How long will an engine last on the limiter?
Discussion
Metro GTI, bought as a stopgap when skint, it was a heap, rusty and knackered, it did however have a very fit example of the venerable 1.4 K Series with a massive 104 bhp, I wanted it to die so badly, I hated it anf the missus was peed off with me changing cars so I set out to kill it and to my shame, I couldnt, went some distance in second and third with it bouncing off the limiter, buzzed it numerous times, many full bore starts, flat out everywhere but the little s
t wouldnt die, I swear it just got faster, about 5 months of this treatment and then sold to a complete dick who kept the process going, for some time as well as it went hammering past me one day, quite some time after.
Maybe this is where people went wrong with K series engines ?
t wouldnt die, I swear it just got faster, about 5 months of this treatment and then sold to a complete dick who kept the process going, for some time as well as it went hammering past me one day, quite some time after.Maybe this is where people went wrong with K series engines ?
WeirdNeville said:
That's a great reason never to buy a "car company registered car"!
My dad had a range rover which had spent the first year of it's life registered to Land rover. It was fked.
If it was a press car driven by motoring hacks all the time for a year I'm not surprised it was a bit tired - far more torture than merely being run 'flat out' for a year!My dad had a range rover which had spent the first year of it's life registered to Land rover. It was f
ked.WeirdNeville said:
160 said:
This is ford showing off their ecoboost engine to the americans ecoboost torture test
That's a great reason never to buy a "car company registered car"!My dad had a range rover which had spent the first year of it's life registered to Land rover. It was f
ked.WeirdNeville said:
Super Slo Mo said:
Wouldn't sticking it in 5th (or whatever top gear is) be more effective, and less likely to result in an impromptu 0-60 record attempt if the driver's foot jerks off the brake at the same time?
I was trying to do the "thught experiment" to work this out too. My reasoning was just that 1st tends to be a high torque gear, and so will have been designed to take high loads and shock loading. I suppose any gear would likely do.You're stuffed if it's an auto though. Best you jam your leather coat down it's gullet.
I had the same thing happen to me on the M25 driving a truck back in about 1999. The smoke screen was something to behold
, although I'm sure my fellow motorists weren't impressed. I had a few seconds of
when the truck suddenly accelerated without warning, with the limiter having no effect, but I stopped it by standing on the exhaust brake switch, which obviously you can't do in a car.It is a complete myths that revs hurt engines, provided the engine is operated within its design parameters.
Engine wear usually arises from excessively LOW rpm which labours the engine. Especially in a cold engine you want some revs, not labouring. Autos are typically programmed to hold gears for longer until the engine has warmed.
It's like riding a bike. Pedalling fast in a low gear is energetic but doable. Try to go uphill in too high a gear and you're heaving at the pedals, putting massive forces through your joints. Same in an engine.
Engine wear usually arises from excessively LOW rpm which labours the engine. Especially in a cold engine you want some revs, not labouring. Autos are typically programmed to hold gears for longer until the engine has warmed.
It's like riding a bike. Pedalling fast in a low gear is energetic but doable. Try to go uphill in too high a gear and you're heaving at the pedals, putting massive forces through your joints. Same in an engine.
160 said:
This is ford showing off their ecoboost engine to the americans ecoboost torture test
That had quite a bit of end play, more than I wold have in my engines. 160 said:
This is ford showing off their ecoboost engine to the americans ecoboost torture test
That's an impressive amount of punishment it takes![quote=WeirdNeville]
Aero engines have to operate at virtually full power continously though. It's not unusual for them to be at 75-100% throttle - plus of course they have to run at full power after a brief engine run up for take-off. By comparison it's rare that a car engine exceeds 25% of maximum power.
Aero engines often seem "low powered" compared to their car counterparts. This weekend I was in a cessna 152 with has a 3.6L Lycoming flat four, it makes just 110bhp. But it can do it for 2,500 hours before strip down!
When I did my basic flying training on Winjeels, Pratt & Whitney radial piston engined RAAF trainers, if you had even taxied before you had oil temperature, 70 degrees I think from memory, you would have been in trouble. Try to take off with cold oil & you would have been a civilian next morning. As you say they were fairly low powered for their capacity to gain reliability, but even then we were not allowed to exceed one minute at take off power.
Ozzie Osmond in the days before rev limiters you would hear many drivers, back off, & go back a gear or two as they started to brake. Install a tell tale rev counter & you would find they were over revving a thousand or more RPM. On the over run, with no compression to help stop the pistons they would spit out big end bearings very quickly, usually followed quite quickly by putting a rod out the side.
You could pick the cars which were likely to fail by this gear change technique. Better drivers did not change back until road speed had reduced.
I still remember that at the bottom of Conrod straight, I had to get the Brabham Repco V8 down to 3,750 RPM in 5TH to pick up second at 9,000 RPM. There was no point mucking around with intermediate gears, all that heel & toe stuff just interfered with maximum braking.
Aero engines have to operate at virtually full power continously though. It's not unusual for them to be at 75-100% throttle - plus of course they have to run at full power after a brief engine run up for take-off. By comparison it's rare that a car engine exceeds 25% of maximum power.
Aero engines often seem "low powered" compared to their car counterparts. This weekend I was in a cessna 152 with has a 3.6L Lycoming flat four, it makes just 110bhp. But it can do it for 2,500 hours before strip down!
When I did my basic flying training on Winjeels, Pratt & Whitney radial piston engined RAAF trainers, if you had even taxied before you had oil temperature, 70 degrees I think from memory, you would have been in trouble. Try to take off with cold oil & you would have been a civilian next morning. As you say they were fairly low powered for their capacity to gain reliability, but even then we were not allowed to exceed one minute at take off power.
Ozzie Osmond in the days before rev limiters you would hear many drivers, back off, & go back a gear or two as they started to brake. Install a tell tale rev counter & you would find they were over revving a thousand or more RPM. On the over run, with no compression to help stop the pistons they would spit out big end bearings very quickly, usually followed quite quickly by putting a rod out the side.
You could pick the cars which were likely to fail by this gear change technique. Better drivers did not change back until road speed had reduced.
I still remember that at the bottom of Conrod straight, I had to get the Brabham Repco V8 down to 3,750 RPM in 5TH to pick up second at 9,000 RPM. There was no point mucking around with intermediate gears, all that heel & toe stuff just interfered with maximum braking.
Super Slo Mo said:
WeirdNeville said:
Super Slo Mo said:
Wouldn't sticking it in 5th (or whatever top gear is) be more effective, and less likely to result in an impromptu 0-60 record attempt if the driver's foot jerks off the brake at the same time?
I was trying to do the "thught experiment" to work this out too. My reasoning was just that 1st tends to be a high torque gear, and so will have been designed to take high loads and shock loading. I suppose any gear would likely do.You're stuffed if it's an auto though. Best you jam your leather coat down it's gullet.
I had the same thing happen to me on the M25 driving a truck back in about 1999. The smoke screen was something to behold
, although I'm sure my fellow motorists weren't impressed. I had a few seconds of
when the truck suddenly accelerated without warning, with the limiter having no effect, but I stopped it by standing on the exhaust brake switch, which obviously you can't do in a car.
160 said:
This is ford showing off their ecoboost engine to the americans ecoboost torture test
do you think that is 100% genuine? i just watched it and if so is pretty incredible!Supernova190188 said:
160 said:
This is ford showing off their ecoboost engine to the americans ecoboost torture test
do you think that is 100% genuine? i just watched it and if so is pretty incredible!In reality, the OEMs do a lot of fleet mileage accumulation to ensure complete vehicle durability in advance of the mileages run up by the customers.
HustleRussell said:
Supernova190188 said:
do you think that is 100% genuine? i just watched it and if so is pretty incredible!
I don't doubt it. The video doesn't mention service intervals and that is obviously a major determining factor in engine and particularly Turbo longevity.Still impressive, even if the video was painfully trying to get the "you don't need a V8 to me a real man" thing across.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff