Will switching from Synthetic to Dyno oil harm my engine?

".Philip." > wrote in message
link.net...
> Huw wrote:
>> ".Philip." > wrote in message
>> hlink.net...
>>> Huw wrote:
>>>> ".Philip." > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>
>>
>>>> I think it is not important. My Nissan IDI turbo engines deposit far
>>>> less soot in the oil per mile than my NA Land Rover diesel ever did.
>>>> In fact I don't see much difference between the Nissan turbo's and
>>>> the small Ishikawajima NA indirect.
>>>> My Toyota direct injection turbo keeps oil very clean for a diesel.
>>>>
>>>> Huw
>>>
>>> Huw. Are you saying the presence of a turbo is not relevant to soot
>>> production? All else being equal, Cummins and Caterpillar would
>>> laugh you off into the liquid abyss that surrounds your island.
>>
>>
>> It is hardly relevant in the simple way I think you mean.
>
> You inferred on the simple level. I know my audience. :-)
>
>> Today's road
>> diesel engines produce less exhaust soot, which is representative of
>> total soot production, than ever before and I cannot think of one car
>> diesel that is not turbocharged offhand. It is interesting that in
>> parallel to the dominance of turbo diesels the service intervals have
>> also increased substantially and so have power output verses swept
>> volume and specific fuel efficiency.
>
> Yes Huw, all this is appreciated but a dodge from the question I posed to
> you.
>

Well then on a simple level the presence of a turbocharger does not
correlate to increased soot production. That is the simple truth.

Huw

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:57:53 +0000 (UTC), "Coyoteboy"
> wrote:


*snip*
>> K'Tetch gave you the perfect example - analysis could have prevented an
>> expensive time consuming siezure. who willingly flys blind when they
>> can hit the 'on' switch on their radar?
>
>I'd never have let it get to that stage, the moment the oil light flickered
>I'd have had all *my* test equipment on the car and sorted the problem
>myself. But I pretty much guarantee I'd have spotted a change in engine note
>before the light started flickering - and would have had it out to inspect.
>
>J
>

Who said anything about a light? there wasn't one, the note change
happened about a mile earlier. As I said earlier, he KNOWS cars. he
was a semi-pro rally driver, and did all his own race prep, and he had
been a very highly trained engineer for the previous 330+ years
(mainly on oil and other fluid ssytems, starting out on the fuel
systems of concord, at lucas.

I myself am a design/research engineer, and I also do a lot of safety
work (when i was based in the UK, i'd have comapnies phoning me up
from california to ask for help, or time, or whatever, hell, the US
govt. even reqested me at work on a project at their old navel base in
the middle of SF bay, and despite that, I don't have such a high
handed, arse-faced opinion o my abilities.

>i know i trust me more than anyone else in these areas

I wouldn't trust anyone with a pigheaded self superior attitude like
yours to change a flat. People like you give all the rest of us a bad
rep, because you know it ALL, and you refuse to listen.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:38:15 +0000 (UTC), "Coyoteboy"
> wrote:


>I know an aircraft technician, and I know the quality of his work is good,
>I've seen it with my own eyes. I'd have him help me on my car, but I'd be
>double checking everything myself.

If you know his work is good, and he's a friend, and you STILL insult
his basic competance, then i've very surprised
a) that you have any friends and
b) that you are anything but self employed

I know an aerospace engineer too. I can remeber her fiesta breaking
down outside where she worked. One of the engineers comming to use the
wind tunnel made some comments about her competancy to work on the
car. He gave her the same kind of gab to his mates whilst they were
waiting for their car (a brand new hyundai, about to go into the
wind-tunnel for testing iirc) to arrive on the banck of the truck. how
he'd let a woman work on this hyundai, but he'll be double-checking
everything to make sure she didn't **** up. Guess who was the ****ty
engineer who made all the faults? Here's a hint, it wasn't the 5'3
27yo girl... No, it was the loud mouthed, self important bloke who
wouldn't trust anyone elses work. Thing was, now he's unemployed.
no-one trusted his work. He was so busy checking everyone elses work,
that he never did anything himself, and what he DID do was, in a word,
bleeding terrible.

Huw wrote:
> ".Philip." > wrote in message
> link.net...
>> Steve wrote:
>>> .Philip. wrote:
>>
>> I recall making that distinction some time ago regarding soot
>> production. ID injection diesel does not have the flame front
>> dampening that IDI combustion chambers provide. Of course, there
>> are trade-offs but emissions and 'greeness" rule so .... IDI.
>>
>
> I don't understand what you are implying here. Are you implying that
> IDI engines are greener or the other way around?
>
> Huw

Ah ... we are separated by a common language. ;-) I could have worded my
thought better.

The slower flame propagation imposed by IDI chamber design also makes for
more soot and requires more timing lead. ID chambers don't have the "nooks
and crannies" (so to speak) so flame propagation is faster which in turn
requires less timing lead to achieve BMEP at the same number of degrees ATDC
as an IDI ... all else being equal. It's really amazing how much of the
diesel "cackle" you can remove by retarding injection timing. But you'll
lose power and gain a smokier exhaust.

--

- Philip

Huw wrote:
> ".Philip." > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>> Huw wrote:
>>> ".Philip." > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> .Philip. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "We" know that turbochargers increase air density within the
>>>>>> cylinder and therefor ... dynamic compression. This readily
>>>>>> evident to everyone but you that turbo charged engines running
>>>>>> significant
>>>>>> boost pressures will always have different pistons to reduce
>>>>>> cranking compression. "We" also know that all else being equal,
>>>>>> having brake mean effective pressure close to TDC will result in
>>>>>> higher combustion chamber pressures than with BMEP further from
>>>>>> TDC.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that has precisely WHAT to do with the static CR of a Nissan
>>>>> SD22 vice a Cummins B5.9 and their comparative peak chamber
>>>>> pressures? And why are you seemingly using the term "BMEP" to
>>>>> represent a pressure
>>>>> at a single point in the cycle, when in fact the "mean" in the
>>>>> term "brake mean effective pressure" makes the measurement at a
>>>>> single point in
>>>>> time nonsensical?
>>>>
>>>> BMEP is the highest pressure attained during combustion. This is
>>>> affected by numerous factors, not the least of which is the
>>>> mechancial compression ratio and boost pressure. All else being
>>>> equal and with natural aspiration, do you disagree that BMEP with
>>>> 24:1 is going to be higher than BMEP with 17:1?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since a 17:1 is likely to be direct injection and the over-twenty to
>>> one will be indirect, then it is likely that the 17: 1 will have the
>>> higher peak pressure, not least because the pressure rises so
>>> suddenly to the peak.
>>
>> Sorry Huw. You do not get to rewrite the question via your answer.
>> The passage "All else being equal" is germane.
>>
>
> But they cannot be equal because there are no IDI engines running
> 17:1 and no DI running remotely near to 24:1. You may know that IDI
> engines do not incorporate the combustion chamber, as such, within a
> recess in the piston crown which is the case with all DI diesels.
>
> Huw

But THAT was the statement I made. "All else being equal." That examples
may or may not actually exist is not relevant.
--

- Philip

Huw wrote:
> ".Philip." > wrote in message
> link.net...
>> Huw wrote:
>>> ".Philip." > wrote in message
>>> hlink.net...
>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>> ".Philip." > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I think it is not important. My Nissan IDI turbo engines deposit
>>>>> far less soot in the oil per mile than my NA Land Rover diesel
>>>>> ever did. In fact I don't see much difference between the Nissan
>>>>> turbo's and the small Ishikawajima NA indirect.
>>>>> My Toyota direct injection turbo keeps oil very clean for a
>>>>> diesel. Huw
>>>>
>>>> Huw. Are you saying the presence of a turbo is not relevant to
>>>> soot production? All else being equal, Cummins and Caterpillar
>>>> would laugh you off into the liquid abyss that surrounds your island.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is hardly relevant in the simple way I think you mean.
>>
>> You inferred on the simple level. I know my audience. :-)
>>
>>> Today's road
>>> diesel engines produce less exhaust soot, which is representative of
>>> total soot production, than ever before and I cannot think of one
>>> car diesel that is not turbocharged offhand. It is interesting that
>>> in parallel to the dominance of turbo diesels the service intervals
>>> have also increased substantially and so have power output verses
>>> swept volume and specific fuel efficiency.
>>
>> Yes Huw, all this is appreciated but a dodge from the question I
>> posed to you.
>>
>
> Well then on a simple level the presence of a turbocharger does not
> correlate to increased soot production. That is the simple truth.
>
> Huw

I did not say a turbo contributed to -increased- soot production. It's
the absence of a turbo when the fuel injection is calibrated for the
expected intake pressurization that increases soot.

