What gets damaged when the engine is over-revved?
phaeton
my 99 Ranger (2.5L 4cyl, 5spd manual, 272:1 rear diff, 152K miles).
As per the owner's manual, I tend to shift as such:
upshift to 2nd gear at 18-20mph
upshift to 3rd gear at 28-33mph
upshift to 4th gear at 42-45mph
upshift to 5th gear at 55-60mph
It has no tachometer (option with manual, standard with automatic,
what gives?), but from the way the engine sounds, the above shift
points seem about right.
Along the way, it started making a humming or groaning noise that
varied with road speed. Fearing another wheel bearing failure, I took
it into a Ford dealership in South Dakota. The service writer took it
for a drive (with me in the passenger seat) so he could listen to the
noise I was talking about. However, he kept shifting it way late.
The first time, he took 2nd gear up to almost 40mph, 3rd up to 55. He
seemed confused at first that actually putting it in gear and letting
the clutch out at those speeds was such an ordeal. He put it in 5th
at about the right speed, so I assumed that he figured it out.
However, once we turned around, he did the same thing, only worse.
When 2nd gear stopped accelerating at part throttle around 30, he
nearly put it to the floor to get it up to 40. At that point I told
him "Can you shift a little earlier please?", which seemed to fall on
deaf ears. When the rpms started climbing up near 45 in third gear, I
yelled "Shift!". He just kinda went "huh?" then put it to the damn
floor again to grab 4th gear at almost 60. I was so irate, and I'm
actually glad that they wrote off the humming as "tire noise". I was
not going to let them touch my truck again.
Of course, now whenever it idles, I hear a lot of valvetrain noise.
It had one ticking lifter prior to this, but now it sounds like at
least five, and the ticks turn into thumps when the engine is cold. I
changed the oil as soon as I arrived in Seattle, which seems to have
quieted the noise a little bit.
So has this guy destroyed my engine? Is over-revving damage limited
to the top end only? Thoughts?
Oh, and is there anyone in the Seattle area, who can recommend a
reputable repair facility? The humming is definitely *not* tire
noise.
Thanks.
-phaeton
Steve B.
<blahb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So has this guy destroyed my engine? Is over-revving damage limited
>to the top end only? Thoughts?
He didn't do any damage. Probably did the thing some good to get
revved up a bit. The computer cuts the engine off if you truly get to
an over-rev situation. 45mph in third gear is nothing. Hell I was up
near 70mph in third a couple of times today having fun getting on the
hiway...
Steve B.
phaeton
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:23:00 -0700 (PDT), phaeton
>
> >So has this guy destroyed my engine? Is over-revving damage limited
> >to the top end only? Thoughts?
>
> He didn't do any damage. Probably did the thing some good to get
> revved up a bit. The computer cuts the engine off if you truly get to
> an over-rev situation. 45mph in third gear is nothing. Hell I was up
> near 70mph in third a couple of times today having fun getting on the
> hiway...
>
> Steve B.
Are you sure? It sounded horrible at those RPMs, like a hair dryer
with marbles in it
Calab
"phaeton" <blahb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:912a2b80-7c4e-4680...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
If it sounded that bad at those speeds, it wasn't anything that he did.
I didn't catch what kind of vehicle that this was, or the vintage. Is it
diesel? They can sound pretty nasty at times.
Other than that, I'd check fluid levels to ensure that your not running low,
including the gearbox. Also make sure you're using the right weight of oil,
and go thicker in hot areas and thinner in very cold areas.
Dan_Thom...@yahoo.com
> "phaeton" <blahbleh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Find out what the redline is and buy a cheap tach to see what
that sounds like when shifting. I bet the guy didn't go past it, maybe
not even near it. I learned to drive around 1970 when cars still
mostly had engines that were comfortable with being shifted at 2000
RPM or even less, making me too worried now about running these small
engines up anywhere near their redlines. Some smaller engines are
easily damaged by shifting too soon and lugging them; it can cause
detonation or bearing damage from heavy loads at low RPM. Some of the
earlier English imports were wrecked that way when North American
drivers traded in their Fords or Chevies for Austins or Sunbeams.
Dan
phaeton
know it didn't get damaged.
Thanks
-phaeton
Don Byrer
wrote:
> Find out what the redline is and buy a cheap tach to see what
>that sounds like when shifting. I bet the guy didn't go past it, maybe
>not even near it.
Ditto...well said.
Good ol' Sun Super Tach II is around $40.
Don Byrer KJ5KB
Radar Tech & Smilin' Commercial Pilot Guy
Glider & CFI wannabe
kj5kb-at-hotmail.com
"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..."
"Watch out for those doves...<smack-smack-smack-smack...>"
Steve B.
How do you know what a hair dryer with marbles in it sounds like?
Seriously though.. he did no damage. If something broke from doing
that it was about to fall off anyway.
Steve B.
jim
I doubt anything was about to fall off. It sure sounds to me like this guy
did do some damage. The fact is when an engine is worn it is much more
susceptible to damage from high rpms than when it is tight. Some people
have the knack and can drive an extremely worn engine for 100K miles.
Other drivers would wipe the same engine out in a couple 100 miles and
those drivers will be the ones that claim something was about to fall off
anyway.
Of course there is nothing to be done about it now. Next time the OP will
put the guy in the passenger seat when he want someone to listen to a
noise.
-jim
>
> Steve B.
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Steve B.
wrote:
>
>
>I doubt anything was about to fall off. It sure sounds to me like this guy
>did do some damage. The fact is when an engine is worn it is much more
>susceptible to damage from high rpms than when it is tight. Some people
>have the knack and can drive an extremely worn engine for 100K miles.
>Other drivers would wipe the same engine out in a couple 100 miles and
>those drivers will be the ones that claim something was about to fall off
>anyway.
>
That's nice but the OP doesn't have an extremely worn engine. He has
a 99 Ranger with 150k miles. He obviously babys the truck and takes
good care of it. That engine is far from extremely worn.
