"David R.Birch" wrote:

Since Wisconsin has required up to 10% alcohol in gas sold in the SE
corner of the state, gas line antifreeze is no longer necessary. The
alcohol combines with the water and keeps it from freezing. Maybe
chemistry is different where you live.

Of course, the alcohol cuts gas mileage 10-20% and we pay extra for it...

You are not supposed to notice the cost increase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline

regular Gasoline 125,000 btu/us gallon
10% gasohol 120,900 btu/us gallon

A little over three percent or 13 cents a gallon for 4 dollar fuel. The complexity of
using alcohol adds additional cost, iirc. Alky is mixed in close to point of final
distribution.

Wes

Wes wrote:
Christopher Tidy wrote:


This question came into my head a few days ago. I often hear people
suggesting that the latest vehicle engines last longer and are more
trouble-free than older engines. But I also hear people saying, just as
often, "They don't make them like they used to".


I would think advances in metalurgy, newer more ridgid machines that can hold closer
tolerances in making your engine parts, and oil designed with better additive packages
would tend to improve engine life. The electronics are a plus in my mind. I don't miss
setting breaker points and checking timing.

I'm not sure that modern machine tools are more rigid, are they? Years
ago they used to make some really heavy, solid machine tools.

Fuel injection sure beats carburation and with the emissions requirements, we have sensors
that monitor a/f ratio to allow the computer to adjust engine parameters for good
performance. They are tilted toward lower emissions.

I'm not sure about this one. It might reduce wear due to less soot
building up in the cylinder. I would be very interested to know if
anyone has more information regarding this. But with electronic engine
management, it also makes a vehicle way more complex to service.

There are also carburetted engines which are extremely durable. The
Dennis Z Type lawnmower engine I mentioned, and the Ferguson TE20
tractor engine. Granted, these are slow-revving engines (less wear per
unit time, and lower inertial forces), probably with fairly low
operating pressures in the cylinders (leading to a lower transverse
force per unit area). It might be that these two factors are more
significant than the method of fuel delivery.

And recent vehicals have ODBII which I have found very helpful in spotting a problem
before it becomes serious.

Electronic engine management has its advantages and disadvantages. On
the one hand, it gives you better cold starting, fuel economy, emissions
and probably better short term reliability. But if you are interested in
old vehicles, or you're just cheap and want to run your old car forever,
it makes home servicing a lot harder.

They could make things easier by using fewer different microprocessors
(that is, standardising more), publishing more documentation and perhaps
having a chip which you can plug into the microprocessor unit carrying
the necessary code for a particular engine. Like a Game Boy cartridge. I
can't see it happening right now, though.

I think they are better. But if you want any engine, new or old to last, change the oil
often. My car has a light that comes on every 5500 miles that tells me to change the
oil, I change the oil far sooner than that.

That is without a doubt good advice for any machine.

Best wishes,

Chris

ED wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 03:28:26 +0000, Christopher Tidy
wrote:


Hi folks,

This question came into my head a few days ago. I often hear people
suggesting that the latest vehicle engines last longer and are more
trouble-free than older engines. But I also hear people saying, just as
often, "They don't make them like they used to".

I was looking at a Dennis Z Type lawnmower a few days ago. I am hoping
to acquire one. For those who don't know, this is a legendary machine. I
think its engine is probably the best lawnmower engine ever made. It has
forced lubrication and an oil filter, complete with a passage for oil
through the crankshaft, and was introduced in 1922.

Now it's possible that one might look back at older products and view
them as being superior because all the poor quality products from the
era wore out and were replaced. It's also likely that the answer to the
question will depend on the type of engine you look at, and the quality
of construction. But I'll leave it as a general question, as I'm
interested to hear anyone's experience.

I get the impression that perhaps engine technology is moving in two
opposing directions. On the one hand, improving technology such as
better lubricants, filtration and bearing materials, are resulting in
components lasting longer. But on the other hand, the whole industry
appears to be moving towards less maintainable engines. Engines which
are wholly dependent on electronics, sometimes with coated rather than
lined cylinders. Engines which are difficult for anyone to maintain at
home. Perhaps this is why I don't hear people talk about replacing
piston rings, or having crankshafts regound anymore? Or perhaps these
parts last for the lifetime of the vehicle?

I'd be interested to hear people's opinions. I'd also be very interested
to see data comparing wear rates in modern and old engines, if anyone
knows where I can find such data.

Best wishes,

Chris Tidy




The Toyota 22re what a great engine, energizer bunny indeed keeps
going and going.....
They did have a few flaws, ie. timing chain tensioners but
resolveable, seen more than afew with 300k and still running.

Fuel injection is really one of the greatest improvement towards
longevity. Carbs tend to run rich washing down the cylinder walls
with gas, which is not a good lubericant. ED

Not sure about this one either. I remember starting a thread here a year
or two ago about whether or not engines which burnt oil lasted longer.
The consensus seemed to be that they did not:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...dd71183a2daa1a

Incidentally, someone mentioned in that thread that the part of the
piston above the rings is typically of a smaller diameter. Anyone know
if that's true?

Best wishes,

Chris

Leo Lichtman wrote:
I believe the elimination of lead from the gasoline has done a lot to
eliminate engine wear. (Except valve guides.)

This is very interesting. I was thinking of buying some lead replacement
additive for my old machines, but now I might not. Actually, I
discovered that you can still buy tetra-ethyl lead in England. Freedom
of choice is great :-):

http://tetraboost.com/

Then I read Leo's post, and also found this, which supports Leo's idea
that lead increases bore wear:

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Lead-History.htm

It says:

"In 1985 an EPA report concluded that reduced lead levels reduced
piston-ring and cylinder-bore wear, preventing engine failure and
improving fuel economy. Estimated maintenance savings exceeded the
maintenance costs associated with recession of exhaust valves, which is
caused by the use of unleaded gasoline."

Now I'm not sure that the EPA are impartial, but I'd really like to get
hold of a copy of that 1985 study. Anyone know where I might find one?

So I'm a bit unsure whether to buy a lead replacement additive for my
old machines. Perhaps there's one which is better than tetra-ethyl lead
from a wear prevention point of view? After all, the mechanisms of bore
wear and valve seat wear are different. Maybe there's an additive which
protects the valves, but doesn't wear the bore? Anyone know?

What do other people use for their vintage machines?

Thanks for all the thoughts!

Best wishes,

Chris

Steve W. wrote:
Christopher Tidy wrote:

William Noble wrote:

"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

Hi folks,

This question came into my head a few days ago. I often hear people
suggesting that the latest vehicle engines last longer and are more
trouble-free than older engines. But I also hear people saying, just
as often, "They don't make them like they used to".




short answer, "yes", at least for automotive use. I have 1936, 1938,
1951, 1959, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1997, and 2001 vehicles under my
purview. up through the 51 year car, 150K miles or so was the limit
- at that point the bores were 40 to 60 over, rings shot, no
compression, crank oval, no oil pressure, etc. 59 is good for 200K
easy. there was a major change in the metalurgy of the engine block,
etc, as I understand it - we can debate what changed, but the
longevity is just not an issue.


Thanks for sharing your experience, William. If any designers out
there know of significant changes in car engine block metallurgy over
the last 50 years or so, and are able to share them, I would be very
interested to hear.

I'm under the impression that cast iron blocks and/or cast iron
cylinder liners were the norm in the 1950s, and that cast iron liners
still are today, but I could be wrong. There have been some engines
which use coated aluminium cylinders, but after the Nikasil and
sulphur problems in the 1990s, I thought they were in decline.

Best wishes,

Chris


Cast iron blocks have been around since day one of engine production.
However the iron alloys used today are FAR superior. It allows thinner
castings that have tighter grain patterns and through the use of newer
alloys the wear and machining characteristics are such that the blocks
made today last longer.

It's interesting that such progress can be made while the material keeps
the same name. But I guess it's just like vehicle tyres. People still
call them "rubber", but they wear a lot better today.

99% of the aluminum blocks use steel liners cast into the blocks. The
rest use a type of chrome plating of the cylinder walls. Most of them
are not built for long life though. Many are air cooled small engines.
Things like lawn mowers and weed eaters. The industrial/heavy duty ones
have iron or steel liners.

