From owner-diesel-benz-digest-at-digest.net Sat Nov 8 22:06:22 2003 From: diesel-benz-digest diesel-benz-digest Sunday, November 9 2003 Volume 01 : Number 1281 Forum for Discussion of Diesel Mercedes Benz Automobiles Derick Amburgey Digest Coordinator Contents: Re: [db] OT - '94 Ford F350 Turbo Diesel Re: [db] OT - '94 Ford F350 Turbo Diesel Re: [db] OT - '94 Ford F350 Turbo Diesel Re: [db] OT - '94 Ford F350 Turbo Diesel Re: [db] OT - '94 Ford F350 Turbo Diesel Re: [db] OT - '94 Ford F350 Turbo Diesel [db] Re: [MB] Synthetic oil really synthetic? Re: [db] the verdict is in [db] Re: [MB] Synthetic oil really synthetic? [db] weight of a 3.0L Turbo Diesel - 400lbs? Diesel Benz Digest Home Page: http://www.digest.net/diesel-benz/ Send submissions to diesel-benz-digest-at-digest.net Send administrative requests to diesel-benz-digest-request-at-digest.net To unsubscribe, include the word unsubscribe by itself in the body of the message, unless you are sending the request from a different address than the one that appears on the list. Include the word help in a message to stag-digest-request to get a list of other majordomo commands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:45:10 -0800 From: john meister Subject: Re: [db] OT - '94 Ford F350 Turbo Diesel most V8 Diesels have the pump about where the distributor would be... john Jim Hoffman wrote: >Well folks, > > As fate would have it, I have stumbled upon a pretty nice F350 >w/7.3l turbo diesel. > > The current owner says that the *fuel pump/injector pump* may >be in need of a rebuild. He pointed to a *box* about 4" X 6" on >top of the intake manifold. This is about 1/8th the size of a >MB injector pump so I'm suspicious ;) Is that really how bit >the injector pump on a 7.3l is? And it sits on top of the intake >manifold? > > It runs real nice but he says that it smokes when cold until it >warms up. Has plenty of power. I took it up to 65mph and it >wasn't even up to 2k rpm yet. Has the automatic overdrive. > > I like it ;) > > Any 7.3l experts out there?? > >TIA! > >Jim/ > > > - -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------ john at http://wagoneers.com from Snohomish,WA- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... reminding you not to leave life w/o Jesus! - ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:59:46 -0500 From: "Jim Hoffman" Subject: Re: [db] OT - '94 Ford F350 Turbo Diesel That's gotta be it. That's where it is. Just MUCH smaller than that humungo pump on the 240D ;) Jim/ > most V8 Diesels have the pump about where the distributor would be... > > john > > Jim Hoffman wrote: > > >Well folks, > > > > As fate would have it, I have stumbled upon a pretty nice F350 > >w/7.3l turbo diesel. > > > > The current owner says that the *fuel pump/injector pump* may > >be in need of a rebuild. He pointed to a *box* about 4" X 6" on > >top of the intake manifold. This is about 1/8th the size of a > >MB injector pump so I'm suspicious ;) Is that really how bit > >the injector pump on a 7.3l is? And it sits on top of the intake > >manifold? > > > > It runs real nice but he says that it smokes when cold until it > >warms up. Has plenty of power. I took it up to 65mph and it > >wasn't even up to 2k rpm yet. Has the automatic overdrive. > > > > I like it ;) > > > > Any 7.3l experts out there?? > > > >TIA! > > > >Jim/ > > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > john at http://wagoneers.com from Snohomish,WA- where Jeeps don't > rust, they mold... reminding you not to leave life w/o Jesus! > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - -- Jim Hoffman Oconomowoc WI '39 Allis Model B '53 Ford Golden Jubilee '?? Bolens Huskie Gardener ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 19:00:38 -0500 From: "Michael Aimino" Subject: Re: [db] OT - '94 Ford F350 Turbo Diesel Not an expert by any stretch, but I have a 7.3 IDI non-turbo. The injector pump is nested down in on the front of the intake manifold. It's not really a box - the injector lines come out in a radial pattern around it's body. It's much small than the Benx IP. Stanadyne pump, I believe. Now, if it has the E4OD transmission, I can say a few things about that, but I don't think that kind of language is permissible here, and besides I don't use it anymore (except in relation to the E4OD). My '89 E350 van is currently parked after trashing it's 5th transmission in three years - and it was never used for towing or anything heavy like that. They're just very flakey transmissions, IMHO. Other people swear by them. On 8 Nov 03, at 18:24, Jim Hoffman wrote: > Well folks, > > As fate would have it, I have stumbled upon a pretty nice F350 > w/7.3l turbo diesel. > > The current owner says that the *fuel pump/injector pump* may > be in need of a rebuild. He pointed to a *box* about 4" X 6" on > top of the intake manifold. This is about 1/8th the size of a > MB injector pump so I'm suspicious ;) Is that really how bit > the injector pump on a 7.3l is? And it sits on top of the intake > manifold? > > It runs real nice but he says that it smokes when cold until it > warms up. Has plenty of power. I took it up to 65mph and it wasn't > even up to 2k rpm yet. Has the automatic overdrive. > > I like it ;) > > Any 7.3l experts out there?? > > TIA! > > Jim/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 17:57:33 -0600 From: "Vernon Tuck" Subject: Re: [db] OT - '94 Ford F350 Turbo Diesel Dude! Before you make a move do a web search on "FORD 7.3 CAVITATION". What you learn may scare you. I'm not saying don't buy it and that it ain't a heck of a deal. But there is a real issue there. You should learn all about it by searching google. However, I'll be happy to expand on the issue by email if you wish. vtuck-at-tucklings.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:00:54 -0600 From: "Vernon Tuck" Subject: Re: [db] OT - '94 Ford F350 Turbo Diesel P.S. The injection pump is at the front of the engine in the valley between the cylinder banks. It is the assembly from which all of the injection lines spring. Buying a Ford 7.3 diesel is like playing russian roulette. If you are not certain that it's had proper coolant maintenance throughout its lifetime I strongly suggest you get the coolant and oil sniffed out by an INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER dealership before you buy it UNLESS you buy it really cheap. You have been warned. Vernon Reformed Ford/International diesel freak. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:02:54 -0600 From: "Vernon Tuck" Subject: Re: [db] OT - '94 Ford F350 Turbo Diesel P.M.S. I'm something of a "6.9" diesel expert. So that makes me an "expert" on the 7.3 as well. The 6.9 engines were far more reliable. I have a whole diatribe on why this is if you want to hear it. VT ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 16:12:58 -0800 From: john meister Subject: [db] Re: [MB] Synthetic oil really synthetic? Did some research... PAO is used in the majority of the AMSOIL products. They used to use esther based stock. The XL series uses a group 3 base, but not a hydrocracked product. Castrol synthetic is hydrocracked. Mobil1 is a PAO, group 4, tri-synthetic, they claim three different base stocks. The suppliers used by AMSOIL are Mobil Chemical Co.(NOT exxonmobil!), Ashland Chemical Co/Ethyl (main), Baldwin, Battenfield Grease, Chevron Labratories (additives), Johnson and Company, and Lubrizol (main). Synthetics and semi-synthetics are in groupls 3,4 and 5. Group 1 & 2 - Petroleum, - refined or highly refined Group 3 - Hydrocracked (petroleum) Group 4 & 5 - Synthetic There is no requirement to use petroleum oil to dissolve the additive package in a good synthetic. I'll dig up more tech info later... need to go look at a 300SD now. :) john meister >Message: 5 >Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 16:45:41 -0500 >From: Marshall Booth >Subject: Re: [MB] Synthetic oil really synthetic? > >Dave, Full synthetic oils have been marketed for at least several >decades and were NOT anything like what you describe. Maybe 10+ years >ago some companies started marketing hydrocracked conventional oil and >calling it synthetic (I know a little about Castrol doing this). At >least one manufacturer of synthetic (Mobil) objected, but the courts >after years of deliberation decided that was permissible. Much of what >is being marketed in the US by MOST companies (Castrol, Shell, >Valvoline) consists of mostly hydrocracked oil. As far as lubrication >goes, this is fine oil, but the temperature/viscosity (t/v) >characteristics are far inferior than true synthetics and the >deteriorate sooner. These blends must be treated with significant >amounts of viscosity improvers to yield tolerable t/v characteristics. >These oils have MUCH shorter life than "full" synthetics. All synthetics >have SOME conventional oil in them (some is used by ALMOST every >manufacturer to dissolve the additive package). A few manufacturers >(Mobil and Amsoil are two that do) use a synthesized molecule for the >majority of the base oil. Others (Shell, Castrol, Valvoline) use mostly >or entirely hydrocracked oil. The use of hydrocracked oil lowers costs a >lot and lubricates almost as well as full synthetics. High quantities of >hydrocracked oil results in inferior t/v characteristics and much >shorter life (the VIs used to improve hydrocracked oil degenerate much >faster than oil). > - -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------ john at http://wagoneers.com from Snohomish,WA- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... reminding you not to leave life w/o Jesus! - ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 19:21:45 -0500 From: "Michael Aimino" Subject: Re: [db] the verdict is in I'll send them to you - nothing like a virtual automotive morgue. The car or the