http://tec.avl.com/wo/webobsession.s...wMDM0OTkz.html
" In addition emission and fuel consumption are influenced by an optimised
turbocharger setup. By the use, for example, of a much smaller turbocharger
(as shown in Figure 3) the NOx / soot emissions could be reduced by ~38% /
~17 % whilst simultaneously lowering specific consumption and combustion
noise. Thus it is quite obvious that the turbocharging system is not only
relevant to power but also to emissions. "

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:O...ient=firefox-a
" The boost pressure is important for two reasons: First, for a given engine
load it determines the overall fuel/air-equivalence ratio. Second, the
in-cylinder
air density is directly proportional to the absolute inlet pressure and this
has
strong effect on the spray penetration as shown in Figure 4.7. Accordingly,
the
turbocharger boost has strong influence on the combustion and emissions"
--

- Philip
(you're making me work again, Huw)

Oops... sorry for the earlier link screwup

..Philip. wrote: .

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:O...ient=firefox-a

" The boost pressure is important for two reasons: First, for a given
engine load it determines the overall fuel/air-equivalence ratio. Second,
the in-cylinder air density is directly proportional to the absolute inlet
pressure and this has strong effect on the spray penetration as shown
in Figure 4.7. Accordingly, the turbocharger boost has strong
influence on the combustion and emissions"


--

- Philip

"Huw" > writes:

>It is hardly relevant in the simple way I think you mean. Today's
>road diesel engines produce less exhaust soot, which is
>representative of total soot production, than ever before and I
>cannot think of one car diesel that is not turbocharged offhand. It

Try thinking of any VW with an "SDI" engine.

--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

..Philip. wrote:
> Oops... sorry for TWO earlier link screwups. Dunno why it does this so...
> here's the PDF. Check the bottom of page 6:

http://www.md.kth.se/~magnuss/thesis..._chapter_7.pdf
> " The boost pressure is important for two reasons: First, for a given
> engine load it determines the overall fuel/air-equivalence ratio.
> Second, the in-cylinder air density is directly proportional to the
> absolute inlet pressure and this has strong effect on the spray
> penetration as shown in Figure 4.7. Accordingly, the turbocharger boost
> has strong influence on the combustion and emissions"

..Philip. wrote:

> Huw wrote:
>
>>".Philip." > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>
>>>Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>>.Philip. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"We" know that turbochargers increase air density within the
>>>>>cylinder and therefor ... dynamic compression. This readily
>>>>>evident to everyone but you that turbo charged engines running
>>>>>significant
>>>>>boost pressures will always have different pistons to reduce
>>>>>cranking compression. "We" also know that all else being equal,
>>>>>having brake mean effective pressure close to TDC will result in
>>>>>higher combustion chamber pressures than with BMEP further from
>>>>>TDC.
>>>>
>>>>And that has precisely WHAT to do with the static CR of a Nissan
>>>>SD22 vice a Cummins B5.9 and their comparative peak chamber
>>>>pressures? And why are you seemingly using the term "BMEP" to represent
>>>>a pressure
>>>>at a single point in the cycle, when in fact the "mean" in the term
>>>>"brake mean effective pressure" makes the measurement at a single
>>>>point in
>>>>time nonsensical?
>>>
>>>BMEP is the highest pressure attained during combustion. This is
>>>affected by numerous factors, not the least of which is the
>>>mechancial compression ratio and boost pressure.

No, BMEP is "Brake Mean Effective Pressure," a far cry from the highest
pressure attained during combustion. Go look it up.


>>>All else being
>>>equal and with natural aspiration, do you disagree that BMEP with
>>>24:1 is going to be higher than BMEP with 17:1?

Depends on the cam and injection timing in that case. I can certainly
diddle the cam and injection timing so that both peak pressure and BMEP
are lower on the 24:1 engine... but it will be a pig that barely runs.

But that wasn't the case we're considering- we're considering your claim
that an SD22 has higher peak pressure than a Cummins B5.9 or Powerstroke
because the static compression ratio is higher.

>>>
>>
>>Since a 17:1 is likely to be direct injection and the over-twenty to
>>one will be indirect, then it is likely that the 17: 1 will have the
>>higher peak pressure, not least because the pressure rises so
>>suddenly to the peak.
>
>
> Sorry Huw. You do not get to rewrite the question via your answer. The
> passage "All else being equal" is germane.

No... YOU picked the comparison when you selected the SD22, Cummins
B5.9, and Powerstroke.