Do you mean steel, or cast iron? I don't think I've heard of an engine
using steel liners. I believe the extra carbon in cast iron leads to a
graphite film on the surface which gives the material better bearing
properties.

Best wishes,

Chris

"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...
Steve W. wrote:
Christopher Tidy wrote:

snip


I'm under the impression that cast iron blocks and/or cast iron cylinder
liners were the norm in the 1950s, and that cast iron liners still are
today, but I could be wrong. There have been some engines which use
coated aluminium cylinders, but after the Nikasil and sulphur problems
in the 1990s, I thought they were in decline.

Best wishes,

Chris


Cast iron blocks have been around since day one of engine production.
However the iron alloys used today are FAR superior. It allows thinner
castings that have tighter grain patterns and through the use of newer
alloys the wear and machining characteristics are such that the blocks
made today last longer.

It's interesting that such progress can be made while the material keeps
the same name. But I guess it's just like vehicle tyres. People still call
them "rubber", but they wear a lot better today.

99% of the aluminum blocks use steel liners cast into the blocks. The
rest use a type of chrome plating of the cylinder walls. Most of them are
not built for long life though. Many are air cooled small engines. Things
like lawn mowers and weed eaters. The industrial/heavy duty ones have
iron or steel liners.

Do you mean steel, or cast iron? I don't think I've heard of an engine
using steel liners. I believe the extra carbon in cast iron leads to a
graphite film on the surface which gives the material better bearing
properties.

There have been some with steel liners, including the 215 cu. in. (3.5
liter) Buick/Olds/Pontiac aluminum V8 of the early '60s (which became an
engine used in the Jeep Wagoneer a few years later, and was then sold to
Rover in England, where it was used in the Land Rover and the 3500 Rover
sedan, plus the Morgan +8 and the MGD, IIRC. And, with different liners and
heads it won Formula 1 world championships in '66 and '67. Quite an engine!)
Those liners were ribbed on the outside and cast in place. The F1 version,
built by Revco of Australia, had pressed-in, dry-sleeve iron liners.

High-performance diesels, including some Caterpillar numbers, use nodular
iron liners rather than gray cast iron. They have different oil-retaining
properties, as well as a lot more strength.

Gray iron is somewhat porous, especially when surface graphite wears off,
but the graphite doesn't stand proud of the surface. It does get involved in
marginal lubrication conditions, however.

--
Ed Huntress

Wes wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote:

Since Wisconsin has required up to 10% alcohol in gas sold in the
SE corner of the state, gas line antifreeze is no longer
necessary. The alcohol combines with the water and keeps it from
freezing. Maybe chemistry is different where you live.

Of course, the alcohol cuts gas mileage 10-20% and we pay extra
for it...

You are not supposed to notice the cost increase.

Yet we all know we pay more for gas with alcohol around here. When the
newsclowns announce the national average price of gas, it's usually a
dime less than we pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline

regular Gasoline 125,000 btu/us gallon 10% gasohol 120,900 btu/us
gallon

A little over three percent or 13 cents a gallon for 4 dollar fuel.
The complexity of using alcohol adds additional cost, iirc. Alky
is mixed in close to point of final distribution.

Wes

I was getting about 24 mpg in my '01 Outback Sport on "reformulated"
gas. When I would be going on a trip outside the area that required
it, I would let my tank go down to almost empty, enough to get to the
stations that still sold non alcohol gas. I would fill up there and
again when I came back, so my tank would be almost free of alcohol.
Then I get 28-30 mpg.

Supposedly, the alcohol lowers the CO2 emissions. Does that take into
account the fact that I have to burn 12 gallons to cover the same
distance as 10 gallons of ordinary lead free?

David

Christopher Tidy wrote:
Leo Lichtman wrote:

I believe the elimination of lead from the gasoline has done a lot to
eliminate engine wear. (Except valve guides.)


This is very interesting. I was thinking of buying some lead replacement
additive for my old machines, but now I might not. Actually, I
discovered that you can still buy tetra-ethyl lead in England. Freedom
of choice is great :-):

http://tetraboost.com/

Then I read Leo's post, and also found this, which supports Leo's idea
that lead increases bore wear:

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Lead-History.htm

It says:

"In 1985 an EPA report concluded that reduced lead levels reduced
piston-ring and cylinder-bore wear, preventing engine failure and
improving fuel economy. Estimated maintenance savings exceeded the
maintenance costs associated with recession of exhaust valves, which is
caused by the use of unleaded gasoline."

Now I'm not sure that the EPA are impartial, but I'd really like to get
hold of a copy of that 1985 study. Anyone know where I might find one?

Gotcha:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm....4?OpenDocument

Looks like a thorough and useful study. Will read it tomorrow. Need
sleep now!

Best wishes,

Chris

One note on the Al engines. I had the front blow out of the water jacket
when the thin wall over heated or what I think eroded through due to the
quality of water or acid generation.

Noting like driving 60 MPH on an interstate and dump the radiator out the
front of the block within seconds. Talk about a steam cloud.

I saw racks of engine blocks when I towed in my truck. GM knew something,
but was not willing to do anything. I think the engine was widely used
and the cost was out of sight.

Now they went to 'orange' juice and water - still is rust, not much.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Steve W. wrote:
Christopher Tidy wrote:
William Noble wrote:
"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

Hi folks,

This question came into my head a few days ago. I often hear people
suggesting that the latest vehicle engines last longer and are more
trouble-free than older engines. But I also hear people saying, just
as often, "They don't make them like they used to".




short answer, "yes", at least for automotive use. I have 1936, 1938,
1951, 1959, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1997, and 2001 vehicles under my
purview. up through the 51 year car, 150K miles or so was the limit
- at that point the bores were 40 to 60 over, rings shot, no
compression, crank oval, no oil pressure, etc. 59 is good for 200K
easy. there was a major change in the metalurgy of the engine block,
etc, as I understand it - we can debate what changed, but the
longevity is just not an issue.

Thanks for sharing your experience, William. If any designers out
there know of significant changes in car engine block metallurgy over
the last 50 years or so, and are able to share them, I would be very
interested to hear.

I'm under the impression that cast iron blocks and/or cast iron
cylinder liners were the norm in the 1950s, and that cast iron liners
still are today, but I could be wrong. There have been some engines
which use coated aluminium cylinders, but after the Nikasil and
sulphur problems in the 1990s, I thought they were in decline.

Best wishes,

Chris


Cast iron blocks have been around since day one of engine production.
However the iron alloys used today are FAR superior. It allows thinner
castings that have tighter grain patterns and through the use of newer
alloys the wear and machining characteristics are such that the blocks
made today last longer.

99% of the aluminum blocks use steel liners cast into the blocks. The
rest use a type of chrome plating of the cylinder walls. Most of them
are not built for long life though. Many are air cooled small engines.
Things like lawn mowers and weed eaters. The industrial/heavy duty ones
have iron or steel liners.



----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Octane booster - my eye. I lost 6-10 MPG using that crap.
In the hills it was worse and didn't boost.
After an hour on the highway you would see it drip out of car pipes.
Ground water pollution is still a serious problem.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 10:38:52 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Roger Shoaf" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
Perhaps in one way. But the pollution from MTBE, lead's old
replacement, is still gumming up the works badly.

MTBE was not a replacement for lead.

It is both an octane booster and oxygenate according to the Wiki
article.


It was a fraudulent government
mandated additive to oxygenate the fuel. It was highly toxic, and actually
lowered fuel economy to the point where more fuel was burned and that wiped
out the intended environmental benefit that the idiot do-gooders sought to
solve in the first place.

Indeed, and now, with $4+/gallon fuel, it's really costing us. DAMN!


Lead was used as an octane booster and was selected not for its incidental
lubricity, but rather because it was the cheapest thing out there to boost
the octane.

Right, the lubricity was incidental.

