Old new car question,please see what you think
10-09-2012, 11:31 AM
#26
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
ORIGINAL: The Hedgehog
10 degress? I have had experience where only a degree or 2 will cause pinging. huh?
ORIGINAL: proanti1
It rarely has to do with timing, as you would have to advance 10s of degrees for it to happen, and a car doesn't come that far out of time on its own.
C'mon, everyone knows this.
It rarely has to do with timing, as you would have to advance 10s of degrees for it to happen, and a car doesn't come that far out of time on its own.
C'mon, everyone knows this.
Personally, I've twisted an entire distributor 15 degrees before the engine starting pinging, a ford 2.3.
10-09-2012, 11:39 AM
#27
Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Fair Hill, MD
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
Furthermore, with the way technology keeps advancing, all the electronic sensors and doodads you need to keep a car running correctly today become obsolete faster than ever. So in 20 years when you can't service a 20 year old car, because you either can't find the parts, or someone who can properly diagnose a problem, I will still be able to diagnose and repair my older car myself. There will be exceptions, like with enthusiast cars (Mustang, Camaro, etc), but the average passenger car will be lost. I read a study that said the average personal car in America is 10 years old. That says a lot of different things to me.
I love old cars. I love new cars. But the complexity of modern vehicles is ridiculous. I mean, a computer to put the windows down (Mopar's Canbus system, for instance)? I mean my 2010 Jeep Wrangler has TRACTION CONTROL. a WRANGLER!! Why? To idiot proof them from bad drivers. It STILL doesn't work. There was a point we crossed about 10 years ago when cars started becoming over-engineered, and too complex for their own good, at serious detriment to their longevity. 20 years from now, I'd bet you won't see many 2012 vehicles still running. They can do the mileage, but their complexity will be their death sentence.
I love old cars. I love new cars. But the complexity of modern vehicles is ridiculous. I mean, a computer to put the windows down (Mopar's Canbus system, for instance)? I mean my 2010 Jeep Wrangler has TRACTION CONTROL. a WRANGLER!! Why? To idiot proof them from bad drivers. It STILL doesn't work. There was a point we crossed about 10 years ago when cars started becoming over-engineered, and too complex for their own good, at serious detriment to their longevity. 20 years from now, I'd bet you won't see many 2012 vehicles still running. They can do the mileage, but their complexity will be their death sentence.
10-10-2012, 10:09 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Somerset, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 2,324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
ORIGINAL: proanti1
Pinging is preignition. It's the fuel igniting before the plug fires. It rarely has to do with timing, as you would have to advance 10s of degrees for it to happen, and a car doesn't come that far out of time on its own.
C'mon, everyone knows this.
Pinging is preignition. It's the fuel igniting before the plug fires. It rarely has to do with timing, as you would have to advance 10s of degrees for it to happen, and a car doesn't come that far out of time on its own.
C'mon, everyone knows this.
Put an engine under heavy load and set the optimal ignition timing...reduce the octane rating and it will pink...retard the timing and it will stop pinking. How did reducing the octane rating induce pre-ignition please?
10-10-2012, 10:18 AM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Somerset, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 2,324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
ORIGINAL: Lunchboxer
On the other hand, now you have the ability to make the engine runs well at all range vs. a specific band.. and you don't have to mess with physically taking things apart.. plug in a laptop and do your magic there.. !
On the other hand, now you have the ability to make the engine runs well at all range vs. a specific band.. and you don't have to mess with physically taking things apart.. plug in a laptop and do your magic there.. !
10-10-2012, 11:36 AM
#30
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
Sure.. I didn't say it is cheaper to work on it.. just saying it is better... you can drive the car from 100+ degree Arizona summer to freezing Boston winter.. and the car will run well without needing any adjustment..
10-10-2012, 11:54 AM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Batavia,
IL
Posts: 10,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
ORIGINAL: Mister Sinister
20 years from now, I'd bet you won't see many 2012 vehicles still running. They can do the mileage, but their complexity will be their death sentence.
20 years from now, I'd bet you won't see many 2012 vehicles still running. They can do the mileage, but their complexity will be their death sentence.
Now, I do get your point in general, which is that the overcomplexity of things is getting a bit ridiculous. I get that. Although it's nice to have some of it on one hand (nav systems, hard drives to store songs on, etc), I have to admit that traction control on a Wrangler is a bit ludicrous.
