Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser

Steve wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not an expert in this area, but street rumor over the years was
>> that GM cams wore out so suddenly because they nitrided the cams
>> (surface treatment). Nitride is super hard, but once it wore thru
>> that layer, the cams wore like butter. I did have to replace a cam in
>> a 1980 GM vehicle at about the mileage that "they" said was typical of
>> the wearout.
>
>
> OK, I'm a little beyond my depth of knowledge here, but AFAIK *ALL*
> flat-tappet cams have to be hardened (usually nitrided or some other
> surface process) after the cam lobes are ground on the blank. Too much
> material has to be removed when the lobes are ground to shape to use a
> pre-grind hardening process- all the hardening would be removed except
> on the very tip of the lobe and it would get undercut very quickly. I'm
> sure that the quality and thickness of the hardening can vary, though.

Yes - of course the nitriding was done after grinding - the treatment is
only microns thick.

I'm just telling you what the word on the street was - I have to think
it would have trickled down from someone with engineering level
understanding - the typical guy on the street back then wouldn't have
thought up the nitriding explanation on his own.

Perhaps that long ago, it was a new process that has been greatly
improved over the years. If other manufacturers were nitriding at the
time, perhaps GM's process or their vendor's process was inferior. But
I know it was a consistent rumor for years. Whether the stated cause was
wrong, it was universally accepted that GM cams had such a problem that
other manufacturer's vehicles didn't - maybe for the reason you state in
your next paragraph...

> In addition GM (Chevrolet division engines in particular) up through the
> end of factory flat-tappet cams had comparatively high cam wear because
> they used a smaller diameter lifter than Ford, Chrysler, AMC, and (I
> think) some of the other GM divisions like Oldsmobile and Cadillac.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Steve wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>> Steve wrote:

>> Oh - you just wait. I guarandamntee you that Al Gore or someone like
>> him is just biding their time for a few years until we're 99%
>> committed to the flourescents. *THEN* - just when we're over that
>> transition (i.e., getting used to reduced light levels that are
>> claimed to be the same light levels,
>
> Actually I don't find that to be a problem with current generation CFLs
> anymore...

I know I heard a news report within the last month about class action
suits being filed or threatened regarding overstated and fraudulent
claims of equivalent light output. I caught the report on the fly -
wish I had caught more details about who was the sue-ee and who was the
sue-er.

After a little Googling, perhaps it was this story that I heard a
version of - sounds vaguely familiar, but not what I was thinking it
was:
http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.p...%80%99-fiasco/

But in my Googling, I did come across lots of comments about CFL's not
living up to its promises of life and light output.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

For what it is worth

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...emiumgas_x.htm

Bill Putney > wrote in
:

> Steve wrote:
>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>> Steve wrote:
>
>>> Oh - you just wait. I guarandamntee you that Al Gore or someone
>>> like him is just biding their time for a few years until we're 99%
>>> committed to the flourescents. *THEN* - just when we're over that
>>> transition (i.e., getting used to reduced light levels that are
>>> claimed to be the same light levels,
>>
>> Actually I don't find that to be a problem with current generation
>> CFLs anymore...
>
> I know I heard a news report within the last month about class action
> suits being filed or threatened regarding overstated and fraudulent
> claims of equivalent light output. I caught the report on the fly -
> wish I had caught more details about who was the sue-ee and who was
> the sue-er.
>
> After a little Googling, perhaps it was this story that I heard a
> version of - sounds vaguely familiar, but not what I was thinking it
> was:
> http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.p.../ohio-repeats-
maryland
> %e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98take-this-bulb-and-shove-it%e2%80%99-fiasco/
>
> But in my Googling, I did come across lots of comments about CFL's not
> living up to its promises of life and light output.
>

I haven`t had a dam cfl last more than a year yet. KB

--
THUNDERSNAKE #9

Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:40:28 +0000 (UTC), Kevin
> wrote:

>Bill Putney > wrote in
:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>
>>>> Oh - you just wait. I guarandamntee you that Al Gore or someone
>>>> like him is just biding their time for a few years until we're 99%
>>>> committed to the flourescents. *THEN* - just when we're over that
>>>> transition (i.e., getting used to reduced light levels that are
>>>> claimed to be the same light levels,
>>>
>>> Actually I don't find that to be a problem with current generation
>>> CFLs anymore...
>>
>> I know I heard a news report within the last month about class action
>> suits being filed or threatened regarding overstated and fraudulent
>> claims of equivalent light output. I caught the report on the fly -
>> wish I had caught more details about who was the sue-ee and who was
>> the sue-er.
>>
>> After a little Googling, perhaps it was this story that I heard a
>> version of - sounds vaguely familiar, but not what I was thinking it
>> was:
>> http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.p.../ohio-repeats-
>maryland
>> %e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98take-this-bulb-and-shove-it%e2%80%99-fiasco/
>>
>> But in my Googling, I did come across lots of comments about CFL's not
>> living up to its promises of life and light output.
>>
>
>I haven`t had a dam cfl last more than a year yet. KB


That was my experience up to about 18 months ago. Since then they
seem to have gotten a lot better. The only problem for me is that I
have a lot of rooms with dimmers and dimming CFL's are pricey and from
what I read they don't work very well.

Someone wrote: I haven`t had a dam cfl last more than a year yet.

I guess I been fortunate, I built a new home 5 years ago and I installed
CFL in a every light socket except for a hand full that took specialty
bulbs. I only had to change maybe one or two. I had more halogen flood
lights burn out then CFL. I also have three fluorescent lights installed in
different location in my home and never had to change a bulb yet.

Kevin wrote:

>
> I haven`t had a dam cfl last more than a year yet. KB
>

I've got a few pushing 7-8 years now. But I've had more that didn't make
it 6 months and more than a few that died right out of the box. :-/