1985 Chev 305 No Spark
General
Cap/Rotor but no Spark. I have changed the Ignition Module and the Coil
Pack on top of the Cap....all to no effect. THe Engine with turn over
but has no spark coming down the wires whats so ever. Any Help will be
greatly appriciated.
dwnoutnodessa
"General" <m_tr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155568867.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
SnoMan
No, I would suggest the magnetic pickup in distibutor first. (I do not
think it is the rotor here)
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
General
If so, that has already been changed. I have no idea where the magnetic
coil pickup is located.
SnoMan
>Are you talking about the magnetic Coil located at the top of the cap?
>If so, that has already been changed. I have no idea where the magnetic
>coil pickup is located.
No, I am talking about the pickup coil in the base of the distributor
that send the trigger signals to the coil to fire spark. It is next to
the 8 lobed reluctance "wheel" that triggers it as each lobe passes
it.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
ajeep...@comcast.net
i had a 755 chevy van quit in the mountains.
I hitch hicked 30 miles to bet a new module.
had to go back gor a new coil which measured sfhorted and a pick uo coil
which was the last to install and it then started (my lady fished for two
days while i traqveled to stockton and back twice) hehehe
old john
i then rebuilt a whole high energy ignition distributer complete and carried
it into the mountains with three different vehicles i drove under different
circumstancses. never had to use it though.
finallt sold it after selling all my chevy 350 vehicles.
old john
"SnoMan" <ad...@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:grt1e2lr5t3r7ke8o...@4ax.com...
ajeep...@comcast.net
days and my typing is off.
old john\
<ajeep...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Gf-dndwGkYQlvHzZ...@comcast.com...
General
SnoMan, thanks for the replies...and I know what you are talking about
now...after I read your reply I went home and a buddy and myself went
and replaced the pickup coil (I had thought it was a condensor). Still
no spark. This van was completely gutted and repainted a year ago and
hasn't been started since. I did notice though....a harness located
under the drivers seat with nothing attached to the end of the harness.
This harness then goes under the floorboard...back to the Cap/Rotor. I
beleive I am missing an important computer or module for this van. I
remeber taking it out over a year ago and noticing it was rusted to
heck. Perhaps I threw it out...I cant remember. Basically...what is
this box...is there a way to by-pass it...or am I holding on to a huge
boat anchor?
SnoMan
>SnoMan, thanks for the replies...and I know what you are talking about
>now...after I read your reply I went home and a buddy and myself went
>and replaced the pickup coil (I had thought it was a condensor). Still
>no spark. This van was completely gutted and repainted a year ago and
>hasn't been started since. I did notice though....a harness located
>under the drivers seat with nothing attached to the end of the harness.
>This harness then goes under the floorboard...back to the Cap/Rotor. I
>beleive I am missing an important computer or module for this van. I
>remeber taking it out over a year ago and noticing it was rusted to
>heck. Perhaps I threw it out...I cant remember. Basically...what is
>this box...is there a way to by-pass it...or am I holding on to a huge
>boat anchor?
Sound like you shucked the knock/spark control module. You need to
replace it.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
General
THe Knock/Spark control module....is this one componet located under
the driver seat? THis is on a 1985 Chev20 Van...with a 305 cubic inch.
I want to make sure I know what the exact name of the part is...and
where I might be able to obtain a used one. Thnks agian for all of your
help.
SnoMan
>THe Knock/Spark control module....is this one componet located under
>the driver seat? THis is on a 1985 Chev20 Van...with a 305 cubic inch.
>I want to make sure I know what the exact name of the part is...and
>where I might be able to obtain a used one. Thnks agian for all of your
>help.
Well on a TBI P/U it is mounted on engine intake on a bracket and it
is maybe 3 x 3 x 1 inches. In a van, space is tight and it could well
be located beneath the seat. Get one at like Advance Auto and you can
take it back if it not it. Sorry that I cannot be more exact but I do
not have a van here to look at to see for sure. It will not make spark
without one though
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
Jon R. Pickens
If it has the same ignition system as my '86 K5, the ESC/ECM can be
bypassed, remember...