--
Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized
anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
-- Eleanor Roosevelt


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Christopher Tidy wrote:
Steve W. wrote:
Christopher Tidy wrote:

William Noble wrote:

"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

Hi folks,

This question came into my head a few days ago. I often hear people
suggesting that the latest vehicle engines last longer and are more
trouble-free than older engines. But I also hear people saying,
just as often, "They don't make them like they used to".




short answer, "yes", at least for automotive use. I have 1936,
1938, 1951, 1959, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1997, and 2001 vehicles under my
purview. up through the 51 year car, 150K miles or so was the limit
- at that point the bores were 40 to 60 over, rings shot, no
compression, crank oval, no oil pressure, etc. 59 is good for 200K
easy. there was a major change in the metalurgy of the engine block,
etc, as I understand it - we can debate what changed, but the
longevity is just not an issue.


Thanks for sharing your experience, William. If any designers out
there know of significant changes in car engine block metallurgy over
the last 50 years or so, and are able to share them, I would be very
interested to hear.

I'm under the impression that cast iron blocks and/or cast iron
cylinder liners were the norm in the 1950s, and that cast iron liners
still are today, but I could be wrong. There have been some engines
which use coated aluminium cylinders, but after the Nikasil and
sulphur problems in the 1990s, I thought they were in decline.

Best wishes,

Chris


Cast iron blocks have been around since day one of engine production.
However the iron alloys used today are FAR superior. It allows thinner
castings that have tighter grain patterns and through the use of newer
alloys the wear and machining characteristics are such that the blocks
made today last longer.

It's interesting that such progress can be made while the material keeps
the same name. But I guess it's just like vehicle tyres. People still
call them "rubber", but they wear a lot better today.

Cast Iron is a generic description. The actual alloys used are know to
the casting companies and the automakers. Kind of like steel, there are
a huge number of alloys but most folks still call it steel.


99% of the aluminum blocks use steel liners cast into the blocks. The
rest use a type of chrome plating of the cylinder walls. Most of them
are not built for long life though. Many are air cooled small engines.
Things like lawn mowers and weed eaters. The industrial/heavy duty
ones have iron or steel liners.

Do you mean steel, or cast iron? I don't think I've heard of an engine
using steel liners. I believe the extra carbon in cast iron leads to a
graphite film on the surface which gives the material better bearing
properties.

It depends on the engine. I have seen blocks with cast iron and with
cast steel as well as with extruded steel. Depends on what the engine is
used for and what the fuel is.
The main reason the cast iron is used is because of the grain it has,
it retains oil well and wears very well. The next reason is cost.
Because of the complex internal structures a machined block would be
VERY expensive. It would also take much longer to make. The only real
advantage would be that all the wall thicknesses would be known. That is
one item that can bite you with a cast iron block. If that core shifted
and you have a thin wall you can destroy the block if you punch through
the wall.


Best wishes,

Chris



--
Steve W.
Near Cooperstown, New York

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:28:23 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
"David R.Birch" quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 12:05:17 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
Wes quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:

Perhaps in one way. But the pollution from MTBE, lead's old
replacement, is still gumming up the works badly.
And using food to make alky as a replacement oxyginate hasn't
been so wonderful either.

At least the lead killed the in-tank bacteria and didn't pick up
water to rust or freeze in your fuel lines/tanks.

Since Wisconsin has required up to 10% alcohol in gas sold in the SE
corner of the state, gas line antifreeze is no longer necessary. The
alcohol combines with the water and keeps it from freezing. Maybe
chemistry is different where you live.

g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetra-ethyl_lead Read this and
you'll see where I was coming from.


Of course, the alcohol cuts gas mileage 10-20% and we pay extra for it...

That's my bitch about it, too. I dropped from 14 down to 12.6 in town
and I'm only getting about 17mpg on the freeway (at 80) to and from
the SF Bay area. CA and OR now both have the same gasohol mix, E-10,
with 10% ethanol. That's bad enough. Regular gas has 34.8 MJ/L and
pure ethanol has only 23.5, or 67% of the power. I'd truly hate to
run E-90.

--
Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized
anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
-- Eleanor Roosevelt

Supposedly, the alcohol lowers the CO2 emissions. Does that take into
account the fact that I have to burn 12 gallons to cover the same
distance as 10 gallons of ordinary lead free?

No, most emissions are measured at idle and MPT is _not_ considered.
That's how the PTBs have been able to pull off the scam so well. Most
people don't figure their gas mileage anyway.

(PTBs = Powers That Be)

--
Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized
anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
-- Eleanor Roosevelt

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:45:39 +0000, Christopher Tidy
wrote:

ED wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 03:28:26 +0000, Christopher Tidy
wrote:





The Toyota 22re what a great engine, energizer bunny indeed keeps
going and going.....
They did have a few flaws, ie. timing chain tensioners but
resolveable, seen more than afew with 300k and still running.

Fuel injection is really one of the greatest improvement towards
longevity. Carbs tend to run rich washing down the cylinder walls
with gas, which is not a good lubericant. ED

Not sure about this one either. I remember starting a thread here a year
or two ago about whether or not engines which burnt oil lasted longer.
The consensus seemed to be that they did not:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...dd71183a2daa1a

Incidentally, someone mentioned in that thread that the part of the
piston above the rings is typically of a smaller diameter. Anyone know
if that's true?

Best wishes,

Chris


This isn't something I made up, it
was taught to me by an engineer back
in my mechanic schooling days..

My own experience supports it. I have gotten
twice the life out of FI engines (350 chevys) VS carbed versions.
Were there other factors? , yea I'm sure but FI/computerized
engines last longer... ED

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that "Leo Lichtman"
wrote on Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:26:31 GMT
in rec.crafts.metalworking :

"Gunner Asch" wrote: Eli Whitney was the father of "weapons
interchangability"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah. He invented the cotton gun.

LOL. Is that anything like the Potato Gin?

Whitney's attempts at mass production were funded by the US
Congress. Naturally, he went way over budget, and way over schedule,
and did not quite deliver what he had proposed. But he did get much
of the basic work done.

tschus
pyotr



--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries

"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

There have been some with steel liners, including the 215 cu. in. (3.5
liter) Buick/Olds/Pontiac aluminum V8 of the early '60s (which became an
engine used in the Jeep Wagoneer a few years later, and was then sold to
Rover in England, where it was used in the Land Rover and the 3500 Rover
sedan, plus the Morgan +8 and the MGD, IIRC. And, with different liners
and heads it won Formula 1 world championships in '66 and '67. Quite an
engine!) Those liners were ribbed on the outside and cast in place. The
F1 version, built by Revco of Australia, had pressed-in, dry-sleeve iron
liners.

It seems a pity to cast the liners in. By doing that you throw away one of
the great advantages of having a liner: the fact that it can be replaced
to remedy wear.

That isn't an advantage if you're Buick, Olds, or Pontiac. g


Those liners that are cast in, are they dry liners or wet liners?

Dry. They were also quite thin, and they flex a bit if you try to make a
serious race motor out of them. That's why Revco and others installed
thicker, cast iron dry liners. For the F1 formula, where they were used in
Brabham F1 cars (350 hp on gasoline, at the end of their development), they
also had to sleeve it down from 3.5 liters to 3.0 liters.

There was a good reason for making them thin, and it was the same reason
they were cast in place, and also the same reason they were ribbed on the
outside. One of the problems with dry ferrous liners in an aluminum engine
is the difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion in the two metals.
The thinner lining was more compliant, and the ribs kept them from loosening
after years of thermal cycling.

It was a very clever and effective engine. But it was expensive to produce.
That's why Buick replaced it with their similar-sized V6, which had been a
truck engine, after two years.

GM sold the aluminum V8 to AMC, but they couldn't afford it after their
fortunes turned sour, and they sold it back to GM. GM didn't really want it
so they sold it to Rover of the UK. Rover used them for years in the Land
Rover. It's still the basis for the engine they're using now, although it's
been extensively redesigned. The engine was gravity-cast (low pressure die
casting) in cast steel molds. You could pick up two of the empty blocks, one
under each arm, and walk around with them. Some hotrodders bored and stroked
them to 302 cid.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

There have been some with steel liners, including the 215 cu. in. (3.5
liter) Buick/Olds/Pontiac aluminum V8 of the early '60s (which became an
engine used in the Jeep Wagoneer a few years later, and was then sold to
Rover in England, where it was used in the Land Rover and the 3500 Rover
sedan, plus the Morgan +8 and the MGD, IIRC. And, with different liners and
heads it won Formula 1 world championships in '66 and '67. Quite an engine!)
Those liners were ribbed on the outside and cast in place. The F1 version,
built by Revco of Australia, had pressed-in, dry-sleeve iron liners.