10-11-2012, 10:38 AM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Somerset, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 2,324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
I know what a Wrangler is...they fit TC? Does it work on a dry road?
Too many safety features these days for my liking...does it actually save people or encourage people to feel invincible...put a spike on the steering wheel bosss and see how you drive.
Too many safety features these days for my liking...does it actually save people or encourage people to feel invincible...put a spike on the steering wheel bosss and see how you drive.
10-11-2012, 09:01 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: CHICAGOLAND,
IL
Posts: 1,856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
Put the fuel you normally run in the tank, brake torque it, and have a guy under the hood advance the timing until the tires break loose without pinging...
Problem solved.
That's how I set it BITD.
All the silly fuel mileage BS, gimme a stripped down 1991 Geo Metro 1.0L 5 speed on 13" wheels with none of the wiring that goes with ABS etc...
That got what, 47MPG and still roasted the tires thru 3 gears?
Problem solved.
That's how I set it BITD.
All the silly fuel mileage BS, gimme a stripped down 1991 Geo Metro 1.0L 5 speed on 13" wheels with none of the wiring that goes with ABS etc...
That got what, 47MPG and still roasted the tires thru 3 gears?
10-12-2012, 04:34 AM
#36
Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Fair Hill, MD
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
Technically, a properly tuned carb setup can do the same, just not as efficiently.
ORIGINAL: Lunchboxer
Sure.. I didn't say it is cheaper to work on it.. just saying it is better... you can drive the car from 100+ degree Arizona summer to freezing Boston winter.. and the car will run well without needing any adjustment..
Sure.. I didn't say it is cheaper to work on it.. just saying it is better... you can drive the car from 100+ degree Arizona summer to freezing Boston winter.. and the car will run well without needing any adjustment..
10-12-2012, 04:37 AM
#37
Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Fair Hill, MD
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
1996 was the official beginning of the OBDIIsystems in all vehicles. This is what really raised the level of complexity.
Isee plenty of 90's vehicles still on the road, but not beyond that for the most part. If the average car on the road is now 10 years old, that means a whole lot of them are older, because Isee tons of new cars as well.
The more idiot-prrof cars become, the more talented the idiots become, lol.
Isee plenty of 90's vehicles still on the road, but not beyond that for the most part. If the average car on the road is now 10 years old, that means a whole lot of them are older, because Isee tons of new cars as well.
The more idiot-prrof cars become, the more talented the idiots become, lol.
ORIGINAL: Eman77
To raise a counter-point, I don't exactly see all that many 1998 cars running on the road currently. Or 1988. Or 1978. You get the idea. I mean, you see some, but not a whole heck of a lot. Perhaps their rust was their death sentence.
Now, I do get your point in general, which is that the overcomplexity of things is getting a bit ridiculous. I get that. Although it's nice to have some of it on one hand (nav systems, hard drives to store songs on, etc), I have to admit that traction control on a Wrangler is a bit ludicrous.
ORIGINAL: Mister Sinister
20 years from now, I'd bet you won't see many 2012 vehicles still running. They can do the mileage, but their complexity will be their death sentence.
20 years from now, I'd bet you won't see many 2012 vehicles still running. They can do the mileage, but their complexity will be their death sentence.
Now, I do get your point in general, which is that the overcomplexity of things is getting a bit ridiculous. I get that. Although it's nice to have some of it on one hand (nav systems, hard drives to store songs on, etc), I have to admit that traction control on a Wrangler is a bit ludicrous.
10-12-2012, 04:41 AM
#38
Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Fair Hill, MD
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
The TC in my Wrangler can be defeated fairly easily, but the stability control system is another story. It's always on, unless you go through some ridiculous procedure to deactivate it. You then have to follow the same procedure to reactivate it. I just plain don't want or need any of it!!
The first time I saw the TC on a Wrangler, I pointed at the 4WD lever and said "There's all the TC I'll ever need in a Wrangler".
The first time I saw the TC on a Wrangler, I pointed at the 4WD lever and said "There's all the TC I'll ever need in a Wrangler".
10-12-2012, 06:29 AM
#39
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
So not the same?!
just messing around.. ha..
ORIGINAL: Mister Sinister
Technically, a properly tuned carb setup can do the same, just not as efficiently.
Technically, a properly tuned carb setup can do the same, just not as efficiently.
10-12-2012, 07:31 AM
#40
Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Fair Hill, MD
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
Oh I'd never claim a carb is as efficient, just a whole lot easier to repair, tune, compensate for parts changes, etc.
