Arco gas?

Even the gasoline from Gas Wars and Pump -n- Munch?

 

Then your engineering professors taught you a different definition of
"quantitative" and "qualitative" measurements than mine taught me. A
qualitative measurement can tell you "better" or "worse," but only a
quantitative measurement definitively says "how much better" or "how
much worse."[/QUOTE]

"At least 2x" gives me a number I can count on.

A quantitative number.

 

"At least 2x" gives me a number I can count on.

A quantitative number.
[/QUOTE]

Bye now.

 

Bye now.[/QUOTE]

"There is at least one ounce of water in this cup I'm holding".

I can *count* on the one ounce figure.

Quantitatively.

 

So what does this say about Mobil?

Remember what happened to Nikasil engines?
http://www.bobmodifiedbmw.com/CarMaintenance_files/bmwnikasil.htm

jg

 

i suspect that's a bmw problem, not a sulfur/nikasil problem.

 

"There is at least one ounce of water in this cup I'm holding".

I can *count* on the one ounce figure.

Quantitatively.[/QUOTE]

No you can't. There could be 5 oz, 10 oz, or 1.1 oz, or it could be exactly
1 oz.

Now, further, if I made 2 claims, they could refer to the identical cup.
For instance, assume that your cup has EXACTLY 1 oz in it. Now, I am going
to say that the next cup has at least twice the amount of your cup. I am
also going to say that cup 3 has at least 5x the amount of your cup.

Both of my cups have exactly 6 oz in them.

How did either of the previous measures help you get to the truth?

 

jim beam wrote:

I suspect you're right.... it seems only their particular implementation
basically plating the nickel on instead of alloiying) of
nickel/silicon liners had problems.

 

Why would I care about power outputs from 80's engines?
I care about 2007 engines.

And the statement was that honda is the same as others.
Do you agree or not?

 

er, because you care about factual accuracy?

eh? the point is that honda made some serious headway in cylinder head
design that detroit has taken decades to emulate.

no. they weren't then. and even now, look at specific power outputs...

 

Because the engineers who worked on 80s engines and made them run very
successfully are now working on 2007 engines and beyond.

Likewise, the same engineers who worked on 80s engines that sucked
continue to work on engines today--and their engines still suck.

 

I agree completely. Honda engineers are still designing rubber-band
timed valve smashers that aren't worthy of being melted into beer cans.

 

Whoa, somebody piss in your Cheerios this morning, Sport?

 

I think Steve is a throwback to GM fans who could only find one point
of supposed GM superiority over Hondas so they got a hard-on for
timing chains vs. belts. Saturn went so far as to tout the fact that
they used chains instead of belts as a selling point. (I doubt that
most of their customers knew a timing chain from a daisy chain, but
that's another discussion.) Most of those Saturn buyers ended up
paying big bucks to replace those chains when they wore out in spite
of the fact that they were made out of metal. (Who would of thought
that something with hundreds of rapidly moving metal parts could ever
wear out?) Of course, replacing the belt didn't cure the voracious
oil consumption, the cracked heads, the failed head gaskets, the
flimsy motor mounts, warping brake rotors, the broken transmissions
and the alternators that failed about as often as the batteries.
Still, these were some of Detroit's most reliable cars.

 

Hey Steve, I will run my 14-year-old Honda with the rubber band that
is already past due for a change up to 8000 rpm if you will do the
same with whatever cast iron monstrosity you are driving and we will
see who smashes valves. K?

 

in their euro stuff, gm were one of the earliest adopters of "rubber
bands". what's that sporty little opel they tried selling out here in
the 70's?

 

chill. rubber bands allow a motor to remain on the peak of operating
efficiency throughout its life because they don't stretch. chains can't
get close. as for valve smashing, high compression allows better power
yield. high rpm allows better specific output. add the two together
and you have a very spunky little motor. but there's no room for "slop"
like a non-interference motor. i say the benefits outweigh the
"disadvantage" many times. particularly when you look at the economics
of belt change vs. efficiency.

 

That's why real engines use gear trains instead of chains or belts.
--scott

 

gear trains do indeed offer the highest reliability, but they're still
subject to [a little] timing drift as they wear. timing drift on a belt
is pretty much zero.

 

Any engine you HAVE to rev to 8k better be a turbine and not a piston
engine. I prefer my 490 ft-lb of torque at 4000 RPM, thank you. Besides,
my "cast iron monstrosity" has been happily putting out that torque for
40 years and 280k miles without complaint. Call me back when your VTEC
is that old and we'll see how its holding up.