For the guys who think deactivating the mds via a tune is a good idea

[Docwagon1776]

Not necessarily. My 2001 Mazda Miata ran 4000 RPM at 90 MPH in overdrive. This was going through Kentucky. I got 40 MPG.

..and then me and Bigfoot caught a fish *THIS BIG*

 

[CanuckRam1313]

Just to throw another variable into the mix,i wonder how much diff ratio's are contributing to the cam/lifter issues. I know i've seen very few 300's with their 2.82 gears have the same issues as the other 3.07 and 3.09 geared cars have,same as the trucks,it seems like there's more 3.92 geared trucks having cam issues then the 3.21 geared trucks have,and there's a crap pile more 3.21 geared trucks on the road then there are 3.92 geared trucks.
So how much does cruise rpm have to do with the cam/lifter issues.

Oh FFS Brother.... now that I traded in my 19' with 3.21's and got my new Warlock with 3.92's, you come out with this... man-oh-man.... what's a dude supposed to do..

Meh... I like my 3.92's vs the 3.21's, and my first summer with the new truck I ate so many little turds off the line and my daughter also squeals with happiness when we do burnouts and smack others off the line, too. Worth the price of admission

F...it.... warranty is there for a reason

 

[Wild one]

Not necessarily. My 2001 Mazda Miata ran 4000 RPM at 90 MPH in overdrive. This was going through Kentucky. I got 40 MPG. The volumetric efficiency of any engine has variables, and with these here modern computer controls of camshaft timing, VE can be varied. With the newest SP oils, wear has been largely mitigated, with 3 glaring exceptions.... Hemis, LS engines (GM), and 5.4L Ford Triton engines!

Come on Sherman,you've been around long enough to know RPM contributes to wear.The more something spins per mile,the more wear it encounters.
BTW we're also talking about a pushrod Hemi that's notorious for wearing out a cam,not a 4cylinder overhead cam engine,that has a decent oiling system and doesn't rely on crank splash to lube the lifter wheel and cam lobe.
Generally i agree whole heartedly with most things you say,but you're a bit off base this time around .

 

[JHoward]

..and then me and Bigfoot caught a fish *THIS BIG*

View attachment 554566

I guess this would be another way of saying my cow died and and I don't need somebody's bull?

 

[Docwagon1776]

I guess this would be another way of saying my cow died and and I don't need somebody's bull?

I also like "of all the things that never happened, that never happened the most."

 

[Sherman Bird]

Come on Sherman,you've been around long enough to know RPM contributes to wear.The more something spins per mile,the more wear it encounters.
BTW we're also talking about a pushrod Hemi that's notorious for wearing out a cam,not a 4cylinder overhead cam engine,that has a decent oiling system and doesn't rely on crank splash to lube the lifter wheel and cam lobe.
Generally i agree whole heartedly with most things you say,but you're a bit off base this time around .

RIGHT! YOU got it! All of this prattle is SUBJECTIVE! Wear and friction are definite enemies of ANY mechanical device. We can't change physics, but we COULD (meaning the manufacturers) make WAY more dependable automobiles!
Did you ever think, just maybe, that Chrysler KNEW that bringing into production a new engine design and attaching a nomenclature of a bygone icon ("HEMI") would skyrocket sales?

Take a 1970 426, and set it next to a 2015 5.7. They share only ONE thing in common..... a hemispherical combustion chamber.... nothing else. Remember those early ads? "Does that thing have a "Hemi" in it?" They knew that the ad would reach down to the guttural, testosterone levels of Tim Allen "Man-Stuff" in all of us car nuts. Kudos to Madison Avenue Ad agencies!

It is HIGHLY improbable that the original HEMI could EVER reach CAFE standards, let alone emission compliance. But those old HEMI's had a special something that gripped our hearts and made us nostalgic. AND, here we are, arguing and bemoaning the pitfalls and flaws of the modern rendition of an Icon. It's the OLD adage one more time!..... "They don't make them like they used to!". They CAN'T!

