Very bad gas mileage since service
#61
04-22-2013, 03:59 AM
ps: you might want to take a poll of your buds "in the community" I'm betting that ALL of them have a windage tray or other "oil mist" controlling device inside their engines ....unless you were the one advising them.
Last edited by loudbang; 04-22-2013 at 04:03 AM.
#62
04-22-2013, 11:13 AM
LOL at the two of you. You two don't know the inside of an engine much do you? IF you did you would know the the oil wrapped around the crank comes from the "Mist" of oil in the crankcase created by the spinning crankshaft and other moving parts not liquid oil.
The crank in no way has to physically touch or dip into the liquid oil to wrap itself with more than normal oil buildup. The partial vacuum, or lower pressure, around the spinning crank causes the excess oil, yes EVEN half an inch, to move toward the lower pressure in turn to be caught and wrapped around the spinning crank.
That is why all car manufactures bother to mark or even have a dipstick if it wasn't needed they wouldn't warn in the owners manuals against over filling you could just dump in as much as you felt like.
For those of us who have looked at a running engine thru a plastic oil pan and a dry sump oil system the centripetal force pretty well clears oil off the crankshaft assembly.
Since you are the so called go to "expert" are here why do you think they make higher capacity oil pans for drag racing? If you say for extra capacity you would be incorrect they are used to lower the liquid oil FURTHER FROM THE CRANK just to prevent this problem. Back to you in LA LA land
Don't take my word for in in a one minute search found these out of many many pages of the same thing;
From here Crankshaft - Tech, Overview, Terminology, - Circle Track Magazine
Crankshafts and Windage
Even the use of dry-sump oiling systems does not prevent crankshafts from being influenced by the migration of engine oil from the crankcase to pan. It’s a given that oil will become attached to a spinning crankshaft, adding to its “dynamic” weight and inertial resistance. In fact, high speed photography reveals that the oil can look like toffee rope wrapped around the spinning crankshaft. By the use of various oil pan devices, attached oil can be physically removed from crankshaft surfaces. And since tapered edges tend to release/shed oil more easily that “squared off” portions, the shaping of counterweights is another common method of addressing the problem. Special coatings, of the type that reduce surface tension, applied to crank throws and counterweights can also be used. But in any event, assume that oil passing by the crankshaft and pulses of air created by rapidly descending pistons and the volume of air entrapped up inside them will combine to increase the importance of reducing the amount of oil that becomes a “passenger” at high crank rpm.
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/199561...camaro/page-9/
Chevy Power Secrets - 10 Tricks For Hidden Horsepower - Super Chevy Magazine
The crank in no way has to physically touch or dip into the liquid oil to wrap itself with more than normal oil buildup. The partial vacuum, or lower pressure, around the spinning crank causes the excess oil, yes EVEN half an inch, to move toward the lower pressure in turn to be caught and wrapped around the spinning crank.
That is why all car manufactures bother to mark or even have a dipstick if it wasn't needed they wouldn't warn in the owners manuals against over filling you could just dump in as much as you felt like.
For those of us who have looked at a running engine thru a plastic oil pan and a dry sump oil system the centripetal force pretty well clears oil off the crankshaft assembly.
Since you are the so called go to "expert" are here why do you think they make higher capacity oil pans for drag racing? If you say for extra capacity you would be incorrect they are used to lower the liquid oil FURTHER FROM THE CRANK just to prevent this problem. Back to you in LA LA land
Don't take my word for in in a one minute search found these out of many many pages of the same thing;
From here Crankshaft - Tech, Overview, Terminology, - Circle Track Magazine
Crankshafts and Windage
Even the use of dry-sump oiling systems does not prevent crankshafts from being influenced by the migration of engine oil from the crankcase to pan. It’s a given that oil will become attached to a spinning crankshaft, adding to its “dynamic” weight and inertial resistance. In fact, high speed photography reveals that the oil can look like toffee rope wrapped around the spinning crankshaft. By the use of various oil pan devices, attached oil can be physically removed from crankshaft surfaces. And since tapered edges tend to release/shed oil more easily that “squared off” portions, the shaping of counterweights is another common method of addressing the problem. Special coatings, of the type that reduce surface tension, applied to crank throws and counterweights can also be used. But in any event, assume that oil passing by the crankshaft and pulses of air created by rapidly descending pistons and the volume of air entrapped up inside them will combine to increase the importance of reducing the amount of oil that becomes a “passenger” at high crank rpm.
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/199561...camaro/page-9/
Chevy Power Secrets - 10 Tricks For Hidden Horsepower - Super Chevy Magazine
For those of us who have looked at a running engine thru a plastic oil pan and a dry sump oil system the centripetal force pretty well clears oil off the crankshaft assembly. Larger oil pans do not prevent oil from stacking up at one end on a dragster of the sides incorners. Baffling helps but dry sumps are the best to keep crankshafts from coming in contact with oil in the pan of a wet sump system. And the intake to the oil pump must be protected and is the primary specification in any wet sump system.
PS. If you'd like to see it, find one of those plasstic engines that you can attach an elecrtric motor to the crankshaftt. Using wather as the 'lube' in a short run you'll be amazed at the action.
#63
04-23-2013, 12:01 AM
Not correct if you look at a running real engine the oil is NOT slung off the crank it remains wrapped due to liquid surface tension that is stronger than the centripetal force acting on it.
OK maybe partially true. The oil is a mass of liquid that is loosing and picking up more oil particles constantly it's not a solid mass of oil it's dynamic so I guess one could say it looses SOME oil to centripetal force and it gains back more oil negating the portion that has dispersed. So there are losses BUT not enough to effect the size of the spinning mass that is clinging there due to all the surface area on the many many surfaces of the crank.
OK maybe partially true. The oil is a mass of liquid that is loosing and picking up more oil particles constantly it's not a solid mass of oil it's dynamic so I guess one could say it looses SOME oil to centripetal force and it gains back more oil negating the portion that has dispersed. So there are losses BUT not enough to effect the size of the spinning mass that is clinging there due to all the surface area on the many many surfaces of the crank.
Last edited by loudbang; 04-23-2013 at 12:15 AM.
#64
04-23-2013, 11:38 AM
Not correct if you look at a running real engine the oil is NOT slung off the crank it remains wrapped due to liquid surface tension that is stronger than the centripetal force acting on it.
OK maybe partially true. The oil is a mass of liquid that is loosing and picking up more oil particles constantly it's not a solid mass of oil it's dynamic so I guess one could say it looses SOME oil to centripetal force and it gains back more oil negating the portion that has dispersed. So there are losses BUT not enough to effect the size of the spinning mass that is clinging there due to all the surface area on the many many surfaces of the crank.
OK maybe partially true. The oil is a mass of liquid that is loosing and picking up more oil particles constantly it's not a solid mass of oil it's dynamic so I guess one could say it looses SOME oil to centripetal force and it gains back more oil negating the portion that has dispersed. So there are losses BUT not enough to effect the size of the spinning mass that is clinging there due to all the surface area on the many many surfaces of the crank.
Oil at 150F has far lower surface tension or adherence than the centripetal force developed. I have difficulty not only seeing oil covering the surface of a spinning crankshaft but what it would possibly be the effect. Any layer of oil would be so thin as to be insignificant. Engine design does its best to have the static oil level below the bottom throw of the crankcase but when the vehicle corners the oil 'sloshes' to the outer side and can contact the spinning crank. Overfilling can have a serious effect on the crankshft rotation and shoulkd be avoided. A strong warning abouty overfilling is a good warning..
#65
04-23-2013, 12:40 PM
I would check some other factors, such as gas gets changed seasonally, did they adjust your tire pressure, warmer have you been running A/C more, and have you check your air filter?
#66
04-24-2013, 12:49 AM
For those of us who have viewed a runnig engine thru a side transparent panel on the pan there isn't enough oil on the crankcase to note.
Oil at 150F has far lower surface tension or adherence than the centripetal force developed. I have difficulty not only seeing oil covering the surface of a spinning crankshaft but what it would possibly be the effect. Any layer of oil would be so thin as to be insignificant. Engine design does its best to have the static oil level below the bottom throw of the crankcase but when the vehicle corners the oil 'sloshes' to the outer side and can contact the spinning crank. Overfilling can have a serious effect on the crankshft rotation and shoulkd be avoided. A strong warning abouty overfilling is a good warning..
Oil at 150F has far lower surface tension or adherence than the centripetal force developed. I have difficulty not only seeing oil covering the surface of a spinning crankshaft but what it would possibly be the effect. Any layer of oil would be so thin as to be insignificant. Engine design does its best to have the static oil level below the bottom throw of the crankcase but when the vehicle corners the oil 'sloshes' to the outer side and can contact the spinning crank. Overfilling can have a serious effect on the crankshft rotation and shoulkd be avoided. A strong warning abouty overfilling is a good warning..
We must have been looking at different engines with plexiglass oil pans because the video I saw one could clearly see, with the naked eye, the oil wrapped around the crankshaft very clearly. And it was not a small amount it was a big blob covering the whole crank up to 6,000rpm.
If you read my links others have seen the same video and report the same thing a giant blob of oil that does significantly increase parasitic drag on the crankshaft.
#67
04-24-2013, 09:29 AM
If you put a whole gallon of oil in a bucket I could swing it around an arc the length of my arm, easily. And while I couldn't do that at 6000 rpm I could certainly do that at 60 rpm, in an arc that's at least 100 times the diameter of a crankshaft. It doesn't take much horsepower to do that.
Spinning a few ounces of oil around a crankshaft certainly requires a lot less power than spinning a much wider diameter rim and tire. So how much extra drag are we really talking about?
Spinning a few ounces of oil around a crankshaft certainly requires a lot less power than spinning a much wider diameter rim and tire. So how much extra drag are we really talking about?
#68
04-25-2013, 03:44 AM
Brian if you search something like "oil on spinning crankshaft" there are hundreds of pages on this subject. The very best one was done by Morroso performance (I think it was in a search at HOT ROD).
They used a large 500+CID chevy big block and ran back to back dyno tests ONLY changing the oil pan and or Oil Mist removal devices like crank scrapers and windage trays. The results speak for themselves.
Over a stock oil pan changed to their pan or other High performance pans they gained as much as 30 Horsepower just (No other changes) by changing to pans that reduced oil mist build up on the crank types.
All on the same day, on the same engine, with no other changes everything being equal .
I will take 30 HP just by changing the pan any day.
Of course the results will differ on the FIT as it has a pretty good stock windage tray installed already BUT if you OVERFILL even by a little the resultant reduction in HP can be significant.
And oil in a bucket is not the same as it is just laying there in one big blob. But oil wrapped around a crankshaft has a LOT of surface area to "stick" to with surface tension because of all the area in and around the crank throws are flat and there are a bunch of surfaces to cling to unlike the smooth inside of a bucket which is also moving in one dimension not up and down and around and around like a crank throw.
Plus the oil mist is not solid it has oil being added and subtracted constantly.
They used a large 500+CID chevy big block and ran back to back dyno tests ONLY changing the oil pan and or Oil Mist removal devices like crank scrapers and windage trays. The results speak for themselves.
Over a stock oil pan changed to their pan or other High performance pans they gained as much as 30 Horsepower just (No other changes) by changing to pans that reduced oil mist build up on the crank types.
All on the same day, on the same engine, with no other changes everything being equal .
I will take 30 HP just by changing the pan any day.
Of course the results will differ on the FIT as it has a pretty good stock windage tray installed already BUT if you OVERFILL even by a little the resultant reduction in HP can be significant.
And oil in a bucket is not the same as it is just laying there in one big blob. But oil wrapped around a crankshaft has a LOT of surface area to "stick" to with surface tension because of all the area in and around the crank throws are flat and there are a bunch of surfaces to cling to unlike the smooth inside of a bucket which is also moving in one dimension not up and down and around and around like a crank throw.
Plus the oil mist is not solid it has oil being added and subtracted constantly.
Last edited by loudbang; 04-25-2013 at 03:48 AM.
#70
04-26-2013, 01:50 AM
It's like that old theory about how if you line up enough bumblebees in front of a train you can get the train to stop from speed just from hitting enough bumblebees one after another.
And remember the "cloud" of oil is constantly being diminished then replenished from all directions from a bunch of sources.
Any spinning object has parasitic drag working on it. My clothes washer that has a spinning basket to spin the water out of clothes. I can stop it from spinning just by putting one finger on it and pressing lightly.
Like I pointed out these articles have a lot of information on the subject direct from a high performance manufacturer. the first one is the article I was talking about yesterday.
http://www.moroso.com/mediapdf/DRM11-09.pdf
http://www.moroso.com/mediapdf/DS-08-11-OilPans.pdf
http://www.moroso.com/mediapdf/ND-07-11WK25-OilPan.pdf
And remember the "cloud" of oil is constantly being diminished then replenished from all directions from a bunch of sources.
Any spinning object has parasitic drag working on it. My clothes washer that has a spinning basket to spin the water out of clothes. I can stop it from spinning just by putting one finger on it and pressing lightly.
Like I pointed out these articles have a lot of information on the subject direct from a high performance manufacturer. the first one is the article I was talking about yesterday.
http://www.moroso.com/mediapdf/DRM11-09.pdf
http://www.moroso.com/mediapdf/DS-08-11-OilPans.pdf
http://www.moroso.com/mediapdf/ND-07-11WK25-OilPan.pdf
#71
04-26-2013, 10:52 AM
Ha the multiple bumble bee theory I mentioned above is in the news today and it works.
Einstein's gravity theory passes toughest test yet - Science
Einstein's gravity theory passes toughest test yet - Science
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bojackson63044
2nd Generation (GE 08-13)
18
08-15-2009 04:30 PM
