How about lanolin based underoil spray? Or vegi based. I prefer the
lanolin - like Fluid Film, or NHoilundercoating, A friend operated an
undercoating business for years, and he mixed lanolin and paraffin
hot, and sprayed it on underbodies. Quite a few "proprietary" dripless
underoil products have lanolin and no petroleum products.
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 1:43:44 PM UTC-5, Christopher Tidy wrote:
the 1990s, this changed - and quite suddenly. Does anyone know what specifi
c changes were made to the paint composition and surface treatment? I can o
nly find vague allusions in most articles.
Here's how cheap Ford is. About 15 yrs. ago I was reading the latest Popula
r Mechanics auto advice column. A guy wrote in with a concern about his oil
pressure reading in his new Ford F-150. He said he had noticed when it wa
s started cold, the oil pressure always came up to the exact same level and
never decreased once the engine got warm, as his previous pickup had done.
The pressure always remained at the exact same place no matter engine temp
erature or RPM. The auto advice guy at PM said on his year/model of pickup,
Ford had replaced the pressure transmitter with a pressure switch with a f
ixed resistance. When the switch closed, it would always deflect the oil pr
essure needle to the same location. In other words, an idiot light. As far
as I've seen, no other auto manufacturer ever pulled one like that. Saved t
hem what? $1.50 a truck? So, here you are doing 70 on the interstate all da
y and one or more cam bearings are starting to go. From personal experience
, that's always a gradual decrease of oil pressure. By the time the oil pre
ssure gauge on your P.O.S. Ford pickup drops to zero and the backup idiot l
ight comes on, the engine has been operating way too long on insufficient o
il pressure and is likely already trashed. A guy I worked with had a new Fo
rd pickup. I read him the column and he said,"That's just the way my truck
acts!". Now I don't know if they still practice this world class chicken^&*
(, but I've had my last Ford.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:29:44 -0800 (PST), Garrett Fulton
They have virtually ALL done it on at least one model, and it was not
a cost saving measure, in the main. It was because they had customers
complaininh about high cold oil pressure, or low hot idle oil
pressure, and they were all wasting WAY too much time and effort
trying to explain why it was "normal". To avoid class action lawsuits
for faulty oil pressure they simply made a n "idiot guage". Looks like
"higher content" than an idiot light.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:45:18 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I was looking at the oil gauge in my Toyota truck and was a little
concerned that it would show right at the lowest mark when idling. I
wondered if maybe I should start to worry about the truck because it
is a '95. Then upon reading the manual I find that proper oil pressure
when idling is 3 lbs. Now I don't worry.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:19:58 -0800, email@example.com wrote:
Can you immagine being the service manager having to explain that to
half of the paranoid customers at a dealership? They'd be "calling you
anything but a white man", convinced you were lying to them, just
trying to put off repairs untill THEY had to pay because it was off
warranty? THAT is why they invented the "idiot guage"
I went through that as a Toyota service manager many times. On a hot
day the customer would come in complaining the OP guage was reading
half a needle width lower - or after changing the oil - Or they'd come
in complaing the oil pressure was too high and they were told by some
backyard mechanic friend that it would cause the oil to get too hot,
and waste gas - - -
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 3:45:19 PM UTC-5, Clare wrote:
in the 1990s, this changed - and quite suddenly. Does anyone know what spec
ific changes were made to the paint composition and surface treatment? I ca
n only find vague allusions in most articles.
ular Mechanics auto advice column. A guy wrote in with a concern about his
oil pressure reading in his new Ford F-150. He said he had noticed when it
was started cold, the oil pressure always came up to the exact same level
and never decreased once the engine got warm, as his previous pickup had do
ne. The pressure always remained at the exact same place no matter engine t
emperature or RPM. The auto advice guy at PM said on his year/model of pick
up, Ford had replaced the pressure transmitter with a pressure switch with
a fixed resistance. When the switch closed, it would always deflect the oil
pressure needle to the same location. In other words, an idiot light. As f
ar as I've seen, no other auto manufacturer ever pulled one like that. Save
d them what? $1.50 a truck? So, here you are doing 70 on the interstate all
day and one or more cam bearings are starting to go. From personal experie
nce, that's always a
your P.O.S. Ford pickup drops to zero and the backup idiot light comes on,
the engine has been operating way too long on insufficient oil pressure and
is likely already trashed. A guy I worked with had a new Ford pickup. I re
ad him the column and he said,"That's just the way my truck acts!". Now I d
on't know if they still practice this world class chicken^&*(, but I've had
my last Ford.
So, you're saying GM, Chrysler and the rest are doing this? Do you remember
where you read this information?
