Now now...don't get all riled up over this. They've been building cars for
a lot of years and they can get 10:1 engines to run on 89 octane pump
gas...without overly retarding the timing, AND keeping the HP figures
up...that's an accomplishment.
On the fuel curve idea...i've run several engines rather lean (with advanced
timing) and still made more power without pinging...on 89 octane fuel.
(Hell, it's only a few pennies more and it won't kill you.) I've also built
my share of "custom curved" distributors, in the past, that put out more
power than a stock (or "Mr. Gasket Weekend Warrior Curve Kit") without
pinging due to the timing curve. (Yes, you use a machine for that.)
As for your last two sentences, that's being a little "daring" (and
arrogant) considering that there's a lot of us on the DML who know quite a
bit about the internal combustion engine, have either worked (or still do)
in Dealerships as mechanics or private shops, or both, and fully
understand...and do our part to help the others out. People who don't
understand should ALWAYS ASK QUESTIONS. Not knowing and/or understanding is
frustrating, but coming off like that is plain ignorant. "Uncle Sam" (as
you call it) isn't the main problem...it's also partly the engineers that
want to run with newer ideas but sometimes forget the basics in the process.
Quality Assurance is a big part of the scenario here as well...from the
people who responded to the pinging report, well...you look for yourself and
tell me what you think is the problem. If it's as simple as what you claim,
then why the variances? Here's your turn to put your frustrations to work
for a good cause.
No, I didn't have my head under each hood, I didn't have the opportunity to
put the scanner to each engine/trans/model combination, but it really
doesn't sound like a production line problem...more of a "software issue".
Maybe someone got lazy and didn't see "the whole picture" as well as they
could have.
Food for thought: 1992 - Edelbrock challenged the BAR and EPA with a engine
test. Their "Hot Rodded" engine vs. a "Emissions Friendly" engine. Theirs
ran cleaner (less emissions), made more power, and was a lot more efficient
overall (with the same basic emission controls intact) than the EPA approved
model. That's right about the time that the C.A.R.B. let up on a lot of
aftermarket parts. (Just a little bit of history and fact for ya.)
$0.02
Have fun....
- Bernd
----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: DML: Spark Knock
I don't understand why everyone is so upset about a knock on 87 octane gas.
I
think my lawnmower knocks on that low octane stuff. Out of the last 5 or 6
cars
or trucks I have owned that were supposed to run on 87 NONE WOULD without
pinging at times. I am talking Ford Taurus, Mercury Cougar v8, my 89 Shelby
Dakota, My 91 GMC V8 shop truck, My 98 Ford Ranger shop truck, my 98 S10 4
cyl
Shop truck My 96 Ram V6, My 98 Dakota 5.2 or my 99 R/T.
On engines that spark timing was adjustable (most are not nowadays) you
could
retard the timing and usually get it to quit. However when you do you loose
power and get worse fuel economy.
I am sick and tired of hearing about people thinking their trucks are lemons
because of this problem. And the factory/dealers have their hands tied by
the
government and are not allowed to make the changes in the fuel curve that
would
fix the problem completely. So if you want to bitch about the problem,
bitch at
Uncle Sam for demanding such lean mixtures that the engines can not run
efficiently anymore. If you don't understand what I am saying then you
don't
know enough about a gasoline engine to know why it knocks in the first
place.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:48:42 EDT