 -0800, wrote: >> >> >>> Piston slap is rare. >> >> >> >> It seems to be the rule rather than the exception on GM vehicles. >> do visit www.pistonslap.com for all the sordid details. >> >> Including the lawsuits against GM, >> and the LAME TSB's from GM that state adding 4 quarts of oil ever 700 >> miles is *normal* >> >> I'll keep my FORD, thanks anyhow. >> > > To be fair, Ford had piston-slap and high oil consumption problems on > the Modular v8 series *years* before GM had it. And for the same > reasons- too hard to maintain the .002 max clearance tolerances needed > by hypereutectic pistons in a mass-production environment. Ford is using > coated pistons now, and have the problem down to the proverbial "dull > roar" instead of the millions of screaming buyers that it was a few > years ago. I have one of the very early modular engines (built 9/'91) in my '92 Grand Marquis. It is, by far, the quietest engine I have ever owned. When I bought it with 113k miles, it did consume oil, but after replacing the valve stem seals, it doesn't consume noticeable oil even now at 213k miles. Dual exhaust, no noise, no vibration, no piston slap, merely very smooth. Stan K. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Stan Kasperski wrote:
> Steve wrote: > >> Lawrence Glickman wrote: >> >>> On 15 Feb 2005 10:59:32 -0800, wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Piston slap is rare. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> It seems to be the rule rather than the exception on GM vehicles. >>> do visit www.pistonslap.com for all the sordid details. >>> >>> Including the lawsuits against GM, >>> and the LAME TSB's from GM that state adding 4 quarts of oil ever 700 >>> miles is *normal* >>> >>> I'll keep my FORD, thanks anyhow. >>> >> >> To be fair, Ford had piston-slap and high oil consumption problems on >> the Modular v8 series *years* before GM had it. And for the same >> reasons- too hard to maintain the .002 max clearance tolerances needed >> by hypereutectic pistons in a mass-production environment. Ford is >> using coated pistons now, and have the problem down to the proverbial >> "dull roar" instead of the millions of screaming buyers that it was a >> few years ago. > > I have one of the very early modular engines (built 9/'91) in my '92 > Grand Marquis. It is, by far, the quietest engine I have ever owned. > When I bought it with 113k miles, it did consume oil, but after > replacing the valve stem seals, it doesn't consume noticeable oil even > now at 213k miles. Dual exhaust, no noise, no vibration, no piston > slap, merely very smooth. > Stan K. People just do NOT understand production tolerance problems, it seems. Of course, many THOUSANDS of them ran perfectly! The problem was that an unacceptably large percentage of them were assembled out-of-tolerance, and had piston slap and/or swilled a quart of oil every 600 miles. The fact that thousands of others run over 200,000 miles without a hiccup doesn't mean that the problem didn't exist! It just means that its a PRODUCTION problem, not an inherent DESIGN problem. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:24:54 -0600, Steve > wrote:
>Stan Kasperski wrote: > >> Steve wrote: >> >>> Lawrence Glickman wrote: >>> >>>> On 15 Feb 2005 10:59:32 -0800, wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Piston slap is rare. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It seems to be the rule rather than the exception on GM vehicles. >>>> do visit www.pistonslap.com for all the sordid details. >>>> >>>> Including the lawsuits against GM, >>>> and the LAME TSB's from GM that state adding 4 quarts of oil ever 700 >>>> miles is *normal* >>>> >>>> I'll keep my FORD, thanks anyhow. >>>> >>> >>> To be fair, Ford had piston-slap and high oil consumption problems on >>> the Modular v8 series *years* before GM had it. And for the same >>> reasons- too hard to maintain the .002 max clearance tolerances needed >>> by hypereutectic pistons in a mass-production environment. Ford is >>> using coated pistons now, and have the problem down to the proverbial >>> "dull roar" instead of the millions of screaming buyers that it was a >>> few years ago. >> >> I have one of the very early modular engines (built 9/'91) in my '92 >> Grand Marquis. It is, by far, the quietest engine I have ever owned. >> When I bought it with 113k miles, it did consume oil, but after >> replacing the valve stem seals, it doesn't consume noticeable oil even >> now at 213k miles. Dual exhaust, no noise, no vibration, no piston >> slap, merely very smooth. >> Stan K. > >People just do NOT understand production tolerance problems, it seems. >Of course, many THOUSANDS of them ran perfectly! The problem was that an >unacceptably large percentage of them were assembled out-of-tolerance, >and had piston slap and/or swilled a quart of oil every 600 miles. The >fact that thousands of others run over 200,000 miles without a hiccup >doesn't mean that the problem didn't exist! It just means that its a >PRODUCTION problem, not an inherent DESIGN problem. And there is also something called a "Friday Car." The day of the week it was assembled used to matter before robots came along to do all the work. Now I think humans do a minimal amount of assembly, like attaching wiring harnesses, _maybe_, otherwise everything has been automated on the assembly lines. So there should be NO production anomalies at _all_. Every car should be exactly the same as the one before it and the one after it. Lg |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Steve wrote:
> > People just do NOT understand production tolerance problems, it seems. > Of course, many THOUSANDS of them ran perfectly! The problem was that an > unacceptably large percentage of them were assembled out-of-tolerance, > and had piston slap and/or swilled a quart of oil every 600 miles. The > fact that thousands of others run over 200,000 miles without a hiccup > doesn't mean that the problem didn't exist! It just means that its a > PRODUCTION problem, not an inherent DESIGN problem. > It's both. If you're designing parts and don't take into account production tolerances.... you're gonna end up with crappy results. Just because your new design makes 10 more horsepower or weighs 10 pounds less means nothing if it costs the company $100 extra to assemble it and it's impossible to repair. (Even robots on assembly lines can go out of spec.) I guess it comes down to the same stuff like in computers: is 99% good enough? 99.9? 99.999? 1 million engines with 95% problem free: 50,000 "bad" engines. 1 million engines with 99% problem free: 10,000 "bad" engines. 1 million engines with 99.9% problem free: 1,000 "bad" engines. It all depends who's in charge - the beancounters - and how much money it costs to go that extra mile... because I'm sure the cost to go from 99% to 99.9% isn't a nice linear graph... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid question (was Changing the oil filter only) | Bill F | Technology | 20 | January 18th 05 10:57 PM |
Jasper crate engines? | Wound Up | Ford Mustang | 0 | January 6th 05 11:33 PM |
Oil for older engines? | Barry Schnoor | Saturn | 11 | May 24th 04 01:53 PM |
mitsubishi engines for dodge | Chas Stokes | Dodge | 5 | May 8th 04 04:25 PM |
Current production cars with the smallest engines | aniram | General | 2 | February 23rd 04 10:21 PM |