Top vacuum engine oiler question

[Buick35]

Hi,Awhile back I installed a vintage top engine oiler to my 35 Buick running the line to the intake manifold.There's not a place on the carburetor to do so.Anyway I'm using Marvel Mystery Oil for the oil. Since it doesn't run on leaded gas I thought it might help.Is it good to use MMO or is there something better,or do these oilers do any good? Any thoughts will be appreciated.Thanks.

[Mark Shaw]

MMO can also be added directly to your gasoline.  Any small engine oil mix will do too.

I use one airline booze bottle of MMO for every ten gallons while filling up my older cars.

 

 

[billorn]

Additives are the magic copper bracelets of the old car world. They only work if you believe hard enough.

[edinmass]

Remove it, and place it on the shelf. All it does is causes upper end loading. Dump 1oz of oil in the tank each time if you must……….modern lubrication is ten times better than 1935. 

[31nash880]

Have a 1931 Nash that has one on it. Filled with marvel mystery oil when I first got the car. Sucked it down. Not sure if able to adjust anymore. Disconnected now but draws attention at car shows.

[Buick35]

That's cool looking.

[TTR]

2 hours ago, Mark Shaw said:

MMO can also be added directly to your gasoline. 

While I've always been more than skeptical of any/most "miracle" additives, whether for coolant, fuel or lubricant, I recently discussed the use of MMO in fuel with several different colleagues with much more/longer (5+ decades worth continuous) vintage car  experiences (than I), including numerous actively used mid-to-high 8 figure examples and received full endorsement from most, so I now add it (per label instructions) into gasoline of my own and client cars.

Main reason for the endorsements was the lack of adequate "lubricants", incl. lead, in modern fuels.

So far, I have 5000+ miles of experience of using it, including +/-4000 miles on my 276" DeSoto V8 I completely rebuilt during first half of last year.

 

OTOH, I would not use it in the fashion described by OP or shown by "31Nash88".

Edited January 10, 2023 by TTR (see edit history)

[Matt Harwood]

If the extremely smart guys who designed our cars thought they needed additives and special devices to apply them to various parts of the engine, they would have installed them on the cars from the factory. 

 

No automaker would have built a car that relied on special fuel or oil additives from a third party to keep their engines healthy. 

 

Lead was not used in gasoline until the late pre-war era and even then it was in such minute quantities that it would have done nothing to "protect" internal engine parts. Lead is an octane booster. Period. It is not a lubricant or a cushion for valves, not even a little bit.

 

Finally, the leaded gas scare of the 1970s was largely manufactured by the oil companies, who were initially tasked with converting every gas station in the US to unleaded fuel in less than 18 months. The cost would have been astronomical. When they complained to the government, they made up a story about how the loss of lead would cause all these poor schlubs' engines to grenade from valve seat recession. As a result, they were given 9 years to make the unleaded gas conversion, which was ostensibly enough time for all those ticking bomb cars to be off the road. It was all BS, but it saved the oil companies billions.

 

Oil additives, lead in the gas, top cylinder oilers, even ZDDP in most cases, it's all nonsense. If an additive makes you feel better there's no harm in using it, but the only thing you're really protecting is the additive companies' bottom-line.

[Rusty_OToole]

Back in the day they were claimed to increase engine life 50% between overhauls. Prewar the ring and valve job was a common maintenance chore every 30,000 miles or so. Lubricating the rings and valves prevented wear.

Today's gas is very dry compared to the oily low octane stuff we got before the eighties and it does not contain lead additives which cushion the valves. Some engines even suffer from stuck valves and rings due to lack of lubrication, if not run for long periods, especially inline flatheads.

Extra lubrication may not be absolutely necessary, in the sense that your motor will run without it, but it can't hurt.

The setup you have is called an inverse oiler. It is made to feed extra oil under low vacuum conditions, as under acceleration or a hard pull up hill, and less oil under high vacuum conditions, as when slowing down or idling.

You can also toss a little lube into the gas tank when you fill up if you don't have the inverse oiler. Marvel Mystery Oil, Bardahl, Rislone, Redex, there are different brands. Use your favorite as long as it says upper cylinder lubricant or frees sticky valves. I have been told cotton seed oil was a popular base for such lubricants. Then there are those who like two stroke oil, the kind that burns without smoke.