It seems a pity to cast the liners in. By doing that you throw away one
of the great advantages of having a liner: the fact that it can be
replaced to remedy wear.

Those liners that are cast in, are they dry liners or wet liners?

Best wishes,

Chris

Steve W. wrote:
Christopher Tidy wrote:

Steve W. wrote:

Christopher Tidy wrote:

William Noble wrote:

"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

Hi folks,

This question came into my head a few days ago. I often hear
people suggesting that the latest vehicle engines last longer and
are more trouble-free than older engines. But I also hear people
saying, just as often, "They don't make them like they used to".




short answer, "yes", at least for automotive use. I have 1936,
1938, 1951, 1959, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1997, and 2001 vehicles under
my purview. up through the 51 year car, 150K miles or so was the
limit - at that point the bores were 40 to 60 over, rings shot, no
compression, crank oval, no oil pressure, etc. 59 is good for 200K
easy. there was a major change in the metalurgy of the engine
block, etc, as I understand it - we can debate what changed, but
the longevity is just not an issue.



Thanks for sharing your experience, William. If any designers out
there know of significant changes in car engine block metallurgy
over the last 50 years or so, and are able to share them, I would be
very interested to hear.

I'm under the impression that cast iron blocks and/or cast iron
cylinder liners were the norm in the 1950s, and that cast iron
liners still are today, but I could be wrong. There have been some
engines which use coated aluminium cylinders, but after the Nikasil
and sulphur problems in the 1990s, I thought they were in decline.

Best wishes,

Chris


Cast iron blocks have been around since day one of engine production.
However the iron alloys used today are FAR superior. It allows
thinner castings that have tighter grain patterns and through the use
of newer alloys the wear and machining characteristics are such that
the blocks made today last longer.


It's interesting that such progress can be made while the material
keeps the same name. But I guess it's just like vehicle tyres. People
still call them "rubber", but they wear a lot better today.


Cast Iron is a generic description. The actual alloys used are know to
the casting companies and the automakers. Kind of like steel, there are
a huge number of alloys but most folks still call it steel.

Indeed. I guess the boundary between cast iron and steel is vague rather
than distinct.

Best wishes,

Chris

Larry Jaques wrote:


At least the lead killed the in-tank bacteria and didn't pick
up water to rust or freeze in your fuel lines/tanks.

Since Wisconsin has required up to 10% alcohol in gas sold in the
SE corner of the state, gas line antifreeze is no longer
necessary. The alcohol combines with the water and keeps it from
freezing. Maybe chemistry is different where you live.

g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetra-ethyl_lead Read this and
you'll see where I was coming from.

I don't see a reference to antifreeze action of TEL vs. ETBE in your cite.


Of course, the alcohol cuts gas mileage 10-20% and we pay extra
for it...

That's my bitch about it, too. I dropped from 14 down to 12.6 in
town and I'm only getting about 17mpg on the freeway (at 80) to and
from the SF Bay area. CA and OR now both have the same gasohol
mix, E-10, with 10% ethanol. That's bad enough. Regular gas has
34.8 MJ/L and pure ethanol has only 23.5, or 67% of the power. I'd
truly hate to run E-90.

Soon my "tests" will be over, as I've heard Wisconsin will be going
all gasohol.

David

Larry Jaques wrote:


At least the lead killed the in-tank bacteria and didn't pick
up water to rust or freeze in your fuel lines/tanks.

Since Wisconsin has required up to 10% alcohol in gas sold in the
SE corner of the state, gas line antifreeze is no longer
necessary. The alcohol combines with the water and keeps it from
freezing. Maybe chemistry is different where you live.

g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetra-ethyl_lead Read this and
you'll see where I was coming from.

I don't see a reference to antifreeze action of TEL vs. ETBE in your cite.


Of course, the alcohol cuts gas mileage 10-20% and we pay extra
for it...

That's my bitch about it, too. I dropped from 14 down to 12.6 in
town and I'm only getting about 17mpg on the freeway (at 80) to and
from the SF Bay area. CA and OR now both have the same gasohol
mix, E-10, with 10% ethanol. That's bad enough. Regular gas has
34.8 MJ/L and pure ethanol has only 23.5, or 67% of the power. I'd
truly hate to run E-90.

Soon my "tests" will be over, as I've heard Wisconsin will be going
all gasohol.

David

Larry Jaques wrote:
Supposedly, the alcohol lowers the CO2 emissions. Does that take into
account the fact that I have to burn 12 gallons to cover the same
distance as 10 gallons of ordinary lead free?

No, most emissions are measured at idle and MPT is _not_ considered.
That's how the PTBs have been able to pull off the scam so well. Most
people don't figure their gas mileage anyway.

(PTBs = Powers That Be)

So I can burn 10 gallons of gas or 12 gallons of gasohol, which costs
more to go the same distance. This question has been bugging me for
several years and I've tried to research it it, but didn't know where
to look. This is the first time that I've received confirmation that
I'M BEING SCAMMED!!

David

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:


There have been some with steel liners, including the 215 cu. in. (3.5
liter) Buick/Olds/Pontiac aluminum V8 of the early '60s (which became an
engine used in the Jeep Wagoneer a few years later, and was then sold to
Rover in England, where it was used in the Land Rover and the 3500 Rover
sedan, plus the Morgan +8 and the MGD, IIRC. And, with different liners
and heads it won Formula 1 world championships in '66 and '67. Quite an
engine!) Those liners were ribbed on the outside and cast in place. The
F1 version, built by Revco of Australia, had pressed-in, dry-sleeve iron
liners.

It seems a pity to cast the liners in. By doing that you throw away one of
the great advantages of having a liner: the fact that it can be replaced
to remedy wear.


That isn't an advantage if you're Buick, Olds, or Pontiac. g


Those liners that are cast in, are they dry liners or wet liners?


Dry. They were also quite thin, and they flex a bit if you try to make a
serious race motor out of them. That's why Revco and others installed
thicker, cast iron dry liners. For the F1 formula, where they were used in
Brabham F1 cars (350 hp on gasoline, at the end of their development), they
also had to sleeve it down from 3.5 liters to 3.0 liters.

There was a good reason for making them thin, and it was the same reason
they were cast in place, and also the same reason they were ribbed on the
outside. One of the problems with dry ferrous liners in an aluminum engine
is the difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion in the two metals.
The thinner lining was more compliant, and the ribs kept them from loosening
after years of thermal cycling.

It was a very clever and effective engine. But it was expensive to produce.
That's why Buick replaced it with their similar-sized V6, which had been a
truck engine, after two years.

GM sold the aluminum V8 to AMC, but they couldn't afford it after their
fortunes turned sour, and they sold it back to GM. GM didn't really want it
so they sold it to Rover of the UK. Rover used them for years in the Land
Rover. It's still the basis for the engine they're using now, although it's
been extensively redesigned. The engine was gravity-cast (low pressure die
casting) in cast steel molds. You could pick up two of the empty blocks, one
under each arm, and walk around with them. Some hotrodders bored and stroked
them to 302 cid.


I remember going around the Rover K series plant when it was new, a 1.1l
or 1.4l 4 pot, and I could pick up the entire block single handed at
arms length it was that light. The Buick/Rover block is somewhat
legendary in the UK as it has in many cases double the capacity of UK CI
engines that weigh the same or more.

--
Ed Huntress

"David Billington" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:


There have been some with steel liners, including the 215 cu. in. (3.5
liter) Buick/Olds/Pontiac aluminum V8 of the early '60s (which became
an engine used in the Jeep Wagoneer a few years later, and was then
sold to Rover in England, where it was used in the Land Rover and the
3500 Rover sedan, plus the Morgan +8 and the MGD, IIRC. And, with
different liners and heads it won Formula 1 world championships in '66
and '67. Quite an engine!) Those liners were ribbed on the outside and
cast in place. The F1 version, built by Revco of Australia, had
pressed-in, dry-sleeve iron liners.