40MPH in second gear in the truck would be around 5krpm which is just
to the peak HP mark. If doing that broke something it was about to
break anyway
Steve B.
jim
Well which is it? One second you have the engine in excellent condition and the
next it is on it's last legs?
Revving to 5k can damage some engines that otherwise would last a good long
time if driven like the OP does. Your claim that whatever happened would have
happened anyway is more than likely incorrect.
And it also doesn't sound like anything broke as you claim. It sounds like he
now has some piston slap that he didn't have before. He might have driven that
engine another 100k without that ever happening.
Steve B.
wrote:
>
>
>"Steve B." wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:24:20 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>> >I doubt anything was about to fall off. It sure sounds to me like this guy
>> >did do some damage. The fact is when an engine is worn it is much more
>> >susceptible to damage from high rpms than when it is tight. Some people
>> >have the knack and can drive an extremely worn engine for 100K miles.
>> >Other drivers would wipe the same engine out in a couple 100 miles and
>> >those drivers will be the ones that claim something was about to fall off
>> >anyway.
>> >
>>
>> That's nice but the OP doesn't have an extremely worn engine. He has
>> a 99 Ranger with 150k miles. He obviously babys the truck and takes
>> good care of it. That engine is far from extremely worn.
>>
>> 40MPH in second gear in the truck would be around 5krpm which is just
>> to the peak HP mark. If doing that broke something it was about to
>> break anyway
>
>Well which is it? One second you have the engine in excellent condition and the
>next it is on it's last legs?
No where in any of my posts did I say that his engine was in excellent
condition nor did I say it was on its last legs.
> Revving to 5k can damage some engines that otherwise would last a good long
>time if driven like the OP does. Your claim that whatever happened would have
>happened anyway is more than likely incorrect.
Your claim that whatever happened would not have happened anyway is
more than likely incorrect.
> And it also doesn't sound like anything broke as you claim. It sounds like he
>now has some piston slap that he didn't have before. He might have driven that
>engine another 100k without that ever happening.
>
I never claimed that anything broke. I said that ***if anything
broke*** it would have broken pretty soon anyway. If you think that
a couple minutes of minutes of 5k operation is going to do 100k of
damage to the pistons well... I wish you a speedy recovery.
Steve B.
jim
"Steve B." wrote:
> >Well which is it? One second you have the engine in excellent condition and the
> >next it is on it's last legs?
>
> No where in any of my posts did I say that his engine was in excellent
> condition nor did I say it was on its last legs.
>
You said "the engine was far from extremely worn". And you said if it now
has engine damage that was going to happen anyway. So one second your
saying it is in excellent condition and the next your claiming it was
about to crap out anyway.
Neither of the those statements are likely to be accurate. But you said
them to dance around the simple reality that high RPM could do damage. And
that damage is quite likely to be of a nature that would have not occurred
otherwise.
> I never claimed that anything broke. I said that ***if anything
> broke*** it would have broken pretty soon anyway.
But you are either claiming that something broke or you are just
dismissing as fantasy the obvious signs of damage the OP has now reported.
You claimed whatever broke would have anyway. The reality is that it is
possible that things can happen at 5k RPM that will never ever happen if
you stay well below that RPM. You are obviously oblivious to that
possibility. You have absolutely zero proof that whatever happens at 5k
would happen anyway. You just made that up.
The fact is that some of the engine components were subjected to loads
that are double or more of what they would have been if the OP had been
driving the vehicle himself and that clearly would have never happened
anyway.
>If you think that
> a couple minutes of minutes of 5k operation is going to do 100k of
> damage to the pistons well...
What I think is you don't know what you are talking about because you keep
saying things that are so completely wide of the mark. The type of damage
that may have occurred is not 100k of damage. It is just as likely it is
the type of damage that would have never happened in a 100k if the OP was
driving. You don't seem to be able to even grasp what that means.
I don't claim to have any more than a guess as to what is now wrong with
the engine or what caused it. But, I do know it is possible that it is
related to driving it at 5k in second gear - it is obviously also possible
it is unrelated.
And yes if that is the way you drive then it would happen to you anyway.
But for someone who has always kept the rpm below 3k it is likely the OP
might have been able to drive that a good long while without ever getting
any of the symptoms he now has.
I can assure you that if you take all the 10 yr. old Ford Rangers on the
road with 120K+ miles and subject them to the same treatment some of them
are not going to hold up and for most of them that do crap out it is
unlikely that whatever happens would happen anyway. If I was of a
suspicious nature, I might suspect the service manager was aware of this
and hoping to be able tell the guy at the end of the test drive that the
engine is fried and that sure is a shame since you are out here in the
middle of nowhere.....
-jim
Steve
>
> "Steve B." wrote:
>
>>> Well which is it? One second you have the engine in excellent condition and the
>>> next it is on it's last legs?
>> No where in any of my posts did I say that his engine was in excellent
>> condition nor did I say it was on its last legs.
>>
>
> You said "the engine was far from extremely worn". And you said if it now
> has engine damage that was going to happen anyway. So one second your
> saying it is in excellent condition and the next your claiming it was
> about to crap out anyway.
NO he isn't! Sheesh.
He said that a 150k mile engine isn't a generically nearly worn out
engine that was on its last legs. However, it could still have had some
impending catastrophic failure (spun bearing, loose connecting rod bolt,
etc.) Hell, a brand NEW engine can have a failure like that!
The latter would have failed anyway, but revving even a very worn engine
to its normal power peak isn't going to break anything.
jim
Steve wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >
> > "Steve B." wrote:
> >
> >>> Well which is it? One second you have the engine in excellent condition and the
> >>> next it is on it's last legs?
> >> No where in any of my posts did I say that his engine was in excellent
> >> condition nor did I say it was on its last legs.
