Kendall Full Syn 5-40, 01 LS1 Firebird, 7656 miles Raced

Status
Not open for further replies.
Guys I have another report from the car before I went and thats also with the Kendall oil too. Its only 1200 miles but 200 of those are track miles. Full rpm shifts/downshifts and max driver effort to go fast and it had normal .5 fuel dilution. There may be something going on with the motor. Car still gets 26 mpg at 75mph average speed so gross overfueling I dont think is a problem. Im still leading towards a few bent pushrods. But the car doesn't seem down on power. But the clutch condition=(Junk) I cant say for certain. I havent had anytime to do anything to car. I cant take the car apart right now It has to be mobil for a photoshoot I have to do for a local Newspaper. John

PS the Mileage I posted on the top is wrong. Add 600 miles to the oil and you get the milage. So it 7656. I guess my 6 looked like a 0 on my UOA sheet.

[ June 01, 2004, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Ojustracing ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by Jason Troxell:

No modern fuel injected vehicle should have fuel dilution, ever.


In reality, there's quite a bit a fuel wetting going on in a FI engine. I've seen engines with special quartz windows installed that show this quite clearly. This is also why manufacturers have moved the top piston ring closer to the top of the piston, to minimize the amount of fuel trapped there, and thus increasing emissions.

Further, this fuel wetting problem is the reason PhD type researchers are taking another look at stratified charge engines that Ford made a big stink about in the 70's.
 
It has been said before that highway miles are easy on a car and its oil, and will result in better UOAs. While this is not typical highway driving I'm sure there were way fewer cold starts (or any type of starts for that matter). Are there any other UOAs comparable to this, with such high mileage only put on in a short time?
 
quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

Originally posted by Jason Troxell:

No modern fuel injected vehicle should have fuel dilution, ever.


In reality, there's quite a bit a fuel wetting going on in a FI engine. ...


Of course there is some, but it should not be enough to register in a UOA, especially in an engine driven at operating temperature. And the crankcase certainly should NOT be over 2% gasoline!
 
quote:

Originally posted by Jason Troxell:

quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

Originally posted by Jason Troxell:

No modern fuel injected vehicle should have fuel dilution, ever.


In reality, there's quite a bit a fuel wetting going on in a FI engine. ...


Of course there is some, but it should not be enough to register in a UOA, especially in an engine driven at operating temperature. And the crankcase certainly should NOT be over 2% gasoline!


Jason, believe what you will but I've personally discussed this exact topic with PhD engineers working on this issue. Let me suggest that the reason you don't see a lot of UOAs with high fuel dilution is because it's evaporated off in most cases when the oil reaches operating temperatures. In the few cases, we do see it, it may be a leaky injector. But than again, look at UOAs on vehicles that are driven 95% of the time on short trips in cold weather and I think you will see an elevated fuel dilution. If FI was "perfect" as you suggested originally, you wouldn't see any elevation even with short trips in cold whether.

[ June 03, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]
 
On extremely short trips in cold weather, sure fuel will show up. It has to run excessivley rich because the fuel condenses on the cold cylinder walls. Totally different scenario.
 
Oh by the way, you just supported my statement. You said "the reason you don't see a lot of UOAs with high fuel dilution is because it's burned off in most cases."
Exactly. The extremely small amount of fuel that does get by in a properly functioning engine gets burned off.
Also said "the few cases, we do see it, it may be a leaky injector"
Exactly, when the rate of ingression overcomes the rate of burn off...there is a mechanical problem.

Never said FI was perfect. Internal combustion engine is only ~30% efficient. Obviously the other 70% does not all go to friction and heat, there is some incomplete combustion, but that is MINIMIZED with modern FI.
 
Jason, like I said before, believe what you want, but from what I've seen with my own eyes, and talking to the engineers researhing this, your understanding of what goes on in a modern FI is incorrect.
 
Would appreciate it. This site should be about science and facts. I just don't see where the fuel should be acceptable in this instance. 150miles of road course is not that big of deal, especially when it is not all at once, and interspersed with so much highway driving.
Looking forward to it...
 
quote:

Originally posted by Jason Troxell:

By the way fuel injected cars shut off the injectors when decelerating with a closed throttle. Even if they didn't your reasoning is still faulty.