It seems a pity to cast the liners in. By doing that you throw away one
of the great advantages of having a liner: the fact that it can be
replaced to remedy wear.


That isn't an advantage if you're Buick, Olds, or Pontiac. g


Those liners that are cast in, are they dry liners or wet liners?


Dry. They were also quite thin, and they flex a bit if you try to make a
serious race motor out of them. That's why Revco and others installed
thicker, cast iron dry liners. For the F1 formula, where they were used
in Brabham F1 cars (350 hp on gasoline, at the end of their development),
they also had to sleeve it down from 3.5 liters to 3.0 liters.

There was a good reason for making them thin, and it was the same reason
they were cast in place, and also the same reason they were ribbed on the
outside. One of the problems with dry ferrous liners in an aluminum
engine is the difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion in the
two metals. The thinner lining was more compliant, and the ribs kept them
from loosening after years of thermal cycling.

It was a very clever and effective engine. But it was expensive to
produce. That's why Buick replaced it with their similar-sized V6, which
had been a truck engine, after two years.

GM sold the aluminum V8 to AMC, but they couldn't afford it after their
fortunes turned sour, and they sold it back to GM. GM didn't really want
it so they sold it to Rover of the UK. Rover used them for years in the
Land Rover. It's still the basis for the engine they're using now,
although it's been extensively redesigned. The engine was gravity-cast
(low pressure die casting) in cast steel molds. You could pick up two of
the empty blocks, one under each arm, and walk around with them. Some
hotrodders bored and stroked them to 302 cid.


I remember going around the Rover K series plant when it was new, a 1.1l
or 1.4l 4 pot, and I could pick up the entire block single handed at arms
length it was that light. The Buick/Rover block is somewhat legendary in
the UK as it has in many cases double the capacity of UK CI engines that
weigh the same or more.

Yes, I remember some heavy old British engines. The Jaguar 3.4 liter XK
weighed more than the 6 liter, cast-iron Chevy V8. And there were some other
6-cyl Brit engines that weighed like sin.

They were tough, though.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

There have been some with steel liners, including the 215 cu. in. (3.5
liter) Buick/Olds/Pontiac aluminum V8 of the early '60s (which became an
engine used in the Jeep Wagoneer a few years later, and was then sold to
Rover in England, where it was used in the Land Rover and the 3500 Rover
sedan, plus the Morgan +8 and the MGD, IIRC. And, with different liners
and heads it won Formula 1 world championships in '66 and '67. Quite an
engine!) Those liners were ribbed on the outside and cast in place. The
F1 version, built by Revco of Australia, had pressed-in, dry-sleeve iron
liners.
It seems a pity to cast the liners in. By doing that you throw away one of
the great advantages of having a liner: the fact that it can be replaced
to remedy wear.

That isn't an advantage if you're Buick, Olds, or Pontiac. g

Those liners that are cast in, are they dry liners or wet liners?

Dry. They were also quite thin, and they flex a bit if you try to make a
serious race motor out of them. That's why Revco and others installed
thicker, cast iron dry liners. For the F1 formula, where they were used in
Brabham F1 cars (350 hp on gasoline, at the end of their development), they
also had to sleeve it down from 3.5 liters to 3.0 liters.

There was a good reason for making them thin, and it was the same reason
they were cast in place, and also the same reason they were ribbed on the
outside. One of the problems with dry ferrous liners in an aluminum engine
is the difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion in the two metals.
The thinner lining was more compliant, and the ribs kept them from loosening
after years of thermal cycling.

It was a very clever and effective engine. But it was expensive to produce.
That's why Buick replaced it with their similar-sized V6, which had been a
truck engine, after two years.

GM sold the aluminum V8 to AMC, but they couldn't afford it after their
fortunes turned sour, and they sold it back to GM. GM didn't really want it
so they sold it to Rover of the UK. Rover used them for years in the Land
Rover. It's still the basis for the engine they're using now, although it's
been extensively redesigned. The engine was gravity-cast (low pressure die
casting) in cast steel molds. You could pick up two of the empty blocks, one
under each arm, and walk around with them. Some hotrodders bored and stroked
them to 302 cid.

--
Ed Huntress

Yep, Light weight and the blocks also could be polished up nice as well.
I still have one of the 215s and one of the Pontiac OHC 6s from those
years. One of these days I'll come up with a unique vehicle to put them
in. (almost had a nice 34 3 window Buick, it was sold the day I was
going to look at it &**^%$*&T%T)

--
Steve W.
Near Cooperstown, New York

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

There have been some with steel liners, including the 215 cu. in. (3.5
liter) Buick/Olds/Pontiac aluminum V8 of the early '60s (which became
an engine used in the Jeep Wagoneer a few years later, and was then
sold to Rover in England, where it was used in the Land Rover and the
3500 Rover sedan, plus the Morgan +8 and the MGD, IIRC. And, with
different liners and heads it won Formula 1 world championships in '66
and '67. Quite an engine!) Those liners were ribbed on the outside and
cast in place. The F1 version, built by Revco of Australia, had
pressed-in, dry-sleeve iron liners.
It seems a pity to cast the liners in. By doing that you throw away one
of the great advantages of having a liner: the fact that it can be
replaced to remedy wear.

That isn't an advantage if you're Buick, Olds, or Pontiac. g

Those liners that are cast in, are they dry liners or wet liners?

Dry. They were also quite thin, and they flex a bit if you try to make a
serious race motor out of them. That's why Revco and others installed
thicker, cast iron dry liners. For the F1 formula, where they were used
in Brabham F1 cars (350 hp on gasoline, at the end of their development),
they also had to sleeve it down from 3.5 liters to 3.0 liters.

There was a good reason for making them thin, and it was the same reason
they were cast in place, and also the same reason they were ribbed on the
outside. One of the problems with dry ferrous liners in an aluminum
engine is the difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion in the
two metals. The thinner lining was more compliant, and the ribs kept them
from loosening after years of thermal cycling.

It was a very clever and effective engine. But it was expensive to
produce. That's why Buick replaced it with their similar-sized V6, which
had been a truck engine, after two years.

GM sold the aluminum V8 to AMC, but they couldn't afford it after their
fortunes turned sour, and they sold it back to GM. GM didn't really want
it so they sold it to Rover of the UK. Rover used them for years in the
Land Rover. It's still the basis for the engine they're using now,
although it's been extensively redesigned. The engine was gravity-cast
(low pressure die casting) in cast steel molds. You could pick up two of
the empty blocks, one under each arm, and walk around with them. Some
hotrodders bored and stroked them to 302 cid.

--
Ed Huntress

Yep, Light weight and the blocks also could be polished up nice as well. I
still have one of the 215s and one of the Pontiac OHC 6s from those years.
One of these days I'll come up with a unique vehicle to put them in.
(almost had a nice 34 3 window Buick, it was sold the day I was going to
look at it &**^%$*&T%T)

Eh, too bad. That Pontiac 6 must be a rare number by now. That was the first
US engine with a Gilmer-belt drive for an overhead cam.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:44:45 GMT, Anthony
wrote:

"Leo Lichtman" wrote in news:9o4lk.283436
:

I believe the elimination of lead from the gasoline has done a lot to
eliminate engine wear. (Except valve guides.)




I don't think that has had much, if anything to do with it. Lead actually
acts as a lubricant. The advancement of materials, super precise CNC
controlled machines that allow tighter tolerances and features that were
not possible before, considerable strides in tooling, along with the
massive advancement of Design tools such as CAD, FEA, sensors, data
aquisition systems, etc. has had the most effect.

Actually, the advent of unleaded fuel HAS improved the lifespan of
engines, significantly. It's not the lead that made the difference,
but the phosphorous and other compounds that were required to keep the
lead from sticking to everything. Phosphouric and phosphourous acids
were produced whch etched and ate all kinds of engine parts. Plugs and
exhaust have perhaps benefitted most, but valves, rings and bearings
have benefitted as well. The forced move to induction hardened or
stellite seats even made the valves last longer. When's the last time
you heard of a properly maintained engine requiring a valve job????
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:51:51 +0000, Christopher Tidy
wrote:

William Noble wrote:
"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

Hi folks,

This question came into my head a few days ago. I often hear people
suggesting that the latest vehicle engines last longer and are more
trouble-free than older engines. But I also hear people saying, just as
often, "They don't make them like they used to".




short answer, "yes", at least for automotive use. I have 1936, 1938, 1951,
1959, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1997, and 2001 vehicles under my purview. up
through the 51 year car, 150K miles or so was the limit - at that point the
bores were 40 to 60 over, rings shot, no compression, crank oval, no oil
pressure, etc. 59 is good for 200K easy. there was a major change in the
metalurgy of the engine block, etc, as I understand it - we can debate what
changed, but the longevity is just not an issue.

Thanks for sharing your experience, William. If any designers out there
know of significant changes in car engine block metallurgy over the last
50 years or so, and are able to share them, I would be very interested
to hear.

I'm under the impression that cast iron blocks and/or cast iron cylinder
liners were the norm in the 1950s, and that cast iron liners still are
today, but I could be wrong. There have been some engines which use
coated aluminium cylinders, but after the Nikasil and sulphur problems
in the 1990s, I thought they were in decline.

Best wishes,

Chris
Change was from cast iron to cast steel. Many different alloys have
been added to engine block steel over the years - including Molybdenum
and nickel. And Chromium, and Vanadium.
Chilled castings are also used in some applications, apparently.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Ed Huntress wrote:
Yep, Light weight and the blocks also could be polished up nice as well. I
still have one of the 215s and one of the Pontiac OHC 6s from those years.
One of these days I'll come up with a unique vehicle to put them in.
(almost had a nice 34 3 window Buick, it was sold the day I was going to
look at it &**^%$*&T%T)

Eh, too bad. That Pontiac 6 must be a rare number by now. That was the first
US engine with a Gilmer-belt drive for an overhead cam.



Friend of mine couldn't afford a Sunbeam Tiger (with Ford 260 CID),
only a Sunbeam Alpine (with 4 cyl.)

I helped him cut out the engine compartment and mount a 215 in there.
It would accelerate so fast it was scarey, but he was an ex sprint
racer so he loved it.

That was many years and lots of miles ago. Sigh.


technomaNge
--
What stupid thing is Rush
talking about today?
Go to http://www.wabcradio.com
and listen to laugh.

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:42:12 +0000, Christopher Tidy
wrote:

Wes wrote:
Christopher Tidy wrote:


This question came into my head a few days ago. I often hear people
suggesting that the latest vehicle engines last longer and are more
trouble-free than older engines. But I also hear people saying, just as
often, "They don't make them like they used to".


I would think advances in metalurgy, newer more ridgid machines that can hold closer
tolerances in making your engine parts, and oil designed with better additive packages
would tend to improve engine life. The electronics are a plus in my mind. I don't miss
setting breaker points and checking timing.

I'm not sure that modern machine tools are more rigid, are they? Years
ago they used to make some really heavy, solid machine tools.

Fuel injection sure beats carburation and with the emissions requirements, we have sensors
that monitor a/f ratio to allow the computer to adjust engine parameters for good
performance. They are tilted toward lower emissions.

I'm not sure about this one.

Be sure. It is true. Virtually NO fuel dilution of oil, closer
combustion control meals less detonation and cyl overheating. Timing
virtually never shifts. Electronic engine controls are resposible for
a LARGE portion of increased engine life.

It might reduce wear due to less soot
building up in the cylinder. I would be very interested to know if
anyone has more information regarding this. But with electronic engine
management, it also makes a vehicle way more complex to service.

Actually, it does not.No more carb rebuilds. No timing adjustment. No
points to change( and adjust). No choke problems. No worn distributor
cams or sticking advance mechanisms. In many cases no distributor cap
or rotor to go bad.
When things go wrong on an OBD2 engine, it "tells you where it hurts".
The diagnostics do not always tell you exactly what's wrong, but it
lets you know the engine is not "feeling good" before it fails.
I started in the automotive service buisiness in the sixties, and I've
owned and worked on vehicles from the twenties on up.
No doubt in my mind at all that new engines are MUCH better than the
old ones, and also no doubt they are EASIER to service, on the whole,
than the old ones were - other than the FACT that getting to them is a
lot more difficult.
My wife's Mystique is not easy to get to ANYTHING on - my old 3.8
TransSport was every bit as bad. My 3.0 Aerostar was not simple to get
to either - and even my 2.4 PT Cruiser promisses to be challenging.

No worse than a 428 CJ mustang, or a V8 Monza though - and on them you
had to change the plugs about once a year (which involved removng
engine mounts etc) while ll of the above-mentioned only need it every
100,000km or so.

There are also carburetted engines which are extremely durable. The
Dennis Z Type lawnmower engine I mentioned, and the Ferguson TE20
tractor engine. Granted, these are slow-revving engines (less wear per
unit time, and lower inertial forces), probably with fairly low
operating pressures in the cylinders (leading to a lower transverse
force per unit area). It might be that these two factors are more
significant than the method of fuel delivery.

And recent vehicals have ODBII which I have found very helpful in spotting a problem
before it becomes serious.

Electronic engine management has its advantages and disadvantages. On
the one hand, it gives you better cold starting, fuel economy, emissions
and probably better short term reliability. But if you are interested in
old vehicles, or you're just cheap and want to run your old car forever,
it makes home servicing a lot harder.

They could make things easier by using fewer different microprocessors
(that is, standardising more), publishing more documentation and perhaps
having a chip which you can plug into the microprocessor unit carrying
the necessary code for a particular engine. Like a Game Boy cartridge. I
can't see it happening right now, though.

I think they are better. But if you want any engine, new or old to last, change the oil
often. My car has a light that comes on every 5500 miles that tells me to change the
oil, I change the oil far sooner than that.

That is without a doubt good advice for any machine.

Best wishes,

Chris

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:45:39 +0000, Christopher Tidy
wrote:





The Toyota 22re what a great engine, energizer bunny indeed keeps
going and going.....
They did have a few flaws, ie. timing chain tensioners but
resolveable, seen more than afew with 300k and still running.

Fuel injection is really one of the greatest improvement towards
longevity. Carbs tend to run rich washing down the cylinder walls
with gas, which is not a good lubericant. ED

Not sure about this one either. I remember starting a thread here a year
or two ago about whether or not engines which burnt oil lasted longer.

Oil burning is not the issue. Oil control is. The rings maintain a
light coating of oil on the cyls - which lubricates. Washing this off
with gas causes engine wear (as well as oil consumption). The gasoline
also gets into the crankcase, past the rings, diluting the oil and
reducing it's lubrication capability.
The consensus seemed to be that they did not:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...dd71183a2daa1a

Incidentally, someone mentioned in that thread that the part of the
piston above the rings is typically of a smaller diameter. Anyone know
if that's true?

Most definitely - most piston "heads" are smaller than the "skirts"
and in many cases smaller than the "ring lands"

Best wishes,

Chris

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:56:43 +0000, Christopher Tidy
wrote:

Leo Lichtman wrote:
I believe the elimination of lead from the gasoline has done a lot to
eliminate engine wear. (Except valve guides.)

This is very interesting. I was thinking of buying some lead replacement
additive for my old machines, but now I might not. Actually, I
discovered that you can still buy tetra-ethyl lead in England. Freedom
of choice is great :-):

http://tetraboost.com/

Then I read Leo's post, and also found this, which supports Leo's idea
that lead increases bore wear:

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Lead-History.htm

It says:

"In 1985 an EPA report concluded that reduced lead levels reduced
piston-ring and cylinder-bore wear, preventing engine failure and
improving fuel economy. Estimated maintenance savings exceeded the
maintenance costs associated with recession of exhaust valves, which is
caused by the use of unleaded gasoline."

Now I'm not sure that the EPA are impartial, but I'd really like to get
hold of a copy of that 1985 study. Anyone know where I might find one?

