Hemi Challenger

WindsorFox wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> Tony D wrote:
>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high
>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages
>>>>>>>>> that OHV engines can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine
>>>>>>>>> Ford had in the 1960s? The OHC design made it one of the best
>>>>>>>>> engines of that era. It was the only engine that NASCAR banned
>>>>>>>>> because it was eating the Hemis alive. The OHC design made it
>>>>>>>>> too durable to run with push rod motors. This also reminds me
>>>>>>>>> of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It bitched
>>>>>>>>> slapped the entire field of cars that year until its gearbox
>>>>>>>>> failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we would have in
>>>>>>>>> today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC
>>>>>>>>> engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen OHC engines
>>>>>>>>> in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised
>>>>>>>> us back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on
>>>>>>>> the OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and
>>>>>>>> losing mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at
>>>>>>> Indy and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run
>>>>>>> turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine
>>>>>>> back then the fans would be open to them in production cars and
>>>>>>> actually demand them to be built. Chrysler went down that road
>>>>>>> briefly but interest never developed. Had Indy let the turbines
>>>>>>> run things would probably have turned out differently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>>>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say
>>>>> that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for
>>>>> passenger cars.
>>>>
>>>> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more truthful
>>>> than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger vehicle
>>>> back in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50 years of
>>>> development might have brought. Do you realize how durable a
>>>> turbine engine would be in a production car considering how long
>>>> they last in airplanes? The fuel turbines burn is less expensive
>>>> that gasoline. Just because the piston engine is the most common in
>>>> automobiles today doesn't necessarily make it the best design.
>>>
>>> Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.
>>
>> A turbine will burn damn near any fuel.
>
> That's good. Maybe we could feed them some of all that wasted used
> oil you change out? P

I would be willing to bet I spend less per year to change the oil/filter
in my Explorer than you do with your Amsoil setup.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> Tony D wrote:
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance
>>>>>> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines
>>>>>> can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had in the 1960s?
>>>>>> The OHC design made it one of the best engines of that era. It
>>>>>> was the only engine that NASCAR banned because it was eating the
>>>>>> Hemis alive. The OHC design made it too durable to run with push
>>>>>> rod motors. This also reminds me of the only turbine car to run
>>>>>> in the Indy 500. It bitched slapped the entire field of cars that
>>>>>> year until its gearbox failed with two laps remaining. I wonder
>>>>>> what we would have in today's cars if they hadn't banned the
>>>>>> turbine and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen
>>>>>> OHC engines in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us
>>>>> back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the
>>>>> OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing
>>>>> mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>
>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at Indy
>>>> and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run turbines
>>>> or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine back then
>>>> the fans would be open to them in production cars and actually
>>>> demand them to be built. Chrysler went down that road briefly but
>>>> interest never developed. Had Indy let the turbines run things
>>>> would probably have turned out differently.
>>>
>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>
>>
>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say
>> that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for
>> passenger cars.
>
> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more truthful
> than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger vehicle back in
> the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50 years of development
> might have brought. Do you realize how durable a turbine engine would
> be in a production car considering how long they last in airplanes? The
> fuel turbines burn is less expensive that gasoline. Just because the
> piston engine is the most common in automobiles today doesn't
> necessarily make it the best design.