> >>
> >
> > You said "the engine was far from extremely worn". And you said if it now
> > has engine damage that was going to happen anyway. So one second your
> > saying it is in excellent condition and the next your claiming it was
> > about to crap out anyway.
>
> NO he isn't! Sheesh.
>
> He said that a 150k mile engine isn't a generically nearly worn out
> engine that was on its last legs. However, it could still have had some
> impending catastrophic failure (spun bearing, loose connecting rod bolt,
> etc.) Hell, a brand NEW engine can have a failure like that!
The point is your statements are meaningless in the context of the question
asked. The reality is yes there are many engines out there that have impending
failures just waiting to happen if the engine is revved to 5k. Yes, some of them
might even be new, but most aren't. In many cases if someone drives them and
holds the rpms down to below 3000 rpm the engine can run and outlast the rest of
the car. That was the issue the OP was interested in and the issue that you want
to completely avoid.
So yeah I'm twisting the words, but that's because they weren't even close to
responding to the question asked. Don't you think an evasive answer deserves a
little needling? Bullshit about spun bearings and loose connecting rod bolts
doesn't contribute anything to answering the OP's question.
The OP wants to know if it is possible the damage he now has might not be there
if not for the way the dork in South dakota drove his car. And the answer is
yes, that is possible. It is indeed possible to have an impending disaster and
to completely avoid that disaster by simply never revving that high. That can
happen and that does happen, albeit probably not to you.
The notion that anything that happens at 5k will always happen anyway is false.
There are lot's of things that could happen at 5K that wouldn't happen anyway.
There are definitely also some things that would happen anyway, but that is
irrelevant. That is the point -> you give an irrelevant answer and then you
shouldn't whine when it's ridiculed.
>
> The latter would have failed anyway, but revving even a very worn engine
> to its normal power peak isn't going to break anything.
So in your view it's a moral question - any engine that can't stand to be revved
to 5k should be destroyed as soon as possible like they shoot horses don't they?
As far as your concerned the OP has no right to be driving such a vehicle.
Steve
>
>
> The point is your statements are meaningless in the context of the question
> asked. The reality is yes there are many engines out there that have impending
> failures just waiting to happen if the engine is revved to 5k. Yes, some of them
> might even be new, but most aren't. In many cases if someone drives them and
> holds the rpms down to below 3000 rpm the engine can run and outlast the rest of
> the car. That was the issue the OP was interested in and the issue that you want
> to completely avoid.
And I happen to disagree COMPLETELY with that claim. The difference in
real component stress between 3k and 5k rpm is not that large. If it
fails at 5k, its going to fail soon at 3k too. Or even at idle.
> So yeah I'm twisting the words, but that's because they weren't even close to
> responding to the question asked. Don't you think an evasive answer deserves a
> little needling? Bullshit about spun bearings and loose connecting rod bolts
> doesn't contribute anything to answering the OP's question.
Unless the noise he took it in for was a spun bearing or failed rod
bolt, fer cripes sake! Remember he took it TO the shop BECAUSE OF AN
ABNORMAL NOISE.
> The notion that anything that happens at 5k will always happen anyway is false.
In your opinion. I disagree. If 5k is below the redline of the engine,
there is nothing that could possibly fail at that RPM that isn't going
to eventually fail at lower RPM anyway. If you can think of a real-world
example that proves otherwise, I invite you to do so.
>
>> The latter would have failed anyway, but revving even a very worn engine
>> to its normal power peak isn't going to break anything.
>
> So in your view it's a moral question - any engine that can't stand to be revved
> to 5k should be destroyed as soon as possible like they shoot horses don't they?
> As far as your concerned the OP has no right to be driving such a vehicle.
>
Any engine that can no longer operate in its NORMAL operating range is
not safe to be on the road. So yeah, in a sense I guess it is a moral
position.
jim
Steve wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > The point is your statements are meaningless in the context of the question
> > asked. The reality is yes there are many engines out there that have impending
> > failures just waiting to happen if the engine is revved to 5k. Yes, some of them
> > might even be new, but most aren't. In many cases if someone drives them and
> > holds the rpms down to below 3000 rpm the engine can run and outlast the rest of
> > the car. That was the issue the OP was interested in and the issue that you want
> > to completely avoid.
>
> And I happen to disagree COMPLETELY with that claim. The difference in
> real component stress between 3k and 5k rpm is not that large.
Wrong, Some loads increase geometrically all increase at least
linearly. So your talking an increase of 67%-200% on a new engine in
perfect shape. And some loads increase as clearances increase. So an
engine with more clearance on bearings, pistons, cylinder and rings
will experience heavier loads on some components at the same rpm. And
a little bit of oil mixed with the air and fuel increases the
likelihood of high speed detonation. So all added together the
additional real component stress could be exceedingly large.
The reality is the failure point is often just that - a point. If you
stay below that point it won't fail.
> If it
> fails at 5k, its going to fail soon at 3k too. Or even at idle.
Wrong.
>
> > So yeah I'm twisting the words, but that's because they weren't even close to
> > responding to the question asked. Don't you think an evasive answer deserves a
> > little needling? Bullshit about spun bearings and loose connecting rod bolts
> > doesn't contribute anything to answering the OP's question.
>
> Unless the noise he took it in for was a spun bearing or failed rod
> bolt, fer cripes sake! Remember he took it TO the shop BECAUSE OF AN
> ABNORMAL NOISE.
And then afterwards he drove it half way across the country with this
mythical spun bearing or loose rod bolt. Yeah that makes a lot of
sense.
>
> > The notion that anything that happens at 5k will always happen anyway is false.
>
> In your opinion. I disagree. If 5k is below the redline of the engine,
The redline is not something handed down by God to Moses and written
on stone, which is what you apparently believe. The so called redline
represents the point at which damage occurs that would not otherwise
occur.
What you are to dense to see is that I am telling you is the redline
of a particular engine with 150k miles on it might well be 3000 RPM.
This is not only possible it is even likely. That engine may last a
good long while if it is driven below that 3000 RPM, but may fail in
short order if you start to drive it above that. That by definition
makes 3000 rpm the redline for that engine.
> there is nothing that could possibly fail at that RPM that isn't going
> to eventually fail at lower RPM anyway. If you can think of a real-world
> example that proves otherwise, I invite you to do so.
Just run engines past redline and see what happens - what more proof
do you need?
Some people can buy a used car at 150k and drive it for another 100k
and the engine is usually not the component that eventually does it
in.
And then there are others who buy a car with 150k and they will
consistently wipe out the motor in 500-1000 miles. And that also just
happens to be the guy who shifts out of second gear at 5000 rpm. Now
someone would have to be completely stupid, deaf, dumb and blind not
to not be able to put the facts together to see what is going on
there.
>
> >
> >> The latter would have failed anyway, but revving even a very worn engine
> >> to its normal power peak isn't going to break anything.
More irrelevant bullshit. How does normal peak power (whatever that
might mean) have anything to do with anything. Or are you back to your
morality thing? If an engine doesn't have a shot at winning Daytona it
doesn't deserve to be allowed on the road?
> >
> > So in your view it's a moral question - any engine that can't stand to be revved
> > to 5k should be destroyed as soon as possible like they shoot horses don't they?
> > As far as your concerned the OP has no right to be driving such a vehicle.
> >
> Any engine that can no longer operate in its NORMAL operating range is
> not safe to be on the road. So yeah, in a sense I guess it is a moral
> position.
That is what I figured. At least you now are being halfway honest,
but only an idiot would think that shifting in 2nd gear at 5k rpm is
NORMAL. So you think the guy had the right to destroy the OP's engine
on moral grounds? He was after all doing the OP a big favor - right?.
It was all done out of the goodness of his heart, because he was
hoping to give the OP a really good deal on a new engine.
I don't think the courts would agree with your moral position. How
are you going to demonstrate that you are a danger to yourself or
others just because you drive like the OP does without exceeding 3000
rpm?
Calab
| > And I happen to disagree COMPLETELY with that claim. The difference in
| > real component stress between 3k and 5k rpm is not that large.
|
| Wrong, Some loads increase geometrically all increase at least
| linearly. So your talking an increase of 67%-200% on a new engine in
| perfect shape. And some loads increase as clearances increase. So an
This is a stupid argument.
If the engine specifications state that 5000 rpm is within the operating
range of the motor, then running at 5000 rpm in first or fourth gear is
ACCEPTABLE. IF it fails within it's normal operating range it WAS defective.
It doesn't matter that the owner may have never experienced the defect
during their use. The engine was run withing ACCEPTABLE limits. It FAILED.
It WAS defective.
jim
Calab wrote:
>
> | > And I happen to disagree COMPLETELY with that claim. The difference in
> | > real component stress between 3k and 5k rpm is not that large.
> |
> | Wrong, Some loads increase geometrically all increase at least
> | linearly. So your talking an increase of 67%-200% on a new engine in
> | perfect shape. And some loads increase as clearances increase. So an
>
> This is a stupid argument.
>
> If the engine specifications state that 5000 rpm is within the operating
> range of the motor, then running at 5000 rpm in first or fourth gear is
> ACCEPTABLE. IF it fails within it's normal operating range it WAS defective.
>
> It doesn't matter that the owner may have never experienced the defect
> during their use.
So the owner has no right to ask the guy to shift at a reasonable RPM?
Or to expect that a technician that test drives his car will handle it
with the same care he does?
See this is the problem. Their are a lot of these idiots out there
who think they have the moral right perhaps even the moral duty to
destroy someone else's property just because they deem it to be
defective. And unfortunately they often do just exactly that.
First when asked if it causes damage they will lie and say "No, It
causes no damage". Then when confronted with that lie they will
respond "it doesn't matter because we have the moral right to do
damage because it's defective anyway". And some of them will even go
so far as saying the owner has no business driving in a way that
doesn't cause damage.
>The engine was run withing ACCEPTABLE limits. It FAILED.
> It WAS defective.
So the owner has no right to keep his so called "defective" vehicle
and drive it for another 100,000 miles? Is that how it works?
Dan_Thom...@yahoo.com
The guys who convert auto engines for use in aircraft or
boats often test their conversions by running them under load at
redline or very near to it for a long time to see what it'll take.
Some are pretty much stock, some have cams to get peak torque at a
higher rpm. These engines typically run for hundreds of hours at these
loads and rpms, and are found to be in unexpectedly good condition
when torn down. Redline, I think, is a point that leaves considerable
margin to protect both the engine and its manufacturer from idiots.
Both boats and airplanes are hard on engines, because at cruising
speed they're operating at anywhere from 65 to 90% of max hp, while a
car might need 25 or 30% in cruise. Big difference. Most of the
problems with these conversions are making sure the thing has enough
cooling capacity, especially in aircraft. A certified aircraft engine
is expected to last anywhere from 1400 to 2400 hours, depending on the
model, and auto conversions (for uncertified aircraft) should last 600
hours or better. A current certified aircraft engine, the Thielert
Centurion, is a converted Mercedes diesel that produces 135 hp from
2.0 litres, at 2300 propeller rpm, which is reduced at least 2:1 from
crankshaft rpm, so we know that the crank is turning at least 4600.
And that engine is rated at full power, continuous, at whatever
altitude you want. 135 is max sea level power. The engine is certified
for 2400 hours of that treatment. See it: http://www.centurion-engines.com/
They also get 350 hp out of a 4 litre model.
When a dork abuses an engine, he accelerates hard, repeatedly.
He'll cause detonation, which scrubs or cracks pistons, breaks rings,
cracks heads, and causes wide temperature swings that warp and break
things. He'll decellerate hard, sucking oil past the rings. He
probably won't look after the engine, either, feeding it cheap gas and
never changing the oil. The crankcase will sludge up and so will the
lifters. He'll start it at -20 and go right away, on summer-weight
oil, which won't pump worth a hoot at that temperature and his engine
starves for lube. Stupid, all of that, and it's no wonder his engine
comes apart.
But I still don't like running so close to redline. I've flown
a Glastar with a converted Subaru 2.2L, cruising at 4600 engine rpm
and redlining it at 5600 in max speed flight. Sure doesn't sound like
it's enjoying itself, not after the Lycomings I cruise at 2200 or 2500
rpm or my Old Continental A-65 that's happy at 2100. But the Subaru
doesn't come apart, either. Strong enough to take producing max hp at
max rpm, for some time. Years ago I built a boat in which I stuck a
converted Chev 283 and cruised that at anything up to 4800, which I
think was beyond redline. It didn't mind at all. It was still running
well when I sold it.
Dan
Calab
| > If the engine specifications state that 5000 rpm is within the operating
| > range of the motor, then running at 5000 rpm in first or fourth gear is
| > ACCEPTABLE. IF it fails within it's normal operating range it WAS
defective.
| >
| > It doesn't matter that the owner may have never experienced the defect
| > during their use.
| So the owner has no right to ask the guy to shift at a reasonable RPM?
| Or to expect that a technician that test drives his car will handle it
| with the same care he does?
If running in second gear up to 5000rpm is acceptable by the vehicles
specifications, then that drive WAS shifting at a reasonable RPM.
| See this is the problem. Their are a lot of these idiots out there
| who think they have the moral right perhaps even the moral duty to
| destroy someone else's property just because they deem it to be
| defective. And unfortunately they often do just exactly that.
There are a lot of idiots out there who cringe whenever someone does
something that they don't expect... then they whine about topics that they
don't understand, all the time pointing fingers at someone else.
| First when asked if it causes damage they will lie and say "No, It
| causes no damage". Then when confronted with that lie they will
| respond "it doesn't matter because we have the moral right to do
| damage because it's defective anyway". And some of them will even go
| so far as saying the owner has no business driving in a way that
| doesn't cause damage.
Now you're just making stuff up.
| >The engine was run withing ACCEPTABLE limits. It FAILED.
| > It WAS defective.
|
| So the owner has no right to keep his so called "defective" vehicle
| and drive it for another 100,000 miles? Is that how it works?
Uhm... I never read where the mechanic told the owner, "Now you're cars
broken, you can't have it back."
By your reasoning, if a mechanic has your car out for a test drive and ends
up with a flat tire, the mechanic owes you a new set of tires.
Or how about a stone chip in the windshield? The owner can claim, "I never
drive down THAT road, so the mechanic driving owes me a windshield!"
The car was **NOT** driven unreasonably... Just DIFFERENTLY than the owner
drives it. That difference does NOT make the mechanic automatically
responsible for any failures of the car.
Steve
>
> Calab wrote:
>
>>
>> If the engine specifications state that 5000 rpm is within the operating
>> range of the motor, then running at 5000 rpm in first or fourth gear is
>> ACCEPTABLE. IF it fails within it's normal operating range it WAS defective.
>>
>> It doesn't matter that the owner may have never experienced the defect
>> during their use.
>
>
> So the owner has no right to ask the guy to shift at a reasonable RPM?
You keep saying "reasonable RPM." WTF does that mean to you? The only
QUANTIFIABLE "reasonable RPM" I can think of is defined as "below the
rated redline of the engine." Yes I know that redlines are somewhat
arbitrary- but guess what else- they're USUALLY rather conservative,
meaning you can probably go somewhat beyond them without causing damage.
>
> So the owner has no right to keep his so called "defective" vehicle
> and drive it for another 100,000 miles? Is that how it works?
>
> -jim
You keep implying that this happens frequently. I don't think it does.
And I've owned some *very* high-mileage and heavily worn engines in my
day, but I never hesitated to put the pedal down when it came time to
merge onto the freeway. Guess what- I've never had an engine failure in
a bit over 1 million miles logged. Never. No spun bearings, no rod
knocks, no blown head gaskets. I finally retired one engine when it got
to be "fill the oil and check the gas," but it would still run right up
to its usual WOT shift point if I asked it to. Since its still sitting
in my garage 6 years later, I'll bet you I could bolt it back in the car
and it would *still* do that. Of course it was a Chrysler 383, so the
cards are stacked heavily in my favor....
jim
Steve wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >
> > Calab wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If the engine specifications state that 5000 rpm is within the operating
> >> range of the motor, then running at 5000 rpm in first or fourth gear is
> >> ACCEPTABLE. IF it fails within it's normal operating range it WAS defective.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter that the owner may have never experienced the defect
> >> during their use.
> >
> >
> > So the owner has no right to ask the guy to shift at a reasonable RPM?
>
> You keep saying "reasonable RPM." WTF does that mean to you? The only
> QUANTIFIABLE "reasonable RPM" I can think of is defined as "below the
> rated redline of the engine."
Well you just explained in full the limits of your thought process.
But here's the deal-> The owner of the car asked the guy to shift. It
would be folly to attempt to explain "reasonable" to someone who
thinks an appropriate response to that request is for him to
accelerate to much higher RPM. It also is not possible to explain
reasonable to someone who thinks that increasing the stress on engine
components doesn't increase the chance of failure. You can't explain
reasonable to people who buy lottery tickets because they think it's a
good investment. Some people just don't get what is possible or
probable.
As I said some people know what is reasonable for a particular
engine. Others have no clue. It is my belief that in the hands of the
owner his engine would last a good long while - maybe another 100k or
until the body rusted out. In the hands of that other driver it would
probably not last 1000 miles.
Does that "quantify" anything for you? Probably not.
>Yes I know that redlines are somewhat
> arbitrary- but guess what else- they're USUALLY rather conservative,
> meaning you can probably go somewhat beyond them without causing damage.