Not recommended for modern cars with catalytic converters.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Grimy]

15 minutes ago, Rusty_OToole said:

Back in the day they were claimed to increase engine life 50% between overhauls. Prewar the ring and valve job was a common maintenance chore every 30,000 miles or so. Lubricating the rings and valves prevented wear.

Today's gas is very dry compared to the oily low octane stuff we got before the eighties and it does not contain lead additives which cushion the valves. Some engines even suffer from stuck valves and rings due to lack of lubrication, if not run for long periods, especially inline flatheads.

Extra lubrication may not be absolutely necessary, in the sense that your motor will run without it, but it can't hurt.

The setup you have is called an inverse oiler. It is made to feed extra oil under low vacuum conditions, as under acceleration or a hard pull up hill, and less oil under high vacuum conditions, as when slowing down or idling.

You can also toss a little lube into the gas tank when you fill up if you don't have the inverse oiler. Marvel Mystery Oil, Bardahl, Rislone, Redex, there are different brands. Use your favorite as long as it says upper cylinder lubricant or frees sticky valves. I have been told cotton seed oil was a popular base for such lubricants. Then there are those who like two stroke oil, the kind that burns without smoke.

Not recommended for modern cars with catalytic converters.

As Rusty says, today's gasoline is different.  On two 1925 Pierce Series 80 cars, I encountered a sticky exhaust valve about 10 miles from home on the first tour in the spring.  For over 20 years now, I've added MMO at a dosage of 4 oz per 10 gallons of gasoline, maybe a tad richer for over-winter storage and every other tank during multi-day tours, and have never had another sticky valve when I've done so.  On the 1918 Pierce, I use 2-cycle motor oil at the same rate.  I'll keep using these products.  YMMV.

[edinmass]

George is an expert on upper end lubrication………….at Pebble this year, he was well lubricated with Makers Mark at our house party. I must admit, the quality of his company was better than it ever has been in the last 25 years. I ended up with a set of running boards and push rods for the 34 Buick. All in all a great evening. 😎

[Pfeil]

1 hour ago, Matt Harwood said:

 

 

Finally, the leaded gas scare of the 1970s was largely manufactured by the oil companies, who were initially tasked with converting every gas station in the US to unleaded fuel in less than 18 months. The cost would have been astronomical. When they complained to the government, they made up a story about how the loss of lead would cause all these poor schlubs' engines to grenade from valve seat recession. As a result, they were given 9 years to make the unleaded gas conversion, which was ostensibly enough time for all those ticking bomb cars to be off the road. It was all BS, but it saved the oil companies billions.

 

Oil additives, lead in the gas, top cylinder oilers, even ZDDP in most cases, it's all nonsense. If an additive makes you feel better there's no harm in using it, but the only thing you're really protecting is the additive companies' bottom-line.

If what you say is true, why did auto manufacturers start equipping cars in the early 70's with hardened valve seats in anticipation of unleaded fuel. We all know, and should all know, that manufacturers will not spend an extra penny unless they have to!  

[ramair]

Ed, I remember that great party, I brought some adult beverages and after I looked at was on the counter I realized that I brought sand to the beach!

[Frank DuVal]

I've used the oilers with water in them to clean valves and piston tops. Steam cleans 'em.  Good for curing detonation from carbon buildup or cleaning things up before overhaul. 

[rocketraider]

3 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

If the extremely smart guys who designed our cars thought they needed additives and special devices to apply them to various parts of the engine, they would have installed them on the cars from the factory. 

 

No automaker would have built a car that relied on special fuel or oil additives from a third party to keep their engines healthy. 

On the shelf in every GM dealer parts department then:

And still stocked today. 

 

 

Every dealer parts department I've ever been in, whether GM, Ford or Mopar, has had an array of automotive chemicals like top engine cleaner and upper cylinder lubricant on the shelf. Doubtful it was made by the automaker itself; rebranding was common. You'll see a MIL-Spec number on many of these products too.

 

The local Pontiac dealer used GM Top Engine Cleaner as the first step of every tuneup. You'd see the smoke and fumes rolling out of their exhaust evacuation system when they did one.

[edinmass]

With todays converters and O2’s, all the top end cleaners are water based and using soap. It actually works quite well to clean things……..especially injectors and egr’s. 