So I'm a bit unsure whether to buy a lead replacement additive for my
old machines. Perhaps there's one which is better than tetra-ethyl lead
from a wear prevention point of view? After all, the mechanisms of bore
wear and valve seat wear are different. Maybe there's an additive which
protects the valves, but doesn't wear the bore? Anyone know?

What do other people use for their vintage machines?

Thanks for all the thoughts!

Best wishes,

Chris

Put a wee bit of leaded aviation fuel in the tank every couple of
months. It takes VERY LITTLE lead to protect the seats, and the effect
lasts a long time. Half a gallon of 100LL to 15 gallons of unleaded
fuel every 5-10 tanks is MORE than adequate.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:23:07 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
canada wrote:

When things go wrong on an OBD2 engine, it "tells you where it hurts".
The diagnostics do not always tell you exactly what's wrong, but it
lets you know the engine is not "feeling good" before it fails.

I have to agree with that one for sure. I got a Ford code for
"defective ground at fuel pump". Now that could be the kind of thing
that will drive someone crazy finding it. Another time it told me,
"Hey, your fuel filler cap has a little vaccuum leak".

My wife's car was the year before Jaguar started using OBD. Want an
exercise in pure life-wasting misery, diagnose that Smith's and
Lucas-filled thing, with one computer made in France, another by
Bosch, and two in England, all talking to each other..Kind of. And I
have the OEM Manuals, all four volumes, with pages and pages of
map-folded schematics. If someone were to steal it, she'd be
heartbroken. (I would slip quietly away and buy a bottle of something
really expensive....for myself. And party balloons.)

I started working on my own cars a _LONG_ time ago. First car was a
Studebaker Golden Hawk. Still have dreams about it.

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:10:51 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

There have been some with steel liners, including the 215 cu. in. (3.5
liter) Buick/Olds/Pontiac aluminum V8 of the early '60s (which became an
engine used in the Jeep Wagoneer a few years later, and was then sold to
Rover in England, where it was used in the Land Rover and the 3500 Rover
sedan, plus the Morgan +8 and the MGD, IIRC. And, with different liners
and heads it won Formula 1 world championships in '66 and '67. Quite an
engine!) Those liners were ribbed on the outside and cast in place. The
F1 version, built by Revco of Australia, had pressed-in, dry-sleeve iron
liners.
It seems a pity to cast the liners in. By doing that you throw away one of
the great advantages of having a liner: the fact that it can be replaced
to remedy wear.

That isn't an advantage if you're Buick, Olds, or Pontiac. g

Those liners that are cast in, are they dry liners or wet liners?

Dry. They were also quite thin, and they flex a bit if you try to make a
serious race motor out of them. That's why Revco and others installed
thicker, cast iron dry liners. For the F1 formula, where they were used in
Brabham F1 cars (350 hp on gasoline, at the end of their development), they
also had to sleeve it down from 3.5 liters to 3.0 liters.

There was a good reason for making them thin, and it was the same reason
they were cast in place, and also the same reason they were ribbed on the
outside. One of the problems with dry ferrous liners in an aluminum engine
is the difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion in the two metals.
The thinner lining was more compliant, and the ribs kept them from loosening
after years of thermal cycling.

It was a very clever and effective engine. But it was expensive to produce.
That's why Buick replaced it with their similar-sized V6, which had been a
truck engine, after two years.

GM sold the aluminum V8 to AMC, but they couldn't afford it after their
fortunes turned sour, and they sold it back to GM. GM didn't really want it
so they sold it to Rover of the UK. Rover used them for years in the Land
Rover. It's still the basis for the engine they're using now, although it's
been extensively redesigned. The engine was gravity-cast (low pressure die
casting) in cast steel molds. You could pick up two of the empty blocks, one
under each arm, and walk around with them. Some hotrodders bored and stroked
them to 302 cid.

--
Ed Huntress

Yep, Light weight and the blocks also could be polished up nice as well.
I still have one of the 215s and one of the Pontiac OHC 6s from those
years. One of these days I'll come up with a unique vehicle to put them
in. (almost had a nice 34 3 window Buick, it was sold the day I was
going to look at it &**^%$*&T%T)

Almost put a Pontiac Sprint motor in the Teraplane.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Christopher Tidy wrote:
clare wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:51:51 +0000, Christopher Tidy
wrote:


William Noble wrote:

"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...


Hi folks,

This question came into my head a few days ago. I often hear
people suggesting that the latest vehicle engines last longer and
are more trouble-free than older engines. But I also hear people
saying, just as often, "They don't make them like they used to".




short answer, "yes", at least for automotive use. I have 1936,
1938, 1951, 1959, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1997, and 2001 vehicles under
my purview. up through the 51 year car, 150K miles or so was the
limit - at that point the bores were 40 to 60 over, rings shot, no
compression, crank oval, no oil pressure, etc. 59 is good for 200K
easy. there was a major change in the metalurgy of the engine
block, etc, as I understand it - we can debate what changed, but
the longevity is just not an issue.

Thanks for sharing your experience, William. If any designers out
there know of significant changes in car engine block metallurgy
over the last 50 years or so, and are able to share them, I would be
very interested to hear.

I'm under the impression that cast iron blocks and/or cast iron
cylinder liners were the norm in the 1950s, and that cast iron
liners still are today, but I could be wrong. There have been some
engines which use coated aluminium cylinders, but after the Nikasil
and sulphur problems in the 1990s, I thought they were in decline.

Best wishes,

Chris

Change was from cast iron to cast steel. Many different alloys have
been added to engine block steel over the years - including Molybdenum
and nickel. And Chromium, and Vanadium.
Chilled castings are also used in some applications, apparently.

You mean the castings are cooled by quenching?
IIRC "chills" are added to parts of the casting box to increase the
cooling rate locally where required and refine the grain structure to
improve the local properties. IIRC the old Gardner engine with its cast
ally crankcase was a great example of this.


Chris

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:


There have been some with steel liners, including the 215 cu. in. (3.5
liter) Buick/Olds/Pontiac aluminum V8 of the early '60s (which became an
engine used in the Jeep Wagoneer a few years later, and was then sold to
Rover in England, where it was used in the Land Rover and the 3500 Rover
sedan, plus the Morgan +8 and the MGD, IIRC. And, with different liners
and heads it won Formula 1 world championships in '66 and '67. Quite an
engine!) Those liners were ribbed on the outside and cast in place. The
F1 version, built by Revco of Australia, had pressed-in, dry-sleeve iron
liners.

It seems a pity to cast the liners in. By doing that you throw away one of
the great advantages of having a liner: the fact that it can be replaced
to remedy wear.


That isn't an advantage if you're Buick, Olds, or Pontiac. g

Those liners that are cast in, are they dry liners or wet liners?


Dry. They were also quite thin, and they flex a bit if you try to make a
serious race motor out of them. That's why Revco and others installed
thicker, cast iron dry liners. For the F1 formula, where they were used in
Brabham F1 cars (350 hp on gasoline, at the end of their development), they
also had to sleeve it down from 3.5 liters to 3.0 liters.

There was a good reason for making them thin, and it was the same reason
they were cast in place, and also the same reason they were ribbed on the
outside. One of the problems with dry ferrous liners in an aluminum engine
is the difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion in the two metals.
The thinner lining was more compliant, and the ribs kept them from loosening
after years of thermal cycling.

It was a very clever and effective engine. But it was expensive to produce.
That's why Buick replaced it with their similar-sized V6, which had been a
truck engine, after two years.

GM sold the aluminum V8 to AMC, but they couldn't afford it after their
fortunes turned sour, and they sold it back to GM. GM didn't really want it
so they sold it to Rover of the UK. Rover used them for years in the Land
Rover. It's still the basis for the engine they're using now, although it's
been extensively redesigned. The engine was gravity-cast (low pressure die
casting) in cast steel molds. You could pick up two of the empty blocks, one
under each arm, and walk around with them. Some hotrodders bored and stroked
them to 302 cid.

Thanks. That's very interesting.

Best wishes,

Chris

Ed Huntress wrote:
"David Billington" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...


