PINTO CAR CLUB of AMERICA
Shiny is Good! => Your Pintos/Bobcats & Racers => Topic started by: mikerich1972 on March 24, 2008, 07:47:13 PM
-
Yep, I drive my wagon every day. We've had the car since 1988, when I got T-boned in my other Pinto wagon. I bought the first one in about January, 1988. It had some serious piston slap going on in the tired 2.3. I used to wait at least 2 minutes for warm-up to let the pistons quit swapping holes before pulling out of the driveway!
This second Pinto now has 308.000 confirmed miles. I'm not sure it's the original engine, though. The odometer read 97k when I got it, and drove it about 36 miles round trip to work daily. We live in Washington state, and routinely drive it into Montana and Idaho for vacations. You should've seen some of the stares we got on I-90 headed East into Montana across Lolo Pass last October! Then there's the comments we get from folks around town who can't believe thier eyes; all worth it!
I retired in 2003, and took the first opportunity to build a spare 2.3 L. I still have the spare waiting for the day the original breathes its last... that was 30,000 miles ago, and no end in sight! It still runs at 30-32 MPG highway, so who's complaining?
I contacted Ford Motor Company about a year ago, concerning this high-mileage Pinto. I didn't hear anything back, so e-mailed three different departments within Ford! I received two "thanks but no thanks" responses to my offer of commercial exposure. You would think they would be interested in their little "disposable" car being so reliable!! I guess they're too busy figuring out how to send more jobs overseas and save a buck...
-
:welcome: mikerich1972,
Does your Pinto happen to be one made in Canada that the odometer rolls on Kilometers instead of miles?
Just a question... Not trying to be a wise guy...
30-32 would be phenomenal mpg for a 2.3.
Most Pinto owners do not even know there is a difference between the two odometers.
From Pintony
-
No, it's definitely a US made, mile-measuring Pinto! I have, many times, verified the MPG, gear ratios, and tire calculations for this car. In fact, I have done modifications to the engine that have netted me up to 37.502 MPG!! (And this was last February, with about 300K miles!).
I have been working on several ideas that I think may have merit in reducing gasoline consumption. The latest is hard to quantify right now, but I'm still working on it. The poor car should feel like a lab rat by now!
By the way, if any of you Pinto guys want to know a secret to easily boost HP and MPG that was inspired by some old-school racing guys, just e-amil me. This will work on almost ny engine, although Chevy's are more sensitive. Please write "PCV MODS" in the subject line. I'll e-mail you my instructions for increasing MPG by up to 17% !!! This is not a joke. I have been doing this for a long time, with no adverse affects on the high-mileage engine. I also have a magazine article highlighting this same basic idea that proves up to 14.5 HP increase with a Pontiac 455 CI. My experience can only prove the MPG increase of up to 17% on the 2.3L.
Send your requests to: GDSNCNTRL@VERIZON.NET ( be sure to put "PCV MODS"
Mike Richardson
-
By the way, if any of you Pinto guys want to know a secret to easily boost HP and MPG that was inspired by some old-school racing guys, just e-amil me. This will work on almost ny engine, although Chevy's are more sensitive. Please write "PCV MODS" in the subject line. I'll e-mail you my instructions for increasing MPG by up to 17% !!! This is not a joke. I have been doing this for a long time, with no adverse affects on the high-mileage engine. I also have a magazine article highlighting this same basic idea that proves up to 14.5 HP increase with a Pontiac 455 CI. My experience can only prove the MPG increase of up to 17% on the 2.3L.
Are you taking about disconnecting the PCV system and just venting it? I know racers do that to lower the intake air temps.
Bill
-
:welcome:, great, another pinto-freak in the great state of Washington
-
Good story you have there. In regard to your attempts to contact Ford about the Pinto, I was not surprised that the comments didn't receive the highest regards. The Pinto is probably one of the most if not the most infamous car in Ford history. Even if a Pinto had 1,000,000 miles, I doubt Ford would do anything except congratulate the owner on the achievement. It was/is a great car and us Pinto fans know it, but it cost Ford a lot of money and hurt its reputation. And really, the Pinto wasn't a very popular idea in some of Ford's CEO's eyes back when it was introduced, but Lee Ioccoca got his way despite Henry Ford II trying to shut the project down. But a good story nonetheless, keep her maintained and it should last you many many more miles if you're lucky.
-beegle55
-
Actually, the idea is to reduce the pressure in the crankcase, thus reducing the rotational drag caused by having to push air in an enclosed space. In other words, I'm pulling a vacuum on the crankcase...
Mike
-
Actually, the idea is to reduce the pressure in the crankcase, thus reducing the rotational drag caused by having to push air in an enclosed space. In other words, I'm pulling a vacuum on the crankcase...
