the official OBS diesel off topic thread
08-19-2014, 09:05 AM
Postmaster
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Rockford IL
Posts: 2,622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you haven't seen it, you must. Somebody showed it to me and this ridiculous humor is my sorta thing.
I dont even play console games either lol.
<iframe height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/dLuPa-qQ2MY" frameBorder="0" width="560" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
08-19-2014, 09:15 AM
08-19-2014, 09:19 AM
Post Fiend
I wouldn't say it's running fine, but I still can't see swapping the engine to pick up a few PSI. We'll see what happens after the injector swap.
08-19-2014, 10:46 AM
Logistics Pro
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Southeastern IL
Posts: 4,063
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow that's quite a difference between cold and warm. But I also don't see going through the frustration for that little of psi. There's gotta be something somewhere!
I'd be scared to do a compression test on mine lol. Heck, by now mine might be running similar compression to a gasser lol!
I'd be scared to do a compression test on mine lol. Heck, by now mine might be running similar compression to a gasser lol!
08-19-2014, 10:53 AM
I think Ford spec says new compression is around 400 PSI. It's funny because you can't really find a definite answer.... The important thing is that all the cylinders be close to a +/- 10% variance. If you have one that is more than 10% off that can be a red flag that something is amiss...
Generally what I'm reading is that as long as you're getting 300 PSI or better you're in okay shape. I'm not sure what I will do at this point. I don't see much reason to swap engines to gain 20-30 PSI on a hole or two...
Generally what I'm reading is that as long as you're getting 300 PSI or better you're in okay shape. I'm not sure what I will do at this point. I don't see much reason to swap engines to gain 20-30 PSI on a hole or two...
08-19-2014, 11:14 AM
Postmaster
08-19-2014, 11:54 AM
08-19-2014, 01:22 PM
Post Fiend
Well, Todd I may have but you have a snazzy new one now! Set me back at least $6, lol.
Nick I thought so too, but the odd thing is that I saw literally NO difference in results between 72* and 172* temperature, which was essentially ambient temp and operating temp. But there was a big difference between the results from 20* to 172* which surprised me. What I should do is test it again now at ambient temperature (75* - 80* or so) and see which result was closer to what I get. The results so far would tend to make me think that I won't see a big difference between the results I got last night at 172* and what I could get tonight at 75*. I may do that in the name of science, lol.
Nick I thought so too, but the odd thing is that I saw literally NO difference in results between 72* and 172* temperature, which was essentially ambient temp and operating temp. But there was a big difference between the results from 20* to 172* which surprised me. What I should do is test it again now at ambient temperature (75* - 80* or so) and see which result was closer to what I get. The results so far would tend to make me think that I won't see a big difference between the results I got last night at 172* and what I could get tonight at 75*. I may do that in the name of science, lol.
08-19-2014, 03:35 PM
Postmaster
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Rockford IL
Posts: 2,622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Todd I may have but you have a snazzy new one now! Set me back at least $6, lol.
Nick I thought so too, but the odd thing is that I saw literally NO difference in results between 72* and 172* temperature, which was essentially ambient temp and operating temp. But there was a big difference between the results from 20* to 172* which surprised me. What I should do is test it again now at ambient temperature (75* - 80* or so) and see which result was closer to what I get. The results so far would tend to make me think that I won't see a big difference between the results I got last night at 172* and what I could get tonight at 75*. I may do that in the name of science, lol.
Nick I thought so too, but the odd thing is that I saw literally NO difference in results between 72* and 172* temperature, which was essentially ambient temp and operating temp. But there was a big difference between the results from 20* to 172* which surprised me. What I should do is test it again now at ambient temperature (75* - 80* or so) and see which result was closer to what I get. The results so far would tend to make me think that I won't see a big difference between the results I got last night at 172* and what I could get tonight at 75*. I may do that in the name of science, lol.
08-19-2014, 04:14 PM
Well, Todd I may have but you have a snazzy new one now! Set me back at least $6, lol. Nick I thought so too, but the odd thing is that I saw literally NO difference in results between 72* and 172* temperature, which was essentially ambient temp and operating temp. But there was a big difference between the results from 20* to 172* which surprised me. What I should do is test it again now at ambient temperature (75* - 80* or so) and see which result was closer to what I get. The results so far would tend to make me think that I won't see a big difference between the results I got last night at 172* and what I could get tonight at 75*. I may do that in the name of science, lol.
08-19-2014, 05:44 PM
Hotshot
08-19-2014, 06:55 PM
08-20-2014, 06:32 AM
Post Fiend
Where is the "Like" button on here, Alex?! That's pretty good. I love those movies.
That's the only thing that makes sense to me too Darin. Which to me begs the question; what role does the quality of your starter make in the results you get from your compression test? If the little bit of cranking speed difference makes that big a difference in the compression numbers, then I wonder what kind of results you would get with a new gear reduction starter on it as opposed to an older, tired OEM starter. I guess this all boils down to the fact that these numbers are more for comparison to each other (looking for a deviation between the cylinders) than they are a solid gauge of what kind of shape your engine's internals are in. I think for that a blow-by tester would be better anyway, but I don't have one of those....
I guess you could say the "crick rose" last night (figuratively and literally -- it's been raining cats and dogs here for about the last 12 hours). A good friend of mine called last night and wanted me to go with him to look at a stock trailer he wanted to buy, so we went and did that last night instead. I got a peanut butter milkshake out of the deal and he got a screaming deal on a 16' stock trailer.
What I didn't get is a single thing done on my truck. Oh well. Tonight or tomorrow, I guess.
That's the only thing that makes sense to me too Darin. Which to me begs the question; what role does the quality of your starter make in the results you get from your compression test? If the little bit of cranking speed difference makes that big a difference in the compression numbers, then I wonder what kind of results you would get with a new gear reduction starter on it as opposed to an older, tired OEM starter. I guess this all boils down to the fact that these numbers are more for comparison to each other (looking for a deviation between the cylinders) than they are a solid gauge of what kind of shape your engine's internals are in. I think for that a blow-by tester would be better anyway, but I don't have one of those....
I guess you could say the "crick rose" last night (figuratively and literally -- it's been raining cats and dogs here for about the last 12 hours). A good friend of mine called last night and wanted me to go with him to look at a stock trailer he wanted to buy, so we went and did that last night instead. I got a peanut butter milkshake out of the deal and he got a screaming deal on a 16' stock trailer.
What I didn't get is a single thing done on my truck. Oh well. Tonight or tomorrow, I guess.