Iactually learned engines on the old pushrod fuel injected 5.0 Mustangs. They were great because the fuel injection was pretty basic, and the computers in those cars was very lenient on modifications. Ihad to learn carbs later. Like Isaid above, the principals are still the same. With fuel injection, the computer either must learn or be taught new parameters. With a carb, you do it mechanically. That said, if Ihad the money, I'd seriosuly consider one of those smart EFIsystems.
Iactually learned engines on the old pushrod fuel injected 5.0 Mustangs. They were great because the fuel injection was pretty basic, and the computers in those cars was very lenient on modifications. Ihad to learn carbs later. Like Isaid above, the principals are still the same. With fuel injection, the computer either must learn or be taught new parameters. With a carb, you do it mechanically. That said, if Ihad the money, I'd seriosuly consider one of those smart EFIsystems.
ORIGINAL: Lunchboxer
So not the same?!
just messing around.. ha..
So not the same?!
just messing around.. ha..
ORIGINAL: Mister Sinister
Technically, a properly tuned carb setup can do the same, just not as efficiently.
Technically, a properly tuned carb setup can do the same, just not as efficiently.
10-12-2012, 07:38 AM
#41
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
There's always gonna be pros and cons with any different / new technologies.. for example, the newer direct injection engine.. at least the earlier ones, had problem w/ carbon deposit issues... (since the fuel does not go through the intake valves to "clean" the valves..) Things like that.. but that will get worked out eventually and all will be better, more efficient, make more power, etc.
10-12-2012, 09:18 AM
#42
Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Fair Hill, MD
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
Very true. My wife's Hyundai Sonata has a direct injection engine. It's a good little engine, plenty of power and great mileage. Sounds like a sewing machine, lol. It chatters like a diesel.
I'm actually a hge fan of turbocharging smaller engines, Iowned 2 turbo Subarus, and would love to own another. Maybe after the Jeep is paid off. But there really is no replacemernt for displacement. The instant torque under your foot from cubic inches has yet to be replicated in small engines. One of my Subies was a 05 Forester XT, which rides on a WRXchassis, and shared the same 2.5 engine. Mine was a 5 speed (not the same as the WRX, it was the J-Spec STItrans), that Idid some suispension and engine mods to It came with a final drive ratio of 4.44, so it was a monster off the line. Rev it to 4500rpm, dump the clutch, the car owuld jump sideways and take off like a fired bullet. It's was the closest thing to a replacement for displacement I've driven personally. Not to mention it handles likeit wa son rails, with a full STIsuspension swap, and strut tower bars. ILOVEDthat car. I'd still love to have another.
So what I'm getting at is technology has come a long way, and can do, or substitute for, a lot of things. Just not everything.
I'm actually a hge fan of turbocharging smaller engines, Iowned 2 turbo Subarus, and would love to own another. Maybe after the Jeep is paid off. But there really is no replacemernt for displacement. The instant torque under your foot from cubic inches has yet to be replicated in small engines. One of my Subies was a 05 Forester XT, which rides on a WRXchassis, and shared the same 2.5 engine. Mine was a 5 speed (not the same as the WRX, it was the J-Spec STItrans), that Idid some suispension and engine mods to It came with a final drive ratio of 4.44, so it was a monster off the line. Rev it to 4500rpm, dump the clutch, the car owuld jump sideways and take off like a fired bullet. It's was the closest thing to a replacement for displacement I've driven personally. Not to mention it handles likeit wa son rails, with a full STIsuspension swap, and strut tower bars. ILOVEDthat car. I'd still love to have another.
So what I'm getting at is technology has come a long way, and can do, or substitute for, a lot of things. Just not everything.
ORIGINAL: Lunchboxer
There's always gonna be pros and cons with any different / new technologies.. for example, the newer direct injection engine.. at least the earlier ones, had problem w/ carbon deposit issues... (since the fuel does not go through the intake valves to "clean" the valves..) Things like that.. but that will get worked out eventually and all will be better, more efficient, make more power, etc.
There's always gonna be pros and cons with any different / new technologies.. for example, the newer direct injection engine.. at least the earlier ones, had problem w/ carbon deposit issues... (since the fuel does not go through the intake valves to "clean" the valves..) Things like that.. but that will get worked out eventually and all will be better, more efficient, make more power, etc.
10-12-2012, 09:33 AM
#43
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
Not that they don't make big displacement engine nowadays.. they are still being made.. so you got to pick what you like.. !!
10-12-2012, 11:01 AM
#45
Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Fair Hill, MD
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
Big-ish. Imean you can buy a GMcrate engine up to 572 cubic inches, but Ithink the biggest affordableperformance V8 out there right now is one of the GMLSengines. The LSengines ar epretty amazing when you consider the power they can make over such a wide powerband, and the fuel economy they'll return.
But that new GT500 engine with 662hp?OMGOMGOMGOMG
But that new GT500 engine with 662hp?OMGOMGOMGOMG
ORIGINAL: Lunchboxer
Not that they don't make big displacement engine nowadays.. they are still being made.. so you got to pick what you like.. !!
Not that they don't make big displacement engine nowadays.. they are still being made.. so you got to pick what you like.. !!
10-12-2012, 11:12 AM
#46
Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Fair Hill, MD
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
Overnighted from Japan!!
No, it was the same 5 speed trans used in the old Japanese verion WRX STI (old meaning before you could buy an STIhere). The old USDM(standard) WRX5 speed is notoriously fragile, and when the 2004 Forester XTwas released, the WRXwas still runing the 2.0 Boxer engine. So Iguess Subaru figured the WRX5 speed wouldn't hold up to the 2.5 in the Forester. The Forester used the same 2.5 that was found in the USDMWRXSTI (for the most part, some small differences), but used a smaller TD-04 turbo, which spooled almost instantly. The tradeoff was it dies at about 5000rpm. So between the added displacement, punchy turbo, and slightly larger vehicle, it got the J-Spec STITrans. After 2005, all Subies went to the 2.5 with upgraded transmissions, but for thse two years, a Stock Forester XTwould lunch a stock WRX. Mine would run with a stock WRXSTIfrom stoplight to stoplight, but didn't have the legs to keep up at speed. You should have seen some of the looks that car would get from dumbfounded WRXdrivers.
Now you know more about that than you ever cared to.
Sorry, ILOVESubarus.
What was this thread originally about, anyway?????
No, it was the same 5 speed trans used in the old Japanese verion WRX STI (old meaning before you could buy an STIhere). The old USDM(standard) WRX5 speed is notoriously fragile, and when the 2004 Forester XTwas released, the WRXwas still runing the 2.0 Boxer engine. So Iguess Subaru figured the WRX5 speed wouldn't hold up to the 2.5 in the Forester. The Forester used the same 2.5 that was found in the USDMWRXSTI (for the most part, some small differences), but used a smaller TD-04 turbo, which spooled almost instantly. The tradeoff was it dies at about 5000rpm. So between the added displacement, punchy turbo, and slightly larger vehicle, it got the J-Spec STITrans. After 2005, all Subies went to the 2.5 with upgraded transmissions, but for thse two years, a Stock Forester XTwould lunch a stock WRX. Mine would run with a stock WRXSTIfrom stoplight to stoplight, but didn't have the legs to keep up at speed. You should have seen some of the looks that car would get from dumbfounded WRXdrivers.
Now you know more about that than you ever cared to.
Sorry, ILOVESubarus.
What was this thread originally about, anyway?????
ORIGINAL: The Hedgehog
J-Spec transmission!
Does that just mean it's 5 speed over the US Spec 6?
J-Spec transmission!
Does that just mean it's 5 speed over the US Spec 6?
10-12-2012, 12:24 PM
#48
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
ORIGINAL: Mister Sinister
Octane ratings exist purely to describe the anti-knock characteristics of the fuel, or it's tendency to burn in a uniform or controlled manner, and have nothing to due with the energy characteristics of the fuel. The energy value of fuel is a much more complex science. The higher the octane, the lower the energy value. This is further compounded by Ethanol, which adds octane at the expense of energy value. It sounds backwards, but that's how it works.
Most modern vehicles are desingned to run on 87 octane, but factors like driving habits, vehicle condition, weather, etc. can have an effect, so sometimes higher octane is needed to prevent knock. Some performance cars (particularly turbo/supercharged) need higher octane fuel, because the pressures inside the cylinders is higher than that of normal cars. Lower octane fuel can light off when it's not supposed to in these vehicles (detonation), and cause all sorts of chaos.
Many argue that there is no benefit to be had running a higher octane, but there's also a lot of people who say they can feel a difference. My Wrangler pings on 87 octane, and it has since day 1, even though that's what it's designed to run on. So Irun 89 or 93 in it. Jeep sayus the ping is normal and within the realm of acceptable, but Iprefer to not have it ping at all. It costs me maybe $2 extra, Ifeel it's worth it. In my 55 Chevy, Ihave to run 93 octane due to it's higher than normal compression and timing curves.
Octane ratings exist purely to describe the anti-knock characteristics of the fuel, or it's tendency to burn in a uniform or controlled manner, and have nothing to due with the energy characteristics of the fuel. The energy value of fuel is a much more complex science. The higher the octane, the lower the energy value. This is further compounded by Ethanol, which adds octane at the expense of energy value. It sounds backwards, but that's how it works.
Most modern vehicles are desingned to run on 87 octane, but factors like driving habits, vehicle condition, weather, etc. can have an effect, so sometimes higher octane is needed to prevent knock. Some performance cars (particularly turbo/supercharged) need higher octane fuel, because the pressures inside the cylinders is higher than that of normal cars. Lower octane fuel can light off when it's not supposed to in these vehicles (detonation), and cause all sorts of chaos.
Many argue that there is no benefit to be had running a higher octane, but there's also a lot of people who say they can feel a difference. My Wrangler pings on 87 octane, and it has since day 1, even though that's what it's designed to run on. So Irun 89 or 93 in it. Jeep sayus the ping is normal and within the realm of acceptable, but Iprefer to not have it ping at all. It costs me maybe $2 extra, Ifeel it's worth it. In my 55 Chevy, Ihave to run 93 octane due to it's higher than normal compression and timing curves.
Spark ignition engines are designed to burn gasoline in a controlled process called deflagration. But in some cases, the unburned mixture can autoignite, which results in rapid heat release and can damage the engine. This phenomenon is often referred to as engine knocking or end-gas knock. One way to reduce knock in spark ignition engines is to increase the gasoline's resistance to autoignition, which is expressed by its octane rating.
Octane rating is measured relative to a mixture of 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane (an isomer of octane) and n-heptane. There are different conventions for expressing octane ratings, so a fuel may have several different octane ratings based on the measure used. Research octane number (RON) for commercially-available gasoline varies by country.
The octane rating became important as the military sought higher output for aircraft engines in the late 1930s and the 1940s. A higher octane rating allows a higher compression ratio or supercharger boost, and thus higher temperatures and pressures, which translate to higher power output. Some scientists even predicted that a nation with a good supply of high octane gasoline would have the advantage in air power.
Heptane is one of the primary “Power” ingredients, not “Octane”…
80/87
80/87, which is dyed red, had the lowest lead content prior to commencing its phase out in the late 20th century, with a maximum of 0.5g per U.S. gallon (0.13 g/l). It was used in engines with low compression ratio. Currently commonly called Avgas 80, its availability is now very limited.<sup>[citation needed]</sup>
100/130
100/130 avgas, now commonly called Avgas 100, is dyed green. It contains a maximum of 4g of lead per U.S. gallon (1.1 g/l). 100LL has replaced 100/130 in most places, but Avgas 100/130 is still sold in some parts of the United States, Australia and New Zealand.<sup>[dubious – discuss]</sup>
91/96 & 115/145
In the past other grades were also available, particularly for military use, such as avgas 115/145 (dyed purple) and 91/96 (dyed brown). Limited batches of 115/145, commonly called Avgas 115, are produced for special events, such as unlimited air races; in the past 115/145 was used as the primary fuel for the largest, boost-supercharged radial engines that needed this fuel's anti-detonation properties.
10-12-2012, 01:18 PM
#49
Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Fair Hill, MD
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
Yessir!! I'll be taking a serious look at one in a few years.
Iwas a bit underwheled by the current model. You still get all the handling and fine-tuning goodness, but the WRXis actually a hair quicker in a straight line.
Iwas a bit underwheled by the current model. You still get all the handling and fine-tuning goodness, but the WRXis actually a hair quicker in a straight line.
ORIGINAL: Lunchboxer
Can't wait to see the new STi.. hopefully out next year?!
Can't wait to see the new STi.. hopefully out next year?!
10-12-2012, 06:18 PM
#50
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: chester, MA
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Old new car question,please see what you think
I agree with most of you. Does your car smoke at all? Have you had timing belt done. or chain? not sure what that car has.
I'm old school mech. Mainly motorcycles.
I'm old school mech. Mainly motorcycles.