Mike
Isn't that what the PCV system does?
Bill
-
The PCV system on any automotive engine only has ONE purpose; to keep the unburned hydrocarbons (and other junk) out of the atmosphere. It does that quite effectively by purging air through the crankcase and into the intake manifold. From there, the junk is burned in the combustion process.
So, no, the PCV system does not apply ANY vacuum on the crankcase. It merely pulls air (and, by the way, a lot of water vapor) through it.
You may be misunderstandi ng the word vacuum. In this and many other cases, it is used to refer to the absence of air, or deprivation to some extent. This results in a reduction of pressure to some point below atmospheric pressure.
E-mail me with "PCV MODS" in the subject line, and I'll forward my idea to you. It is a two-page explanation of this whole concept.
GDSNCNTRL@VERIZON.NET
-
The PCV system on any automotive engine only has ONE purpose; to keep the unburned hydrocarbons (and other junk) out of the atmosphere. It does that quite effectively by purging air through the crankcase and into the intake manifold. From there, the junk is burned in the combustion process.
So, no, the PCV system does not apply ANY vacuum on the crankcase. It merely pulls air (and, by the way, a lot of water vapor) through it.
You may be misunderstandi ng the word vacuum. In this and many other cases, it is used to refer to the absence of air, or deprivation to some extent. This results in a reduction of pressure to some point below atmospheric pressure.
E-mail me with "PCV MODS" in the subject line, and I'll forward my idea to you. It is a two-page explanation of this whole concept.
I fully understand the word "vacuum".
The PCV system does put a vacuum to the crankcase, but with the crankcase that is vented, outside air is pulled into the crankcase: 'a vacuum leak'. If it were not putting a vacuum to the crankcase, air would not be pulled in through the vent.
By sealing the vent ('leak') you will limit the amount of hot gas that will be pulled out of the crankcase and into the engine, and in turn your intake air temp will go down. That will go along with any benefit that a negative pressure in the crankcase might give you.
A N/A (regular) car will draw more vacuum at idle or 'decel' than with an open throttle (like highway driving).
Of course ANY modification to the intake air might have other effects too, and those must be considered before-hand (tune, choke, federal laws...).
BTW: What I don't understand is why you don't want to just post all of your information here, or post a link, and make it "public."
Bill
-
It appears that I can't attach an MS Office file here.
Maybe there's something I'm missing.
Mike
-
ive know about this one for a wail it woks so good my father in-law who had huge doubts after seeing it work on to of my cars he took his 2007 toyota pu in and he couldn't believe that it even made his new truck get 4 mpg more!
page wasn't working for me but may be my fire wall
http://www.condensator.com/
another
http://www.dogpile.com/dogpile_rss/ws/results/Images/Gas%20Mileage%20Devices/1/408/TopNavigation/Relevance/zoom=off/_iceUrlFlag=7?_IceUrl=true
-
It appears that I can't attach an MS Office file here.
Maybe there's something I'm missing.
Mike
try to "copy and the paste" the text.... but if it's 2 pages I'm not sure it would fit.
-
This is an interesting topic. The possible adverse effects should be considered by anyone thinking of doing this. Thank you for posting some of the issues you did have, and some of your concerns too.
I wonder what the gains would be if the crankcase were vented outside of the vacuum like I mentioned before (all else equal).
......The nasty vapors are still drawn off and burned in the engine, so the emissions have not increased, and the EPA will be happy......
The PCV system is considered to be an emission control and the EPA might not be that happy, at least not for street use.
........I want to point out that the on-board computer in newer vehicles doesn’t care about this modification! (The computer does not control or monitor the PCV in any way.).......
I can tell you that the EFI 2.3T has a "Metered Air" system that is designed to work with a PCV and 'vented' crankcase. The vent is after the VAM so all the air in the engine is metered, so IF this were to be done it would not have an effect on the METERING of the air (mixture). One more thing to think about with this set-up: the location of the "vent", its between the VAM and the turbo; in a vacuum area. Other possible effects, good or bad, are still a '?'.
I would think that it would change the mixture for a carb.ed engine (fixed mixture). Yes, some, if not all Pintos have the vented oil cap have a tube to the air can, but it is located before the air fliter (restriction).
Cars with "Speed Density" or "MAP" sensors might not deal well with the change (I don't know).
Bill
-
Might I ask why, if this is so cost & fuel efficient; not to mention (your implication, not mine) that it is common sense; do not all auto manufacturers utilize it?
-
Might I ask why, if this is so cost & fuel efficient; not to mention (your implication, not mine) that it is common sense; do not all auto manufacturers utilize it?
3 letters (EPA) :(
-
3 letters (EPA) :(
you maybe partially corect but i think that if 'big business' could do something so simple & inexpensive & effective why wouldn't they do it? in my opinion, because it has been researched and set aside as not being feasible.
there have been throught the years, no lack of 'devices' along the same lines as this idea. an xample is the '300' or '100' MPG carburetor.
the epa & the auto manufacturers are not ignorant of ideas & 'out of the box' thinking when it comes to designing vehicles & the power plants that allow them to move. yes, they do have a vested interest in selling cars/trucks and the parts to service them. so does 'big oil' have a vested interest in perpetuating the aut industry as a huge consumer of oil. but in the political climate that is prevalent in this day & age a simple procedure or device such as this would have been implemented already.
100+mpg+carburetor
cut & paste this into google:
there are listed page after page of 'ideas' that will change the future of the automotive world for the better.
all that being said; i have never tried any of this and i'm not saying that any of these ideas don't or do work. i am saying that with the united states full of the best engineers & researcher as well as a few govt. aencies devoted to the science and application of such ideas, i would think that an idea such as this would be a bit more 'mainstream' than showing up on a forum in an enthusiasts web site
-
Back on topic to the original post...
Are we talking about capping off the crankcase vent valve and the oil filling cap, thus making the engine a closed "circuit" with no external ventilation?
-
I fully understand the word "vacuum".
The PCV system does put a vacuum to the crankcase, but with the crankcase that is vented, outside air is pulled into the crankcase: 'a vacuum leak'. If it were not putting a vacuum to the crankcase, air would not be pulled in through the vent.
By sealing the vent ('leak') you will limit the amount of hot gas that will be pulled out of the crankcase and into the engine, and in turn your intake air temp will go down. That will go along with any benefit that a negative pressure in the crankcase might give you.
A N/A (regular) car will draw more vacuum at idle or 'decel' than with an open throttle (like highway driving).
Of course ANY modification to the intake air might have other effects too, and those must be considered before-hand (tune, choke, federal laws...).
BTW: What I don't understand is why you don't want to just post all of your information here, or post a link, and make it "public."
Bill
Sorry bill, no direspect intended. I never know what level of knowledge is out there. You obviously DO understand what's going on!!
Mike
-
This is an interesting topic. The possible adverse effects should be considered by anyone thinking of doing this. Thank you for posting some of the issues you did have, and some of your concerns too.
I wonder what the gains would be if the crankcase were vented outside of the vacuum like I mentioned before (all else equal).
The PCV system is considered to be an emission control and the EPA might not be that happy, at least not for street use.
I can tell you that the EFI 2.3T has a "Metered Air" system that is designed to work with a PCV and 'vented' crankcase. The vent is after the VAM so all the air in the engine is metered, so IF this were to be done it would not have an effect on the METERING of the air (mixture). One more thing to think about with this set-up: the location of the "vent", its between the VAM and the turbo; in a vacuum area. Other possible effects, good or bad, are still a '?'.
I would think that it would change the mixture for a carb.ed engine (fixed mixture). Yes, some, if not all Pintos have the vented oil cap have a tube to the air can, but it is located before the air fliter (restriction).
Cars with "Speed Density" or "MAP" sensors might not deal well with the change (I don't know).
Bill
Great points!!
I have modified a 2006 Chrysler minivan, and a 2005 Ford F-150. Both operated just fine with this done. The only complaint from the owner was about the "whistle". This was only noticable upon shutdown, but they wanted them both reversed anyway. These, and the vehicles mentioned in the article are the only experience I have with fully "comptuered" cars.
By the way, both of these vehicles saw a solid 1.5 miles per gallon increase for the short time I had the mods on them.
Mike
-
Sorry bill, no direspect intended....
None taken.
It's so hard to "read" emotions or intent in forums like this.
Bill
-
Back on topic to the original post...
Are we talking about capping off the crankcase vent valve and the oil filling cap, thus making the engine a closed "circuit" with no external ventilation?
Well, just cap, or change out, the oil fill cap. What you want to do is create a vacuum-tight crankcase. Be careful to watch your oil seals, though!
Mike
-
For a lot of you folks who are wondering why I would be willing to share this idea on a small website forum, I'll be happy to answer that.
I presented this idea to many car-guy friends, most of whom looked at me like I was crazy! I also contacted the local city maintenance department about trying this on some of their vehicles. I got the same reaction!! What's the problem here? Unbelief... Most of us believe that if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
This idea is NOT new! Drag racers have been doing this for years to sneak out a few more HP's.This is also why I can't patent and market the idea. But, what I CAN do is get the word out! All I'm asking is that you try it. If you don't like the outcome, or if it flat doesn't increase your gas mileage, then reverse the mods and we'll all move on. Nothing really lost!