[Larry Schramm]

What affect has alcohol had on gasoline and car engines?  It is a very good cleaner.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Larry Schramm (see edit history)

[Matt Harwood]

10 hours ago, Pfeil said:

If what you say is true, why did auto manufacturers start equipping cars in the early 70's with hardened valve seats in anticipation of unleaded fuel. We all know, and should all know, that manufacturers will not spend an extra penny unless they have to!  

 

Or it could have been other things that happened at the same time, like increased use of EGR valves, AIR pumps, and retarded ignition timing, catalytic converters and other emissions controls that caused exhaust temperatures to skyrocket and putting significant additional stress on the valves and valve seats.

 

8 hours ago, rocketraider said:

On the shelf in every GM dealer parts department then:

And still stocked today. 

 

 

Every dealer parts department I've ever been in, whether GM, Ford or Mopar, has had an array of automotive chemicals like top engine cleaner and upper cylinder lubricant on the shelf. Doubtful it was made by the automaker itself; rebranding was common. You'll see a MIL-Spec number on many of these products too.

 

The local Pontiac dealer used GM Top Engine Cleaner as the first step of every tuneup. You'd see the smoke and fumes rolling out of their exhaust evacuation system when they did one.

 

Top engine cleaner isn't an additive.

[Pfeil]

3 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

 

Or it could have been other things that happened at the same time, like increased use of EGR valves, AIR pumps, and retarded ignition timing, catalytic converters and other emissions controls that caused exhaust temperatures to skyrocket and putting significant additional stress on the valves and valve seats.

 

 

Top engine cleaner isn't an additive.

Air pumps have been used since 1966 Ca. and 1967 Fed.

 EGR actually lowers the combustion temperature to reduce NOX.

 I worked for an auto manufacturer for 34 years, some of which was emission systems and testing and certifying. We don't rely on could have. There were countless studies on unleaded fuel and valve seat recession and burning valves and seats before unleaded fuel appeared. That is why manufacturers switched to hardened seats and valve hardness and composition for the 1975 model year. As far as catalysts goes, they were the best thing to happen for us. We were finally able to re-tune engines (fatten up the A/F ratio) for more drivability, and downstream of the engine we were able to redirect air from the air pump from the combustion chamber to the exhaust header pipe to the exhaust pipe where the catalytic converter resides to light off and have further combustion from the catalytic converter to take care the rest.   

[Matt Harwood]

2 minutes ago, Pfeil said:

Air pumps have been used since 1966 Ca. and 1967 Fed.

 EGR actually lowers the combustion temperature to reduce NOX.

 I worked for an auto manufacturer for 34 years, some of which was emission systems and testing and certifying. We don't rely on could have. There were countless studies on unleaded fuel and valve seat recession and burning valves and seats before unleaded fuel appeared. That is why manufacturers switched to hardened seats and valve hardness and composition for the 1975 model year. As far as catalysts goes, they were the best thing to happen for us. We were finally able to re-tune engines (fatten up the A/F ratio) for more drivability, and downstream of the engine we were able to redirect air from the air pump from the combustion chamber to the exhaust header pipe to the exhaust pipe where the catalytic converter resides to light off and have further combustion from the catalytic converter to take care the rest.   

 

No argument that emissions controls and catalytic converters were able to make better-running engines. I also agree that the OEMs were obligated to design around worst-case scenarios, including situations where hardened valve seats could be beneficial. But the discussion in this thread is that additives (including lead) prevented older cars from having mechanical failures and remain necessary today. It seems that people are suggesting pre-1975 gas cars running around using modern unleaded fuel are ticking bombs that NEED additives to operate properly. I disagree and while the evidence is anecdotal, we certainly haven't spent the last 45 years watching all those old engines blow up solely due to the absence of lead in the gas. Statistically, it's a non-issue.

 

We collectively drive millions of miles a year in old cars using unleaded fuel, and valve seat recession is little more than a blip on the list of potential failures. It's far more likely that your car will spin a bearing or toss a rod or drop a valve than suffer valve seat recession due to the absence of lead. You can surely force an engine to have valve seat problems in an extreme situation, but is that really the job lead was designed to do? I'd argue that no, it is not. It was first and foremost an octane booster. Any other effects are way out on the margins. It remains a non-issue in the hobby despite the sky-is-falling marketing of the additives companies and prevalence of old wives' tales.