Ed Huntress wrote:



There have been some with steel liners, including the 215 cu. in. (3.5
liter) Buick/Olds/Pontiac aluminum V8 of the early '60s (which became
an engine used in the Jeep Wagoneer a few years later, and was then
sold to Rover in England, where it was used in the Land Rover and the
3500 Rover sedan, plus the Morgan +8 and the MGD, IIRC. And, with
different liners and heads it won Formula 1 world championships in '66
and '67. Quite an engine!) Those liners were ribbed on the outside and
cast in place. The F1 version, built by Revco of Australia, had
pressed-in, dry-sleeve iron liners.


It seems a pity to cast the liners in. By doing that you throw away one
of the great advantages of having a liner: the fact that it can be
replaced to remedy wear.


That isn't an advantage if you're Buick, Olds, or Pontiac. g


Those liners that are cast in, are they dry liners or wet liners?


Dry. They were also quite thin, and they flex a bit if you try to make a
serious race motor out of them. That's why Revco and others installed
thicker, cast iron dry liners. For the F1 formula, where they were used
in Brabham F1 cars (350 hp on gasoline, at the end of their development),
they also had to sleeve it down from 3.5 liters to 3.0 liters.

There was a good reason for making them thin, and it was the same reason
they were cast in place, and also the same reason they were ribbed on the
outside. One of the problems with dry ferrous liners in an aluminum
engine is the difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion in the
two metals. The thinner lining was more compliant, and the ribs kept them
from loosening after years of thermal cycling.

It was a very clever and effective engine. But it was expensive to
produce. That's why Buick replaced it with their similar-sized V6, which
had been a truck engine, after two years.

GM sold the aluminum V8 to AMC, but they couldn't afford it after their
fortunes turned sour, and they sold it back to GM. GM didn't really want
it so they sold it to Rover of the UK. Rover used them for years in the
Land Rover. It's still the basis for the engine they're using now,
although it's been extensively redesigned. The engine was gravity-cast
(low pressure die casting) in cast steel molds. You could pick up two of
the empty blocks, one under each arm, and walk around with them. Some
hotrodders bored and stroked them to 302 cid.



I remember going around the Rover K series plant when it was new, a 1.1l
or 1.4l 4 pot, and I could pick up the entire block single handed at arms
length it was that light. The Buick/Rover block is somewhat legendary in
the UK as it has in many cases double the capacity of UK CI engines that
weigh the same or more.


Yes, I remember some heavy old British engines. The Jaguar 3.4 liter XK
weighed more than the 6 liter, cast-iron Chevy V8. And there were some other
6-cyl Brit engines that weighed like sin.

They were tough, though.

I think that's probably one trade-off you can't avoid.

Chris

clare wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:51:51 +0000, Christopher Tidy
wrote:


William Noble wrote:

"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...


Hi folks,

This question came into my head a few days ago. I often hear people
suggesting that the latest vehicle engines last longer and are more
trouble-free than older engines. But I also hear people saying, just as
often, "They don't make them like they used to".




short answer, "yes", at least for automotive use. I have 1936, 1938, 1951,
1959, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1997, and 2001 vehicles under my purview. up
through the 51 year car, 150K miles or so was the limit - at that point the
bores were 40 to 60 over, rings shot, no compression, crank oval, no oil
pressure, etc. 59 is good for 200K easy. there was a major change in the
metalurgy of the engine block, etc, as I understand it - we can debate what
changed, but the longevity is just not an issue.

Thanks for sharing your experience, William. If any designers out there
know of significant changes in car engine block metallurgy over the last
50 years or so, and are able to share them, I would be very interested
to hear.

I'm under the impression that cast iron blocks and/or cast iron cylinder
liners were the norm in the 1950s, and that cast iron liners still are
today, but I could be wrong. There have been some engines which use
coated aluminium cylinders, but after the Nikasil and sulphur problems
in the 1990s, I thought they were in decline.

Best wishes,

Chris

Change was from cast iron to cast steel. Many different alloys have
been added to engine block steel over the years - including Molybdenum
and nickel. And Chromium, and Vanadium.
Chilled castings are also used in some applications, apparently.

You mean the castings are cooled by quenching?

Chris

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:


"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

There have been some with steel liners, including the 215 cu. in.
(3.5 liter) Buick/Olds/Pontiac aluminum V8 of the early '60s (which
became an engine used in the Jeep Wagoneer a few years later, and
was then sold to Rover in England, where it was used in the Land
Rover and the 3500 Rover sedan, plus the Morgan +8 and the MGD,
IIRC. And, with different liners and heads it won Formula 1 world
championships in '66 and '67. Quite an engine!) Those liners were
ribbed on the outside and cast in place. The F1 version, built by
Revco of Australia, had pressed-in, dry-sleeve iron liners.

It seems a pity to cast the liners in. By doing that you throw away
one of the great advantages of having a liner: the fact that it can
be replaced to remedy wear.

That isn't an advantage if you're Buick, Olds, or Pontiac. g

--
Ed Huntress



the buick derived Rover V8 was developed a lot further by TVR and some
specialist shops in teh UK for the TVR Griffith and Marcos sports cars. A
production road version 5 liter TVR was good for about 320-340hp and 7400
rpm. A tuned 4.5 tuscan race engine was a reliable 420hp for a season. An
all out tuned road varient of 5.2 liter (318cu) produced 360 rear wheel
dyno hp, drivable on the road and all in a car around 2000lbs..

A great original design by buick et al.

Jerry wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:


"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:


There have been some with steel liners, including the 215 cu. in.
(3.5 liter) Buick/Olds/Pontiac aluminum V8 of the early '60s (which
became an engine used in the Jeep Wagoneer a few years later, and
was then sold to Rover in England, where it was used in the Land
Rover and the 3500 Rover sedan, plus the Morgan +8 and the MGD,
IIRC. And, with different liners and heads it won Formula 1 world
championships in '66 and '67. Quite an engine!) Those liners were
ribbed on the outside and cast in place. The F1 version, built by
Revco of Australia, had pressed-in, dry-sleeve iron liners.

It seems a pity to cast the liners in. By doing that you throw away
one of the great advantages of having a liner: the fact that it can
be replaced to remedy wear.

That isn't an advantage if you're Buick, Olds, or Pontiac. g

--
Ed Huntress




the buick derived Rover V8 was developed a lot further by TVR and some
specialist shops in teh UK for the TVR Griffith and Marcos sports cars. A
production road version 5 liter TVR was good for about 320-340hp and 7400
rpm. A tuned 4.5 tuscan race engine was a reliable 420hp for a season. An
all out tuned road varient of 5.2 liter (318cu) produced 360 rear wheel
dyno hp, drivable on the road and all in a car around 2000lbs..

A great original design by buick et al.

A guy I used to know took me round the Land Rover engine plant where
they made the V8s and showed me the point where the TVR block variant
was taken from the standard line for cross bolt drilling so it would
survive at the larger capacities/outputs, before being fed back into the
line for completion. This guy mentioned at the time that the management
seemed to have no concept of warranty cost because as the standard LR
V8 approached 4.0 litres and beyond the bottom end failure rate sky
rocketed, and only later did they accept the known weakness and go with
the stronger block mods as standard.

Other items I can think of was a story from an ex F5000 racer where they
fitted a Rover 3.5l V8 in place of 5l V8 engine and ended up with a
quicker car due to much lower weight. Less ultimate acceleration but
better braking and cornering led to a faster overall car.

On 2008-08-05, technomaNge wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

[ ... ]

Friend of mine couldn't afford a Sunbeam Tiger (with Ford 260 CID),
only a Sunbeam Alpine (with 4 cyl.)

I helped him cut out the engine compartment and mount a 215 in there.
It would accelerate so fast it was scarey, but he was an ex sprint
racer so he loved it.

Hmm ... did you also make the access ports in the firewall so
you could access the rearmost spark plug on each side? That was a
needed part of the design of the Tiger IIRC.

The biggest engine swap (actually the only one) that I did was
putting an MGB 1800 CC engine in the MGA 1600 MK II. It made a
significant difference in the pep of the car. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---