house. Hmmmmm. That's a tough one. :D It was plenty long as it was - I got to think about all the time and effort I put into that car. Plus, I got to dodge the tri-axles as they swerved at me to see if I'd jump in the ditch. :( On 8 Nov 03, at 14:58, john meister wrote: > Michael, > > I would like to put the pictures on my server... I've got a few > pictures of destroyed engines that I should assemble on my server... > :) > > Heading up today or tomorrow to look at a 300SD with a bad engine... > trying to decide if I can afford the project with no job... one idea > is to keep it and sell my '91 300d if it comes down to it or the > house. ;) > > Found a nice benz on ebay with no motor... the temptation persists to > make a 4x4 benz... :) > > Anyway, glad it wasn't a longer walk then that... :) > > john > > Michael Aimino wrote: > > >Yep. Most assuredly so. > > > >I'm glad I can joke about it now. That was a *long* three mile walk > >back to the house. > > > >On 8 Nov 03, at 11:21, john meister wrote: > > > > > > > >>Looks like Stu was right.... it IS an interference motor... :) > >> > >>john > >> > >>Michael Aimino wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Regarding the broken timing chain: in the words of the Munchkin > >>>coroner, "she is not just merely dead, she's really most sincerely > >>>dead." > >>> > >>>Broken timing chain, one cam lobe missing a big chunk, several > >>>valve stems looking like WC Fields cue stick. Turning engine by > >>>hand results in most peculiar grinding noise from deep inside. In > >>>short, trashed from top to bottom. Pictures to be posted shortly, > >>>for the morbidly curious. > >>> > >>>In related news: > >>> > >>>For Sale. 1982 MBZ 300SD, milage unknown, odometer shows 245k, > >>>actual mileage closer to 280k. Rust-free body, engine no good, > >>>transmission fair, suspension decent, interior well used, many new > >>>and recent parts, good for parts or rebuild. Located in scenic > >>>Hoosicks Mill, PA. > >>> > >>>http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?ed=M7tNO.p_0TqT&csz=Hoosicks+Mill > >>>%2 C > >>>+PA&country=us > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>-- > >>------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>john at http://wagoneers.com from Snohomish,WA- where Jeeps don't > >> rust, they mold... reminding you not to leave life w/o Jesus! > >>------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > john at http://wagoneers.com from Snohomish,WA- where Jeeps don't > rust, they mold... reminding you not to leave life w/o Jesus! > ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:13:29 -0800 From: john meister Subject: [db] Re: [MB] Synthetic oil really synthetic? Marshall, et al, postitive, amsoil doesn't need to use a petroleum solution to dissolve the additives it uses in it's synthetic formulation... The additives used are designed to work with the PAO base stock. Makes sense to me... Hey, they make cocoa mix that dissolves in water OR in milk... why not additives that dissolve in different base stocks? :) I've been an amsoil dealer since '82 and have read a lot of literature since the mid-70's on synthetics... I don't recall ever reading or hearing that when amsoil says it's a 100% synthetic oil that they excluded 20% for additives... They've been very cautious, conservative and somewhat "anal" about their information whether it's to be avoid lawsuits or just to maintain a level of integrity. A few years back they were doing some "specmanship" in that they would run a test that was outside of the normal ASTM procedure to prove a point, which made it hard to compare with other products. Anyway, the additives used in synthetics don't need to do as much as in petroleum products because the base stock already provides much of the functionality. The additives used modify the properties of the base stock, if using PAO then the additives used for a mineral base might not provide the same benefits. Remember that a true synthetic, whether PAO, dibasic acid esther or even polyol esther, will not require much to extend it's viscosity properties as it will have a greater thermal range already: low pour point, typically around -55C and a higher boil/flash point then dino oil. I think for my own amusement I may compare the specs of the straight 30W HD Diesel synthetic and the Marine Grade 15w40 that I usually use... and of a dino oil if I can find the specs and they all match up... ;) Anyway, additives used in petroleum products are intended to extend the viscosity, reduce dilution from fuel and moisture and provide ph balance, along with providing certain metals/chemicals to reduce friction and protect rings and valve seals. Those chemicals are not the same needed in synthetic stock as the basic properties of the synthetic often provide many of those benefits. Synthethics (not synthesized hydrocarbons) will not tend to deposit on the rings as will petroleum because