You're right Chrysler had one in the 60s. Must be a huge conspiracy
holding it back.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>> Tony D wrote:
>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high
>>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages
>>>>>>>>>> that OHV engines can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine
>>>>>>>>>> Ford had in the 1960s? The OHC design made it one of the best
>>>>>>>>>> engines of that era. It was the only engine that NASCAR
>>>>>>>>>> banned because it was eating the Hemis alive. The OHC design
>>>>>>>>>> made it too durable to run with push rod motors. This also
>>>>>>>>>> reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It
>>>>>>>>>> bitched slapped the entire field of cars that year until its
>>>>>>>>>> gearbox failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we
>>>>>>>>>> would have in today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine
>>>>>>>>>> and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen OHC
>>>>>>>>>> engines in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised
>>>>>>>>> us back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts
>>>>>>>>> on the OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable
>>>>>>>>> and losing mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>>>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at
>>>>>>>> Indy and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run
>>>>>>>> turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone
>>>>>>>> turbine back then the fans would be open to them in production
>>>>>>>> cars and actually demand them to be built. Chrysler went down
>>>>>>>> that road briefly but interest never developed. Had Indy let
>>>>>>>> the turbines run things would probably have turned out differently.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>>>>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would
>>>>>> say that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable
>>>>>> for passenger cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more
>>>>> truthful than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger
>>>>> vehicle back in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50
>>>>> years of development might have brought. Do you realize how
>>>>> durable a turbine engine would be in a production car considering
>>>>> how long they last in airplanes? The fuel turbines burn is less
>>>>> expensive that gasoline. Just because the piston engine is the
>>>>> most common in automobiles today doesn't necessarily make it the
>>>>> best design.
>>>>
>>>> Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.
>>>
>>> A turbine will burn damn near any fuel.
>>
>> That's good. Maybe we could feed them some of all that wasted used
>> oil you change out? P
>
> I would be willing to bet I spend less per year to change the oil/filter
> in my Explorer than you do with your Amsoil setup.

About $68 in a year, but that's for 7.5 quarts and two filters. BUTT
that's not my reference. How many quarts of used oil and filters do
you toss out in a year compared to my one filter and 6 quarts? Not that
I'm overly green, I just thought I'd point it out. Keep in mind that in
the Mustang with it's limited mileage I do an oil analysis and change
the full flow filter every year, not all the oil or the by-pass filter.

--
"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."

"So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek

WindsorFox wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>> Tony D wrote:
>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high
>>>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages
>>>>>>>>>>> that OHV engines can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine
>>>>>>>>>>> Ford had in the 1960s? The OHC design made it one of the
>>>>>>>>>>> best engines of that era. It was the only engine that NASCAR
>>>>>>>>>>> banned because it was eating the Hemis alive. The OHC design
>>>>>>>>>>> made it too durable to run with push rod motors. This also
>>>>>>>>>>> reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500.
>>>>>>>>>>> It bitched slapped the entire field of cars that year until
>>>>>>>>>>> its gearbox failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we
>>>>>>>>>>> would have in today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine
>>>>>>>>>>> and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen
>>>>>>>>>>> OHC engines in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy
>>>>>>>>>> promised us back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my
>>>>>>>>>> thoughts on the OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the
>>>>>>>>>> inevitable and losing mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>>>>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at
>>>>>>>>> Indy and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also
>>>>>>>>> run turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone
>>>>>>>>> turbine back then the fans would be open to them in production
>>>>>>>>> cars and actually demand them to be built. Chrysler went down
>>>>>>>>> that road briefly but interest never developed. Had Indy let
>>>>>>>>> the turbines run things would probably have turned out
>>>>>>>>> differently.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>>>>>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would
>>>>>>> say that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable
>>>>>>> for passenger cars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more
>>>>>> truthful than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger
>>>>>> vehicle back in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50
>>>>>> years of development might have brought. Do you realize how
>>>>>> durable a turbine engine would be in a production car considering
>>>>>> how long they last in airplanes? The fuel turbines burn is less
>>>>>> expensive that gasoline. Just because the piston engine is the
>>>>>> most common in automobiles today doesn't necessarily make it the
>>>>>> best design.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.
>>>>
>>>> A turbine will burn damn near any fuel.
>>>
>>> That's good. Maybe we could feed them some of all that wasted used
>>> oil you change out? P
>>
>> I would be willing to bet I spend less per year to change the
>> oil/filter in my Explorer than you do with your Amsoil setup.
>
> About $68 in a year, but that's for 7.5 quarts and two filters. BUTT
> that's not my reference. How many quarts of used oil and filters do you
> toss out in a year compared to my one filter and 6 quarts? Not that I'm
> overly green, I just thought I'd point it out. Keep in mind that in the
> Mustang with it's limited mileage I do an oil analysis and change the
> full flow filter every year, not all the oil or the by-pass filter.

