Maintenance - neccesities vs. money making

I looked at the manual of my 3.2 litre car (new in 2001). If I recall
correctly the capacity of the 2.3-l and 2-l brothers of the car is just
under 6 litres. I'll check my 11-year old 2-litre next.

1 litre = 1.05 US quarts.

Thus your calculation is correct. You are not expected to get anywhere near
that in 'normal' driving conditions.

I have been on 6000 mile oil-change intervals on my 2-litre and other, older
cars. In a few cases I have had to add a bit of oil between changes.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Neil Nelson" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >,
> "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote:
>
> > Finally got to look in my manual: oil capacity is 8 litres.
>
> Close to double the capacity of the majority of engines currently
> in the fleet. I'd be willing to bet that your car also has an
> oil cooler as standard equipment.
>
> > It also says that oil consumption should not exceed 0.8 l/1000 km under
> > severe conditions.
>
> My metric conversion is a little rusty, but isn't that close to
> 2 quarts [or more] in 2000 miles?
>
> > BTW, in the 'old days' of the 1000-mile initial oil change the initial
> > engine oil was extra thin (IIRC) to assist in the debris-removal process
and
> > the idea was to replace it with the 'normal' oil then.
>
> There have been many different "break-in oil" schemes over the
> years...
>
> > Modern engines are much better built and bench-run so that this is no
longer
> > required.
>
> Mostly it's better machining techniques, very few manufacturers
> run an engine until the end of the assembly line.

> Mostly it's better machining techniques, very few manufacturers
> run an engine until the end of the assembly line.

Back in 1987 (88? 89?) I had a tour of Chrysler's Trenton Engine facility
where the 2.2L/2.2L Turbo were assembled. Our friend's dad was the plant
manager at the time, so we got the entire show from soup to nuts. Each and
every one was 'hot-tested' before it went on the rack to be shipped. They
had a pretty cool system for determining what was wrong with the bad ones
that failed the test; the tech would look up on his screen and be able to
determine which cylinder, say, hadn't performed up-to-snuff.

Of course, that was a bunch of years ago, now, and I don't know if they
still hot-test everything. Maybe as you suggest, the machining techniques
of the day mandated this, where today they do not. But it was pretty cool
to watch the assembled engine go down the conveyer, disappear into a big
boxlike machine, and then fire up and rev to redline for a few seconds
before emerging (usually intact) on the other side. They had a special
operation at the end of the line to remove the temporary flywheel from the
motor and replace it with the one specific to the application for which that
engine was intended before it was shipped.

--Geoff

Neil Nelson wrote:


>
>>Modern engines are much better built and bench-run so that this is no longer
>>required.
>
>
> Mostly it's better machining techniques, very few manufacturers
> run an engine until the end of the assembly line.

mostly its better OIL. Engine specs (clearances, tolerances, etc.) have
hardly changed in 40 years. About the most significant thing is that
hypereutectic pistons and short "slipper" pistons are becoming common
within the past 3-4 years, but most manufacturers have actually given up
a little engine longevity during that change-over. It will recover when
they figure out how to mass-produce engines with tolerances required for
hypereutectics (I think Chrysler already has it figured out by using
coated skirts on the new 5.7 Hemi's engine). But the recent spate of
problems with hypereutectics occured for the very reason that there has
been no similar change in the necessary tolerances for the previous 40
years!

Steve wrote:
>
> mostly its better OIL. Engine specs (clearances, tolerances, etc.) have
> hardly changed in 40 years. About the most significant thing is that
> hypereutectic pistons and short "slipper" pistons are becoming common
> within the past 3-4 years, but most manufacturers have actually given up
> a little engine longevity during that change-over. It will recover when
> they figure out how to mass-produce engines with tolerances required for
> hypereutectics (I think Chrysler already has it figured out by using
> coated skirts on the new 5.7 Hemi's engine). But the recent spate of
> problems with hypereutectics occured for the very reason that there has
> been no similar change in the necessary tolerances for the previous 40
> years!

So you're saying that, say, the piston-to-cylinder factory tolerances
and clearances of a '98 (choose your make) are not significantly less
than those of a 1962 engine from the same manufacturer? You know more
about this stuff than I do, but I'm surprised to hear this.

In my '99 LH vehicle shop manual, I see piston diameter tolerance of 6
tenths with max. clearance at size location of 0.0016". I see similar
clearances in my FSM for a '96 Mercury Contour/Ford Contour. How do
they compare to 60's engine specs?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:02:31 -0400, Bill Putney >
wrote:

>
>
>Steve wrote:
>>
>> mostly its better OIL. Engine specs (clearances, tolerances, etc.) have
>> hardly changed in 40 years. About the most significant thing is that
>> hypereutectic pistons and short "slipper" pistons are becoming common
>> within the past 3-4 years, but most manufacturers have actually given up
>> a little engine longevity during that change-over. It will recover when
>> they figure out how to mass-produce engines with tolerances required for
>> hypereutectics (I think Chrysler already has it figured out by using
>> coated skirts on the new 5.7 Hemi's engine). But the recent spate of
>> problems with hypereutectics occured for the very reason that there has
>> been no similar change in the necessary tolerances for the previous 40
>> years!
>
>So you're saying that, say, the piston-to-cylinder factory tolerances
>and clearances of a '98 (choose your make) are not significantly less
>than those of a 1962 engine from the same manufacturer? You know more
>about this stuff than I do, but I'm surprised to hear this.

The "mean" clearances have not changed so much, but the accuracy has.
Where in 1962 a bearing clearance SPEC may have been 3 thou, and
actual clearance may have varied from .5 to 3.5 due to surface
imperfections, today's spec may well be 2.5 thou, and actual clearance
may vary from 2.25 to 2.6.
The spec can be lower today because, with closer tolerances and better
machining, the minimum actual clearance is larger.
There is a lot less metal in the breakin oil today than in the past
due to this better machining accuracy.
>
>In my '99 LH vehicle shop manual, I see piston diameter tolerance of 6
>tenths with max. clearance at size location of 0.0016". I see similar
>clearances in my FSM for a '96 Mercury Contour/Ford Contour. How do
>they compare to 60's engine specs?
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> Steve wrote:

> > mostly its better OIL. Engine specs (clearances, tolerances, etc.) have
> > hardly changed in 40 years.

> So you're saying that, say, the piston-to-cylinder factory tolerances
> and clearances of a '98 (choose your make) are not significantly less
> than those of a 1962 engine from the same manufacturer? You know more
> about this stuff than I do, but I'm surprised to hear this.

That's what he's saying, and he's right.

> In my '99 LH vehicle shop manual, I see piston diameter tolerance of 6
> tenths with max. clearance at size location of 0.0016". I see similar
> clearances in my FSM for a '96 Mercury Contour/Ford Contour. How do
> they compare to 60's engine specs?

I checked '62, '65 and '70 FSMs for the piston-to-cylinder clearance. Each
FSM says 0.0005" to 0.0015".

-DS

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > Steve wrote:
>
> > > mostly its better OIL. Engine specs (clearances, tolerances, etc.) have
> > > hardly changed in 40 years.
>
> > So you're saying that, say, the piston-to-cylinder factory tolerances
> > and clearances of a '98 (choose your make) are not significantly less
> > than those of a 1962 engine from the same manufacturer? You know more
> > about this stuff than I do, but I'm surprised to hear this.
>
> That's what he's saying, and he's right.
>
> > In my '99 LH vehicle shop manual, I see piston diameter tolerance of 6
> > tenths with max. clearance at size location of 0.0016". I see similar
> > clearances in my FSM for a '96 Mercury Contour/Ford Contour. How do
> > they compare to 60's engine specs?
>
> I checked '62, '65 and '70 FSMs for the piston-to-cylinder clearance. Each
> FSM says 0.0005" to 0.0015".
>
> -DS

Amazing! Another myth exploded.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Well, I was sitting in this bus in London next to a man who was tearing up
sheets of paper and throwing the bits out of the window.

"Why are you doing this?" I asked.

"To keep the elephants away," he replied.


"But there are no elephants..."

"See what I mean?"

:-)
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Neil Nelson" > wrote in message
.. .
[........]
>
> I know people who change their oil every 2000 miles.
> Overkill in my book but that's what makes them comfortable.
> Their track record in doing so so far includes no oil related
> mechanical failures, no emissions failures, increased longevity,
> so who am I to tell them that they're doing it wrong against
> their "it's cheap insurance" beliefs?
[....]

The oil capacity of my 11-year-old 2-litre car (same manufacturer as my
3-yr-old 3.2 litre) is 5 litres.

Drat, I forgot to check if there is any indication of oil consumption.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
> I looked at the manual of my 3.2 litre car (new in 2001). If I recall
> correctly the capacity of the 2.3-l and 2-l brothers of the car is just
> under 6 litres. I'll check my 11-year old 2-litre next.
>
> 1 litre = 1.05 US quarts.
>
> Thus your calculation is correct. You are not expected to get anywhere
near
> that in 'normal' driving conditions.
>
> I have been on 6000 mile oil-change intervals on my 2-litre and other,
older
> cars. In a few cases I have had to add a bit of oil between changes.
>
> DAS
> --
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---
>
> "Neil Nelson" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > In article >,
> > "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote:
> >
> > > Finally got to look in my manual: oil capacity is 8 litres.
> >
> > Close to double the capacity of the majority of engines currently
> > in the fleet. I'd be willing to bet that your car also has an
> > oil cooler as standard equipment.
> >
> > > It also says that oil consumption should not exceed 0.8 l/1000 km
under
> > > severe conditions.
> >
> > My metric conversion is a little rusty, but isn't that close to
> > 2 quarts [or more] in 2000 miles?
> >
> > > BTW, in the 'old days' of the 1000-mile initial oil change the initial
> > > engine oil was extra thin (IIRC) to assist in the debris-removal
process
> and
> > > the idea was to replace it with the 'normal' oil then.
> >
> > There have been many different "break-in oil" schemes over the
> > years...
> >
> > > Modern engines are much better built and bench-run so that this is no
> longer
> > > required.
> >
> > Mostly it's better machining techniques, very few manufacturers
> > run an engine until the end of the assembly line.
>
>