That is all really beside the point, everybody agrees damage is not
impossible when revving to 5000 rpm. How likely it is will depend on
the particular engine, but that also is not really the point. The
point I dispute is the contention that if it fails it would have
failed anyway. That simply is not true. That was the question that
was originally asked and the answer that "whatever happens would
happen anyway" is just not accurate.
If you believe that running that engine up to 5000k (as opposed to
never driving over 3000 rpm) doesn't increase the likelihood of
premature failure then there is little hope of discussing what is
"resonable"
> >
> > So the owner has no right to keep his so called "defective" vehicle
> > and drive it for another 100,000 miles? Is that how it works?
> >
> > -jim
>
> You keep implying that this happens frequently. I don't think it does.
No it doesn't. That's because most people who have cars at 150K don't
wind it up to 5000 rpm on every shift. They simply have the brains not
to. If you think driving like that doesn't increase the probability
that something will go wrong (that would not otherwise happen) then
you are not as smart as the average driver.
> And I've owned some *very* high-mileage and heavily worn engines in my
> day, but I never hesitated to put the pedal down when it came time to
> merge onto the freeway. Guess what- I've never had an engine failure in
> a bit over 1 million miles logged. Never. No spun bearings, no rod
> knocks, no blown head gaskets. I finally retired one engine when it got
> to be "fill the oil and check the gas," but it would still run right up
> to its usual WOT shift point if I asked it to. Since its still sitting
> in my garage 6 years later, I'll bet you I could bolt it back in the car
> and it would *still* do that. Of course it was a Chrysler 383, so the
> cards are stacked heavily in my favor....
I know a guy 40 years ago who put a brick on the throttle of a '49
chevy with 200K to see if he could blow the engine up at WOT. It went
thru a whole tank of gas without blowing up. So from that we can
conclude that would be a reasonable thing for you to do to your car,
Right?
Calab
> But here's the deal-> The owner of the car asked the guy to shift. It
> would be folly to attempt to explain "reasonable" to someone who
> thinks an appropriate response to that request is for him to
> accelerate to much higher RPM. It also is not possible to explain
> reasonable to someone who thinks that increasing the stress on engine
> components doesn't increase the chance of failure. You can't explain
> reasonable to people who buy lottery tickets because they think it's a
> good investment. Some people just don't get what is possible or
> probable.
>
> As I said some people know what is reasonable for a particular
> engine. Others have no clue. It is my belief that in the hands of the
> owner his engine would last a good long while - maybe another 100k or
> until the body rusted out. In the hands of that other driver it would
> probably not last 1000 miles.
>
> Does that "quantify" anything for you? Probably not.
Reasonable= Within acceptable limits.
I agree that the car owner has every right to tell the mechanic what to do
and not to do with his car. If the mechanic doesn't listen, the owner has
every right to complain.
I disagree that the mechanic drove unreasonably just because the owner says
so. If you drive outside of the parameters set by the manufacturer, THEN you
are driving unreasonably.
> That is all really beside the point, everybody agrees damage is not
> impossible when revving to 5000 rpm.
It's also possible at 3000 rpm, or even 500rpm.
> How likely it is will depend on
> the particular engine, but that also is not really the point. The
> point I dispute is the contention that if it fails it would have
> failed anyway. That simply is not true.
...and every time the owner starts the car it could fail. Failure can happen
any time. The only way the mechanic can be responsible for the failure is by
treating the car unreasonably. That means doing something it was not
designed to do, NOT something that the owner doesn't like.
> No it doesn't. That's because most people who have cars at 150K don't
> wind it up to 5000 rpm on every shift. They simply have the brains not
> to. If you think driving like that doesn't increase the probability
> that something will go wrong (that would not otherwise happen) then
> you are not as smart as the average driver.
...and a mechanic, trying to troubleshoot an issue, might just drive in a
manner that would help identify any issues. It doesn't automatically make
him responsible for anything that happens.
> I know a guy 40 years ago who put a brick on the throttle of a '49
> chevy with 200K to see if he could blow the engine up at WOT. It went
> thru a whole tank of gas without blowing up. So from that we can
> conclude that would be a reasonable thing for you to do to your car,
> Right?
Let's see... Show me where GM says that it's within specifications to run an
engine at WOT for a full tank of gas, with no load.
jim
Calab wrote:
>
> > Well you just explained in full the limits of your thought process.
> > But here's the deal-> The owner of the car asked the guy to shift. It
> > would be folly to attempt to explain "reasonable" to someone who
> > thinks an appropriate response to that request is for him to
> > accelerate to much higher RPM. It also is not possible to explain
> > reasonable to someone who thinks that increasing the stress on engine
> > components doesn't increase the chance of failure. You can't explain
> > reasonable to people who buy lottery tickets because they think it's a
> > good investment. Some people just don't get what is possible or
> > probable.
> >
> > As I said some people know what is reasonable for a particular
> > engine. Others have no clue. It is my belief that in the hands of the
> > owner his engine would last a good long while - maybe another 100k or
> > until the body rusted out. In the hands of that other driver it would
> > probably not last 1000 miles.
> >
> > Does that "quantify" anything for you? Probably not.
>
> Reasonable= Within acceptable limits.
You can string meaningless words together it doesn't really say
anything. What's an "acceptable limit" for a 10 year old car with
150k. You are not going get Ford to make any claims at all about how
high you can safely rev an engine like that. As far as they are
concerned, it has already exceeded its useful life expectancy.
>
> I agree that the car owner has every right to tell the mechanic what to do
> and not to do with his car. If the mechanic doesn't listen, the owner has
> every right to complain.
>
> I disagree that the mechanic drove unreasonably just because the owner says
> so. If you drive outside of the parameters set by the manufacturer, THEN you
> are driving unreasonably.
As far as I know Ford does not warrant any of it's engines to run to
within new car specs for 150,000 miles. The parameters you are
clinging to are a fiction.
>
> > That is all really beside the point, everybody agrees damage is not
> > impossible when revving to 5000 rpm.
>
> It's also possible at 3000 rpm, or even 500rpm.
That statement is intended to avoid the real question. The OP wants to
know - Is damage more likely if you shift at the manufacturers
recommended shift points or if you wind it up to 5000k? I think he
understands perfectly well that no one can say for absolute sure how
his engine got to be as it is now.
> > How likely it is will depend on
> > the particular engine, but that also is not really the point. The
> > point I dispute is the contention that if it fails it would have
> > failed anyway. That simply is not true.
>
> ...and every time the owner starts the car it could fail. Failure can happen
> any time. The only way the mechanic can be responsible for the failure is by
> treating the car unreasonably. That means doing something it was not
> designed to do, NOT something that the owner doesn't like.
Your preoccupation with assigning blame is telling. And it wasn't a
mechanic it was one of the service writers that drove the car and it
wouldn't surprise me if he knows less about engines than the car's
owner.
>
> > No it doesn't. That's because most people who have cars at 150K don't
> > wind it up to 5000 rpm on every shift. They simply have the brains not
> > to. If you think driving like that doesn't increase the probability
> > that something will go wrong (that would not otherwise happen) then
> > you are not as smart as the average driver.
>
> ...and a mechanic, trying to troubleshoot an issue, might just drive in a
> manner that would help identify any issues. It doesn't automatically make
> him responsible for anything that happens.
You must have a guilty conscience. There was no mechanic, and no one
but you has said anything about assigning blame. If you think the OP
was asking can he collect a new engine from this guy then you are a
few cards short of a full deck.
The general question is at 150K can winding the engine to 5k in
second gear cause damage that would otherwise not occur if you always
drove it below 3k. And the answer is yes it can. That is a simple yes
or no question. It is more likely for damage to occur at 5000 rpm. And
that is true whether the car is new or old. But the probability of
damage increases as it gets older.
But, No he can't prove there was damage. At this point that would be
like trying to sue if you didn't win the lottery. Just because you
can't prove cause and affect doesn't mean you have to be ignorant of
the probabilities.
>
> > I know a guy 40 years ago who put a brick on the throttle of a '49
> > chevy with 200K to see if he could blow the engine up at WOT. It went
> > thru a whole tank of gas without blowing up. So from that we can
> > conclude that would be a reasonable thing for you to do to your car,
> > Right?
>
> Let's see... Show me where GM says that it's within specifications to run an
> engine at WOT for a full tank of gas, with no load.
GM or Ford do not claim an engine at 150K performs to new car
specifications. Where did you get that idea? They make no claims of
any specifications at all.
Steve
>
> Steve wrote:
>> jim wrote:
>>> Calab wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the engine specifications state that 5000 rpm is within the operating
>>>> range of the motor, then running at 5000 rpm in first or fourth gear is
>>>> ACCEPTABLE. IF it fails within it's normal operating range it WAS defective.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter that the owner may have never experienced the defect
>>>> during their use.
>>>
>>> So the owner has no right to ask the guy to shift at a reasonable RPM?
>> You keep saying "reasonable RPM." WTF does that mean to you? The only
>> QUANTIFIABLE "reasonable RPM" I can think of is defined as "below the
>> rated redline of the engine."
>
> Well you just explained in full the limits of your thought process.
> But here's the deal-> The owner of the car asked the guy to shift. It
> would be folly to attempt to explain "reasonable" to someone who
> thinks an appropriate response to that request is for him to
> accelerate to much higher RPM. It also is not possible to explain
> reasonable to someone who thinks that increasing the stress on engine
> components doesn't increase the chance of failure.
I'll ignore the insults and try to explain in rational engineering terms
why I have been saying what I have.
1) The manufacturer sets quantified, reasonable operating bounds for
their engine. They set those bounds so that the engine should be able to
operate ANYWHERE WITHIN THEM for its entire service life. They're
sufficiently conservative so that an engine with a whole lot of wear,
but no impending failure (there's a difference!) can operate safely
anywhere in that range.
2) engine stresses increase non-linearly with RPM. The difference in
stress between ANY TWO POINTS that lie WITHIN THE NORMAL FACTORY RPM
RANGE for that engine is pretty negligible compared to the difference in
stress that appear when you go significantly beyond the normal regime.
When it comes to, for example, failing a connecting rod bolt in an
engine with a 5500 RPM redline, the difference between 3000 RPM and 5000
RPM is tiny compared to the difference between 5000 RPM and 7000 RPM.
This, by the way, is exactly why the "guy you knew of" who put a brick
on the pedal of an old Chevy couldn't blow it up. Very low-performance
engines like a Chevy stovebolt six don't have sufficient air movement
ability ("breathing" in engine parlance) to free-rev far beyond their
normal loaded operating rpm. Now if you tried that with my 300,000 mile
383, it definitely *could* free-rev to at least the point where stock
valve springs would start letting the valves float (~6500 RPM or
thereabout in its case) and probably past 7k. It would very much be in
danger of snapping a rod bolt, even if it were brand new. But the danger
of snapping a rod bolt at 5500 RPM is no GREATER with 300,000 miles on
it than it was when new. I could go into a whole digression on WHY this
is true for a number of components. In the case of rod bolts, they don't
"age" because so long as you stay in the normal operating regime, the
amount that they stretch is below the point where metal fatigue starts
accumulating. If you exceed that point, they may not fail but the "clock
is ticking" and sustained operation there will eventually cause failure.
Aluminum behaves differently- it really doesn't have a fatigue
threshold, so any flexing at all will ultimately lead to failure, but
the amount of flexing speeds the progress toward ultimate failure.
That's why airplanes, unlike cars, have a finite lifespan after which
they CANNOT be operated safely, no matter how well-maintained. That's
also why aluminum connecting rods, despite all their weight advantages,
are not practical for street cars.