 

Like I said, use the additives if they bring you peace of mind--they probably can't hurt. I drive a lot of old cars a lot of miles and have been doing it for 35 years and have never used additives of any sort. I drive my stuff hard and I have not had any failures related to the lack of lead or special oil treatments or top cylinder lubrication. I built race cars that have competed at Daytona and Sebring, and assembled high-performance engines that had to survive with a warranty. I did durability testing for GM during the development of the C5 Corvette. I talk to a lot of people in the hobby who also drive their cars, and nobody has ever insisted that I add lead or other additives to the oil or fuel of their cars while they're in my care. None of the engine builders I've ever worked with have said that they won't warrant their engines unless I use additives or suggested that I will have problems without them. You have to do something abusive or foolish to get your engine to a place where an additive is potentially the difference between life and death. Just driving it? Meh.

 

To me, additives are like this decorative rock on my desk that was given to me by an African shaman. It's designed to prevent tiger attacks. Since I haven't been attacked by a tiger, well, I guess it works...

[edinmass]

It’s amazing how so few people know that the car is tuned for emissions and not for performance. Dumping extra HC’s to keep the cat lit. Dumping timing to drop NOx. Stoichiometry is what it’s all about. 

[8E45E]

18 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

No automaker would have built a car that relied on special fuel or oil additives from a third party to keep their engines healthy. 

I'm noticing on new cars, Porsche, Mitsubishi, to name two I know of, recommend Mobil 1 for motor oil.  Inasmuch as I know, automakers aren't supposed to state an actual brand name as per the FTC, implying Mobil is a better product over a competitor's same formulation.   May be a 'gray area', but if those engines were developed and tested only using Mobil 1, I suppose I can see the somewhat biased recommendation.

 

Craig

[Pfeil]

4 hours ago, edinmass said:

It’s amazing how so few people know that the car is tuned for emissions and not for performance. Dumping extra HC’s to keep the cat lit. Dumping timing to drop NOx. Stoichiometry is what it’s all about. 

I'm a little confused about dumping extra HC's. Please explain.

 

In the case of dumping timing to drop NOX. Cars from 1973-4 (introduction of EGR) to present day actually allowed in some instances more timing. Another example, my 1976 Oldsmobile has EGR. If I disconnect it and it's a warm day and I'm climbing a long hill or mountain that car will ping like hell. Connect the EGR valve and the pinging stops why? Because EGR lowers the combustion temperature, and a lower combustion temperature slows the flame front and prevents detonation.

 On older cars with high compression when high octane leaded gas was available, we would use that type of fuel to prevent detonation and if that didn't work, we might back the timing down a few degrees.

 I have a 69 Pontiac LeMans that I built as a street/Grand touring car. The engine is a 456" Pontiac bored .030 over, originally with 10.5 compression. Before 911 I would use 100LL AVGAS as a supplemental fuel for the track, after 911 it was difficult to get onto an airport, and since I wasn't doing much racing, I switched to a pair of 400" 7K3 big valve heads from a 72 Pontiac. Those 72 heads had hardened seats from the factory (manufacturers knew unleaded was coming), anyroad, the heads lowered my compression to 9.8 to one and there is no detonation. Those heads have been on since 2002.        

Edited January 11, 2023 by Pfeil (see edit history)

[edinmass]

A catalytic converter CAN NOT WORK without HC’s……….simple chemistry. If a car is tuned perfectly for complete combustion, (stoichiometry) the converter doesn’t have what it needs to convert CO into CO2. Thus a feedback control loop modulates the injector pulse with and shifts short term and long term fuel trim leaving enough unburnt HC’s in the exhaust to keep the converter lit. Add too much HC’s to a converter……..you get a torch, or meltdown. Thus modern fuel injection systems shut down misfiring cylinders by shutting off the injector to stop the converter eating raw fuel and melting. (Catalyst damaging misfire.) If your check engine light is flashing on any OBDII car………it’s meltdown time.

 

On a 70’s car with a carburetor, if you tune the car with a five gas machine to perfect combustion……it will not pass the emissions test because your starving the converter for fuel. Thus, after a “tune up” where the engine is running perfectly, you then go back and add HC’s to be sure the car will pass emissions. I use to show this to my customers in my shop…….car running perfect……and you fail the emissions test. Add fuel for worse mileage, presto….pass emissions. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by edinmass (see edit history)

[Pfeil]

On my 76 OIds for example. State test

 

Idle CO & HC Max allowable standard with converter CO=2.0% HC=220PPM HC < that's an awful rich standard!  

