Current Classifieds

1977 Left Side quarter panel
Date: 06/10/2019 04:16 pm
1978 ford pinto carb
Date: 02/04/2018 06:09 pm
1979 Pinto 3-door Runabout *PRICE REDUCED*

Date: 01/21/2023 04:19 pm
73 Runabout

Date: 11/20/2017 03:19 pm
1980 Pinto Pony for sale

Date: 08/21/2021 03:54 pm
Wanted 71-73 Pinto grill
Date: 03/09/2019 10:45 pm
72 Pinto parts
Date: 11/14/2019 10:46 pm
'80 Pinto Wagon
Date: 02/01/2018 05:20 pm
parting out 1975 & 80 pintos
Date: 08/24/2018 02:50 pm
Clutch Fork
Date: 03/31/2018 09:12 pm
Drivers side door panel Orange
Date: 05/22/2018 02:27 pm
Mirror
Date: 04/15/2020 01:42 pm

Author Topic: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!  (Read 38893 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pintony

  • Guest
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2008, 11:35:32 PM »
Ummm, huh ??.
You still need to evacuate the crankcase. I hear Mike saying he wants to " seal it" is that not the case?

evacuate? Isnt that what a vacuum is? vacant space??
Again I'm not saying that it is good or possible or bad, iduno????
I'm confused myself???
 From Pintony

Offline turbopinto72

  • Master Mechanic
  • Administrator
  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3065
  • FeedBack: +170/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your never to old to go fast.
    • Brads Pintos and Pangras

  • Total Badges: 10
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Photographer Windows User 1000 Posts Webmaster Tenth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2008, 11:40:16 PM »
Ok, I re read his post in the other thread. If he is saying " use an external pump to evacuate the crank case " I understand that. There are a lot of racers that use a pump to " zoop" the crank case dry ( so to speak ). There is another way to do it by using the exhaust system to " pull " the vapors out of the crank case.
Brad F
1972, 2.5 Turbo Pinto
1972, Pangra
1973, Pangra
1971, 289 Pinto

Pintony

  • Guest
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #32 on: March 31, 2008, 11:47:39 PM »
Ok, I re read his post in the other thread. If he is saying " use an external pump to evacuate the crank case " I understand that. There are a lot of racers that use a pump to " zoop" the crank case dry ( so to speak ). There is another way to do it by using the exhaust system to " pull " the vapors out of the crank case.

YES except Mike's idea is using a tube to the intake manifold to evacuate.
 At least that is how I understand it.??

Offline turbopinto72

  • Master Mechanic
  • Administrator
  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3065
  • FeedBack: +170/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your never to old to go fast.
    • Brads Pintos and Pangras

  • Total Badges: 10
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Photographer Windows User 1000 Posts Webmaster Tenth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #33 on: March 31, 2008, 11:51:22 PM »
OK, well, for obvious reasons this would not be a good idea to be used on a forced induction car.
Brad F
1972, 2.5 Turbo Pinto
1972, Pangra
1973, Pangra
1971, 289 Pinto

Offline mikerich1972

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • FeedBack: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2008, 12:05:47 AM »
Okay, I'm back to answer some of these concerns!

At idle, my 308k mile 2.3L runs at about -22" HG (mercury). In a perfect world, I would be able to pull a -20" vacuum on the crank at idle. In the real world, with leaks, blow-by, etc, it actually runs at -4 to -5". So, yes the blow-by IS a factor in this. But it is negligible.

In my mind before I applied this to my car, this vacuum would make such a small difference in the internal rotational drag that it would be immeasurable. This is simply NOT the case. It is real, measurable, and does not do any harm to the engine.

In fact, the oil stays "drier" in the winter (without pulling in all the water vapor from outside). The oil, however, become more contaminated with combustion by-products faster... meaning change your oil at regular intervals!

The crankcase blow-by is still being removed from the engine block; just not as quickly. It is more like a teapot with a small opening in the lid on a hot stove, instead of an open pan with a fan blowing across it (figuratively speaking). The byproducts are still being removed from the enclosed space, just not as quickly as with more purge air. The important thing to remember here is that the gases are still being drawn into the intake manifold, NOT vented into the atmosphere as unburned hydrocarbons. Therefore, the EPA would not have a problem with our doing this.

In fact (and I have no data to prove this!) I would be willing to state that an engine with this in place would easily pass emissions testing. We simply have not created a path for this nasty stuff to purge un-burned into the atmosphere, we have just reduced the air flow; not altered its path!

Mike
1976 Pinto Wagon 2.3L
1972 Harley Davidson FLH 1200
1972 Pontiac Firebird 350/350
2003 Ford Motorhome
2018 Ford Focus

Offline 77turbopinto

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 2762
  • FeedBack: +99/-0
  • No good deed goes unpunished…..

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Tenth year Anniversary 1000 Posts Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #35 on: April 01, 2008, 07:40:44 AM »
......In fact, the oil stays "drier" in the winter (without pulling in all the water vapor from outside)......

 .......The important thing to remember here is that the gases are still being drawn into the intake manifold, NOT vented into the atmosphere as unburned hydrocarbons. Therefore, the EPA would not have a problem with our doing this........

A) Aren't winters 'dryer' than other seasons because cold air can't hold the mosture that warm air can?

B) It is still tampering with an emission control......

I still think that the biggest benifet is colder air intake temp.s.

Bill
Thanks to all U.S. Military members past & present.

Offline Farmboy

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • FeedBack: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User Tenth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #36 on: April 01, 2008, 09:16:30 AM »
  77Turbopinto, you never spent a winter in western Wa, its very wet here ;D
  I do what the voices in my Pinto tell me to do




74 Pinto Wagon
71 Runabout (parts car)

Offline Srt

  • Original Pangra Master Builder
  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1339
  • FeedBack: +100/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 10
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Tenth year Anniversary Poll Voter Linux User Mobile User Windows User 1000 Posts Fifth year Anniversary Photographer
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #37 on: April 01, 2008, 09:27:21 AM »
  77Turbopinto, you never spent a winter in western Wa, its very wet here ;D

i think he's talking about relative humidity. in winter the air is dryer
the only substitute for cubic inches is BOOST!!!

Offline mikerich1972

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • FeedBack: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2008, 12:35:31 PM »
What I'm referring to when I mentioned water vapor problems in the winter is this: Lower block temperatures (when parked) will condense more water into the oil than most any other time of year. This is particularly true if you make short trips, as in-town driving tends to be. With short trips, the water never has time to be vaporized and purged.

As far as "tampering with an emission control system".  Show me a federal, state, or any other regulation that this simple procedure violates! The EPA is concerned with ONE thing in a PCV system: that it purges the hot oil, blow-by, and combustion gases from the crankcase into the engine to be re-burned in the combustion process. I am not changing that in any way!!!!

Now, to address my feelings on the intake temperature reduction:  In the 2.3L Ford engine, we are looking at about 122 CFM at full throttle (stock, unmodified 2.3 liter engine, running at 5,000 RPM). Considering the amount of purge air pulled through the stock PCV (I would guess somewhere around <8 CFM), I believe the change in actual inlet air temperature is negligible. Certainly not enough to create a chilling affect required to increase the density of inlet air.

As for the concern of "sealing up" the crankcase:   This is simply NOt what I'm suggesting! The crankcase is still ventilated... it is just not ventilated as thoroughly as it was. We are now creating a negative pressure inside the block, instead of simply pulling air through the block.

I hope this clears up some of your questions and concerns!

Mike
1976 Pinto Wagon 2.3L
1972 Harley Davidson FLH 1200
1972 Pontiac Firebird 350/350
2003 Ford Motorhome
2018 Ford Focus

Offline 77turbopinto

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 2762
  • FeedBack: +99/-0
  • No good deed goes unpunished…..

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Tenth year Anniversary 1000 Posts Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #39 on: April 01, 2008, 12:58:55 PM »
What I'm referring to when I mentioned water vapor problems in the winter is this: Lower block temperatures (when parked) will condense more water into the oil than most any other time of year. This is particularly true if you make short trips, as in-town driving tends to be. With short trips, the water never has time to be vaporized and purged.

As far as "tampering with an emission control system".  Show me a federal, state, or any other regulation that this simple procedure violates! The EPA is concerned with ONE thing in a PCV system: that it purges the hot oil, blow-by, and combustion gases from the crankcase into the engine to be re-burned in the combustion process. I am not changing that in any way!!!!

Now, to address my feelings on the intake temperature reduction:  In the 2.3L Ford engine, we are looking at about 122 CFM at full throttle (stock, unmodified 2.3 liter engine, running at 5,000 RPM). Considering the amount of purge air pulled through the stock PCV (I would guess somewhere around <8 CFM), I believe the change in actual inlet air temperature is negligible. Certainly not enough to create a chilling affect required to increase the density of inlet air.

As for the concern of "sealing up" the crankcase:   This is simply NOt what I'm suggesting! The crankcase is still ventilated... it is just not ventilated as thoroughly as it was. We are now creating a negative pressure inside the block, instead of simply pulling air through the block.

I hope this clears up some of your questions and concerns!

Mike

So let me see if I have this correct.....

You post your idea with it's potential benefits (and a few known drawbacks) but provide no scientific documention, certified tests or studies showing why it has the effects that you claim, THEN if someone else posts concerns or opinions you require THEM to provide documentation, and if they don't, they are wrong.

OK, got it.



BTW: In round numbers:

114 CFM @ 80* + 8 CFM @ 200* = 122 CFM @ 87.9*


Bill
Thanks to all U.S. Military members past & present.

Offline lencost

  • Pinto Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
  • FeedBack: +1/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Fifth year Anniversary Photographer
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #40 on: April 01, 2008, 02:01:23 PM »
So let me see if I have this correct.....

You post your idea with it's potential benefits (and a few known drawbacks) but provide no scientific documention, certified tests or studies showing why it has the effects that you claim, THEN if someone else posts concerns or opinions you require them to provide documentation, and it they don't, they are wrong.

OK, got it.

Bill

This is an idea that a member decided to share in this forum. The cost of trying this is zero if you jest temporarily clamp off the inlet side of the PCV system. Wen I get my Pinto back on the road I plan on trying this, and then I will post my experience.
1975 Wagon 8" C4 2.8 V6

Offline 77turbopinto

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 2762
  • FeedBack: +99/-0
  • No good deed goes unpunished…..

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Tenth year Anniversary 1000 Posts Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #41 on: April 01, 2008, 02:04:22 PM »
This is an idea that a member decided to share in this forum. The cost of trying this is zero if you jest temporarily clamp off the inlet side of the PVC system. Wen I get my Pinto back on the road I plan on trying this, and then I will post my experience.

Where did I say he should not have posted this? 

Where did I post that people should not try it? (as long as they are aware that there are risks)


I am all for trying new (or old) ideas, but It just seems like he is trying harder to prove that others are wrong than anything else.

BTW: Would it still be "Zero Cost" if you had to repair something?



Bill
Thanks to all U.S. Military members past & present.

Offline turbopinto72

  • Master Mechanic
  • Administrator
  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3065
  • FeedBack: +170/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your never to old to go fast.
    • Brads Pintos and Pangras

  • Total Badges: 10
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Photographer Windows User 1000 Posts Webmaster Tenth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #42 on: April 01, 2008, 02:28:23 PM »
What I'm referring to when I mentioned water vapor problems in the winter is this: Lower block temperatures (when parked) will condense more water into the oil than most any other time of year. This is particularly true if you make short trips, as in-town driving tends to be. With short trips, the water never has time to be vaporized and purged.

As far as "tampering with an emission control system".  Show me a federal, state, or any other regulation that this simple procedure violates! The EPA is concerned with ONE thing in a PCV system: that it purges the hot oil, blow-by, and combustion gases from the crankcase into the engine to be re-burned in the combustion process. I am not changing that in any way!!!!

Now, to address my feelings on the intake temperature reduction:  In the 2.3L Ford engine, we are looking at about 122 CFM at full throttle (stock, unmodified 2.3 liter engine, running at 5,000 RPM). Considering the amount of purge air pulled through the stock PCV (I would guess somewhere around <8 CFM), I believe the change in actual inlet air temperature is negligible. Certainly not enough to create a chilling affect required to increase the density of inlet air.

As for the concern of "sealing up" the crankcase:   This is simply NOt what I'm suggesting! The crankcase is still ventilated... it is just not ventilated as thoroughly as it was. We are now creating a negative pressure inside the block, instead of simply pulling air through the block.

I hope this clears up some of your questions and concerns!

Mike

 Mike, just wanted to answer your questions reguarding " tampering with an emmision controll system. Read below.

3704.16 Prohibiting tampering with motor vehicle emission control systems.
(A) As used in sections 3704.16 to 3704.162 of the Revised Code:

(1) “Tamper with” means to remove permanently, bypass, defeat, or render inoperative, in whole or part, any emission control system that is installed on or in a motor vehicle.

(2) “Motor vehicle” has the same meaning as in section 4501.01 of the Revised Code.

(3) “Emission control system” means any system designated by the United States environmental protection agency as an emission control system under Title II of the “Clean Air Act Amendments.” “Emission control system” includes any device or element of design of the system.

(4) “Clean Air Act Amendments” has the same meaning as in section 3704.14 of the Revised Code.

(5) Notwithstandin g section 3704.01 of the Revised Code, “person” has the same meaning as in section 1.59 of the Revised Code.

(B) No person shall do any of the following:

(1) Sell, offer for sale, possess for sale, advertise, manufacture, install, or use any part or component intended for use with or as part of any motor vehicle when the primary effect is to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative, in whole or part, the emission control system;

(2) Introduce a leaded fuel into a motor vehicle that is designed, manufactured, or certified by the United States environmental protection agency to use only unleaded fuels;

(3) Tamper with any emission control system installed on or in a motor vehicle prior to its sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser;

(4) Violate any rule or order the director of environmental protection adopts or issues under section 3704.161 of the Revised Code;

(5) Refuse to permit the director or his designee to inspect any motor vehicle or documents as provided in division (A) of section 3704.161 of the Revised Code.

The sale, offering for sale, possession for sale, advertisement, manufacture, installation, and use of a part or component in violation of division (B)(1) of this section all constitute separate offenses.

(C) No person shall knowingly do any of the following:

(1) Operate a motor vehicle that has been tampered with if the motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine has been certified by the United States environmental protection agency as meeting federal or California emission control standards;

(2) Sell, lease, rent, or offer to sell, lease, or rent, or transfer or offer to transfer title or a right to possession of a motor vehicle that has been tampered with;

(3) Tamper with any emission control system installed on or in a motor vehicle after sale, lease, or rental and delivery of the vehicle to the ultimate purchaser, lessee, or renter.

The sale, lease, rental, and offer to sell, lease, or rent, and other transfer or offer to transfer of title or a right to possession of a motor vehicle in violation of division (C)(2) of this section all constitute separate offenses.

(D) Division (C)(2) of this section does not apply to either of the following:

(1) Any person who sells, leases, rents, or offers to sell, lease, or rent, or transfers or offers to transfer title or a right to possession of a motor vehicle that has been tampered with if the person is acting as a motor vehicle auction owner, a special auctioneer, or a salvage motor vehicle auction and if the person holds a current and appropriate license to engage in those activities issued under Chapter 4517., 4707., or 4738. of the Revised Code;

(2) The sale, lease, rental, or offer to sell, lease, or rent, or transfer or offer to transfer title or right to possession of a motor vehicle that has been tampered with if the vehicle is titled with a salvage certificate of title issued under section 4505.11 of the Revised Code.

(E) Notwithstandin g divisions (B)(1) and (3) and (C)(3) of this section, it is not a violation of those divisions if either of the following conditions is met:

(1) The action is taken for the purpose of repair or replacement of the emission control system or is a necessary and temporary procedure to repair or replace any other item on the motor vehicle and the action results in the system’s compliance with the “Clean Air Act Amendments”;

(2) The action is for the purpose of converting a motor vehicle to use a clean alternative fuel, as defined in Title II of the “Clean Air Act Amendments,” the motor vehicle complies with the applicable standard adopted under Section 202 of that act when operating on the fuel, an emission control system is installed or replaced upon completion of the conversion, and the action results in the system’s compliance with that act when the motor vehicle operates on the fuel for which it originally was designed.

Effective Date: 09-27-1993
Brad F
1972, 2.5 Turbo Pinto
1972, Pangra
1973, Pangra
1971, 289 Pinto

Offline Cookieboystoys

  • Eater of Cookies
  • PCCA Management Board
  • Pinto Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2253
  • FeedBack: +59/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • It's All About The Pinto's! Baby!
    • Cookieboy's Toys on Facebook

  • Total Badges: 9
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Signature Topic Starter Poll Voter Photographer Windows User 1000 Posts Webmaster Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #43 on: April 01, 2008, 02:45:17 PM »
So let me see if I have this correct.....

You post your idea with it's potential benefits (and a few known drawbacks) but provide no scientific documention, certified tests or studies showing why it has the effects that you claim, THEN if someone else posts concerns or opinions you require THEM to provide documentation, and if they don't, they are wrong.

OK, got it.

Bill

I don't know Bill... I went back and reread all 16 posts from Mike - Twice - and didn't see anywhere where "I think" he even "suggested" let alone stated that he requires documentation if someone doesn't agree with him. I also did not see anywhere that he stated someone was wrong other than to clairify a statement he made or clear up a question asked.

am I missing something?

I know I shouldn't post this as I will only make you angry Bill by disagreeing with with you (remember the floor pans) but I think this is a great discussion and at least worth the time to discuss. Let's not discourage a new member (Mike) by dissing on his idea, demanding proof and suggesting he's wrong. He has stated that he has done this himself, exlained his results under different circumstances and pointed out the potential pitfalls. He's been more than willing to discuss any questions and concerns and clairify if someone has a question. He has also stated and has said... Okay, so simply don't do it! Nothing ventured, nothing gained...

It's all about the Pintos! Baby!

Offline Cookieboystoys

  • Eater of Cookies
  • PCCA Management Board
  • Pinto Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2253
  • FeedBack: +59/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • It's All About The Pinto's! Baby!
    • Cookieboy's Toys on Facebook

  • Total Badges: 9
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Signature Topic Starter Poll Voter Photographer Windows User 1000 Posts Webmaster Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #44 on: April 01, 2008, 03:00:04 PM »

In fact, the oil stays "drier" in the winter (without pulling in all the water vapor from outside). The oil, however, become more contaminated with combustion by-products faster... meaning change your oil at regular intervals!

This makes perfect sense to me... up here where the temps in the winter time drop to below zero a lot during the winter. Imagine this.... start a very frozen engine (-0 and below) and watch it as it warms up... you can see the condensation start to build up. It will start to show as ice/frost first all over the engine and once the engine warms up and burns it off. Every spring in this part of the country you learn.... oil changes in the winter/spring are suggested/mandatory as you will end up with more water than you might guess in your oil especially if you just make short trips a lot. It's also the reason we use isopropyl in the gas to get rid of the water.
It's all about the Pintos! Baby!

Offline 77turbopinto

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 2762
  • FeedBack: +99/-0
  • No good deed goes unpunished…..

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Tenth year Anniversary 1000 Posts Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #45 on: April 01, 2008, 04:28:19 PM »
I don't know Bill... I went back and reread all 16 posts from Mike - Twice - and didn't see anywhere where "I think" he even "suggested" let alone stated that he requires documentation if someone doesn't agree with him. I also did not see anywhere that he stated someone was wrong other than to clairify a statement he made or clear up a question asked.

am I missing something?

I know I shouldn't post this as I will only make you angry Bill by disagreeing with with you (remember the floor pans) but I think this is a great discussion and at least worth the time to discuss. Let's not discourage a new member (Mike) by dissing on his idea, demanding proof and suggesting he's wrong. He has stated that he has done this himself, exlained his results under different circumstances and pointed out the potential pitfalls. He's been more than willing to discuss any questions and concerns and clairify if someone has a question. He has also stated and has said... Okay, so simply don't do it! Nothing ventured, nothing gained...


I admit that my views on the floor pans were not all that popular, but I was never angry about it, nor am I angry here. “Writing emotion” in posts is not easy; I guess I am not good at it. I express my opinion, maybe too much; however I do so with the intent to help others. I posted my beliefs in this thread to let others know that just because the person that started this thread does this, that not everyone should do it. Yes, he did post potential pitfalls, but maybe not all of them; there may be many others not discussed here. BTW: The old rope rear-main seal is an unforgiving little item; would it still be a "zero cost" modification if you needed to fix it? What would happen if the vacuum in the engine pulled the oil pan gasket apart and it got pulled into the oil-pick up screen? Please remember that these cars are old, and might not take modifications well. The last thing I want to read/hear is where someone had major problems with doing this modification, and they would have not done it had they known.

You asked if you missed something about him asking others for documentation; did you see this:

As far as "tampering with an emission control system".  Show me a federal, state, or any other regulation that this simple procedure violates!

(I think that one got answered)

Where did I "Diss" his idea?

Where did I "demand proof" from him?


I still would like to know WHY this has the possitive results for the people that do it.


Bill




Thanks to all U.S. Military members past & present.

Offline Cookieboystoys

  • Eater of Cookies
  • PCCA Management Board
  • Pinto Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2253
  • FeedBack: +59/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • It's All About The Pinto's! Baby!
    • Cookieboy's Toys on Facebook

  • Total Badges: 9
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Signature Topic Starter Poll Voter Photographer Windows User 1000 Posts Webmaster Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #46 on: April 01, 2008, 05:12:17 PM »

You asked if you missed something about him asking others for documentation; did you see this:

Quote from: mikerich1972 on Today at 12:35:31 PM
As far as "tampering with an emission control system".  Show me a federal, state, or any other regulation that this simple procedure violates!

(I think that one got answered)

I still would like to know WHY this has the result it has for the people that do it.

Bill


Hey Bill, I saw that but still didn't think your response was appropiate based on that one statement or that it applied. guess It just depends on what a person reads into both his statement and yours.

as far as the answer.... well... it's just a cut and paste of the law but there really isn't an answer to explain "in simple terms" so people like "ME!" can understand... kindof... I understand tampering with the emission control system in any way is not allowed so you have me there but... with what I understand as nothing more complicated then sealing the oil filler cap how you might get caught. Also with the way Mike explained it your really not disabling the purpose of the PVC system... just not allowing it to work as designed and dumping the bad stuff in the engine and not allowing it to escape. Anyhow... I don't know enough to argue any of these points so will not even try and should shut up on this one.

I too have my doubts and fears about doing something like this. I have said it before and will say it again, I'm not a mechanic and don't understand squat about how an engine works... OK, I get the basics but couldn't even consider tearing one down and rebuilding it  ;D

I was just happy to sit back and read what others think/say and stay out of this all together other than just keep reading and making up my own mind but... Mike is new and I didn't want him to get the wrong idea about the group. I think this discussion should keep going is all... It's a difficult one at best and there is bound to be people on both sides of the fence I just didn't want to see tempers get out of hand...

It is after all an idea... I don't "think" Mike is insisting that people try it but leaving it up to each to do or not do as they see fit.
It's all about the Pintos! Baby!

Offline mikerich1972

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • FeedBack: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #47 on: April 01, 2008, 05:41:01 PM »
Thank you for at least listening to this idea.

ALL I have ever said is this:  Try it, if you want to. Don't try it if you don't!

I will reitierate one more thing; I have been doing this for over two years on a now 32 year old Pinto engine. It still runs great, with NO adverse affects.

If you would like me to swear to this in court, well, that's a bit difficult to do here! I'm trying to say this as clearly as I can; IT WORKS! I was also VERY skepticle of this thing, but was willing to try it out before I trashed it.

Do whatever you want, I'm not pressuring anyone into this. (Now you can see why this idea isn't popular with many people.)

Mike
1976 Pinto Wagon 2.3L
1972 Harley Davidson FLH 1200
1972 Pontiac Firebird 350/350
2003 Ford Motorhome
2018 Ford Focus

Offline turbopinto72

  • Master Mechanic
  • Administrator
  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3065
  • FeedBack: +170/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your never to old to go fast.
    • Brads Pintos and Pangras

  • Total Badges: 10
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Photographer Windows User 1000 Posts Webmaster Tenth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #48 on: April 01, 2008, 05:53:51 PM »
Thanks for your ideas Mike. We do appreciate new ideas and, that said, the opportunity to debate the merits of said idea. Unfortunately I can not even try this Idea due to both my cars being turbocharged. I also tend to think in the forced induction realm of things so sometimes it takes me a few times reading through things to "re-compute" my brain  ;). I would however tend to think that at least out here in California with the EPA being as tough as they are, one might want to put the complete system back to original before they go get a smog check. They tend to crack down hard on that kind of stuff. This is why my cars are all pre smog cars. If the State ever passes legislation to include all cars in smog tests I will just convert to Alky or propane and give that a shot.
Brad F
1972, 2.5 Turbo Pinto
1972, Pangra
1973, Pangra
1971, 289 Pinto

Offline 77turbopinto

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 2762
  • FeedBack: +99/-0
  • No good deed goes unpunished…..

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Tenth year Anniversary 1000 Posts Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #49 on: April 01, 2008, 07:08:15 PM »
Thank you for at least listening to this idea.

ALL I have ever said is this:  Try it, if you want to. Don't try it if you don't!

I will reitierate one more thing; I have been doing this for over two years on a now 32 year old Pinto engine. It still runs great, with NO adverse affects.

If you would like me to swear to this in court, well, that's a bit difficult to do here! I'm trying to say this as clearly as I can; IT WORKS! I was also VERY skepticle of this thing, but was willing to try it out before I trashed it.