3) So the only remaining question is, "Is it possible for there to be a
fault in the engine that won't fail if you "baby" it, but will fail if
you ask for it to perform to its design specifications?" Obviously,
there CAN be such oddities. However, my contention is that because of
(2) above, if it can fail somewhere in the "normal" regime, you have
INSUFFICIENT safety margin to assume that it can even continue to
survive WITH babying. You're in the realm of "it might last 5 more
minutes, or it might last another 10,000 miles." That's just not a
satisfactory way to operate, period!
>
> As I said some people know what is reasonable for a particular
> engine.
How do they "know" that? "Because I've never gotten it over 3200 RPM"
isn't a valid source of that kind of "knowledge" about what is
"reasonable." The factory specification that says "5000 RPM" for the
life of the engine *IS* a quantifiable specification.
> Others have no clue. It is my belief that in the hands of the
> owner his engine would last a good long while - maybe another 100k or
> until the body rusted out. In the hands of that other driver it would
> probably not last 1000 miles.
And you may be right. I don't think that this happens in more than .001%
of engines on the road, but its theoretically possible. I just don't
think its a practical concern.
>
> Does that "quantify" anything for you? Probably not.
I'm sorry, it just doesn't. It is at best a qualitative guess.
jim
Yes true but, that's like saying the difference between a stick of dynamite and
a 100 lb bomb is tiny compared to the difference between a 100 lb bomb and a
nuclear device. Despite your best efforts to obscure, the difference between
3000 and 5000 is is quite big. Big enough that a huge number of bad things can
happen that otherwise wouldn't.
But, this is avoiding the question.
> This, by the way, is exactly why the "guy you knew of" who put a brick
> on the pedal of an old Chevy couldn't blow it up. Very low-performance
> engines like a Chevy stovebolt six don't have sufficient air movement
> ability ("breathing" in engine parlance) to free-rev far beyond their
> normal loaded operating rpm. Now if you tried that with my 300,000 mile
> 383, it definitely *could* free-rev to at least the point where stock
> valve springs would start letting the valves float (~6500 RPM or
> thereabout in its case) and probably past 7k. It would very much be in
> danger of snapping a rod bolt, even if it were brand new. But the danger
> of snapping a rod bolt at 5500 RPM is no GREATER with 300,000 miles on
> it than it was when new.
He didn't ask about snapping a rod bolt. I agree it is unlikely that it would
cause a rod to break out-right. but it might cause a rod to start knocking which
will even with conservative driving over time only get progressively worse. And
when it gets to the point 1000s of miles down the road where is really hammering
then it will throw the rod. Your attitude is the owner has no business trying to
avoid grief like that.
> I could go into a whole digression on WHY this
> is true for a number of components. In the case of rod bolts, they don't
> "age" because so long as you stay in the normal operating regime, the
> amount that they stretch is below the point where metal fatigue starts
> accumulating. If you exceed that point, they may not fail but the "clock
> is ticking" and sustained operation there will eventually cause failure.
> Aluminum behaves differently- it really doesn't have a fatigue
> threshold, so any flexing at all will ultimately lead to failure, but
> the amount of flexing speeds the progress toward ultimate failure.
> That's why airplanes, unlike cars, have a finite lifespan after which
> they CANNOT be operated safely, no matter how well-maintained. That's
> also why aluminum connecting rods, despite all their weight advantages,
> are not practical for street cars.
>
> 3) So the only remaining question is,
Remaining question? Is that supposed to fool someone into believing you have
addressed any question that was asked up to this point.
>"Is it possible for there to be a
> fault in the engine that won't fail if you "baby" it, but will fail if
> you ask for it to perform to its design specifications?" Obviously,
> there CAN be such oddities.
Well at least you now are responding to the original question even if it back to
your moralizing. What you call oddities are things that normally happen to
engines as they advance in miles and age. And there could be several of these
little oddities as you choose to call them.
What you are calling an oddity is more common than you think for engines at of
that stage. The fact is that most people never tempt fate. They drive
conservatively and thus they never find out what bad things are waiting to
happen.
Besides most cars have automatics so it is not as easy to achieve that kind of
abuse.
If you go out and buy a hundred 10 year old pickups with 150K and manual
trannies and start driving them like that, most of them will never make it to
200k. But if you drive in the way the OP does probably about 99 of them will
make it.
But you believe that people who have old cars like that have no right to find
out for themselves what will happen.
> However, my contention is that because of
> (2) above, if it can fail somewhere in the "normal" regime, you have
> INSUFFICIENT safety margin to assume that it can even continue to
> survive WITH babying. You're in the realm of "it might last 5 more
> minutes, or it might last another 10,000 miles." That's just not a
> satisfactory way to operate, period!
Now you leap over that cliff called fantasy. The entire basis for this leap of
fantasy is your moral belief that you are doing someone a big favor by driving
at high rpms. It's a self serving argument. If you wreck the engine it would
happen anyway. If you don't then the engine is good. If the engine is damaged
the owner gets no opportunity to drive it without abuse themselves and find out
so of course you can never be proven wrong.
The guy who posted the question now has a thumping in his engine when he starts
it cold. So now he has an engine with an unknown life expectancy. Before that
started I would say he had a good chance of making it another 100k driving the
way he drives. Prior to the guy abusing the engine he didn't have that problem.
Does that mean there is cause and affect? I would say there is a very good
chance that it does.
Originally you claimed that there is no probability that the problem
originated with the abusive driving and apparently you now realize that claim
was clearly preposterous. So now you claim there is a very slight chance it
might have caused damage that would otherwise never happen, but that is still
completely unrealistic.
Roy Bragg
with solid lifters.
Roy
<Dan_Thom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:04ca5858-d76f-4308...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
ben91932
reading this thread in it's silly pointless entirety...
Thats 11 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
Hope this helps,
Ben