  Idle. My Olds with test pipe in, I tune to 3/4-1% CO and 150 PPMs HC, with converter in I'm .05 to .01% CO and HC is 15-20 PPMs.

Cruise Mode;

2500RPM on the DYNO high gear State max allowable CO=1.70ppm and HC 180 PPMS

My car CO=0.03%PPM and HC=10PPMS. or less. I even had one state test where the HC's read 0, but that's their machine and their calibration.

 

I never took my Olds to work and ran it straight out of the cold room to perform a 7 bag EPA 7 mode test on our drive cycle dyno, but I'm sure it would have passed the 76 standards with no problem. 

 

[edinmass]

Yes, that sure is rich……..the early converts weren’t particularly efficient. My guess is the state test was rather lax compared to what the car was doing……..early on they let the standards down to ease into the final rules…….so they public wouldn’t revolt.

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

On 1/9/2023 at 3:36 PM, Buick35 said:

Hi,Awhile back I installed a vintage top engine oiler to my 35 Buick running the line to the intake manifold.There's not a place on the carburetor to do so.Anyway I'm using Marvel Mystery Oil for the oil. Since it doesn't run on leaded gas I thought it might help.Is it good to use MMO or is there something better,or do these oilers do any good? Any thoughts will be appreciated.Thanks.

 

 

  See what you started?😆.  Coming up on 86.  I have been driving since 15.  I have never used a top cylinder lubricator.  I sorta side with Matt and Ed.  

  I sure did sell a lot of the additives in the '50s. 

   I doubt one can prove either way.  Sorta like Matt's anti-tiger rock.

 

  Ben

  

[60FlatTop]

Taking things literally and mathematically is one of my sources of entertainment. That 4 oz. per 10 gallons comes out to about 6 PPM (parts per million) and that makes for a 0.0006% mixture. I actually have a handle on that from life's experience. It ain't much.

 

On the stuck valve story I would have to ask how much that tour car had been driven before the first tour compared to the amount of driving it gets after the additive treatment regimen.

[Grimy]

14 minutes ago, 60FlatTop said:

Taking things literally and mathematically is one of my sources of entertainment. That 4 oz. per 10 gallons comes out to about 6 PPM (parts per million) and that makes for a 0.0006% mixture. I actually have a handle on that from life's experience. It ain't much.

 

On the stuck valve story I would have to ask how much that tour car had been driven before the first tour compared to the amount of driving it gets after the additive treatment regimen.

By my math, 4 oz/10 gallons = 3,125 ppm, not 6 ppm; agreed, "not much."  As for how much driven, I said that it was usually about 10 miles into the first tour in the spring (after a 3-4 month nap).  I believe I need this additive on 1920s and earlier L-head and T-head cars which in my experience soot up more than Buick and other OHV engines.

[60FlatTop]

Oops! My bifocals got me again. I read that the event happened on the first tour of ownership and trigger the treatment. Got it now.

 

Your figures make the percentage look good, as well. I am waiting for a "new" old car to be delivered this afternoon. Maybe I will do some math while I wait. Like redo the last calculation.

[Mark Shaw]

On 1/11/2023 at 7:22 AM, 60FlatTop said:

On the stuck valve story I would have to ask how much that tour car had been driven before the first tour compared to the amount of driving it gets after the additive treatment regimen.

My 1913 Model 31 Buick has been toured 2-3000 miles annually for the last 30+ years.  The MMO gas mix has always been in the tank when my father toured and for the last 20 years that I have toured with this car.  It has never had a stuck valve; even after my father had a complete engine rebuild done.

 

Several years ago, I was invited to drive another bigger Model 17 Buick on the Gas & Brass Tour of the great lodges of New England.  Evidently the owner's daughter forgot to add MMO at the previous fuel stop.  That car developed a stuck valve that resolved itself after MMO was added at the next fuel fill-up.  I shifted down for a relatively steep downhill section that put enough back pressure on the engine to release the stuck valve.   The owner was the one that taught me to use airline booze bottles to add measured amounts of MMO to the fuel.  

 

All my cars have been upgraded to use modern fuel with ethanol because you can't always find non-ethanol fuel when touring in different locations.   Ethanol fuels provide much less lubrication than non-ethanol fuels, so adding a little MMO or other mixed gas lubrication is even more important.  I also treat with Sta-Bil fuel stabilizer when my cars are prepared for winter storage.