I do four oil changes at less than $10 each for a total of less than $40
per year. The truck has close to 200k miles, burns no oil, leaks no oil
and runs great. I take my used oil to the landfill and that is as green
as I am going to get on the matter. How much did you pay for the
initial installation of that systems in parts and/or labor?

Tony D. wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> Tony D wrote:
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high
>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that
>>>>>>> OHV engines can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had
>>>>>>> in the 1960s? The OHC design made it one of the best engines of
>>>>>>> that era. It was the only engine that NASCAR banned because it
>>>>>>> was eating the Hemis alive. The OHC design made it too durable
>>>>>>> to run with push rod motors. This also reminds me of the only
>>>>>>> turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It bitched slapped the
>>>>>>> entire field of cars that year until its gearbox failed with two
>>>>>>> laps remaining. I wonder what we would have in today's cars if
>>>>>>> they hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC engines? At a minimum I
>>>>>>> think we would have seen OHC engines in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us
>>>>>> back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the
>>>>>> OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing
>>>>>> mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at Indy
>>>>> and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run
>>>>> turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine
>>>>> back then the fans would be open to them in production cars and
>>>>> actually demand them to be built. Chrysler went down that road
>>>>> briefly but interest never developed. Had Indy let the turbines
>>>>> run things would probably have turned out differently.
>>>>
>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say
>>> that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for
>>> passenger cars.
>>
>> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more truthful
>> than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger vehicle back
>> in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50 years of
>> development might have brought. Do you realize how durable a turbine
>> engine would be in a production car considering how long they last in
>> airplanes? The fuel turbines burn is less expensive that gasoline.
>> Just because the piston engine is the most common in automobiles today
>> doesn't necessarily make it the best design.
>
> You're right Chrysler had one in the 60s. Must be a huge conspiracy
> holding it back.

Where did I mention anything about a conspiracy?

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:57:38 -0400, Michael Johnson >
wrote:

>WindsorFox wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>> Tony D wrote:
>>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high
>>>>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages
>>>>>>>>>>>> that OHV engines can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ford had in the 1960s? The OHC design made it one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> best engines of that era. It was the only engine that NASCAR
>>>>>>>>>>>> banned because it was eating the Hemis alive. The OHC design
>>>>>>>>>>>> made it too durable to run with push rod motors. This also
>>>>>>>>>>>> reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It bitched slapped the entire field of cars that year until
>>>>>>>>>>>> its gearbox failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we
>>>>>>>>>>>> would have in today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine
>>>>>>>>>>>> and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen
>>>>>>>>>>>> OHC engines in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy
>>>>>>>>>>> promised us back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my
>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts on the OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the
>>>>>>>>>>> inevitable and losing mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>>>>>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at
>>>>>>>>>> Indy and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also
>>>>>>>>>> run turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone
>>>>>>>>>> turbine back then the fans would be open to them in production
>>>>>>>>>> cars and actually demand them to be built. Chrysler went down
>>>>>>>>>> that road briefly but interest never developed. Had Indy let
>>>>>>>>>> the turbines run things would probably have turned out
>>>>>>>>>> differently.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>>>>>>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would
>>>>>>>> say that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable
>>>>>>>> for passenger cars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more
>>>>>>> truthful than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger
>>>>>>> vehicle back in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50
>>>>>>> years of development might have brought. Do you realize how
>>>>>>> durable a turbine engine would be in a production car considering
>>>>>>> how long they last in airplanes? The fuel turbines burn is less
>>>>>>> expensive that gasoline. Just because the piston engine is the
>>>>>>> most common in automobiles today doesn't necessarily make it the
>>>>>>> best design.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.
>>>>>
>>>>> A turbine will burn damn near any fuel.
>>>>
>>>> That's good. Maybe we could feed them some of all that wasted used
>>>> oil you change out? P
>>>
>>> I would be willing to bet I spend less per year to change the
>>> oil/filter in my Explorer than you do with your Amsoil setup.
>>
>> About $68 in a year, but that's for 7.5 quarts and two filters. BUTT
>> that's not my reference. How many quarts of used oil and filters do you
>> toss out in a year compared to my one filter and 6 quarts? Not that I'm
>> overly green, I just thought I'd point it out. Keep in mind that in the
>> Mustang with it's limited mileage I do an oil analysis and change the
>> full flow filter every year, not all the oil or the by-pass filter.
>
>I do four oil changes at less than $10 each for a total of less than $40
>per year. The truck has close to 200k miles, burns no oil, leaks no oil
>and runs great. I take my used oil to the landfill and that is as green
>as I am going to get on the matter. How much did you pay for the
>initial installation of that systems in parts and/or labor?


Both of my cars get 4 changes a year. The oil goes to be recycled by
SafetyKlean so it is not "discarded".
4 liters per change on the Poncho, and 6.5 on the Merc

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:57:38 -0400, Michael Johnson >
> wrote:
>
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tony D wrote:
>>>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high
>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that OHV engines can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ford had in the 1960s? The OHC design made it one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> best engines of that era. It was the only engine that NASCAR
>>>>>>>>>>>>> banned because it was eating the Hemis alive. The OHC design
>>>>>>>>>>>>> made it too durable to run with push rod motors. This also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It bitched slapped the entire field of cars that year until
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its gearbox failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have in today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OHC engines in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy
>>>>>>>>>>>> promised us back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my
>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts on the OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the
>>>>>>>>>>>> inevitable and losing mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>>>>>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>>>>>>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at
>>>>>>>>>>> Indy and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also
>>>>>>>>>>> run turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone
>>>>>>>>>>> turbine back then the fans would be open to them in production
>>>>>>>>>>> cars and actually demand them to be built. Chrysler went down
>>>>>>>>>>> that road briefly but interest never developed. Had Indy let
>>>>>>>>>>> the turbines run things would probably have turned out
>>>>>>>>>>> differently.
>>>>>>>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>>>>>>>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would
>>>>>>>>> say that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable
>>>>>>>>> for passenger cars.
>>>>>>>> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more
>>>>>>>> truthful than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger
>>>>>>>> vehicle back in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50
>>>>>>>> years of development might have brought. Do you realize how
>>>>>>>> durable a turbine engine would be in a production car considering
>>>>>>>> how long they last in airplanes? The fuel turbines burn is less
>>>>>>>> expensive that gasoline. Just because the piston engine is the
>>>>>>>> most common in automobiles today doesn't necessarily make it the
>>>>>>>> best design.
>>>>>>> Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.
>>>>>> A turbine will burn damn near any fuel.
>>>>> That's good. Maybe we could feed them some of all that wasted used
>>>>> oil you change out? P
>>>> I would be willing to bet I spend less per year to change the
>>>> oil/filter in my Explorer than you do with your Amsoil setup.
>>> About $68 in a year, but that's for 7.5 quarts and two filters. BUTT
>>> that's not my reference. How many quarts of used oil and filters do you
>>> toss out in a year compared to my one filter and 6 quarts? Not that I'm
>>> overly green, I just thought I'd point it out. Keep in mind that in the
>>> Mustang with it's limited mileage I do an oil analysis and change the
>>> full flow filter every year, not all the oil or the by-pass filter.
>> I do four oil changes at less than $10 each for a total of less than $40
>> per year. The truck has close to 200k miles, burns no oil, leaks no oil
>> and runs great. I take my used oil to the landfill and that is as green
>> as I am going to get on the matter. How much did you pay for the
>> initial installation of that systems in parts and/or labor?
>
>
> Both of my cars get 4 changes a year. The oil goes to be recycled by
> SafetyKlean so it is not "discarded".
> 4 liters per change on the Poncho, and 6.5 on the Merc

I don't know exactly what our landfill does with the oil but I'm sure it
isn't discarded either. Personally, I think changing the oil every
3,000 miles is more important than using high dollar synthetics.
Changing it regularly flushes out contaminants and for most users
provides more than adequate protection. Maybe some vehicles that see
extremely cold weather benefit from the better viscosity properties of
Mobil One or other synthetics.

My truck doesn't burn (or leak) any noticeable amount of oil between
changes and it has seen a variety of brands (i.e. whatever is on sale by
the case at Costco) for as long as I have owned it. I don't even use
Ford filters all the time. If anyone really wants to do their engine a
favor then just change the oil regularly. Same goes for the automatic
transmission which, IMO, is the most neglected component in most
vehicles today. I change the fluid and filter in the Explorer every
30k-40k miles and am still running on the original transmission which,
for an Explorer, is quite an accomplishment at nearly 200k miles on the
odometer.

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:57:38 -0400, Michael Johnson >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tony D wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advantages that OHV engines can't match. Remember the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 427 SOHC engine Ford had in the 1960s? The OHC design
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made it one of the best engines of that era. It was the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only engine that NASCAR banned because it was eating the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hemis alive. The OHC design made it too durable to run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with push rod motors. This also reminds me of the only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It bitched slapped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the entire field of cars that year until its gearbox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have in today's cars if they hadn't banned the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turbine and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have seen OHC engines in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> promised us back in the late 50's. In general that echoes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> my thoughts on the OHC as well. IMHO they are just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> delaying the inevitable and losing mileage and durability
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the mean time.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in
>>>>>>>>>>>> racing's roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were
>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to run at Indy and the rest of the cars would have
>>>>>>>>>>>> to conform and also run turbines or be perpetual loosers.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Had the Indy cars gone turbine back then the fans would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> open to them in production cars and actually demand them to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be built. Chrysler went down that road briefly but
>>>>>>>>>>>> interest never developed. Had Indy let the turbines run
>>>>>>>>>>>> things would probably have turned out differently.
>>>>>>>>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car
>>>>>>>>>>> companies
>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about
>>>>>>>>>> would say that turbines are great for specific tasks but not
>>>>>>>>>> suitable for passenger cars.
>>>>>>>>> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more
>>>>>>>>> truthful than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a
>>>>>>>>> passenger vehicle back in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what
>>>>>>>>> another 40-50 years of development might have brought. Do you
>>>>>>>>> realize how durable a turbine engine would be in a production
>>>>>>>>> car considering how long they last in airplanes? The fuel
>>>>>>>>> turbines burn is less expensive that gasoline. Just because
>>>>>>>>> the piston engine is the most common in automobiles today
>>>>>>>>> doesn't necessarily make it the best design.
>>>>>>>> Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.
>>>>>>> A turbine will burn damn near any fuel.
>>>>>> That's good. Maybe we could feed them some of all that wasted
>>>>>> used
>>>>>> oil you change out? P
>>>>> I would be willing to bet I spend less per year to change the
>>>>> oil/filter in my Explorer than you do with your Amsoil setup.
>>>> About $68 in a year, but that's for 7.5 quarts and two filters.
>>>> BUTT
>>>> that's not my reference. How many quarts of used oil and filters
>>>> do you
>>>> toss out in a year compared to my one filter and 6 quarts? Not that
>>>> I'm overly green, I just thought I'd point it out. Keep in mind
>>>> that in the Mustang with it's limited mileage I do an oil analysis
>>>> and change the full flow filter every year, not all the oil or the
>>>> by-pass filter.
>>> I do four oil changes at less than $10 each for a total of less than
>>> $40 per year. The truck has close to 200k miles, burns no oil,
>>> leaks no oil and runs great. I take my used oil to the landfill and
>>> that is as green as I am going to get on the matter. How much did
>>> you pay for the initial installation of that systems in parts and/or
>>> labor?
>>
>>
>> Both of my cars get 4 changes a year. The oil goes to be recycled by
>> SafetyKlean so it is not "discarded".
>> 4 liters per change on the Poncho, and 6.5 on the Merc
>
> I don't know exactly what our landfill does with the oil but I'm sure
> it isn't discarded either.