However, if it DOES work for you: pass on the information!! (It's here on the site for free) All I'm asking is that you let me know how it's working for you. What increases have you seen?
I worked as a Mechanical Engineer at a nuclear fuels production plant for 14 years, responsible for the HVAC, Containment, and Air Sampling systems, among other equipment. I spent about 26 years working with all types of HVAC systems. Because of this experience I too, was very skeptical of the seemingly minuscule gains available with such a simple modification. That's why I had to prove it to myself before I could put this out to the public!
I'm not in it for profit. I just want to beat the imported oil thing as much as I can, any way I can.
Thanks for listening!
Mike
-
Well, just cap, or change out, the oil fill cap. What you want to do is create a vacuum-tight crankcase. Be careful to watch your oil seals, though!
Mike
Im sorry but I am having a hard time with this. The crank case needs to breath or there will be so much crank case pressure built up it will blow out the dip stick. By sealing it off you will not have an effective " air pump" I can see tons of HP loss with this not to mention damage to parts. ??????
-
The thing I'm wondering about is if a piston is moving up and another down, doesn't this offset each other in regards to occupied air space?
So, when a vacuum is created (as with this modification) and a piston needs to occupy space (moving upward), doesn't that vacuum impede the upward movement of the piston in the same way atmospheric pressure impeded downward piston movement without the modification?
I'm not up on Physics, but maybe things move easier in a vacuum and the same trade-off of piston up/down movement mentioned above becomes more efficient?
I have seen drag cars apply this negative pressure principle, but they siphon a vacuum off headers. I guess at full throttle the header siphon creates more vacuum than dual four barrels do on the intake side.
Tom
-
If you think about it, every 4th rotation of a given piston there is a " vent" via the exhaust valve opening. But, in a closed crank case there is no " vent" so , where does the compressed air go to ?
-
Well, in an ideal world there would be no ring blow by. So, the crack pressure ideally shouldn't change. But within the crank case you have pistons offsetting the air, I would think in a push/pull fashion. The spinning crank would create "wind like" a fan. But even that possibly is simply replacing like air in occupied space. So, I would guess it is the difference in temperature (crank case to atmosphere) that causes the most air movement related to the venting the crank case.
In years of old cars simply had a breather tube venting to the air I don't recall major pressure issues with good rings and valves. The PCV was just a way of burning hydrocarbons given off by heated oil. It created a vacuum and force the vapors into the intake.
Tom
-
Right. And the PVC valve/ crankcase vent system also keeps the certain % of blow-by i.e. gas from collecting in the oil system and contaminating it
-
I'm sorry but I am having a hard time with this. The crank case needs to breath or there will be so much crank case pressure built up it will blow out the dip stick. By sealing it off you will not have an effective " air pump" I can see tons of HP loss with this not to mention damage to parts. ??????
I'm not going to pretend that I understand this but...
Mike is trying to say that the crank case is sealed EXCEPT for the vacuum applied to it by the intake manifold. If an absolute vacuum is applied then there is no pressure.
If you put a wind-up airplane in a vacuum tube and then let it go the propeller would spin really fast as there is no air to slow it down but no air to pull the plane forward either. So having a partial vacuum applied would produce HP.
as there are 2 pistons moving down and 2 pistons moving up at the same time in a 2.0 or 2.3 engine. and the Vacuum is NOT "absolute" if the c.c. needed a little air back for some reason it could take it as there is NO checkvalve to stop air going in either direction.
From Pintony
-
Ummm, huh ??.
You still need to evacuate the crankcase. I hear Mike saying he wants to " seal it" is that not the case?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.??
-
OK, well, for obvious reasons this would not be a good idea to be used on a forced induction car.
-
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
-
......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
-
77Turbopinto, you never spent a winter in western Wa, its very wet here ;D
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
Okay, I promise to post some pictures of the 308,670 miles Pinto Wagon here.... soon!
Mike
-
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
-
The old Pinto now has 308,901 mlles, as of today!!
Lookin' good for all them miles ;D
-
Has it ever been repainted?
-
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.
-
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
-
Yahoo!! The old Pinto will turn over to 310,000 miles tomorrow morning!!
Okay, everybody get out your party hats and celebrate with me...
-
Congrats Mike! :happy_bday: to the car w/310,000 miles
-
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.
-
:welcome: mikerich1972,
Does your Pinto happen to be one made in Canada that the odometer rolls on Kilometers instead of miles?
Just a question... Not trying to be a wise guy...
30-32 would be phenomenal mpg for a 2.3.
Most Pinto owners do not even know there is a difference between the two odometers.
From Pintony
Most of you dont know where canada is
-
Its between the Germany and France, you can get to it by crossing the English channel! Any idiot knows that! :lol:
-
Well, the old wagon now has 310,895 miles, still gets 32 MPG highway, 25-26 MPG in town!!
Who can complain about the little Ford that wasn't supposed to survive more than a few years?
I don't remeber for sure if I answered the question about the odometer possibly reading out kilometers. Anyway, here it is: NO, it is absolutely an American car, reading in miles. I have changed the wheels and tires to 14 inch to reduce the engine RPM on the freeway. (This car was only geared to run at 55 MPH). This has helped my highway mileage somewhat, as it allowed me to run at highway speeds with the throttle butterfly more closed. The side-affect is that the secondary butterfly is NOT opening 'till I want it to!!
-
Just an FYI...
The old Pinto now has 311,149 miles on the odometer. We are taking it to Idaho and Montana this next week for a great time in a lake-front cabin!
It still runs great, adn doesn't worry me one bit to take it across the Continental divide!!!
-
Congratulation s on passing 300,000 miles. I am currently driving my 7th Pinto. It is the lowest mileage car I have ever owned, with 84,400 showing. I'm the third owner. It was bought new in '78 by a family friends father, when he died in '86 it had 23,000 miles, his daughter inhereted it and drove it till '97 when the water pump went out and it overheated. She took it to a mechanic and they told her it had a blown head gasket or a cracked head. She didn't want to spend much on it so she parked it in her back yard. I tried to get the car from her in '98 while I was still driving my 200,000 mile '75 hatchback, but she didn't want to part with it for sentimental reasons. She finally gave it to me in '03, I changed the timing belt, oil, spark plugs, water pump and rebuilt the carburetor and it has been trouble free for 5 years. I only average about 25 mpg with the 2.3 and 4 speed though.
Chuck
-
Well, the old Pinto still hasn't died!! I am now rolling onto 312,700 miles!
The oil pressure in these old 2.3's simply amazes me. It still holds at 55 PSI highway, and about 30 PSI at idle. I DO have a spare built, so I'm running it as long as it's reliable.
All I've really done to the car is general maintenance. I had the rear and rebuilt; new bearings and seals, about 6 years ago. I rebuilt and replaced a bad head, but I believe the engine is completely original other than that!! I replaced the stock oil in the tranny and rear with synthetic oil (this is a four-speed stick!) to reduce the cold weather problems associated with that (Translated: better fuel economy in the winter).
-
LATEST UPDATE: The old Pinto wagon now has 314,550 miles on the odometer!
I recently ran a compression check on this old engine, thinking it surely has some terrible blow-by, etc. The old engine tested out at: 162, 155, 158, and 150 PSI (cylinders 1 through 4). It still runs maybe as good as new, and is getting over 30 MPG. Totally amazing!!
I'll continue to keep you good folks posted on my progress wiht keeping this classic on the road and out of the wrecking yard....
-
Well, the old Pinto still runs great at 316,460 miles!
I will drive it into Montana and Idaho next month.
-
Sounds like a winner to me!!! :surprised:
Dwayne :smile:
-
Well, we took the old Pinto into Idaho and Montana last week. No problem. It now has just over 318,100 miles! And all of this is on wht I believe to be an original engine. All I've done is swapped the head, due to a major valve problem.
The oil pressure is dropped a bit in the last year, but still runs at a respectable 50 PSI highway, 25 idle.
-
Awesome, Mike. I think it's great that you are getting so much mileage out of it - this is really testament to how durable and well-built the cars were (and are)!
Chris
-
The old Pinto wagon is still running strong at 319,815 miles as of today! We plan on taking it about 150 miles north, to Spokane this next weekend. No problem. ;D
I have only experienced a problem wiht keeping good spark plugs in it. I have been running Bosch platinums for about a year now, but even those seem to fail. Before that, I went through several sets of Autolite platinums, and numorous sets of regular plugs.
They don't really fail catastrophical ly, they simply misfire! Talk about a nightmare to find which plug.....
However, I have come up with an easy way to find a bad plug, or plug wire. I have an infrered thermometer, so I now use that to find the mis-firing plug really fast! I set the carb to fast idle and wiat a few minutes, Then I can easily see the lower exhaust temperature on the affected cylinder!!
I have always liked EASY!
-
Thought I would post photos of the old, high-mileage Pinto.
-
Looks great!! Looks like Joe's in Morgan Hills car!!!
-
I'm glad she's still running strong for you Mike! Could it be something besides the spark plug though? Like a spark plug wire or bad cylinder?
-
different grilles Kimmy! lol.
-
different grilles Kimmy! lol.
LOL, I didn't look that close!!
-
Not much chance of the problem being a plug wire. I often check the ignition system with my indcutive timing light, which also checks the wires the way I kook it up.
Thanks, though!