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Mark Shaw (see edit history)

[Pfeil]

8 hours ago, edinmass said:

Yes, that sure is rich……..the early converts weren’t particularly efficient. My guess is the state test was rather lax compared to what the car was doing……..early on they let the standards down to ease into the final rules…….so they public wouldn’t revolt.

Actually California, where I used to live, tightened the standards on older cars. I have every Biannual test on that Olds from 1976-2013 on file and the pass standards got tighter on every test. Also, they started measuring NOX when in 1976 there was no standard and passed a NOX standard after the car was over twenty years old to comply with. Talk about legislating cars off the road!

[Grimy]

57 minutes ago, Mark Shaw said:

I also treat with Sta-Bil fuel stabilizer when my cars are prepared for winter storage.

I've abandoned Sta-Bil, even the blue marine version, for Startron stabilizer from marine supply stores, which seems superior to Sta-Bil especially for containers of gas used in yard equipment as well.  It's about $40/quart but the dosage rate is only 1 oz per 16 gallons, so it lasts a long time.  @60FlatTop, clean your bifocals and calculate ppm on THIS dosage!  🙂

[Grimy]

1 minute ago, Pfeil said:

Actually California, where I used to live, tightened the standards on older cars. I have every Biannual test on that Olds from 1976-2013 on file and the pass standards got tighter on every test. Also, they started measuring NOX when in 1976 there was no standard and passed a NOX standard after the car was over twenty years old to comply with. Talk about legislating cars off the road!

Yep!  I had (note past tense) a 1981 MBz 280SL gray market car with low miles which has been DOT-ized, EPA-ized, and Californi-cated at great expense by the previous owner who had bought it in Germany.  The smog standards were increased in the late 1990s to a point well above what the car had been modified, under bond, to meet when brought into the US in 1983.  Each smog test required major detuning of the engine, then re-tuning when the test was (barely) passed.

[CChinn]

12 minutes ago, Grimy said:

Yep!  I had (note past tense) a 1981 MBz 280SL gray market car with low miles which has been DOT-ized, EPA-ized, and Californi-cated at great expense by the previous owner who had bought it in Germany.  The smog standards were increased in the late 1990s to a point well above what the car had been modified, under bond, to meet when brought into the US in 1983.  Each smog test required major detuning of the engine, then re-tuning when the test was (barely) passed.

Grimy, you have provided me with another reason I will never return home to California (4th generation San Franciscan). The others being taxes, cost of living, wild fires (had a house burned down in Oakland Hills wildfire in early 90s), drought, torrential rain followed by mudslides, homeless problem, earthquakes, etc.  Don’t have to deal with all of that in central NC. Still big fan of Bay Area pro sports teams though - Go Niners, Warriors, Giants, A’s and Sharks!

[Grimy]

20 minutes ago, CChinn said:

Grimy, you have provided me with another reason I will never return home to California (4th generation San Franciscan). The others being taxes, cost of living, wild fires (had a house burned down in Oakland Hills wildfire in early 90s), drought, torrential rain followed by mudslides, homeless problem, earthquakes, etc.  Don’t have to deal with all of that in central NC. Still big fan of Bay Area pro sports teams though - Go Niners, Warriors, Giants, A’s and Sharks!

I hear you, brother!  If (1) I had collected stamps rather than cars and other bulky artifacts, and (2) I hadn't had elderly relatives to care for, I'd have likely moved too.  Now I'm too old....  I can't compete with your 4th generation San Franciscan status, but I did commute from Piedmont to St. Ignatius HS in SF via the Key System trains over the Bay Bridge, removed just as I was getting my driver's license--meaning we wouldn't be caught dead riding public transportation.  Just too damn many people in California now:  When I graduated HS in 1960, Calif population was just breaking 9 million; today it's 39.3 million.  So in my adult lifetime, there has been a 4-1/2 fold increase in population.  In my own estimation, the last time the Bay Area was a great place to live was 1980, when the census indicated 22 million.

 

During the Oakland Hills Fire of 1991, I spent time on my brother's Piedmont roof with a garden hose knocking down embers from a mile away before they could ignite dried-but-not-fallen leaves from a tree my mother planted as a child--after I evacuated my mother and elderly aunt.  So sorry your house burned....