 

[Wild one]

RIGHT! YOU got it! All of this prattle is SUBJECTIVE! Wear and friction are definite enemies of ANY mechanical device. We can't change physics, but we COULD (meaning the manufacturers) make WAY more dependable automobiles!
Did you ever think, just maybe, that Chrysler KNEW that bringing into production a new engine design and attaching a nomenclature of a bygone icon ("HEMI") would skyrocket sales?

Take a 1970 426, and set it next to a 2015 5.7. They share only ONE thing in common..... a hemispherical combustion chamber.... nothing else. Remember those early ads? "Does that thing have a "Hemi" in it?" They knew that the ad would reach down to the guttural, testosterone levels of Tim Allen "Man-Stuff" in all of us car nuts. Kudos to Madison Avenue Ad agencies!

It is HIGHLY improbable that the original HEMI could EVER reach CAFE standards, let alone emission compliance. But those old HEMI's had a special something that gripped our hearts and made us nostalgic. AND, here we are, arguing and bemoaning the pitfalls and flaws of the modern rendition of an Icon. It's the OLD adage one more time!..... "They don't make them like they used to!". They CAN'T!

The 3rd Gen Hemi's aka 5.7 /6.1/6.2/6.4's aren't even a hemispherical combustion chamber,they're a far cry off the early 1st and 2nd Gen Hemi's of the 50's /60's and early 70's.
I'll admit they used the "Hemi" name as a marketing ploy as it's not techinically a Hemi.
The engines of today do last alot longer then they did in the early days,due to less highway cruise rpm.Back when i was a kid anything with a 100,000 miles was generally considered wore out,the downside of rpm was very evident then with no overdrive transmissions and cruise rpms in the mid 3,000 and higher.
Hell i remember thinking anything that cruised at 3,000 or slightly less rpm had highway gears in it,and was useless on a light to light race,lol
The only way to really reduce wear and friction is to reduce the amount of revolutions something turns,and if you consider 3.92's are roughly 22% deeper then 3.21's,that's alot of wear differance at 65 mph over a 100,000 miles.
A truck with 3.92's would have roughly the same wear at 78,000 miles as a truck with 3.21's would have at roughly 100,000 miles,and when it comes to camshaft revolutions that adds up to alot more wear and tear on a cam lobe and lifter roller,and alot more spring fatigue on the valve springs.I still think valve spring fatigue is also a contributing factor to the cam/lifter issues the hemi has,by allowing more lifter bounce especially once the springs get some miles on them.

 

[JHoward]

The 3rd Gen Hemi's aka 5.7 /6.1/6.2/6.4's aren't even a hemispherical combustion chamber,they're a far cry off the early 1st and 2nd Gen Hemi's of the 50's /60's and early 70's.
I'll admit they used the "Hemi" name as a marketing ploy as it's not techinically a Hemi.
The engines of today do last alot longer then they did in the early days,due to less highway cruise rpm.Back when i was a kid anything with a 100,000 miles was generally considered wore out,the downside of rpm was very evident then with no overdrive transmissions and cruise rpms in the mid 3,000 and higher.
Hell i remember thinking anything that cruised at 3,000 or slightly less rpm had highway gears in it,and was useless on a light to light race,lol
The only way to really reduce wear and friction is to reduce the amount of revolutions something turns,and if you consider 3.92's are roughly 22% deeper then 3.21's,that's alot of wear differance at 65 mph over a 100,000 miles.
A truck with 3.92's would have roughly the same wear at 78,000 miles as a truck with 3.21's would have at roughly 100,000 miles,and when it comes to camshaft revolutions that adds up to alot more wear and tear on a cam lobe and lifter roller

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[JHoward]

I find it interesting that someone would post something to intentionally deceive and mislead and then post again at attempt to indirectly make note of some folks, like me for example, of being ignorant on the matter.

I'm slowly learning.

 

[Docwagon1776]

The engines of today do last alot longer then they did in the early days,due to less highway cruise rpm.

I agree that's definitely a factor, but I'd say it's a a big slice of a much larger longevity pie. Better tolerances, better metallurgy, better filtration, and better lubrication all play a greater or lesser roll.

Think of the lowly piston ring. Tighter tolerances and better materials (both base and coating) seal better, so less blow by contaminates the oil, less drag and etching occurs of the cylinder walls, heat transfer from the piston to the cylinder walls is more even, etc. Rings are thinner and flex better but last longer and even under less than ideal conditions.

Today's oils and filters are so much better than the stuff we had decades ago. Less grit circulating in the oil, less grit in the air charge (assuming you aren't running a K&N...), etc.

I've mentioned it before, but our fleet data was clear that transmissions were the longevity weak link by a long shot (aside from crashes...) for putting down cars. You'd need slightly over two transmissions for every motor.

 

[Wild one]

I agree that's definitely a factor, but I'd say it's a a big slice of a much larger longevity pie. Better tolerances, better metallurgy, better filtration, and better lubrication all play a greater or lesser roll.

Think of the lowly piston ring. Tighter tolerances and better materials (both base and coating) seal better, so less blow by contaminates the oil, less drag and etching occurs of the cylinder walls, heat transfer from the piston to the cylinder walls is more even, etc. Rings are thinner and flex better but last longer and even under less than ideal conditions.

Today's oils and filters are so much better than the stuff we had decades ago. Less grit circulating in the oil, less grit in the air charge (assuming you aren't running a K&N...), etc.

I've mentioned it before, but our fleet data was clear that transmissions were the longevity weak link by a long shot (aside from crashes...) for putting down cars. You'd need slightly over two transmissions for every motor.

For the most part i agree,but if you to lock the transmission into say 4th gear and drive it with the engine rpm in the 3500 rpm range,it'll have alot more wear then that same engine that ran at 1750 rpm,no matter the improved technology in machining and oils.It's basic physics,the more something rotates the more wear it encounters,and cruise rpm is a bigger contributing factor then alot of guys think

 

[Docwagon1776]

For the most part i agree,but if you to lock the transmission into say 4th gear and drive it with the engine rpm in the 3500 rpm range,it'll have alot more wear then that same engine that ran at 1750 rpm

Absolutely, and I specifically acknowledged that. It's beyond intelligent debate to argue otherwise.

I'm just saying that it isn't the entirety of what makes today's motors last so much longer than motors from the earlier days because it's just one of many variables as opposed the experiment you just listed where it's the only variable.

 

[Wild one]

Absolutely, and I specifically acknowledged that. It's beyond intelligent debate to argue otherwise.

I'm just saying that it isn't the entirety of what makes today's motors last so much longer than motors from the earlier days because it's just one of many variables as opposed the experiment you just listed where it's the only variable.

The one i'm more inclined to disagree with is the quality of oils we have now a days,i personally think oils from the late 80's through to the very earlyy 2,000's were better oils then what we get these days.They had for the most part more Zinc and Moly back then,then they have now,and both of those do help contribute to better engine longevity,but they are a bit harder on the cats.

 

[Docwagon1776]

The one i'm more inclined to disagree with is the quality of oils we have now a days,i personally think oils from the late 80's through to the very earlyy 2,000's were better oils then what we get these days.They had for the most part more Zinc and Moly back then,then they have now,and both of those do help contribute to better engine longevity,but they are a bit harder on the cats.

I was really thinking more of 70s vs today than 2000s vs today, but I guess the 2000s are further "back then" then I'd like to admit.

I think all the advantages of modern synthetics are pretty compelling, though, regardless of where you draw the line at "modern". The oils are just so much more uniform at the molecular level, and given how much of wear stems from cold starts that freer flow and improved film strength is a big advantage.

 

[Wild one]

I was really thinking more of 70s vs today than 2000s vs today, but I guess the 2000s are further "back then" then I'd like to admit.

I think all the advantages of modern synthetics are pretty compelling, though, regardless of where you draw the line at "modern". The oils are just so much more uniform at the molecular level, and given how much of wear stems from cold starts that freer flow and improved film strength is a big advantage.

