OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
OVERKILL, you keep talking about "signature" this and that. Granted that is the assumption my question has already made. The entire concept is predicated on "signature" as a given. In this question, am asking what causes the differences. I'm asking what is the physical difference that produces low iron in Honda-Toy engines.
First, if you look at Dave Newton's article I mentioned above, you need to establish that this is actually a trend; that is that an engine that is the same displacement with the same sump size from Toyota produces lower wear metals per 1K miles than an engine from say Ford.
If you have not already done this and your observations are simply based on glancing at a few UOA's, you don't have a solid foundation from which to be basing this argument, that there is some difference between Toyota and Honda engines that makes them wear less, in the first place.
So let's start there.
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Edit: I just saw your engine summary posting above. Everything you said is present in about every make of engine out there, including Honda-Toy engines, nothing different there.
Correct, there is no difference, no silver bullet.
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
I appreciate your replies, but I'm hoping someone has some special insight into what Honda-Toyota is doing to get low iron ppms. It is a tough question I know. It would take someone familiar with engineering tricks they use.
It isn't a tough question at all because there are no tricks. The larger the swept area on a cylinder, that is bore x stroke, the more wear metals that are going to accrue from the ring/bore interface. The more cylinders, the same. You combine both of those things and well, you can see where this goes. I touched on valvetrain earlier, and it plays in here in the same way. Then there is sump size, which determines how diluted those wear metals become. Two identical small engines with different sump sizes, assuming actual wear rate is the same, the smaller sumped engine will show higher metal concentrations in a UOA.
Ford Modular engines (as shown in Dave's article) generally have large-ish sumps, small bores and low stress OHC valvetrains with roller followers. They also have coated piston skirts (touched-on earlier) which helps to explain why they generally have low Fe per 1K miles.
Contrary to that we have Dave's other example, the venerable SBC which has a 2L smaller sump than the Modular and was often flat tappet, which predicates there will be more ferrous wear right off the bat. Combine that with an antiquated lubrication system, poor R/S ratio, non-coated piston skirts, 4" bores and nothing roller in the heads and of course higher levels of wear metals per 1K miles are to be expected.
So again, let's get back to the basics, first we need to determine if there's anything to this claim that you are making. Do you have a UOA database that shows this to be true? That two engines with the same displacement and sump size with the same type of valvetrain shed significantly different amounts of metal per 1K miles?
OVERKILL, you keep talking about "signature" this and that. Granted that is the assumption my question has already made. The entire concept is predicated on "signature" as a given. In this question, am asking what causes the differences. I'm asking what is the physical difference that produces low iron in Honda-Toy engines.
First, if you look at Dave Newton's article I mentioned above, you need to establish that this is actually a trend; that is that an engine that is the same displacement with the same sump size from Toyota produces lower wear metals per 1K miles than an engine from say Ford.
If you have not already done this and your observations are simply based on glancing at a few UOA's, you don't have a solid foundation from which to be basing this argument, that there is some difference between Toyota and Honda engines that makes them wear less, in the first place.
So let's start there.
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Edit: I just saw your engine summary posting above. Everything you said is present in about every make of engine out there, including Honda-Toy engines, nothing different there.
Correct, there is no difference, no silver bullet.
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
I appreciate your replies, but I'm hoping someone has some special insight into what Honda-Toyota is doing to get low iron ppms. It is a tough question I know. It would take someone familiar with engineering tricks they use.
It isn't a tough question at all because there are no tricks. The larger the swept area on a cylinder, that is bore x stroke, the more wear metals that are going to accrue from the ring/bore interface. The more cylinders, the same. You combine both of those things and well, you can see where this goes. I touched on valvetrain earlier, and it plays in here in the same way. Then there is sump size, which determines how diluted those wear metals become. Two identical small engines with different sump sizes, assuming actual wear rate is the same, the smaller sumped engine will show higher metal concentrations in a UOA.
Ford Modular engines (as shown in Dave's article) generally have large-ish sumps, small bores and low stress OHC valvetrains with roller followers. They also have coated piston skirts (touched-on earlier) which helps to explain why they generally have low Fe per 1K miles.
Contrary to that we have Dave's other example, the venerable SBC which has a 2L smaller sump than the Modular and was often flat tappet, which predicates there will be more ferrous wear right off the bat. Combine that with an antiquated lubrication system, poor R/S ratio, non-coated piston skirts, 4" bores and nothing roller in the heads and of course higher levels of wear metals per 1K miles are to be expected.
So again, let's get back to the basics, first we need to determine if there's anything to this claim that you are making. Do you have a UOA database that shows this to be true? That two engines with the same displacement and sump size with the same type of valvetrain shed significantly different amounts of metal per 1K miles?