[zepher]

2 hours ago, Grimy said:

I hear you, brother!  If (1) I had collected stamps rather than cars and other bulky artifacts, and (2) I hadn't had elderly relatives to care for, I'd have likely moved too.  Now I'm too old....  I can't compete with your 4th generation San Franciscan status, but I did commute from Piedmont to St. Ignatius HS in SF via the Key System trains over the Bay Bridge, removed just as I was getting my driver's license--meaning we wouldn't be caught dead riding public transportation.  Just too damn many people in California now:  When I graduated HS in 1960, Calif population was just breaking 9 million; today it's 39.3 million.  So in my adult lifetime, there has been a 4-1/2 fold increase in population.  In my own estimation, the last time the Bay Area was a great place to live was 1980, when the census indicated 22 million.

 

 

I am planning on retiring in the next year or so and I will be moving out of Calif even if it takes me a month to move all my cars, parts and garage stuff.

My lineage in Calif can be traced back to an Indian woman that married one of the first Spanish generals that came up the coast with Father Serra.
No idea how many generations that is, without looking it up and counting, and one of my grandfathers is buried at the San Gabriel Mission.  He was a part of the last generation of Indians allowed to be buried there.

Even with all that family history, I can't wait to get out of Calif.  I have an elderly mother that I am taking with me when I leave the state.  Maybe I'll make arrangements to be buried in So Cal but who knows?

 

One of the areas I am looking at to move to, has widely available pure gas so my antique cars will definitely enjoy the fuel out there.

 

[Rusty_OToole]

56 minutes ago, kejoxof said:

We are using Busch R5-400 vacuum pumps in a biomedical research application. When we started the PdM program, the mechanics were using Castol Tection 15W-40, a diesel engine oil, in the vacuum pumps. It is obviously the wrong oil, being a high-detergent multi-viscosity oil, so we recommended that they change to the suggested oil, Busch R-590. Mechanics claimed that when they used that oil in the past, it would turn to a solid sludge, so they stopped using it. We checked with Busch, and they insisted that the mechanics were wrong, that it wasn't possible. Sure enough, when they changed back to the Busch R-590 oil, the oil began to thicken until it became a sticky black solid, and failed the pump. We thought that a solvent being used in the labs was being sucked into the pumps and reacting with the oil. We switched to CPI Engineering CP-9016-100 oil, which is a severely hydrotreated parrafin with no additives, thinking it would be less reactive than the additized Busch oil. It seemed to perform better than the Busch oil, but is now showing signs of solidifying as well after only 2 months in service. Has anyone else ever seen this before? Anyone know what type of solvent could cause this? Any suggestions for a different oil? We are performing regular oil analysis, and are able to see the appearance of some peaks in both the Busch and CPI oils prior to the solidification. Also, these pumps run continously for about 12 hours per day, and then stay shutdown until the next day.

If it was me I would send a sample of the gummed up Busch oil to Busch and ask for their analysis. Meanwhile change back to the Castrol if that is what works best.

[Frank DuVal]

Weird tangent, but I see R5 is a rotary vane pump. I sometimes use rotary vane vacuum pumps at work, and they are just filled with vacuum pump oil from the HVAC industry, like Black Gold or Yellow Jacket oil. We call them roughing pumps and then use turbo pumps to get to torr in the 10-7 range. They run for 8 to 10 hours a day when operating the equipment, and sometimes run for a week at a time. When the oil looks dark in the sight glass, I change it. 

 

If 12 hours a day and two months operating, if the oil is not clear/clear yellow, then it needs changing. Also, do the pumps not seem to develop as much vacuum after a while? That is also a sign the oil needs changing. Some HVAC pumps say to change the oil every 100 hours or so. Others say after every use! It is the moisture flowing through the oil that darkens it.

[Rusty_OToole]

On 1/9/2023 at 8:46 PM, Matt Harwood said:

If the extremely smart guys who designed our cars thought they needed additives and special devices to apply them to various parts of the engine, they would have installed them on the cars from the factory. 

A few did. Crosley Hot Shot came with a Thompson Vitameter to control knock, it had a 10:1 compression ratio when most cars were 7.5:1 and gas octane was low. This was about 1950. In 1962 Olds brought out the first turbocharged car, or one of the first, and it had a similar injection system for the same reason.

The reason such devices were not more popular is that the manufacturers could not depend on consumers to keep them filled. Such things become a nuisance once the novelty wears off.

Today all diesels require special exhaust additive to control emissions.