Urban Myths

-

JBurch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
2,000
Reaction score
1,271
Location
Owego, NY
Rather than high jack someone else's post, I figured I'd start another.

Urban myth: Fuel injection is responsible for low cylinder wear in new engines.....WRONG!

It is a contributor, but not the major cause, as it is possible for an injector to leak by for what ever reason and wash a cylinder down, just exactly what you blame a carburetor for!

Better metallurgy.....I'm not so sure......most iron that is poured now is recycled metal, fluxing to remove impurities is the bare minimum, examine how current iron oxidizes vrs a 40 year old block, the current iron doesn't rust the same.

Better lubricants, a help but not sole cause

Biggest reason for lack of cylinder wear is removal of lead!!! Search SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) papers related to lead and cylinder wear.

I read this 30 years ago...............
 
There are so many of these it ain't even funny.

Some of the engine wear from carbs came from the choke. Which was not really needed and most of the time was partially closed after about 25000 miles. This washed all the lube off the cylinders.

Oil has gotten better and it part of the equation.
 
BTW, do you have a link to the SAE paper? I think some you can see for free.

Maybe not. I have about 25-30 SAE papers here, but none relevant to this discussion.
 
BTW, do you have a link to the SAE paper? I think some you can see for free.

Maybe not. I have about 25-30 SAE papers here, but none relevant to this discussion.

Paper #: 640824

there are others
 
Saying wrong based solely on that paper is a fallacy, especially when fuel injection was just becoming commonplace in practically new vehicles. For a decade, manufacturers
tried to imitate what FI does easily, w/feedback carbs, hi vacuum dump valves, hot idle air bleeds,.etc. etc etc.......... Fuel contamination from excess fuel on coastdown &
rapid decel is no myth, and not very hard to understand, certainly there is a lot of "myth" surrounding other benefits of tetraethyl lead other than it's unrivaled anti-knock
properties, and time is de-bunking some of those. The truth is superior technology, materials, lubricants, and eng. fuel/air management are ALL responsible for the much
improved lifespan and efficiency We take for granted today. Buddy, I've taken plenty of early "unleaded days" engines apart w/enuff ridge to hook a repelling line to so......
 
What?

Done right, it's the only way to do it.
Absolutely. If the discussion here is cylinder life, 2 words...Plateau honing. This (along with better materials and machining practices) is why engines don't need break-in now and run forever without blow-by. If your machinist can't bore you to death talking about cylinder finishing... you need a new machinist.
 
Absolutely. If the discussion here is cylinder life, 2 words...Plateau honing. This (along with better materials and machining practices) is why engines don't need break-in now and run forever without blow-by. If your machinist can't bore you to death talking about cylinder finishing... you need a new machinist.


Misunderstood what you said. I agree. Every bore should be plateau honed.
 
Misunderstood what you said. I agree. Every bore should be plateau honed.
2005 called and want their plateau honing back. Plateau honing folds the peaks over the honing swarf and traps it until wear can release it. I used to plateau hone but use a better method now. J.Rob
 
2005 called and want their plateau honing back. Plateau honing folds the peaks over the honing swarf and traps it until wear can release it. I used to plateau hone but use a better method now. J.Rob
So what's the new twist called? I'm sure it's the same basic process with a little better result.
 
I have some "71" 340 blocks that were run hard, with over 100K street/strip miles, that measure in the .0002 to .0004 of an inch of wear. Used nothing but leaded gas and conventional oil, SAE 30 changed religiously. OEM TQ and dual point ignition, exceptional tune. 340's had premium rings and machining. Run of the mill engines, without the extreme maintenance, would clean up around .020 or .030 of an inch. I don't buy the better oil argument, both Chrysler Racing and Chevrolet Racing investigated and found no advantage. Don't bother arguing with me, I have enough real world experience to hold my beliefs. EFI is a plus, but only because it keeps "tune" longer and at a higher level than most can achieve.
 
This thing about the oil is probably very true. No need to put in expensive oils... BUT, notice the keywords in your reply: 'oil changed religiously' and 'exceptional tune'. A lot of people just don't do that, for any reason, and then wonder why engines wear out prematurely.

You might need a really good oil in racing applications or high boost stuff (--> heat).
 
JBurch, Sounds like a response to a comment I made in another thread.
And I agree with what your saying. F.I. Is not the sole reason but a contributor. I just named that one thing and figured the whole package would be considered.

Fuel injection, computer aided running excellence, modern liquids in the engine, superior parts in and on the engine, low stress/rpm running, etc...

Most everything is a teenie tiny move in the right direction and they all add up. So the newer engine is a better engine ether in a full package or just in a part, like a block to build.

I try not to complicate answers for forum members or write lengthy replies with tons of mathmatical equations and links to read. Sometimes, less is better. Starting in with specifics tends to leed to bickering and hair splitting with testimony of "Well I did it this way and your a idiot for NOT doing it this way, etc..."
Good post topic though!
 
So what's the new twist called? I'm sure it's the same basic process with a little better result.



Yes, I'd like to hear this new method.


I've had my bores looked at many times since 1995 by Sealed Power and Total Seal on blocks rangining from stock Chevy garbage to everything except CGCI so I know what my bores look like under a microscope, the RP, RK, RPK of them and other such things.

If your folding over metal with a soft hone you are doing something wrong.
 
Yes, I'd like to hear this new method.


I've had my bores looked at many times since 1995 by Sealed Power and Total Seal on blocks rangining from stock Chevy garbage to everything except CGCI so I know what my bores look like under a microscope, the RP, RK, RPK of them and other such things.

If your folding over metal with a soft hone you are doing something wrong.
As far as I'm concerned if the desired result is to eliminate the peaks and retain the valleys, it's still plateau honing. Even if you do it in 23 steps wearing a tinfoil hat... It's still plateau honing.
 
As far as I'm concerned if the desired result is to eliminate the peaks and retain the valleys, it's still plateau honing. Even if you do it in 23 steps wearing a tinfoil hat... It's still plateau honing.

You're absolutely right. I was referring to these things that Sunnen refers to as Plateau brushes. I started noticing some things when I used them and have moved away from them. BTW I only "plateau hone" wearing Burlap undies and a wool turtleneck. J.Rob

IMG_20170103_145803.JPG
 
As far as I'm concerned if the desired result is to eliminate the peaks and retain the valleys, it's still plateau honing. Even if you do it in 23 steps wearing a tinfoil hat... It's still plateau honing.



I used to use cork bond. That was how I had my first bores looked at. It burnished the bores.

If you go back and read the Jenkins book, his engines always made more power after it was run on the dyno, then reringed. He used cork bond at that time. He was literally plateau honing his bores with the rings.
 
See, we're all in ageeance. As long as the cat get decorticated and you're wearing something... it's all good.
 
Saying wrong based solely on that paper is a fallacy, especially when fuel injection was just becoming commonplace in practically new vehicles. For a decade, manufacturers
tried to imitate what FI does easily, w/feedback carbs, hi vacuum dump valves, hot idle air bleeds,.etc. etc etc.......... Fuel contamination from excess fuel on coastdown &
rapid decel is no myth, and not very hard to understand, certainly there is a lot of "myth" surrounding other benefits of tetraethyl lead other than it's unrivaled anti-knock
properties, and time is de-bunking some of those. The truth is superior technology, materials, lubricants, and eng. fuel/air management are ALL responsible for the much
improved lifespan and efficiency We take for granted today. Buddy, I've taken plenty of early "unleaded days" engines apart w/enuff ridge to hook a repelling line to so......

fallacy: n; misleading, false( New Websters Dictionary, pocket vest edition )

The fallacy is the statement that FI is the reason of low to minimal cylinder wear, it's not THE reason. It helps some but a bad injector can piss a lot of gas at 70 psi and wash down a cylinder just as well as any carburetor.

Manufacturing technologies were not done for improved longevity of cars; it was done to cut costs! Instead of 6 skilled machinists at 6 different machines, you've got 1 semi-skilled operator who's function is to push "start", "stop", "pause".

I don't beleave materials are better; a great deal of the iron poured is recycled scrap and there are A LOT of impurities left in the iron ( copper, zink, aluminum, lead, what ever the car was made up of that just went thru the shredder ).

I was gonna say lubricants may be better but then it struck me that the trouble people have keeping a lobe on a new flat tappet cam; if lubricants are better, why is there this problem?? And going back to technology; why are cam shafts so damn soft?? In my history of playing with cars, close to 50 years; not knowing I should have kept count; I had like a half-a-dozen engines I put together that I did nothing special in the realm of cam shaft break in. Nothing!!! I installed the cam, fired the engine; some fired right away, some didn't. Once running, I shot timing and then drove the car; one case I drove it 2000 miles with no trouble!

I think the article makes a pretty strong case for singular cause and effect.
 
-
Back
Top