To the OP: Does the ignition module have 4 or 5 pins?
Also, when the key is in the "on" position, do you have 12vdc on the
feed coming into the driver's side of the distributor?
~jp
Jon R. Pickens
When you installed the new coil, did you make sure the grounding strap
was connected between the frame of the coil and the middle leg of the
connector on the side of the cap? If not, it'll smoke your new module
in a hurry.
I asked in another response, but I'll ask again...does the module have
4 or 5 pins? If it's a 5-pin module, there's a GM service bulletin
that pertains to bypassing the basic ECM that connects to it.
~jp
General
When asking about the module....I assume the black horseshoe item
located beneath the rotor. If so...it is a five prong Module, three on
one side 2 on the other. So...does this mean I should still be able to
get spark?
aarcuda69062
<1155664793.4...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"General" <m_tr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Go to where the missing box is under the drivers seat, jumper the
green wire to the black wire, this bypasses the ESC function.
(you'll no longer need the module under the seat, so don't run
out and waste any money on one)
A blue scotch-loc will work fine for his.
aarcuda69062
SnoMan <ad...@snoman.com> wrote:
An 85 G chassis van is not TBI.
Jon R. Pickens
get spark.
The purpose of the ESC (electronic spark control) is to delay (retard)
spark timing based on input from a knock sensor. The 5-pin module you
have basically has an "in" and an "out", which are pins 1 & 3 on the
3-pin side of the ignition module.
Aarcuda69062 gave you the quick fix on how to bypass the ESC. If the
ESC is missing altogether, then this is also the solution to get up and
running with that 5-pin ignition module. Basically, if you traced them
back to the distibutor, the two wires he describes connect to those two
outer pins on the ignition module. You're just bypassing the computer
and letting it form a loop.
As I stated earlier, that early form of electronic spark control was
problematic enough to where GM issued a service bulletin detailing the
very simple process of bypassing the system. Once the two wires are
jumpered together, the ESC can be disconnected altoghether.
~jp
SnoMan
<none...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Go to where the missing box is under the drivers seat, jumper the
>green wire to the black wire, this bypasses the ESC function.
>(you'll no longer need the module under the seat, so don't run
>out and waste any money on one)
Better be ready to run timing at ATDC some because it will knock on 87
octane in warm weather big time if it is a ESC system and when you
retard spark you retard MPG too.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
SnoMan
wrote:
>Hey Sno, would a 1985 Van have TBI or a Quadrajet?
>
>If it has the same ignition system as my '86 K5, the ESC/ECM can be
>bypassed, remember...
>
>To the OP: Does the ignition module have 4 or 5 pins?
>
>Also, when the key is in the "on" position, do you have 12vdc on the
>feed coming into the driver's side of the distributor?
305 were the first with ECS even before they were TBI injected. THe
whole theory with ECS was to allow for higher compression with some
knock protection. disable it you will have to retard static timing
even more to prevent knock and reduce MPG too which it not to wise
with today fuel prices.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
tom
TIMING CHAIN GEARS Broken ( does the ignition rotor Turn when rolling
over the Engine?)
Distributor Gear pin SHEARED
Distributor MODULE ( NEVER CHECK for Spark by grounding an ignition
wire. Also Attach a good spark plug to that wire or U will Blow The
IGNITION module )
ignition fuse blown in the fuse box ( No 12 volts on the RED wire that
hooks to the ignition cap )
--
It Doesnot Take Brains To
Get A High Paying Job!
All You Need Is A College Degree
aarcuda69062
SnoMan <ad...@snoman.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:24:57 GMT, aarcuda69062
> <none...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >Go to where the missing box is under the drivers seat, jumper the
> >green wire to the black wire, this bypasses the ESC function.
> >(you'll no longer need the module under the seat, so don't run
> >out and waste any money on one)
>
>
> Better be ready to run timing at ATDC
The TSB instructed the timing to be set at 0 degrees.
> some because it will knock on 87
> octane in warm weather big time if it is a ESC system and when you
> retard spark you retard MPG too.
Same as when the ESC retards the timing, except that it won't be
able to because of a slightly loose fuel pump lever bushing, belt
squeak, noisy lifter, etc. It also can't leave him stranded when
the ESC goes tits up.
In most cases, mileage goes up after the bypass mod.
aarcuda69062
tom <t...@blowfish.us> wrote:
> NO SPARK
>
> TIMING CHAIN GEARS Broken ( does the ignition rotor Turn when rolling
> over the Engine?)
Definitely an easily overlooked cause.
> Distributor Gear pin SHEARED
Rare but possible.
> Distributor MODULE ( NEVER CHECK for Spark by grounding an ignition
> wire. Also Attach a good spark plug to that wire or U will Blow The
> IGNITION module )
Grounding the secondary won't hurt a thing, but then there will
be no spark observed anyway (no gap), open circuit on the
secondary is absolutely a bad idea.
> ignition fuse blown in the fuse box ( No 12 volts on the RED wire that
> hooks to the ignition cap )
No fuse on the coil feed other than the fuse links down by the
starter, but since it cranks, ruled out.
SnoMan
<none...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Same as when the ESC retards the timing, except that it won't be
>able to because of a slightly loose fuel pump lever bushing, belt
>squeak, noisy lifter, etc. It also can't leave him stranded when
>the ESC goes tits up.
The difference ECS will only retard it when it knock, without it you
wull have to retard the base timing even more so the kncok peaks are
covered. Also I have a 89 4x4 burb that I bought new and after 180K
miles the spark control has yet to fail even once.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
aarcuda69062
SnoMan <ad...@snoman.com> wrote:
Totally different animal then the one in the subject line, that's
why GM never issued multi-year TSBs advising to bypass the ESC.
SnoMan
<none...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Totally different animal then the one in the subject line, that's
>why GM never issued multi-year TSBs advising to bypass the ES
I know it is different as it was first generation (they are on third
gen now) but even the modern replacement parts for it are more
relaible than those parts made nearly 25 years ago.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
tom
aarcuda69062 wrote:
> In article <vQpEg.7299$%j7....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> tom <t...@blowfish.us> wrote:
>
>> NO SPARK
>>
>> TIMING CHAIN GEARS Broken ( does the ignition rotor Turn when rolling
>> over the Engine?)
>
> Definitely an easily overlooked cause.
>
>> Distributor Gear pin SHEARED
>
> Rare but possible.
>
>> Distributor MODULE ( NEVER CHECK for Spark by grounding an ignition
>> wire. Also Attach a good spark plug to that wire or U will Blow The
>> IGNITION module )
>
> Grounding the secondary won't hurt a thing, but then there will
> be no spark observed anyway (no gap), open circuit on the
> secondary is absolutely a bad idea.
I meant to say.. Never check for Spark by holding the ignition wire
next to a ground
>
>> ignition fuse blown in the fuse box ( No 12 volts on the RED wire that
>> hooks to the ignition cap )
>
> No fuse on the coil feed other than the fuse links down by the
> starter, but since it cranks, ruled out.
There is an ignition Fuse in the BOX
tom
I 2nd that 1989 s10 225,000 miles I bought the truck new and it
also has the same module in it..
When jump starting another vehicle, I CHARGE their battery up some and
then TURN OFF MY S-10.. I donot want a surge of currentfrom my
alternator , when they Hit the starter .
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
tom
I 2nd that.. 1989 s-10 225,000 miles -same module in truck as when I
bought it NEW ,
http://www.freewebs.com/kotarski/plow.htm
aarcuda69062
tom <t...@blowfish.us> wrote:
> aarcuda69062 wrote:
> > In article <vQpEg.7299$%j7....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> > tom <t...@blowfish.us> wrote:
> >
> >> NO SPARK
> >>
> >> TIMING CHAIN GEARS Broken ( does the ignition rotor Turn when rolling
> >> over the Engine?)
> >
> > Definitely an easily overlooked cause.
> >
> >> Distributor Gear pin SHEARED
> >
> > Rare but possible.
