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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
you just migt have a blown intake plenuim gasket and it's sucking oil from the
lifter valley a pinging assocated with this can confirm it's taking place Matt Whiting wrote: > Bob wrote: > > > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>Bob wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message > ngin.umich.edu... > >>> > >>> > >>>>On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, John Kunkel wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption. If your > >>>>>>engine "consumed" (or lost) 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles, you either > >>>>>>have a whipped engine or a large leak. > >>>>> > >>>>>Disagree, many vans had ridiculously low axle ratios and the absence of > >>>>>OD would have the motor running at 3500+ rpm's at freeway speeds. A > >>>>>tired motor will suck more oil at 3500 than it will at 1800. > >>>> > >>>>...and a non-tired engine will use no more oil at 3500 than at 1800. > >>> > >>> > >>>But it will "get" tired at least twice as fast > >> > >>Not necessarily. > >> > >> > >>Matt > >> > > > > > > If everything else is equal it certainly well. > > Everything else isn't even close to equal. It is pretty well documented > that most wear occurs during startup, especially when the engine is > cold. Running at twice the RPM doesn't yield even close to twice the > rate of wear. The difference, in fact, may be virtually negligible. > Cars that are run long periods at a time and not started all that often, > especially cold starts, tend to have engines that last a LOT longer. > > Matt |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
ok i read it wrong, i stand corrected
"Bill Putney" > wrote in message ... > maxpower wrote: > > > you said>>>>The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption. If > > your > > > >>>>>>>engine "consumed" (or lost) 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles, you either > >>>>>>>have a whipped engine or a large leak. > > > > Either I missed the first thread or the engine size was never posted. > > Ah - on second reading, I see the problem. Some of the attributions got > stripped out as the thread progressed. What you quoted above are not my > words - they are Daniel Stern's. Not saying I agree or disagree, but > those are not my words. (This is not the same as saying "I voted for > the appropriations before I voted against them".) 8^) > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > adddress with the letter 'x') > > > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
ok i read it wrong, i stand corrected
"Bill Putney" > wrote in message ... > maxpower wrote: > > > you said>>>>The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption. If > > your > > > >>>>>>>engine "consumed" (or lost) 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles, you either > >>>>>>>have a whipped engine or a large leak. > > > > Either I missed the first thread or the engine size was never posted. > > Ah - on second reading, I see the problem. Some of the attributions got > stripped out as the thread progressed. What you quoted above are not my > words - they are Daniel Stern's. Not saying I agree or disagree, but > those are not my words. (This is not the same as saying "I voted for > the appropriations before I voted against them".) 8^) > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > adddress with the letter 'x') > > > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Putney" > wrote in message ... > John Kunkel wrote: > > "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message > > n.umich.edu... > > > >>On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, John Kunkel wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption. If your > >>>>engine "consumed" (or lost) 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles, you either > >>>>have a whipped engine or a large leak. > >>> > >>>Disagree, many vans had ridiculously low axle ratios and the absence of > >>>OD would have the motor running at 3500+ rpm's at freeway speeds. A > >>>tired motor will suck more oil at 3500 than it will at 1800. > >> > >>...and a non-tired engine will use no more oil at 3500 than at 1800. > > > > > > Blanket statements like "The engine speed is not connected with the oil > > consumption." invite disagreement. > > If the engine consumes a certain quantity of oil on each full combustion > > cycle, the consumption will increase with engine speed simply because there > > are more cycles per minute. > > Going with what you just said, that would mean that oil consumption on a > given engine would be the same amount per mile regardless of speed. IOW > - if you make a 400 mile trip on straight and level hiway, you might > make it in 10 hours or in 5 hours depending on whether you drove 40 or > 80 mph. But, from your statement, you would use the exact same amount > of oil for that 400 mile trip (i.e., oil consumption would be have the > same per thousnad mile rate). Not saying I agree or disagree with your > conclusions - just want to be sure you understand the end result of what > you're saying. Suppose an engine consumes one microgram of oil on each full combustion cycle (two revolutions), at 3500 rpm it would consume 1750 micrograms per minute but at 1800 rpm it would only consume 900 micrograms per minute. If a given vehicle is geared so that it turns 3500 rpms at a given road speed it will consume more oil per mile than one geared to turn 1800 rpm at the same road speed. Therefore the statement "The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption.' is incorrect. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Putney" > wrote in message ... > John Kunkel wrote: > > "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message > > n.umich.edu... > > > >>On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, John Kunkel wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption. If your > >>>>engine "consumed" (or lost) 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles, you either > >>>>have a whipped engine or a large leak. > >>> > >>>Disagree, many vans had ridiculously low axle ratios and the absence of > >>>OD would have the motor running at 3500+ rpm's at freeway speeds. A > >>>tired motor will suck more oil at 3500 than it will at 1800. > >> > >>...and a non-tired engine will use no more oil at 3500 than at 1800. > > > > > > Blanket statements like "The engine speed is not connected with the oil > > consumption." invite disagreement. > > If the engine consumes a certain quantity of oil on each full combustion > > cycle, the consumption will increase with engine speed simply because there > > are more cycles per minute. > > Going with what you just said, that would mean that oil consumption on a > given engine would be the same amount per mile regardless of speed. IOW > - if you make a 400 mile trip on straight and level hiway, you might > make it in 10 hours or in 5 hours depending on whether you drove 40 or > 80 mph. But, from your statement, you would use the exact same amount > of oil for that 400 mile trip (i.e., oil consumption would be have the > same per thousnad mile rate). Not saying I agree or disagree with your > conclusions - just want to be sure you understand the end result of what > you're saying. Suppose an engine consumes one microgram of oil on each full combustion cycle (two revolutions), at 3500 rpm it would consume 1750 micrograms per minute but at 1800 rpm it would only consume 900 micrograms per minute. If a given vehicle is geared so that it turns 3500 rpms at a given road speed it will consume more oil per mile than one geared to turn 1800 rpm at the same road speed. Therefore the statement "The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption.' is incorrect. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Anthony" > wrote in message ... > > > > > A certian minute volume of oil is consumed each cycle due to the surface > finish on the cylinder wall. It is designed that way. (Ring > lubrication). Depends on what you call "minute", many engines in good condition go 5000+ miles with no discernible consumption as gauged by the dipstick. In high school auto shop I attained the Hasting Piston Rings "Doctor of Motors" certificate (I know, big deal). The training taught that proper cylinder/ring lubrication can be attained with no loss of the lubricant. The phenomenon was illustrated by placing a hankerchief over a silver dollar and placing a lit cigarette (gasp) on the hankerchief. Other than a brown smudge, the hankerchief is not burned because the coin absorbs the heat; same thing happens in the combustion chamber, the heat of combustion passes through the microscopic film of oil without burning it away and is absorbed by the mass of the cylinder wall. If not for this phenomenon, the oil on the part of the cylinder wall exposed to combustion heat would be burned away and there would be no lubrication for the rings as the piston travels from BDC to TDC on the exhaust stroke; ring life would be very short. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Anthony" > wrote in message ... > > > > > A certian minute volume of oil is consumed each cycle due to the surface > finish on the cylinder wall. It is designed that way. (Ring > lubrication). Depends on what you call "minute", many engines in good condition go 5000+ miles with no discernible consumption as gauged by the dipstick. In high school auto shop I attained the Hasting Piston Rings "Doctor of Motors" certificate (I know, big deal). The training taught that proper cylinder/ring lubrication can be attained with no loss of the lubricant. The phenomenon was illustrated by placing a hankerchief over a silver dollar and placing a lit cigarette (gasp) on the hankerchief. Other than a brown smudge, the hankerchief is not burned because the coin absorbs the heat; same thing happens in the combustion chamber, the heat of combustion passes through the microscopic film of oil without burning it away and is absorbed by the mass of the cylinder wall. If not for this phenomenon, the oil on the part of the cylinder wall exposed to combustion heat would be burned away and there would be no lubrication for the rings as the piston travels from BDC to TDC on the exhaust stroke; ring life would be very short. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
> the statement "The engine speed is not connected with the oil > consumption.' is incorrect. What I intended with that statement was to refute the original poster's implicit claim that his oil consumption was so high *because* of what he perceives as his engine's inappropriately-high operating speed on the highway. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
> the statement "The engine speed is not connected with the oil > consumption.' is incorrect. What I intended with that statement was to refute the original poster's implicit claim that his oil consumption was so high *because* of what he perceives as his engine's inappropriately-high operating speed on the highway. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"John Kunkel" > wrote in
news:gRU9d.217774$D%.77477@attbi_s51: > > "Anthony" > wrote in message > ... >> > >> > >> A certian minute volume of oil is consumed each cycle due to the >> surface finish on the cylinder wall. It is designed that way. (Ring >> lubrication). > > Depends on what you call "minute", many engines in good condition go > 5000+ miles with no discernible consumption as gauged by the dipstick. > > In high school auto shop I attained the Hasting Piston Rings "Doctor > of Motors" certificate (I know, big deal). The training taught that > proper cylinder/ring lubrication can be attained with no loss of the > lubricant. > > The phenomenon was illustrated by placing a hankerchief over a silver > dollar and placing a lit cigarette (gasp) on the hankerchief. Other > than a brown smudge, the hankerchief is not burned because the coin > absorbs the heat; same thing happens in the combustion chamber, the > heat of combustion passes through the microscopic film of oil without > burning it away and is absorbed by the mass of the cylinder wall. > > If not for this phenomenon, the oil on the part of the cylinder wall > exposed to combustion heat would be burned away and there would be no > lubrication for the rings as the piston travels from BDC to TDC on the > exhaust stroke; ring life would be very short. > > > By minute, I meant an extremely small amount. There is *some* oil burned, but you would probably need some pretty sensitive scientific instruments to detect it. -- Anthony You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make better idiots. Remove sp to reply via email |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1996 Dodge Grand Caravan LE AC/Heater Blower, Relay and Resistor Block Problems 101 | HeadlessHorseman | Dodge | 0 | January 5th 05 02:49 PM |
Co must be full of 'em | Brent P | Driving | 58 | December 26th 04 10:45 PM |
Speeding: the fundamental cause of MFFY | Daniel W. Rouse Jr. | Driving | 82 | December 23rd 04 01:10 AM |