-
Impressive to see it still going, Mike!
I'm going to trade mine in at 100,000 miles :lol: not.
Are you using the dielectric grease on the plug boots when you mess with them? I don't know if you can tell if you're losing juice there. Just a thought...
Also, are they fouling? or are the insulators crumbling? How many miles do you get out of your plugs? I've been through 2 sets in 17k miles. They're usually black/sooty ( my car runs a bit rich) The first set the insulators on 2 broke when I took them out. I'm using Splitfire plugs right now, they seem to be holding up ok.
Chuck :afro:
-
Nice to see someone having good luck with their Pinto. Since 2006 I have put maybe 50 miles on mine, and everything has gone wrong on it. If you combine your & my Pinto we got a normal car lol
-
Wow, R4pinto !!!!
Sorry to hear about the bad luck with yours..... I have driven mine almost daily for, well it will be 22 years in May! I bought the car with about 97,000 on the odometer, so I've put on most of the miles now.
-
Thanks Mike... I am hoping to have some better luck with her after it warms up & I get her fixed.
-
The latest on the high-mile Wagon......
I am now putting the original emblems back on the hood, tailgate, and dash. I removed them years ago, to simply get a few smiles and curious looks from others (I replaced the tailgate and dashboard emblems with FIREBIRD). I think it's time to get it back into great original condition for the car show season. We are constantly being asked about this car, so why not let others enjoy it too? :smile:
We have a local show called "Cool Desert Nights" that we usually attend and show one of our Pontiacs. This is no small affair... it averages over 500 entries! Last year, we were reminded that we could cruise anything we want, as long as we have a vehicle registered for the show! This year, the Pinto will definitely do the Friday night cruising!!!
The car now has slightly over 321,000 (actually 321,081) ORIGINAL miles, and I see no mechanical problems in the engine yet! :surprised: No worries, though. I rebuilt another 2.3 and have it waiting for the inevitable engine swap, when that day finally arrives!
-
I got stopped today by a guy in a 1951 Chevy panel. He had followed me for about 5 blocks, apparently admiring my Pinto! He asked the usual questions about the paint, and its age. When I told him of the high original miles and that it's driven daily, he just about fainted.
Funny thing, though. For a guy in his late forties, he had no idea what it was until he read the emblems on the car!! I guess maybe more of those Chevy guys still need to be educated. :welcome:
-
When I told him of the high original miles and that it's driven daily, he just about fainted.
I get that too... but not from a Pinto. I have a chev lumina mini-van with 392,000 miles confirmed on the original drive train, 3 previous owners are known and motor still runs strong enough to have towed one of my cars home last year on a dolly, 200+ mile trip. My kid is the current driver and it still looks ok. funny thing is... it's the daily driver that has needed the least amout of work/repairs in the last year or more...
keep them wheels turning...
-
FYI: The old Ponto just turned over 326,000 miles this weekend!! Still runs great on the original block.
-
Very good Mike!
-
Sounds like your Ford might have a little Timex blood in it... takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'!
Dwayne :smile:
-
Still running great at 326,650 miles!!!
-
Sounds like your Ford might have a little Timex blood in it... takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'!
Dwayne :smile:
Or energizer batteries... They keep going, & going, & going...... ;D
-
Okay.. we now have 343,600 miles on the old Pinto. However, I noticed on Monday that it's got a cracked exhaust manifold. Thanks to another member here (thanks, Derek!!!), I'll be getting another one soon, along with my original one braised. I'll have it back on the road by Friday.
Not bad for a really high mileage engine!!!
-
Not bad at all! :)
-
Pretty darn good, it must of been well taken cared for..
-
i hit 80000 orignal miles so i guess im good for aleast 200000 more!!!!! chris
-
It's now at 343,600 miles officially!!
Still runs as well, if not better, than new.
-
Well, more news on the "old" wagon.
It now has 360,900 miles on the original block. Uses oil, but the oil pressure is still over 55 PSI and the last time I ran a compression check all the cylinders were within reasonable range. Still a great daily driver, and it gets a lot of attention!!
-
That wagon of yours is nothing short of amazing. I hope mine proves to be just as reliable.
Dwayne :)
-
That's awesome..
-
That's great , if it's using oil you might try changing the valve stem seals , you do not have to pull the head and worth the effort, had them get hard as a rock on a few pintos and rangers with the 2.3 , easy way to check them is to pull the valve cover and use a ice pick and stick the side of the seal through the valve springs , if they are soft they are good , if they crack and crumble they are bad , hope ''this tip helps everyone ,
-
At 308,000 miles and 42 years my bet is 99.9% their hard. I agree if done yourself it is a good investment. If your paying someone then just get the whole had redone. But, this doesn't account for ring/bore wear. So, I'd say either do the seals yourself, or just keep driving it and add oil as needed. BTW, my 150,000 mile turbo motor still has a nice crosshatch on the cylinder walls. Ford did something right.
If you do it yourself I recommend the using thin rope in the cylinder to hold the valve in place while the spring is compressed. Happy motoring and may you get 308,000+ more!
-
Hey guys. Look into JEG'S or any other racing equipment outlet and you will fine VACUUM pumps designed for this purpose. And that is to keep a vacuum in the crankcase!! Read up on it too.. They claim to gain up to 14 or so horses!
-
Modify Your Engine’s PCV System to Gain up to 17% MPG
The idea is to reduce our country’s dependence on foreign oil and save you money. I do not want your money in any way.
Now that you understand where I’m coming from, here’s the deal… Would you spend about 20 minutes and under $10 to modify your vehicle’s engine, and gain 5 – 17% increase in miles per gallon? There is nothing to wear out, replace, clean, renew, or change ever again. This is a one-time modification that will last for many years.
Still interested? Read on.
In the very competitive game of bracket drag racing, the engines are covered by many extremely restrictive rules. Any small horsepower gain that can be found within these rules is a huge advantage. Reduce the internal “drag”, or rotational resistance, and you have a more efficient, more powerful engine. Some “old” drag racers have known this for a long time. They have been connecting vacuum pumps to their engines for an overall gain of nearly 10 horsepower. Small gain, yes; but an advantage of about 5%!!
In this application, we will put the engine’s own Positive Crankcase Ventilation (PCV) system to work for us. We use the PCV system to reduce the pressure inside the engine’s crankcase, thereby reducing the quantity of air that must be displaced by each piston as it travels downward. With the reduced air resistance within the engine, it naturally rotates easier.
So, how do we do this? What you need to understand is how the PCV system works. It pulls filtered air into the engine block. This purged air is then pulled into the intake manifold, where it is burned in the engine. Simple, all we have to do is cap, or plug this airflow INTO the engine’s crankcase. This is usually done with a small (1/2”) tube that leads from the airbox (or downstream of the air filter) to the engine. It is generally connected to the engine on one of the valve covers. By capping this tube, be certain that you are preventing air infiltration two ways: into the tube leading to your valve cover; and into the air intake, or airbox. Because we don’t live in a perfect world, make sure that all the tubing connections are tight. Let me go beyond that, they need to be VACUUM TIGHT. This may not be an easy task on older vehicles, as I will explain later, but well worth it.
We are now causing the crankcase air pressure to be changed from near atmospheric to at least -4” mercury (HG). The manifold vacuum usually runs at about -24” HG at idle. This is transferred to the crankcase by blocking the air flow. (The nasty vapors are still drawn off and burned in the engine, so the emissions have not increased, and the EPA will be happy.)
Does this REALLY work? The first engine I modified is my 1976 Pinto with a 2.3 liter 4 cylinder. (Yes, they still DO exist!) This engine now has 291,000 miles, and runs as well as anything else on the road. I probably have driven about 1,200 miles since I capped the PCV, and I have seen no increased oil consumption, or other adverse effects. This is a true high-mileage engine with plenty of wear and blow-by. In my mind, if any engine is going to bite the dust through this, here is a classic case. (I wasn’t especially worried because I have a rebuilt engine awaiting the day this old one dies). The around-town MPG increased from 21 - 23 up to 25 - 27, depending on the temperature. (Since this is a carbureted engine, the choke does play a role in economy). After the first tank of fuel, the MPG dropped back down to the normal (22 MPG) range. Slightly discouraged, I took a closer look at the whole PCV system. What I found was a bit of a shock. The oil filler cap on the old Ford was set up for a hose to the air filter. I had simply blocked this at the cap. After a while, the oil that had soaked into the seam of the two-piece metal cap had been pulled out by the vacuum, creating a new air leak. I eventually replaced the cap with a non-breathable one from another application. This, along with being extremely aware that vacuum leaks are nasty little annoyances and, careful attention to the gasket on the cap, cured the leak. The crankcase vacuum now runs at -4 to-5” HG at idle. The in-town fuel economy again changed for the better! Back up to, per the latest tank of fuel, 26.49 MPG. Not bad for November…
I did this on my dad’s 2003 Ford Ranger. This is a two-wheel drive, 4 cylinder with a manual transmission. He was getting similar MPG’s around town, averaging 22 to 23. In the latest report, he is still getting 26 to 27 MPG in town.
I want to point out that the on-board computer in newer vehicles doesn’t care about this modification! (The computer does not control or monitor the PCV in any way.)
In both cases, this is an increase of 17%
I honestly do not have enough data on highway mileage to conclude anything, but I suspect the increases would be slightly lower. More in the range of 5 – 10%, due to the decreased manifold vacuum at highway speeds.
-
Now for the possible down-sides of doing this, and what I have observed.
Will the oil retain more contaminants?. I believe it will. Since the PCV is not as effectively removing the volatile contaminants from the crankcase, the oil will become the reservoir for these contaminants. This means, simply, change your oil at the recommended intervals!
- The water vapor cannot as easily be purged from the engine. When we look at how this water vapor enters the engine, it becomes very clear. It comes into the crankcase via the normal PCV system. Since we no longer have an open air inlet for this moisture to enter, I believe the water vapor that is now in your engine will be pulled out, albeit more slowly. However, the influx of water vapor is now nearly eliminated.
- What about a negative affect on the gaskets and oil seals? Again, I have not seen any oil leaking from the Pinto engine. And I do mean that there is virtually ZERO leakage from the main seals (or anywhere, for that matter) on this engine. (I truly hate a leaky car.)
- Will I see increased oil consumption? This old 291,000 mile Pinto engine has always used some oil, and I’ve driven the car daily since May, 1988. I can count on about 1,600 miles to the quart of oil consumed. This has not changed.
- Rough idle? No, I think it actually idles a bit smoother.
- Why hasn’t Detroit done this years ago? The auto manufacturers are after one thing, your money. They simply don’t care how much that new car costs to operate.
I am only trying to pass along information that I believe is important enough to share with everybody who will listen. Again, I am not making a dime on this, nor do I expect to, ever. Please give this some thought, as a lot of fuel is potentially at stake. Consider at least trying it for a while. My satisfaction will come in the knowledge that I may have had a small part in reducing emissions and our country’s dependence on imported oil. Any oil, for that matter!
UPDATED INFORMATION:
In reference to the previously mentioned negative affect on the engine’s oil seals… I have some new data to share.
Problem: Rear oil seal leakage: I modified the PCV system on my Chevrolet S-10 class-C motorhome. The engine is a 2.8 liter V-6. In late July, 2006 we were leaving town for a long weekend of camping. I started to smell oil burning; never a good thing to experience! After finding a suitable wide spot on the highway, I noticed that the rear main oil seal was leaking quite well. Actually, it was nearly a steady stream of oil at idle. Now, please understand that we had driven this vehicle on a 7,200 mile tip across the US in September and October of 2004, with not a bit of mechanical trouble. This just had to be caused by the mods I had made to the PCV system. The process of replacing the original PCV system was done very quickly (it took about 10 minutes, tops!) and I proved to myself that it had indeed been the cause.
What had happened is this: the engine’s crankcase had a negative pressure that was actually opening the rear main oil seal. This seal is supposed to be held closed by the pressure of the oil pushing against it from the inside. But a deep enough vacuum pulled in air past the seal, allowing oil to be pushed out.
The oil leak immediately stopped, and hasn’t dripped in the 240 miles since.
In fact, my 1992 Ford Ranger pickup and my brother’s Ford half-ton PU both have a distinctive “whistle” after we shut them off from an idle. This indicates a deep vacuum within the crankcase, with absolutely no adverse affects! In fact, my brother’s Ford pickup idles at about -20” HG., and this engine has no problem with oil leaks. So, some engine’s oil seals just seem to be more sensitive to a vacuum.
I never did check the vacuum in the crankcase on the Chevy’s engine; maybe I should have. But I tend to believe it has more to do with the design of the oil seals than anything. I’ve chosen to run this engine without the PCV modifications due to the limited in-town or moderate loading of the engine. However, I have come up with a remedy, should this be a problem to others.
Cure: I have researched the availability of an adjustable vacuum relief valve. They are a simple device that will prevent the crankcase vacuum from reaching below the valve’s setting. A ¼” NPT model is in stock locally for about $10 (Grainger’s). This will need to be installed in line between the valve cover and (preferably) the air box or air cleaner. If this valve setting is adjusted correctly, probably 6” to 8” HG, then it will open as needed at idle and downhill, etc. With the tubing run into the clean air stream, the engine will not have a new influx of dirt.
How are my other cars doing? The old Pinto is still running flawlessly at 298,750 miles (as of 11/18/06). It’s still averaging right at 26 MPG in town!! This is not running on the highways; it is 99.99% stop-and-go city driving. The Ranger pickups are still running fine. We are still seeing a similar MPG stated previously.
What about the highway mileage? I really haven’t seen any increase in MPG over the 7,700 miles since I first modified the Pinto. But, there hasn’t been any DECREASE in MPG either. Our Ranger pickup; pretty much the same highway mileage, also.
Please feel free to copy and forward this to as many people as you wish!!!