> >
> >> Distributor MODULE ( NEVER CHECK for Spark by grounding an ignition
> >> wire. Also Attach a good spark plug to that wire or U will Blow The
> >> IGNITION module )
> >
> > Grounding the secondary won't hurt a thing, but then there will
> > be no spark observed anyway (no gap), open circuit on the
> > secondary is absolutely a bad idea.
>
> I meant to say.. Never check for Spark by holding the ignition wire
> next to a ground
Well, okay, if it's humid enough, the 'holdee' might get a bit of
a jolt. Other than that, I see no ill effects.
> >> ignition fuse blown in the fuse box ( No 12 volts on the RED wire that
> >> hooks to the ignition cap )
> >
> > No fuse on the coil feed other than the fuse links down by the
> > starter, but since it cranks, ruled out.
>
> There is an ignition Fuse in the BOX
Circuit #39, pink wire(s) with a black tracer, basically any
accessory circuit that goes live with the key in "on" or
"accessory." It does NOT feed the ignition coil.
aarcuda69062
SnoMan <ad...@snoman.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:43:04 GMT, aarcuda69062
> <none...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >Totally different animal then the one in the subject line, that's
> >why GM never issued multi-year TSBs advising to bypass the ES
>
>
> I know it is different as it was first generation
Well there you go then!
> (they are on third
> gen now)
Silly me. Spent the whole day working on a Nissan Maxima,
I guess I forgot my GM basics.
Wait...
... no I didn't.
> but even the modern replacement parts for it are more
> relaible than those parts made nearly 25 years ago.
No, the newer -designs- are more reliable, not to mention that
your 89 has no mechanical fuel pump to contribute noise into the
knock sensor circuit and uses a serpentine belt instead of the
(vintage 85) vee belts which would get hot and stretch in the G
vans and contribute enough racket into the knock sensor to cause
power loss and poor fuel economy.
The term "couldn't pull cotton out of a Kotex" was frequently
used back in the mid 80s WRT 305 trucks and the way the ESC
[didn't] work.
SnoMan
<none...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>No, the newer -designs- are more reliable, not to mention that
>your 89 has no mechanical fuel pump to contribute noise into the
>knock sensor circuit and uses a serpentine belt instead of the
>(vintage 85) vee belts which would get hot and stretch in the G
>vans and contribute enough racket into the knock sensor to cause
>power loss and poor fuel economy.
>The term "couldn't pull cotton out of a Kotex" was frequently
>used back in the mid 80s WRT 305 trucks and the way the ESC
>[didn't] work.
You know I have been driving since late 60's and have been around and
dirven most of the vehicle discussed here or ones like them. I saw
some reliable ESC systems. Also the knock sensor has a quarts crystal
in it and it listens for a certain frequency that a knock produces and
it is a lot different than fuel pump noise in this regard. Van
generally were more prone to knock because they had higher underhood
temps which increase tendancy to knock on lower octane fuel and would
make them appear more troublesome at times. BTW, the reason they went
to a electronic pump is because TBI fuel injection needed a stead fuel
presure supply not because the pump was interfering with knock sensor.
I know all about those pumps because my dad rep'ed for a company that
did prototype work on the pump motor for GM in mid 80's and provided
them for a while too. I could tell you all about those motors. I used
to have one of the prototypes years ago but it is long gone now. It
was a bit of a challange at first to make them work and last but they
worked it out before production. My 89 still has original pump too.
(one of my "dad's" motors so to speak)
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
aarcuda69062
SnoMan <ad...@snoman.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 03:00:20 GMT, aarcuda69062
> <none...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >No, the newer -designs- are more reliable, not to mention that
> >your 89 has no mechanical fuel pump to contribute noise into the
> >knock sensor circuit and uses a serpentine belt instead of the
> >(vintage 85) vee belts which would get hot and stretch in the G
> >vans and contribute enough racket into the knock sensor to cause
> >power loss and poor fuel economy.
> >The term "couldn't pull cotton out of a Kotex" was frequently
> >used back in the mid 80s WRT 305 trucks and the way the ESC
> >[didn't] work.
>
>
> You know I have been driving since late 60's
Driving does not make you a mechanic.
> and have been around and
> dirven most of the vehicle discussed here or ones like them.
"Been around" and "dirven" hardly beats factory training.
> I saw
> some reliable ESC systems.
Not in the late 60's.
> Also the knock sensor has a quarts crystal
'Quartz' "Quarts" is how they sell booze.
> in it and it listens for a certain frequency that a knock produces and
> it is a lot different than fuel pump noise in this regard.
Wow, you know more than the engineers at GM.
Did I perhaps meet you at some time at the GM/ Delco engineering
facility on Port Washington Rd. in Milwaukee?
> Van generally were more prone to knock because they had higher underhood
> temps which increase tendancy to knock on lower octane fuel and would
> make them appear more troublesome at times.
The TSB applied equally to vans and pick up trucks.
> BTW, the reason they went
> to a electronic pump is because TBI fuel injection needed a stead fuel
> presure supply not because the pump was interfering with knock sensor.
Pathetic that you would imply that I said anything remotely close
to that.
> I know all about those pumps because my dad rep'ed for a company that
> did prototype work on the pump motor for GM in mid 80's and provided
> them for a while too. I could tell you all about those motors. I used
> to have one of the prototypes years ago but it is long gone now. It
> was a bit of a challange at first to make them work and last but they
> worked it out before production. My 89 still has original pump too.
> (one of my "dad's" motors so to speak)
And this proves what?
(other than you like to go off on irrelevant tangents)
General
By Passed worked fine. Although Timing is off the scale, it seems to be
runnig fine so far. As for the knock sensor...I just gotta start
putting in premium gas. Thanks all for the tip...saved me a few hundred
for sure.
Jon R. Pickens
treat it as a 1st generation HEI distributor (non-computerized). You
may want to check the timing specs of an older van to find a good
starting point for your initial timing. Remember,
non-computer-controlled distributors don't have a way of
self-correcting for spark knock.
You can further compensate with an adjustable vacuum advance module and
a different set of weights and springs in order to get the timing curve
that works best for your application. If you tow things, or carry
heavy loads, you may need to tweak it to avoid pinging. I'm not sure,
but it would seem logical that the weight and spring requirements may
be different for a distributor that can electronically regulate itself.
The parts are cheap and readily available, so experiment as needed.
Either way, I'm very happy to see that you're up and running again!
:-)
~jp
aarcuda69062
<1155737679.4...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
"General" <m_tr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> By Passed worked fine. Although Timing is off the scale, it seems to be
> runnig fine so far.
Did you disconnect the vacuum advance before you checked he
timing, was the idle speed all the way down to curb idle?
Did you take the cap and rotor off and check that the mechanical
advance isn't seized?
> As for the knock sensor...I just gotta start
> putting in premium gas. Thanks all for the tip...saved me a few hundred
> for sure.
Ah-hem...
tom
aarcuda69062 wrote:
> In article <36d5e2d702k836cec...@4ax.com>,
> SnoMan <ad...@snoman.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 03:00:20 GMT, aarcuda69062
>> <none...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> No, the newer -designs- are more reliable, not to mention that
>>> your 89 has no mechanical fuel pump to contribute noise into the
>>> knock sensor circuit and uses a serpentine belt instead of the
>>> (vintage 85) vee belts which would get hot and stretch in the G
>>> vans and contribute enough racket into the knock sensor to cause
>>> power loss and poor fuel economy.
>>> The term "couldn't pull cotton out of a Kotex" was frequently
>>> used back in the mid 80s WRT 305 trucks and the way the ESC
>>> [didn't] work.
>>
>> You know I have been driving since late 60's
>
> Driving does not make you a mechanic.
Nor does being an engineer,
>
>> and have been around and
>> dirven most of the vehicle discussed here or ones like them.
>
> "Been around" and "dirven" hardly beats factory training.
U can TRAIN a Dog or animal to do anything BUT they Still know NOTHING !
>
>> I saw
>> some reliable ESC systems.
>
> Not in the late 60's.
>
>> Also the knock sensor has a quarts crystal
>
> 'Quartz' "Quarts" is how they sell booze.
>
>> in it and it listens for a certain frequency that a knock produces and
>> it is a lot different than fuel pump noise in this regard.
>
> Wow, you know more than the engineers at GM.
> Did I perhaps meet you at some time at the GM/ Delco engineering
> facility on Port Washington Rd. in Milwaukee?
Doesnot mean u Know anything, We remember that GM engineer's Created
all those parts that NEEDED to be RECALLED !! And a TRUE MECHANIC had to
change them!
>
>> Van generally were more prone to knock because they had higher underhood
>> temps which increase tendancy to knock on lower octane fuel and would
>> make them appear more troublesome at times.
>
> The TSB applied equally to vans and pick up trucks.
>
>> BTW, the reason they went
>> to a electronic pump is because TBI fuel injection needed a stead fuel
>> presure supply not because the pump was interfering with knock sensor.
>
> Pathetic that you would imply that I said anything remotely close
> to that.
>
>> I know all about those pumps because my dad rep'ed for a company that
>> did prototype work on the pump motor for GM in mid 80's and provided
>> them for a while too. I could tell you all about those motors. I used
>> to have one of the prototypes years ago but it is long gone now. It
>> was a bit of a challange at first to make them work and last but they
>> worked it out before production. My 89 still has original pump too.
>> (one of my "dad's" motors so to speak)
>
> And this proves what?
> (other than you like to go off on irrelevant tangents)
--
SnoMan
wrote:
>Yes... You'll need to retard your timing a bit is all. Basically,
>treat it as a 1st generation HEI distributor (non-computerized). You
>may want to check the timing specs of an older van to find a good
>starting point for your initial timing. Remember,
>non-computer-controlled distributors don't have a way of
>self-correcting for spark knock.
>
>You can further compensate with an adjustable vacuum advance module and
>a different set of weights and springs in order to get the timing curve
>that works best for your application. If you tow things, or carry
>heavy loads, you may need to tweak it to avoid pinging. I'm not sure,
>but it would seem logical that the weight and spring requirements may
>be different for a distributor that can electronically regulate itself.
> The parts are cheap and readily available, so experiment as needed.
>
>Either way, I'm very happy to see that you're up and running again!
THe bottom line is though that with todays and tomorrows fuel prices
you want maximum possible efficecny from engine not having to run it
retard to prevent knock under load. On my 89 4x4 burb I run 8 BTDC and
93 octane and it will ALWAYs get 18 to 19 MPG on trips (it has a 40
gallon tank and will cruise 600 mile between fills with a good
reserve) best it ever did with 87 and stock timing was maybe 15 and
usually less and it was a slug on hot days and wanted to ping even
with spark control under load. Now it never makes a sound and runs
really well. Been running it this way for many years too and plan to
for at least another 6 years until kids finish college. It is not a
daily driver and is still pretty cherry. It will never see another
tank of 87 as long as I own it no matter how high fuel prices get.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
Jon R. Pickens
at the difference in price in terms of a percentage, 93 costs "less"
than it used to when 87 was $1.00 per gallon. It used to cost 15-20%
more to use 93, not so nowadays.
I only run 93 octane and have for years. For vehicles equipped with
knock sensors, it makes even more sense, as the engine will allow more
advance for better power and efficiency. So I do believe
(unsubstantiated) that running 93 octane fuel will get me better
mileage and performance.
My girlfriend's 2006 Tahoe runs *much* better on 89 than 87...we can
both tell a difference. She hasn't tried 93 in it yet. She still sees
the cheaper priced 87 and thinks cheaper must be "as good".
An experimental Saab engine had variable compression, and produced more
power and did so more efficiently as octane rating increased. In fact,
it reportedly ran the best when E-85 was used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Variable_Compression_engine
~jp
General
Ja, Ja, did the vacuum advance....its an older van...stationed here in
-40C Winnipeg, Canada....the battery been frozen over at least 4 times.
First time I started it in nearly 2 years. Still has that old gas from
two years ago....but I might need to adjust the Carb because there was
an issue about it before the tear down.