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:56:25 -0800 (PST), Garrett Fulton
Don't have to read it. I was a mechanic for many years. They've been
doing it for years. I've worked on a lot of vehicles with the "idiot
guage" including my last Chryslers and my 1885 Pontiac Trans Sport
3.8. Most of them can't even be converted to a full guage by
replacing the sensor because they do NOT have a resistor in the
circuit. The meter is designed to go half scale when the sensor is
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 11:22:10 PM UTC-5, Clare wrote:
I'll accept it if you saw it that much. Ford was the only one I'd known abo
ut. I was an airline mechanic. We sure had nothing like that. Just my .02,
but it seems like deceiving a buyer to sell him a car with an oil pressure
gauge that is nothing but an idiot light.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 20:39:46 -0800 (PST), Garrett Fulton
Hopefully the pilots aren't as "brain dead" as a lot of car
owners/drivers. The ones I had the most trouble with were bloody
engineers and hoity-toity "connoisseurs" who fancied themselves
automotive experts just because they could afford to buy whatever
crossed their fancy at the time. "MY porsche never had that kind of
pressure fluctuation" (or insert Audi, Mercedes, Ferrari, or whatever)
after buying a new Supra or whatever.
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:15:15 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Yes, let's hope that pilots and airplane mfgrs are building (and
reading properly) complete/calibrated gauge units and senders. It
would be a shame to send the 10,000+RPM spinny parts into the cabin at
speed and altitude, cutting the plane in half because a sending unit
said it still had oil pressure when it didn't.
In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.
--Charles de Gaulle
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 20:39:46 -0800 (PST), Garrett Fulton
Well, I was an airplane mechanic too and if I remember all the
instruments has colored marks on them to tell the Engineer when the
oil pressure (for example) got too low :-)
As for the guys in the front seats, they had a big loud warning bell,
buzzer. siren, to tell the drivers when they slowed down too much :-)
The Air France crash in the South Atlantic is a good example of the
difficulty of predicting in advance what warning the operator should
be given while their attention is on controlling the vehicle. Too much
or misleading info can be worse than not enough.
"At one point the pilot briefly pushed the stick forward. Then, in a
grotesque miscue unforeseen by the designers of the fly-by-wire
software, the stall warning, which had been silenced, as designed, by
very low indicated airspeed, came to life. The pilot, probably
inferring that whatever he had just done must have been wrong,
returned the stick to its climb position and kept it there for the
remainder of the flight."
I read the CVR transcript in French and it supports the article's
conjectures. The airliner descended approximately level in or near a
Deep Stall, relatively stable in nose-high pitch but not in roll,
which kept the cockpit crew fully occupied and confused about what was
happening. The flight controls had less than their normal effect and
the engines showed the expected full power RPMs though they weren't
receiving the airflow to produce the corresponding thrust.
The pitot tubes had iced up in the storm's rising (super?)saturated
air and given the pilots and flight control computer incorrect low
airspeed values, initiating the problem, then probably soon thawed and
showed similar correct low values of forward airspeed because by then
the plane had gently stalled in Coffin Corner and was falling mainly
downward, its forward indicated airspeed below the stall warning low
cutoff until the captain tried nosing down, which was the proper way
to break out of the stall and regain airspeed and control.
Similarly, a NASA engineer told me the inside story of Neil
Armstrong's computer "failure" during the moon landing. The computer
serviced all inputs in a program loop. There was a warning light kept
Off by a hardware watchdog timer that the program would reset on each
pass unless it hung. The timeout was comfortably long enough in all
preflight tests but during the moon landing some added tasking
extended the loop beyond the timeout and allowed the warning light to
flicker On before the end of each loop pass, which Armstrong
interpreted as the failure it was supposed to indicate, not just an
unexpectedly high workload.
I knew something of the issue from designing industrial control panels
and then watching mindless UAW drones misuse them. I learned that
controls had to be not only idiot-proof but vandal-proof. Although I
had no design input on the aerospace electronics I prototyped I paid
attention to the discussions about their possible effect on cockpit
situational awareness. There was a joke circulating at the time that
the automated airliner cockpit of the future would contain a man and a
dog. The dog was trained to bite the man if he touched the controls.
The man's only task was to feed the dog.
Not only aircraft; TMI-II became something more than just a turbine trip
causing a reactor trip with the sidebar of a steam relief valve not
reclosing automagically because the latter caused an anomolous level
reading in the physically nearby pressurizer level. This was
misinterpreted by reactor operators and they subsequently turned off the
safety system HPI (high pressure injection) pumps fearing were going to
overfill the pressurizer and if that were to happen, risk
over-pressurizing the primary system itself. The incident progressed
downhill from there until a fresh shift came on and the SRO on that
shift recognized the problem and restarted HPI plus RCPs to restore
primary coolant flow and begin the recovery process.
If the original crew had done nothing but let the control and safety
systems do their job instead of intervening, the incident would have
consisted of no more than an unscheduled trip and restart once the
initiating fault in the transmission yard that was the initiating event.
(They lost connection to the grid owing to transformer failure at full
power (850 MWe) which left nowhere for the generator output to go so
that initiated the turbine trip. System was designed to be able to
handle a "full load rejection" trip, but owing to various other
conditions, runback couldn't always be fast enough so a reactor trip
could also be expected maybe half the time.)
No idea who that might be; I was (nuke) engineer at the reactor vendor
until the summer before the incident; had at the time just moved to Oak
Ridge w/ small consulting firm; we were on incident response team via
contract to NRC by 9AM the morning of the incident so I'm pretty-much
familiar with both the specific reactor design and the incident...
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.