Do whatever you want, I'm not pressuring anyone into this. (Now you can see why this idea isn't popular with many people.)

Mike

I never said YOU had any adverse affects with YOUR pinto.

I never said you did not have the results that you claimed.

I never said it would not work.

I never trashed it.

I never said that you pressured anyone to do it.

(I did not see where anyone else said these things either)



WHY do you imply that someone said these things?



Bill
Thanks to all U.S. Military members past & present.

Offline mikerich1972

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • FeedBack: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #50 on: April 04, 2008, 05:36:05 PM »
Um, let's get back to the original subject...  ???

The old Pinto wagon's stats:   

 308,540 miles as of today. It still has the original paint, the really cool Ford version of green/yellow (what I call "sinus infection yellow". All the moms and dads out there know what color I mean...). As far as I can tell at this point, the engine is original, as in never been rebuilt. I have, however, replaced the head due to really bad valves and a small crack. That was in December 1997 at 206,346 miles. At that time, the cylinders had so little wear, they looked almost new! This is the most I've had to do to the engine, other than minor maintenance. New radiator, interior carpet, door weatherstrippi ng, several mufflers (remember the old Midas commercials?), several starters, two clutches, and several alternators. Since my retirement in June 2003, I've built a spare 2.3 in my shop. The biggest challenge in doing that was getting my hands on a usable head. It seems like all of the 2.3's around here were used up in racing; circle track, which they were winning!

 I've installed a set of guages to monitor the engine's vitals, and will continue to run the old engine as long as it will start. In fact, I'm amazed every time it does start!!   :hypno:

 I have done a lot of other small things to improve the drivability or reliability. I'm using synthetic gear lube in the transmission (manual) and rear differential. I had the rear diff rebuilt about 7 years ago due to some slight wear of the pinion shaft bearings. I also replaced the stock radiator fan with an electric version (thus putting more HP to the ground  ;D  ).  I replaced the 13" stock rally wheels with 14" aluminum wheels from a 1984 Thunderbird, for a 4.5% RPM reduction (and, yes, odometer offset). The carburetor was running so close to opening the secondary butterfly, that any incline would open it at the 70 MPH speeds (which the car was never meant to run! 55 MPH limits in 1976). With the reduced RPM, the highway mileage is now more where it should be, about 32. We have gotten up to 37.59 MPG, but that's using some other experiments I'm playing with.

 The engine oil pressure still runs at 32 PSI idle, 60 PSI highway. Of course, these 2.3's were always pretty good for that! Most non-Ford people are amazed at the oil pressure, but I think they're just jealous!

 I will post some pictures of the beast when I have a chance to scrape off months of road grime.

Mike Richardson
1976 Pinto Wagon 2.3L
1972 Harley Davidson FLH 1200
1972 Pontiac Firebird 350/350
2003 Ford Motorhome
2018 Ford Focus

Offline mikerich1972

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • FeedBack: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #51 on: April 29, 2008, 10:00:58 PM »
  Okay, I promise to post some pictures of the 308,670 miles Pinto Wagon here.... soon!

Mike
1976 Pinto Wagon 2.3L
1972 Harley Davidson FLH 1200
1972 Pontiac Firebird 350/350
2003 Ford Motorhome
2018 Ford Focus

Offline mikerich1972

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • FeedBack: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #52 on: May 11, 2008, 06:53:16 PM »
The old Pinto now has 308,901 mlles, as of today!!

I still drive it daily, and will soon be taking it to north Idaho and Montana for a week's vacation.

I hope you all enjoy the pictures. I know it's one of Ford's best paint colors (it sure isn't MY favorite!!), but it is too reliable to just get rid of this classic. We can certainly put up with the color, if it will continue to run like it has for the last twenty years.

We bought this wagon in May of 1988, after our other one was totaled...with me in it!! You just can't ask for a better car.

Mike
1976 Pinto Wagon 2.3L
1972 Harley Davidson FLH 1200
1972 Pontiac Firebird 350/350
2003 Ford Motorhome
2018 Ford Focus

Offline Cookieboystoys

  • Eater of Cookies
  • PCCA Management Board
  • Pinto Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2253
  • FeedBack: +59/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • It's All About The Pinto's! Baby!
    • Cookieboy's Toys on Facebook

  • Total Badges: 9
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Signature Topic Starter Poll Voter Photographer Windows User 1000 Posts Webmaster Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #53 on: May 11, 2008, 09:05:34 PM »
The old Pinto now has 308,901 mlles, as of today!!

Lookin' good for all them miles  ;D
It's all about the Pintos! Baby!

Offline dholvrsn

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1414
  • FeedBack: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Tenth year Anniversary Poll Voter 1000 Posts Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #54 on: May 11, 2008, 09:37:19 PM »
Has it ever been repainted?
'80 MPG Pony, '80-'92
'79 porthole wagon, '06-on
'80 trunk model. '17-on
-----
'98 Dodge Ram 1500
'95 Buick Riviera
'63 Studebaker Champ
'57 Studebaker Silver Hawk
'51 Studebaker Commander Starlight
'47 Studebaker Champion
'41 Studebaker Commander Land Cruiser

Offline earthquake

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 767
  • FeedBack: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Tenth year Anniversary Poll Voter Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #55 on: May 13, 2008, 09:57:11 AM »
I don't think you truly understand how this works.This is an old racers trick but in drag racing it is useless.This system only works in the low to midrange rpms,at WOT there is no vacum.For drag racing a system called an EVAC system working off the exhaust would be used.On the street the EVAC is useless as it requires high rpm to make it work.At present I am trying to find a way to combine the 2 systems but that is allot more complicated than it would seem.Hey Mike,any ideas there.
   Doc.

Just a note here on my progress.   At this time we are averaging 25 and the car was only rated at 23 new.Calculated HP is around128 up from I think 88.Not earth shaking HP # but not Bad for an internally stock motor.
73 sedan parts car,80 crusin wagon conversion,76 F 250 460 SCJ,74 Ranchero 4x4,88 mustang lx convertable,and the readheaded step child 86 uhhh Chevy 4x4(Sorry guys it was cheap)

Offline mikerich1972

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • FeedBack: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #56 on: May 13, 2008, 09:36:18 PM »
You're certainly correct about the WOT and low vacuum.

I gave my original air pump from the air injection system for the catalytic converter to a friend as an experiment. He wanted to try reversing it's rotation and see if it would pull a vacuum on the crankcase. I never did hear anything back from him on the subject, so I assume it didn't work as he hoped.

The vacuum pump is definately an option for you, although the cost of the pump can be prohibitive! They are in the $700 range. One is available from Moroso for $799 (part# BPI-EVAC-MOR). With this pump, a net gain of 14.5 HP was documented on a Pontiac 400 CI at -9.5" mercury. That translates to about a 4% increase in net HP for this engine. Not much for the money, in my opinion...

Back to the high-mileage wagon... Yes, the paint is absolutely original!!!!

Mike
1976 Pinto Wagon 2.3L
1972 Harley Davidson FLH 1200
1972 Pontiac Firebird 350/350
2003 Ford Motorhome
2018 Ford Focus

Offline mikerich1972

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • FeedBack: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #57 on: June 22, 2008, 11:48:08 PM »
Yahoo!!  The old Pinto will turn over to 310,000 miles tomorrow morning!!

Okay, everybody get out your party hats and celebrate with me...
1976 Pinto Wagon 2.3L
1972 Harley Davidson FLH 1200
1972 Pontiac Firebird 350/350
2003 Ford Motorhome
2018 Ford Focus

Offline Cookieboystoys

  • Eater of Cookies
  • PCCA Management Board
  • Pinto Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2253
  • FeedBack: +59/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • It's All About The Pinto's! Baby!
    • Cookieboy's Toys on Facebook

  • Total Badges: 9
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Signature Topic Starter Poll Voter Photographer Windows User 1000 Posts Webmaster Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #58 on: June 23, 2008, 03:06:46 PM »
Congrats Mike!  :happy_bday: to the car w/310,000 miles
It's all about the Pintos! Baby!

Offline mikerich1972

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • FeedBack: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 1976 Wagon with 308.000 miles!
« Reply #59 on: June 25, 2008, 07:39:11 PM »
 Thanks, Cookieboy. We still don't hesitate to take a road trip in it when needed. Of course, it does help that we have a fair mechanic in the car at all times! We also have a spare rebuilt engine in the garage, just waiting for when the (original???) engine bites the dust.
 
1976 Pinto Wagon 2.3L
1972 Harley Davidson FLH 1200
1972 Pontiac Firebird 350/350
2003 Ford Motorhome
2018 Ford Focus