SnoMan
wrote:
>93 octane makes more financial sense now more than ever. If you look
>at the difference in price in terms of a percentage, 93 costs "less"
>than it used to when 87 was $1.00 per gallon. It used to cost 15-20%
>more to use 93, not so nowadays.
>
>I only run 93 octane and have for years. For vehicles equipped with
>knock sensors, it makes even more sense, as the engine will allow more
>advance for better power and efficiency. So I do believe
>(unsubstantiated) that running 93 octane fuel will get me better
>mileage and performance.
>
>My girlfriend's 2006 Tahoe runs *much* better on 89 than 87...we can
>both tell a difference. She hasn't tried 93 in it yet. She still sees
>the cheaper priced 87 and thinks cheaper must be "as good".
>
>An experimental Saab engine had variable compression, and produced more
>power and did so more efficiently as octane rating increased. In fact,
>it reportedly ran the best when E-85 was used.
I guess you know that I share these veiws but I have seen MPG gains
from it in several vehicles. And yes today 93 octane is 5 to7% more
tops here and even 89 is maybe 3% more and even a 3% gain in MPG (or
about from 20 to 20.6 would break even on the cost of 89 orver 87. In
theory it would be possible to run very high compression if you used
only E85 (around 12 to 1 or so) because of its high octane. Modern
engine are really hamstringed by the need to "tolerate" 87 octane
because of John Q. Public's affinity for it. If it was removed from
market and only 89 and 93 or only 93 they could build engines with a
lot higher compression in new vehicle and this would improve their
thermodynamic efficency and therefore their MPG too but this cannot
happen as long as 87 octane "tolerance" is needed. WHen direct
injection for gas engine makes it main stream it will allow for even
higher CR's because injecting it just before ignition cools the
mixture some and reduces octane requirement a bit for a given CR.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
Jon R. Pickens
If E-85 were actually widely available, I'd rebuild the K5's engine
with that fuel in mind. More power, emissions-compliant, cheaper
gas...what's not to like about that?
I thought it'd be fun to build a high-compression, E-85-burning
4-banger or small Buick 231 V6 just for kicks...and stick it in
something tiny, like an MG or Fiat.
It's exactly as you say. If we could bump up the compression to get
more power with the E-85 gas, we could then build smaller, high
performance engines to do the same task using less fuel.
What happened to the days when REAL engines were built with high-octane
fuel in mind??? Remember the label next to the shifter on the real
monster Corvettes in the 60's?? It specified that it *had* to use
high-octane gas!
~jp
SnoMan
wrote:
>Heh... Sno, buddy, you're preachin' to the choir.
>
>If E-85 were actually widely available, I'd rebuild the K5's engine
>with that fuel in mind. More power, emissions-compliant, cheaper
>gas...what's not to like about that?
>
>I thought it'd be fun to build a high-compression, E-85-burning
>4-banger or small Buick 231 V6 just for kicks...and stick it in
>something tiny, like an MG or Fiat.
>
>It's exactly as you say. If we could bump up the compression to get
>more power with the E-85 gas, we could then build smaller, high
>performance engines to do the same task using less fuel.
>
>What happened to the days when REAL engines were built with high-octane
>fuel in mind??? Remember the label next to the shifter on the real
>monster Corvettes in the 60's?? It specified that it *had* to use
>high-octane gas!
I grew up street rodding in the late 60's and into 70's and I had a
1972 GMC 3/4 ton 4x4 with factory dual tanks and a SM465 that I got
when it was about a year old and souped it up some too. It was a trip
because 4x4's were really very rare then and powerfull ones were even
more rare. I almost put a warmed up 396 in it and I wish I had to look
back on now. I had a 69 Implala SS with a 396 that I was kinda of fond
of for several years until the frame started to rust out where control
arms for rear axle hook to frame. I beefed it up before it failed and
then sold it. (that was the engine I was thinking of using in my truck
and scraping the car) Back then you knew who the cheap skates were
when it came to buying gas as you could hear them rattling away from
lights. Some modern engines have some good power but it still nothing
like a old BB with 11 to one CR and a nice intake and cam. You try and
tell that to someone that never saw them in their prime though and
they think you are BSing them. I drove and road in some down right
scary cars back then HP wise. I knew a guy that had a 67 GTO with a
blue printed 421 tripower and a 4.56 rear axle that could run 12's all
day with street slicks and a bit faster with race slicks. Those old
tripowers were scarey stock and even more so souped up. He was
untouchable on street by all except a guy that had a 67 camaro with a
roots blower on a warmed up 427. It was a 10 second machine wearing
track slicks and could easily pull front end on street. Oh the good
old days. Time to get off of soup box.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
aarcuda69062
tom <t...@blowfish.us> wrote:
> >> You know I have been driving since late 60's
> >
> > Driving does not make you a mechanic.
>
>
> Nor does being an engineer,
Indeed. Seems I recall Snoball making a claim to that effect...
> >> and have been around and
> >> dirven most of the vehicle discussed here or ones like them.
> >
> > "Been around" and "dirven" hardly beats factory training.
>
> U can TRAIN a Dog or animal to do anything BUT they Still know NOTHING !
Agreed. A classic example would be comparing a mechanical/vacuum
advance distributor with ESC in a 1985 van to a computer
controlled EST/ESC system in a 1989 Suburban (or S-10) and
expecting the second to behave the same as the first.
>
>
> >
> >> I saw
> >> some reliable ESC systems.
> >
> > Not in the late 60's.
> >
> >> Also the knock sensor has a quarts crystal
> >
> > 'Quartz' "Quarts" is how they sell booze.
> >
> >> in it and it listens for a certain frequency that a knock produces and
> >> it is a lot different than fuel pump noise in this regard.
> >
> > Wow, you know more than the engineers at GM.
> > Did I perhaps meet you at some time at the GM/ Delco engineering
> > facility on Port Washington Rd. in Milwaukee?
>
> Doesnot mean u Know anything, We remember that GM engineer's Created
> all those parts that NEEDED to be RECALLED !! And a TRUE MECHANIC had to
> change them!
What recall would that be?
aarcuda69062
SnoMan <ad...@snoman.com> wrote:
> THe bottom line is though that with todays and tomorrows fuel prices
> you want maximum possible efficecny from engine not having to run it
> retard to prevent knock under load. On my 89 4x4 burb I run 8 BTDC and
> 93 octane and it will ALWAYs get 18 to 19 MPG on trips (it has a 40
> gallon tank and will cruise 600 mile between fills with a good
> reserve) best it ever did with 87 and stock timing was maybe 15 and
> usually less and it was a slug on hot days and wanted to ping even
> with spark control under load. Now it never makes a sound and runs
> really well. Been running it this way for many years too and plan to
> for at least another 6 years until kids finish college. It is not a
> daily driver and is still pretty cherry. It will never see another
> tank of 87 as long as I own it no matter how high fuel prices get.
What type of emissions testing is mandated where you live?
SnoMan
<none...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>What type of emissions testing is mandated where you live?
Use to check CO,NC and NOx emissions here bi-anually until last year
when they stopped doing it. That burb easily passed it every time and
well below limits.. Matter of fact, none of my cars ever failed.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
SnoMan
I meant HC not NC
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
aarcuda69062
SnoMan <ad...@snoman.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:15:32 GMT, SnoMan <ad...@snoman.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 04:35:00 GMT, aarcuda69062
> ><none...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >>What type of emissions testing is mandated where you live?
> >
> >
> >Use to check CO,NC and NOx emissions here bi-anually until last year
> >when they stopped doing it. That burb easily passed it every time and
> >well below limits.. Matter of fact, none of my cars ever failed.
> >-----------------
> >TheSnoMan.com
>
>
> I meant HC not NC
Okay, pretty much the same gasses as are checked elsewhere.
Doesn't answer my question though.
SnoMan
It was simulated driving cycle on a dyno if that is what you are
looking for. It was about a 10 minute cycle but if vehicle was far
below max limits, the software would terminate test and pass vehicle
early. It would only go full cycel if it was close to limits and they
needed a bigger data spread to work with.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com