it won't "evaporate" or break down under severe stress (shear). I've heard that some of the other additives used in synthetics are seal swelling agents to help reduce leakage. Besides the small amount of VI improvers used I suspect there will be some chemicals to adjust the TBN (total base number). That will reduce acid buildup and wear on an engine caused by combustion byproducts, moisture and fuel. The problems with petroleum oils are simply related to it's nature. The molecules aren't the same size or composition. Regular motor oil will boil off and leave the heavier "gunk". There are many volatiles in regular oil. This is where Mobil1 did a great job of explaining the benefits of synthetics, or even synthesized hydrocarbons. The common molecule size and so on... But Mobil1 still needed VI improvers to extend it's thermal characterisitcs. I recall hearing warnings not to use 10w40 oil in a Diesel (this is from the '80s I'm sure) because the VI improvers would collect on the rings of a Diesel and cause cylinder damage. I'm not sure why one could use 10w30, 20w50, 15w40, but not 10w40... weird... any one else remember those warnings for Diesels??? The additive packages used in petroleum oils that extended the viscosity index wear out, break down and the oil becomes thicker over time. I'm sure you've drained the oil in a neglected vehicle and seen the sludge that oozed out... I remember one '68 Dodge Charger that I did an oil change on in '72 that was like tar... the gal only drove it a short distance and went a long, long time without changing it (perhaps from the day she bought it... seriously) ... it was really gross... I can't recall seeing a worse scenario. :) I wish I would have had a camera back in those days... It took a long, long, long time to drain, sure it was January in Illinois, but the shop was heated... Ah yes, the days at Lou's Standard... I learned a lot from Lou... I also learned that I preferred working on electronics... and went that way career wise... which ended me up in the IT field and mostly unemployed now... which has me looking at buying a 20% dead '82 300SD to rebuild (one out of five holes dead in order to make a few bucks... ;) But I digress... and forgot what the heck I was talking about... so, buy Amsoil, drive a Diesel, live long and prosper and all that happy horseradish... ;) FWIW, got a few shots of the eclipse... waiting for the meteor shower if we don't get regular showers in Seattle before they happen. ;) BTW, going back out to look at the '82 300SD in daylight and then try to make it to Drake's by 4pm over in Kenmore (Seattle) for the MB gathering... later, john meister '91 300d 2.5L TD >Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:06:20 -0500 >From: Marshall Booth >Subject: Re: [MB] Synthetic oil really synthetic? >john meister wrote: > > >>> >>> Amsoil synthetics are 100% synthetic unless stated as a "blend". >>> >> >> >John, Are you SURE that Amsoil doesn't dissolve some of their additives >in conventional oil. I've been told that's essential, as some of the >most effective additives won't go into solution in synthetic. So that >even "full synthetics" contain somewhere between 5 and 20% conventional >oil as a vehicle to carry the additive package. >Marshall > - -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------ john at http://wagoneers.com from Snohomish,WA- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... reminding you not to leave life w/o Jesus! - ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:26:22 -0800 From: john meister Subject: [db] weight of a 3.0L Turbo Diesel - 400lbs? I'm thinking of carrying a used 3.0L Turbo Diesel (mid-80's vintage) in the back of my '87 Cherokee... guessing that engine will be about 400lbs, right? I've carried a 4.2L Jeep I-6 in the back before... so I'm sure it'll be ok... Hmm... I wonder if I would fit that in the trunk of my '91 300D so I could get better then the 20mpg or so I'd get with the Jeep... need to drive about 200 miles with the engine... That might be a bit much for it... Any thoughts? I-5 between Portland and Seattle isn't exactly a level drive either... If it was just my wife and me and the engine in the trunk that'd be like two passengers, right? only question remaining is will it fit in the 124's trunk? :) And then of course the small problem of getting it OUT of the trunk since I don't have a cherry picker right now... details, details... ;) Man, I sure wish my J10 stepside were completed... BTW, anyone in the Seattle area have a good 3.0L Turbo Diesel they're interested in parting with? john - -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------ john at http://wagoneers.com from Snohomish,WA- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... reminding you not to leave life w/o Jesus! - ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of diesel-benz-digest V1 #1281 **********************************