Hmmmm.......I don't get it. If an EFI engine "shuts off" all injectors during deceleration with a close throttle.......then, what is the engine running on.....only air?
The amount of fuel might be decreased, but there has to be some in the chamber to keep the engine running. What am I missing?
dunno.gif
 
We are not simply talking about what goes on in a IC engine. We are also talking about what shows up in a UOA. The only scenarios you have offered that would show fuel in oil are short trips in cold weather and mechanical problems.
You even said we do not see fuel in most UOA. If this were so normal, why are there not more.

I still suggest that the owner of this vehicle submit his UOA for examination to someone with extensive lab to real world correlation of UOA results and the experience to interpret them properly. That person would be Terry Dyson. How much would you like to bet he does not dismiss fuel in this case as "normal"? Actually you will never know because his interpretations are not for release. But I tihnk I know the answer and suggest you submit some UOA of your own to learn more.

[ June 03, 2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Jason Troxell ]
 
I pressed for time right now, and this topic requires more than a few hastily written sentences. But, I hope we can dicuss this further, and will respond when I have more free time.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Jason Troxell:

No modern fuel injected vehicle should have fuel dilution, ever.


Here's the issue. Most people, including myself at one time, think fuel dilution is inevitable with carbureted engines but modern FI engines virtually eliminated this problem because of their precise metering capability.

But here is the reality. When fuel is injected from a fuel injector it "wets" on the intake port, intake valve, combustion chamber, piston top, and cylinder walls. The amount of fuel that evaporates off these surfaces will of course vary with the temperature of these components along with other variables. As an example, even if these components are at operating temperature, if the engine is operating at mid-high RPM there's less time for the evaporation to take place. Now granted, the amount of fuel that doesn't evaporate and get burned, or get flushed out of the cylinder on the exhaust stroke is small, but it persist none the less. Here are some rough numbers to quantify things.

Amount of gasoline used
3000 miles / 20 mpg = 150 gals

5% fuel wetting
150 gals x .05 = 7.5 gals = 960 oz

1% of wetted fuel makes it way pasts the rings
960 x .01 = 9.6 oz

Sump capacity
5 qts x 32 = 160 oz

Fuel dilution with no evaporation
9.6 / 160 = .06 = 6%

Now the reason we don't see that kind of fuel dilution in the oil is because most of it evaporates out of the oil, especially if the oil gets to operating temperatures on a regular basis. (As an experiment, mix a 50/50 solution of oil and gas in a cup and let it sit in your garage for 3 months. Even when not at elevated temperatures most of the gas will evaporate out of the oil.)

How are carburetors different? Well the fuel is atomized in the venturis and a lot of the wetting will take place in the manifold itself and will enter the engine uncontrollably, thus the difficulty meeting tight emission standards. This is where fuel injection shines. Even though fuel wetting still takes place, it takes place in a different place and in a predictable manner. (Carburetors may have other problems during idle or leaks, etc, but we're ignoring these for the sake of the discussion)

Just from a logical point of view, it's one of the reasons why emission controlled engines need catalytic converters, to fully "burn" all of the incomplete combustion products, including the vaporized "wetted" fuel.

And Jason, this isn't BITOG arm chair engineering. I do this for a living.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Last_Z:

quote:

Originally posted by Jason Troxell:

By the way fuel injected cars shut off the injectors when decelerating with a closed throttle. Even if they didn't your reasoning is still faulty.


Hmmmm.......I don't get it. If an EFI engine "shuts off" all injectors during deceleration with a close throttle.......then, what is the engine running on.....only air?
The amount of fuel might be decreased, but there has to be some in the chamber to keep the engine running. What am I missing?
dunno.gif


Jason is generally correct here. A lot of ECMs will shut off the fuel to the injectors if certain conditions are met. Additionally, many engines will have a decel valve that lets more air into the engine at the same time so that you don't feel the engine "die" during deacceleration.
If done correctly, you don't even notice it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom