Better oils or easier engines
- Thread starter mjoekingz28
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
Originally Posted By: PimTac
I would say it’s a bit of both. Today’s oils are far better than the oils of the 70’s when I started. Sludge was a issue unless you changed your oil regularly.
Today’s engines are built with better machining technology. They run cleaner so the oil stays cleaner. Most modern engines have friction reducing elements like DLC and such to reduce friction and wear. Roller cams instead of pushrods etc etc. One of the best developments was the switch from carburetors to fuel injection. Carbs that were not set right caused excessive fuel burning leading to problems.
Just a few examples but we have really come a long ways in the last few decades.
I agree . Compare multi-port FI to a carb .
The carb was a huge compromise , likely none of the cylinders got 100% the correct fuel / air mixture . Add that to funky choke mechanisms .
I do not know if it is true , but I have read one reasons engines last longer is over rich F/A mixtures washed oil off the cylinder walls , accelerating wear . And causing fuel dilution of the oil .
And a FI car starts so much easier / better . Especially in cold weather .
Yep. Yesterday’s engines with the distributor, rotor, points, etc were always being worked on. A tuneup was regular maintenance then. Of course, many people could do their own tuneups then as well.
The change from leaded to unleaded gas was huge as well.
As for oil, it turned black rather quickly and 3k oci was the rule. I still remember scraping Quaker State out of a friend’s oil pan. A lot of odd things happened during the 70’s malaise period, most of them not good.
Originally Posted By: PimTac
I would say it’s a bit of both. Today’s oils are far better than the oils of the 70’s when I started. Sludge was a issue unless you changed your oil regularly.
Today’s engines are built with better machining technology. They run cleaner so the oil stays cleaner. Most modern engines have friction reducing elements like DLC and such to reduce friction and wear. Roller cams instead of pushrods etc etc. One of the best developments was the switch from carburetors to fuel injection. Carbs that were not set right caused excessive fuel burning leading to problems.
Just a few examples but we have really come a long ways in the last few decades.
I agree . Compare multi-port FI to a carb .
The carb was a huge compromise , likely none of the cylinders got 100% the correct fuel / air mixture . Add that to funky choke mechanisms .
I do not know if it is true , but I have read one reasons engines last longer is over rich F/A mixtures washed oil off the cylinder walls , accelerating wear . And causing fuel dilution of the oil .
And a FI car starts so much easier / better . Especially in cold weather .
Yep. Yesterday’s engines with the distributor, rotor, points, etc were always being worked on. A tuneup was regular maintenance then. Of course, many people could do their own tuneups then as well.
The change from leaded to unleaded gas was huge as well.
As for oil, it turned black rather quickly and 3k oci was the rule. I still remember scraping Quaker State out of a friend’s oil pan. A lot of odd things happened during the 70’s malaise period, most of them not good.
As one who started driving 55 years ago I can report that both oils and engines are far superior (except DI engines which are a huge step backwards) today than in the early 60s. With that said I began to use M1 5-20 in 1978 and found it to be much improved over any dino of the day.
I still change oil / filter on dino oil at 3000 miles . 4000 - 4500 on synthetic .
I know some will scream that is too earley / often .
My dime . And I look at it as cheap insurance .
I know some will scream that is too earley / often .
My dime . And I look at it as cheap insurance .
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
I still change oil / filter on dino oil at 3000 miles . 4000 - 4500 on synthetic .
I know some will scream that is too earley / often .
My dime . And I look at it as cheap insurance .
Me too. Not an inch further than 5000 miles. No longer than 6 months. Last time I changed the oil on the Marauder was at 6 months, but had a bit more than 1,000 miles on it. Never seen an engine fail due to oil changes too soon. We hit 5,000 miles in 2 to 3 months on the Santa Fe though.
I still change oil / filter on dino oil at 3000 miles . 4000 - 4500 on synthetic .
I know some will scream that is too earley / often .
My dime . And I look at it as cheap insurance .
Me too. Not an inch further than 5000 miles. No longer than 6 months. Last time I changed the oil on the Marauder was at 6 months, but had a bit more than 1,000 miles on it. Never seen an engine fail due to oil changes too soon. We hit 5,000 miles in 2 to 3 months on the Santa Fe though.
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
I agree . Compare multi-port FI to a carb .
The carb was a huge compromise , likely none of the cylinders got 100% the correct fuel / air mixture . Add that to funky choke mechanisms .
I do not know if it is true , but I have read one reasons engines last longer is over rich F/A mixtures washed oil off the cylinder walls , accelerating wear . And causing fuel dilution of the oil .
And a FI car starts so much easier / better . Especially in cold weather .
Here's one from my library...an Oz researcher/inventor John Bennet was doing some great work in the '90s...
Here's a standard carbed 305 on petrol and LPG - note cylinders 3 and 4, going from one extreme to the other over the rev range.
Original article is in my share here..
https://drive.google.com/open?id=11uPkw-xsWXpL6xNXqFHLQ_9fQ9dbjMIj
When I did my graduate thesis, it was on flow in the inlet manifolds, on a rectangular glass sided manifold...equilibrium, there was a pool of fuel on the floor, travelling at around 10% of the air/fuel velocity...
I agree . Compare multi-port FI to a carb .
The carb was a huge compromise , likely none of the cylinders got 100% the correct fuel / air mixture . Add that to funky choke mechanisms .
I do not know if it is true , but I have read one reasons engines last longer is over rich F/A mixtures washed oil off the cylinder walls , accelerating wear . And causing fuel dilution of the oil .
And a FI car starts so much easier / better . Especially in cold weather .
Here's one from my library...an Oz researcher/inventor John Bennet was doing some great work in the '90s...
Here's a standard carbed 305 on petrol and LPG - note cylinders 3 and 4, going from one extreme to the other over the rev range.
Original article is in my share here..
https://drive.google.com/open?id=11uPkw-xsWXpL6xNXqFHLQ_9fQ9dbjMIj
When I did my graduate thesis, it was on flow in the inlet manifolds, on a rectangular glass sided manifold...equilibrium, there was a pool of fuel on the floor, travelling at around 10% of the air/fuel velocity...
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
And a FI car starts so much easier / better . Especially in cold weather .[/quote]
If the battery is solid, then an FI car will probably start in real cold. like -15F or below.
With a carb, you have the ability to provide a really rich mixture just by stroking the loud pedal thereby enabling engine start.
Don't know if you're old enough or have lived in a cold enough climate to have done this, but I can tell you from personal experience that in real cold, you want a carburetor and not FI.
And a FI car starts so much easier / better . Especially in cold weather .[/quote]
If the battery is solid, then an FI car will probably start in real cold. like -15F or below.
With a carb, you have the ability to provide a really rich mixture just by stroking the loud pedal thereby enabling engine start.
Don't know if you're old enough or have lived in a cold enough climate to have done this, but I can tell you from personal experience that in real cold, you want a carburetor and not FI.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
And a FI car starts so much easier / better . Especially in cold weather .
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
If the battery is solid, then an FI car will probably start in real cold. like -15F or below.
With a carb, you have the ability to provide a really rich mixture just by stroking the loud pedal thereby enabling engine start.
Don't know if you're old enough or have lived in a cold enough climate to have done this, but I can tell you from personal experience that in real cold, you want a carburetor and not FI.
Can you expand on this? I’m having trouble understanding how the carburetor would be better in extreme cold. EFI uses temp sensors and MAF sensors to provide the ideal rich mix for a cold start. I’ve no doubt that you experienced problems with a weak battery, but I don’t see where that makes the carburetor the “better” solution.
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
And a FI car starts so much easier / better . Especially in cold weather .
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
If the battery is solid, then an FI car will probably start in real cold. like -15F or below.
With a carb, you have the ability to provide a really rich mixture just by stroking the loud pedal thereby enabling engine start.
Don't know if you're old enough or have lived in a cold enough climate to have done this, but I can tell you from personal experience that in real cold, you want a carburetor and not FI.
Can you expand on this? I’m having trouble understanding how the carburetor would be better in extreme cold. EFI uses temp sensors and MAF sensors to provide the ideal rich mix for a cold start. I’ve no doubt that you experienced problems with a weak battery, but I don’t see where that makes the carburetor the “better” solution.
Last edited:
You can start a carb in conditions that the engine has no good reason to start.
Put enough fuel in the plenum, and you will eventually have enough of a pool that there's enough of the really light fractions that it will fire, then drag the rest in (think like kicking it off on ether)...for e.g. look at this V-8 manifold.
Put enough fuel in the plenum, and you will eventually have enough of a pool that there's enough of the really light fractions that it will fire, then drag the rest in (think like kicking it off on ether)...for e.g. look at this V-8 manifold.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Don't know if you're old enough or have lived in a cold enough climate to have done this, but I can tell you from personal experience that in real cold, you want a carburetor and not FI.
I've certainly forced a carbed vehicle to start in temperatures where I probably should not have, given what was sitting in the sump. I've been able to force unaided starts below -40 without too much difficulty. The real problem with a carbed vehicle can be to get it to idle at an awful temperature like that without being babysat.
Don't know if you're old enough or have lived in a cold enough climate to have done this, but I can tell you from personal experience that in real cold, you want a carburetor and not FI.
I've certainly forced a carbed vehicle to start in temperatures where I probably should not have, given what was sitting in the sump. I've been able to force unaided starts below -40 without too much difficulty. The real problem with a carbed vehicle can be to get it to idle at an awful temperature like that without being babysat.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
And a FI car starts so much easier / better . Especially in cold weather .
If the battery is solid, then an FI car will probably start in real cold. like -15F or below.
With a carb, you have the ability to provide a really rich mixture just by stroking the loud pedal thereby enabling engine start.
Don't know if you're old enough or have lived in a cold enough climate to have done this, but I can tell you from personal experience that in real cold, you want a carburetor and not FI. [/quote]
Whoah! How about Superior, WI in the 1970's? Nothing would start at -15 or below F without a block heater. You went from lean to flooded in the intake manifold in an instant. Then it was pull the spark plugs, take them into the house and dry them out.
I don't live there now but family does. With modern engine oils and FI, block heaters are a thing of the past.
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
And a FI car starts so much easier / better . Especially in cold weather .
If the battery is solid, then an FI car will probably start in real cold. like -15F or below.
With a carb, you have the ability to provide a really rich mixture just by stroking the loud pedal thereby enabling engine start.
Don't know if you're old enough or have lived in a cold enough climate to have done this, but I can tell you from personal experience that in real cold, you want a carburetor and not FI. [/quote]
Whoah! How about Superior, WI in the 1970's? Nothing would start at -15 or below F without a block heater. You went from lean to flooded in the intake manifold in an instant. Then it was pull the spark plugs, take them into the house and dry them out.
I don't live there now but family does. With modern engine oils and FI, block heaters are a thing of the past.
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
It seems the consensus here is that oils are so much better than they were 10, 20, 50 years ago- but how do we know? Could it just be the engines are made with different metals and designs?
I dont know but it seems its how they work together and not necessarily one or the other.
Case in point. The viscosity chart from a 70s Camaro had 7500 mi oil changes. Seems until just recently that was the top end of todays OCIs. Now, 10-15 on full syn for highway commuters seems normal.
Its a good question and off the top of my head without too much thought I would say.
1- New oils are far superior to oils of even a few years ago, never mind decades ago. My reasoning would simply be, the API requirements are so much more robust, in relation to wear, sludge, engine cleanliness and whatever else. It doesnt compare to API of decades ago where the technology did not exist to make such oils.
2. New engines are also far superior to engines of decades ago. Lubrication systems, cooling systems, fuel systems are all so much more superior then the days of designing engines on a draft board vs today where computers design engines, as well as manage the engine in the vehicle for peak efficiency vs decades ago of carburetors dumping fuel into an intake manifold.
3. As far as that 70s Camaro, if correct on the 7500 OCI, well, back then, you would be pretty lucky if an engine lasted (or didnt burn oil) as long as 75 to 100,000 miles, Now if an engine fails at 100,000 miles it can almost be considered defective.
It seems the consensus here is that oils are so much better than they were 10, 20, 50 years ago- but how do we know? Could it just be the engines are made with different metals and designs?
I dont know but it seems its how they work together and not necessarily one or the other.
Case in point. The viscosity chart from a 70s Camaro had 7500 mi oil changes. Seems until just recently that was the top end of todays OCIs. Now, 10-15 on full syn for highway commuters seems normal.
Its a good question and off the top of my head without too much thought I would say.
1- New oils are far superior to oils of even a few years ago, never mind decades ago. My reasoning would simply be, the API requirements are so much more robust, in relation to wear, sludge, engine cleanliness and whatever else. It doesnt compare to API of decades ago where the technology did not exist to make such oils.
2. New engines are also far superior to engines of decades ago. Lubrication systems, cooling systems, fuel systems are all so much more superior then the days of designing engines on a draft board vs today where computers design engines, as well as manage the engine in the vehicle for peak efficiency vs decades ago of carburetors dumping fuel into an intake manifold.
3. As far as that 70s Camaro, if correct on the 7500 OCI, well, back then, you would be pretty lucky if an engine lasted (or didnt burn oil) as long as 75 to 100,000 miles, Now if an engine fails at 100,000 miles it can almost be considered defective.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ka9mnx
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
And a FI car starts so much easier / better . Especially in cold weather .
If the battery is solid, then an FI car will probably start in real cold. like -15F or below.
With a carb, you have the ability to provide a really rich mixture just by stroking the loud pedal thereby enabling engine start.
Don't know if you're old enough or have lived in a cold enough climate to have done this, but I can tell you from personal experience that in real cold, you want a carburetor and not FI.
Whoah! How about Superior, WI in the 1970's? Nothing would start at -15 or below F without a block heater. You went from lean to flooded in the intake manifold in an instant. Then it was pull the spark plugs, take them into the house and dry them out.
I don't live there now but family does. With modern engine oils and FI, block heaters are a thing of the past.[/quote]
Don't know what you were driving, but our last carbureted cars were a brace of '86 Civic Wagons and both saw well below zero starts after spending the night outdoors with a sump full of the 10W-40 I used at the time as well.
There is some art and skill involved in starting a carbureted engine in real cold, but start it will.
With FI, all you can do is turn it over with your fingers crossed.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
And a FI car starts so much easier / better . Especially in cold weather .
If the battery is solid, then an FI car will probably start in real cold. like -15F or below.
With a carb, you have the ability to provide a really rich mixture just by stroking the loud pedal thereby enabling engine start.
Don't know if you're old enough or have lived in a cold enough climate to have done this, but I can tell you from personal experience that in real cold, you want a carburetor and not FI.
Whoah! How about Superior, WI in the 1970's? Nothing would start at -15 or below F without a block heater. You went from lean to flooded in the intake manifold in an instant. Then it was pull the spark plugs, take them into the house and dry them out.
I don't live there now but family does. With modern engine oils and FI, block heaters are a thing of the past.[/quote]
Don't know what you were driving, but our last carbureted cars were a brace of '86 Civic Wagons and both saw well below zero starts after spending the night outdoors with a sump full of the 10W-40 I used at the time as well.
There is some art and skill involved in starting a carbureted engine in real cold, but start it will.
With FI, all you can do is turn it over with your fingers crossed.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
It seems the consensus here is that oils are so much better than they were 10, 20, 50 years ago- but how do we know? Could it just be the engines are made with different metals and designs?
I dont know but it seems its how they work together and not necessarily one or the other.
Case in point. The viscosity chart from a 70s Camaro had 7500 mi oil changes. Seems until just recently that was the top end of todays OCIs. Now, 10-15 on full syn for highway commuters seems normal.
Its a good question and off the top of my head without too much thought I would say.
1- New oils are far superior to oils of even a few years ago, never mind decades ago. My reasoning would simply be, the API requirements are so much more robust, in relation to wear, sludge, engine cleanliness and whatever else. It doesnt compare to API of decades ago where the technology did not exist to make such oils.
2. New engines are also far superior to engines of decades ago. Lubrication systems, cooling systems, fuel systems are all so much more superior then the days of designing engines on a draft board vs today where computers design engines, as well as manage the engine in the vehicle for peak efficiency vs decades ago of carburetors dumping fuel into an intake manifold.
3. As far as that 70s Camaro, if correct on the 7500 OCI, well, back then, you would be pretty lucky if an engine lasted (or didnt burn oil) as long as 75 to 100,000 miles, Now if an engine fails at 100,000 miles it can almost be considered defective.
Today's engines aren't far superior, they are marginally better. You used to have a cast aluminum piston in a cast iron bore. Now you have a cast aluminum piston in a cast iron bore. Clearances are dictated by materials ie growth of piston in the bore. Chevy had the powdered metal rods forever and they are very strong.
Advances have been made in port design but aftermarket heads are available for the sb1 that do the same thing. I could put together a old sb1 that would be every bit as good as a new design.
For every camaro that started smoking at 75k miles you'd find a pickup with 300k miles.
I agree though, that new oils are far superior. You don't see them gelling up in the oil pan as much on neglected oil changes.
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
It seems the consensus here is that oils are so much better than they were 10, 20, 50 years ago- but how do we know? Could it just be the engines are made with different metals and designs?
I dont know but it seems its how they work together and not necessarily one or the other.
Case in point. The viscosity chart from a 70s Camaro had 7500 mi oil changes. Seems until just recently that was the top end of todays OCIs. Now, 10-15 on full syn for highway commuters seems normal.
Its a good question and off the top of my head without too much thought I would say.
1- New oils are far superior to oils of even a few years ago, never mind decades ago. My reasoning would simply be, the API requirements are so much more robust, in relation to wear, sludge, engine cleanliness and whatever else. It doesnt compare to API of decades ago where the technology did not exist to make such oils.
2. New engines are also far superior to engines of decades ago. Lubrication systems, cooling systems, fuel systems are all so much more superior then the days of designing engines on a draft board vs today where computers design engines, as well as manage the engine in the vehicle for peak efficiency vs decades ago of carburetors dumping fuel into an intake manifold.
3. As far as that 70s Camaro, if correct on the 7500 OCI, well, back then, you would be pretty lucky if an engine lasted (or didnt burn oil) as long as 75 to 100,000 miles, Now if an engine fails at 100,000 miles it can almost be considered defective.
Today's engines aren't far superior, they are marginally better. You used to have a cast aluminum piston in a cast iron bore. Now you have a cast aluminum piston in a cast iron bore. Clearances are dictated by materials ie growth of piston in the bore. Chevy had the powdered metal rods forever and they are very strong.
Advances have been made in port design but aftermarket heads are available for the sb1 that do the same thing. I could put together a old sb1 that would be every bit as good as a new design.
For every camaro that started smoking at 75k miles you'd find a pickup with 300k miles.
I agree though, that new oils are far superior. You don't see them gelling up in the oil pan as much on neglected oil changes.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
For every camaro that started smoking at 75k miles you'd find a pickup with 300k miles.
That is quite true, but if it were a Chev small block, it probably needed a cam once in its life. Of course, that wasn't exactly an onerous job.
For every camaro that started smoking at 75k miles you'd find a pickup with 300k miles.
That is quite true, but if it were a Chev small block, it probably needed a cam once in its life. Of course, that wasn't exactly an onerous job.
The Chevy LS engines seem to be much better than the earlier SB Chevy's .
We had synthetic mobile one oil 40 years ago and it was too thin then too.
Noobs believe all the hype and bad info circulated today.
Those of us that have worked on cars for 40plus years
know the truth
Noobs believe all the hype and bad info circulated today.
Those of us that have worked on cars for 40plus years
know the truth
Originally Posted By: ENGINEER60
We had synthetic mobile one oil 40 years ago and it was too thin then too.
Noobs believe all the hype and bad info circulated today.
Those of us that have worked on cars for 40plus years
know the truth
Lol where u been for eight years?
We had synthetic mobile one oil 40 years ago and it was too thin then too.
Noobs believe all the hype and bad info circulated today.
Those of us that have worked on cars for 40plus years
know the truth
Lol where u been for eight years?
You don’t know engineer20, do you?
- Status
Similar threads