I always go to Discount (now Advance Auto Parts) because they've got the
oil recycle bins there. I dump the old, buy new plus filter, and that's
it. Easy.

> Personally, I think changing the oil every
> 3,000 miles is more important than using high dollar synthetics.

Agreed. However, I've had very good luck with Mobil-1 on the MPV, as
it's got a high-revving V6 with poor top lubrication.

> Changing it regularly flushes out contaminants and for most users
> provides more than adequate protection. Maybe some vehicles that see
> extremely cold weather benefit from the better viscosity properties of
> Mobil One or other synthetics.

I have to believe it also helps in the summer here when it's
consistently over 90 degrees during the day.

> My truck doesn't burn (or leak) any noticeable amount of oil between
> changes and it has seen a variety of brands (i.e. whatever is on sale
> by the case at Costco) for as long as I have owned it. I don't even
> use Ford filters all the time. If anyone really wants to do their
> engine a favor then just change the oil regularly.

This has got to be the single most beneficial thing to do for any
vehicle.

> Same goes for the
> automatic transmission which, IMO, is the most neglected component in
> most vehicles today. I change the fluid and filter in the Explorer
> every 30k-40k miles and am still running on the original transmission
> which, for an Explorer, is quite an accomplishment at nearly 200k
> miles on the odometer.

Good deal. Is it a 302? I do pretty much the same here. The summer
heat certainly doesn't help, so it's always good to adhere to that kind
of schedule.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>> Tony D wrote:
>>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high
>>>>>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages
>>>>>>>>>>>> that OHV engines can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ford had in the 1960s? The OHC design made it one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> best engines of that era. It was the only engine that
>>>>>>>>>>>> NASCAR banned because it was eating the Hemis alive. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> OHC design made it too durable to run with push rod motors.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This also reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Indy 500. It bitched slapped the entire field of cars that
>>>>>>>>>>>> year until its gearbox failed with two laps remaining. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder what we would have in today's cars if they hadn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> banned the turbine and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think
>>>>>>>>>>>> we would have seen OHC engines in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy
>>>>>>>>>>> promised us back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my
>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts on the OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the
>>>>>>>>>>> inevitable and losing mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in
>>>>>>>>>> racing's roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed
>>>>>>>>>> to run at Indy and the rest of the cars would have to conform
>>>>>>>>>> and also run turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy
>>>>>>>>>> cars gone turbine back then the fans would be open to them in
>>>>>>>>>> production cars and actually demand them to be built.
>>>>>>>>>> Chrysler went down that road briefly but interest never
>>>>>>>>>> developed. Had Indy let the turbines run things would
>>>>>>>>>> probably have turned out differently.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car
>>>>>>>>> companies couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would
>>>>>>>> say that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable
>>>>>>>> for passenger cars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more
>>>>>>> truthful than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger
>>>>>>> vehicle back in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another
>>>>>>> 40-50 years of development might have brought. Do you realize
>>>>>>> how durable a turbine engine would be in a production car
>>>>>>> considering how long they last in airplanes? The fuel turbines
>>>>>>> burn is less expensive that gasoline. Just because the piston
>>>>>>> engine is the most common in automobiles today doesn't
>>>>>>> necessarily make it the best design.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.
>>>>>
>>>>> A turbine will burn damn near any fuel.
>>>>
>>>> That's good. Maybe we could feed them some of all that wasted
>>>> used oil you change out? P
>>>
>>> I would be willing to bet I spend less per year to change the
>>> oil/filter in my Explorer than you do with your Amsoil setup.
>>
>> About $68 in a year, but that's for 7.5 quarts and two filters.
>> BUTT that's not my reference. How many quarts of used oil and filters
>> do you toss out in a year compared to my one filter and 6 quarts? Not
>> that I'm overly green, I just thought I'd point it out. Keep in mind
>> that in the Mustang with it's limited mileage I do an oil analysis and
>> change the full flow filter every year, not all the oil or the by-pass
>> filter.
>
> I do four oil changes at less than $10 each for a total of less than $40
> per year. The truck has close to 200k miles, burns no oil, leaks no oil
> and runs great. I take my used oil to the landfill and that is as green
> as I am going to get on the matter. How much did you pay for the
> initial installation of that systems in parts and/or labor?

Land fill?? Are you supposed to do that?? Good lord what kind of oil
and filter are you getting for less than $10? I have to admit I havn't
looked but that seems awfully cheap even at Walmart prices. The remote
oil filter kit was about $120, but totally worth it to me. Now I will
admit that to save money on extended drains you have to drive a lot of
miles. Imagine the difference if you drove enough that you had to change
your oil every month. What I do for my habits and what I drive is over
kill but I still only do one change a year. Also I would only spend
about $55 if I only had 5 quarts and one filter.

--
"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."

"So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:57:38 -0400, Michael Johnson >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>
>>> Both of my cars get 4 changes a year. The oil goes to be recycled by
>>> SafetyKlean so it is not "discarded".
>>> 4 liters per change on the Poncho, and 6.5 on the Merc
>> I don't know exactly what our landfill does with the oil but I'm sure
>> it isn't discarded either.
>
> I always go to Discount (now Advance Auto Parts) because they've got the
> oil recycle bins there. I dump the old, buy new plus filter, and that's
> it. Easy.

I just buy it by the case. If I have a choice I'll choose Havoline more
times than not but I just want to be SAE certified.

>> Personally, I think changing the oil every
>> 3,000 miles is more important than using high dollar synthetics.
>
> Agreed. However, I've had very good luck with Mobil-1 on the MPV, as
> it's got a high-revving V6 with poor top lubrication.
>
>> Changing it regularly flushes out contaminants and for most users
>> provides more than adequate protection. Maybe some vehicles that see
>> extremely cold weather benefit from the better viscosity properties of
>> Mobil One or other synthetics.
>
> I have to believe it also helps in the summer here when it's
> consistently over 90 degrees during the day.

I don't think the hot weather is as big a concern mainly because most
engines are engineered to run at 180-200 degrees anyway. In very cold
weather at startup the engine will run for a period of time without
proper lubrication especially with regular oil being extremely viscous
at near zero temperatures. Most of an engine's wear occurs during this
period. Synthetics have much better flow characteristics at low
temperatures so the engine runs less time without oil at the bearings
etc. just after startup.

>> My truck doesn't burn (or leak) any noticeable amount of oil between
>> changes and it has seen a variety of brands (i.e. whatever is on sale
>> by the case at Costco) for as long as I have owned it. I don't even
>> use Ford filters all the time. If anyone really wants to do their
>> engine a favor then just change the oil regularly.
>
> This has got to be the single most beneficial thing to do for any
> vehicle.

Yes, it is. Especially, considering how well made today's engine are in
most vehicles. With just the most basic of maintenance they can last
150k-200k miles or longer.

>> Same goes for the
>> automatic transmission which, IMO, is the most neglected component in
>> most vehicles today. I change the fluid and filter in the Explorer
>> every 30k-40k miles and am still running on the original transmission
>> which, for an Explorer, is quite an accomplishment at nearly 200k
>> miles on the odometer.
>
> Good deal. Is it a 302? I do pretty much the same here. The summer
> heat certainly doesn't help, so it's always good to adhere to that kind
> of schedule.

It is the 4.0L V-6. IMO, that is one durable and very good performing
engine. To have as many miles as it does and not use any oil between
changes it quite amazing to me. The oil level on the dipstick doesn't
drop any between 3,000 miles oil changes.

Transmissions are where the hot climates have a big impact. Heat
degrades transmission fluid very quickly. Down where you live I would
change transmission fluid/filter every 25k miles.