I know what you mean,it's hard to grab ahold of the idea that 2000 is virtually 25 years ago now,aarrgghh,lol

 

[04fxdwgi]

I know what you mean,it's hard to grab ahold of the idea that 2000 is virtually 25 years ago now,aarrgghh,lol

Then you have those of us where Truman was president. Argh

 

[Sherman Bird]

For the most part i agree,but if you to lock the transmission into say 4th gear and drive it with the engine rpm in the 3500 rpm range,it'll have alot more wear then that same engine that ran at 1750 rpm,no matter the improved technology in machining and oils.It's basic physics,the more something rotates the more wear it encounters,and cruise rpm is a bigger contributing factor then alot of guys think

When Ford was putting a new engine in pre production beta tests (The Eco Boost 3.5L V-6) years ago, one of their primary concerns was exactly the concept your statement might imply. These braniac engineers knew many moons ago that there are always a number of both individual, as well as combined variables which make all the viewpoints viable under different conditions. But which ones were really the culprit? I mean, they were keenly aware that there are SO many differences in the environment an engine operates in, along with variable sizes, types, and purpose of these vehicles, that there is NO pat answer of "one size fits all".

So, How did Ford address these known variables? They took one beta engine and put it in a drag race car, a Baja car, a truck, put it through paces in varying chassis and environmental situations. After this one engine had 200,000 miles on it, they tore the engine down.... and, Lo and Behold, there was almost NO wear to the bearings, cylinder bore, rings, pistons, etc.

I felt kind of bad for those poor engineers who were involved in the desert testing, in Death Valley at temperatures into the 120's.

Wear and friction aren't linear. But, but, but logic makes one THINK they are, right? Science proves otherwise. As a stand alone concept, they are. With advancements in lubrication technology and research, there are just too many variables to state just one aspect as an end-all fact.

The latest GT40 has the V-6 Eco Boost engine in it. And it kicks a$$.

 

[Wild one]

When Ford was putting a new engine in pre production beta tests (The Eco Boost 3.5L V-6) years ago, one of their primary concerns was exactly the concept your statement might imply. These braniac engineers knew many moons ago that there are always a number of both individual, as well as combined variables which make all the viewpoints viable under different conditions. But which ones were really the culprit? I mean, they were keenly aware that there are SO many differences in the environment an engine operates in, along with variable sizes, types, and purpose of these vehicles, that there is NO pat answer of "one size fits all".

So, How did Ford address these known variables? They took one beta engine and put it in a drag race car, a Baja car, a truck, put it through paces in varying chassis and environmental situations. After this one engine had 200,000 miles on it, they tore the engine down.... and, Lo and Behold, there was almost NO wear to the bearings, cylinder bore, rings, pistons, etc.

I felt kind of bad for those poor engineers who were involved in the desert testing, in Death Valley at temperatures into the 120's.

Wear and friction aren't linear. But, but, but logic makes one THINK they are, right? Science proves otherwise. As a stand alone concept, they are. With advancements in lubrication technology and research, there are just too many variables to state just one aspect as an end-all fact.

The latest GT40 has the V-6 Eco Boost engine in it. And it kicks a$$.

Post up this Ford test then,as i'm not really believing something that ran at 3500 plus rpm for 200,000 miles in a desert environment had no wear.
Ford would of made this test fairly common knowledge,and i'd think would have used it in their advertising if that was the case.
FCA made it fairly common knowledge when they made 7,000 back to back dragstrip passes on the 2018 Demon to prove it was capable of lasting to their claims
You sure you're not fabricating a story to back up your claims there Sherm,lol

 

[CanuckRam1313]

The one i'm more inclined to disagree with is the quality of oils we have now a days,i personally think oils from the late 80's through to the very earlyy 2,000's were better oils then what we get these days.They had for the most part more Zinc and Moly back then,then they have now,and both of those do help contribute to better engine longevity,but they are a bit harder on the cats.

Cats, we don't need those stinking cats!

 

[Wild one]

Cats, we don't need those stinking cats!

View attachment 554669

Over here in Redneck Alberta there's lots of things that have fell off or been deleted to go along with every 4X4 that's lifted,