| Slant Six Forum https://slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| Still a little 'shake' to the engine at idle https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=42506 |
Page 2 of 2 |
| Author: | Reed [ Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
HERE'S a bunch of copies of your shop manual on eBay. Don't get the one for the D-50, get the Ramcharger, D-150, truck ones. |
|
| Author: | wjajr [ Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Reed, if Lean Burn was as bad as you hypostasize, why did Chrysler continue to use that system for about ten years, as did Ford with their EEC IV, a similar contraption? Hint, it worked, and EPA demanded tighter pollution control standards on new cars, than these same cars generally have to pass today, if at all thirty plus years later. I was on the ground at the time at a Chrysler dealership. Observed, and pondered why the service department was having such problems. Having an engineering background, I didn’t see what all the fuss was about until I found out a lot of the guys out back didn’t have a high school diploma, a few attended a two year tech school for automotive repair before electronics became part a major part of the curriculum. I still believe lack of competent technicians was the weak link. I recall my dealer sending an occasional “problem car†down Rt. 9 in Mass., there must have been ten Chrysler dealers within a 25 mile radius to us as they also sent some to us. Hell, Chrysler had a zone office in Natick, the next town over… What generally happened is, Zone/Detroit eventually got involved, and straightened out the big messes, most of which were compounded by the guy’s out back total lack of knowledge. I don’t blame most of the mechanics at the time, because they didn’t have enough education to understand the new technology. I recall seeing them emerge from hour long weekly training sessions given by division, shaking their heads, wondering what the hell was just shown them. This was 1984, seven years since lean burn inception; and fuel injection and turbo charging showed up that year as well. The technicians’ heads were exploding in those days. Detroit solved the lack of having mechanical engineers turning wrenches, by installing self diagnostics where one just had to plug in a lead to a car’s wiring harness, and read codes to find the problem which generally made the fix much easer for these guys. Technical school has evolved as well by better preparing graduates with much more comprehensive curriculum. Dealerships have raised their educational employment requirements as well, there is now a much higher trained technician out back these days. |
|
| Author: | Reed [ Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Even if what you say is true, it is irrelevant to the present issue. How does this guy fix his truck? My vote is still that it is cheaper and easier to replace the lean burn system with HEI. |
|
| Author: | wjajr [ Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Come on Reed, you tossed out the bla, bla, bla it never worked right from day one statement… Right? I took the argument apart on cross… LOL Didn’t I state the brain of the lean burn system was most likely no longer available NOS or other wise? I suppose an electronicsafobe could cobble up a one-off home brewed black box from used parts from his obsolete analog CRTTV… Didn’t you bring up the point he will have to scrounge up a different distributor, and several other parts to revert back to earlier times with a basic Chrysler electronic ignition, or a GM HEI Chrysler hybrid conversion? This conversion can be done today because the car/truck is most likely grandfathered and is not required to pass a ridged emission test. diy_darryl: Quote: The lean burn 'computer' seems to work fine as the timing advances with rpm.
Without all the sensors working properly, connected to the computer, and a correct and properly operating carburetor, the lean burn won’t work as intended.A simple explanation as to how lean burn worked: under light throttle conditions such as cruising on the interstate, the air fuel mixture would lean out to around fuel saving19:1; once several major throttle movements were detected the mixture would richen up closer to performance15:1. The timing would also be adjusted during this mixture adjustment for optimal fuel economy & emissions. This was accomplished through monitoring several engine conditions, throttle position & movement, ambient temperature, then per some unknown algorithm, a slow analog (state of the art in 1976) computer would process this data, and than adjust the mixture & timing several times a second. Optimal fuel economy & emissions don’t always equate to optimal engine response. This is true of today’s computer controlled engines, the difference is, today’s computers are a lot faster shifting from economy to performance mode. This change can be felt when driving the new cars, and in some cases the drive by wire & electronically controlled transmissions are a real PIA in hilly country. Darryl, it would be interesting to hook your engine up to an engine analyzer to see if the subpar idle is one cylinder acting up because of a bad wire, distributor cap, plug, coil, low secondary voltage, valve, or something else such as dirt in the idle circuit. Just a thought. |
|
| Author: | THOR [ Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If it were me, I would chase everything I could to make it run right before modifying. Yes, the lean-burn system may not be working correctly even if everything is hooked up, but you can't say for sure until all causes have been exhausted. It is better to get it running correctly if possible before modifying everytime, to avoid head scratching when the new parts yield the same results. I don't have experience with the lean burn system, so I can't give an opinion on their reliability. ~RDE~ |
|
| Author: | Reed [ Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I stand by my assertion that these systems were a bad design from day one. I said "Even if what you say is true." That is not a concession you were right, and you did not "take apart" my argument. Yes, there probably were undertrained Chrysler techs working at dealerships. Yes, they probably didn't know how to work on the system. However, it was Chrysler's job to train these folks and if they didn't manage to do that then it was yet another problem associated with lean-burn. All your comments prove is that you were lucky and happened to get a good system on your 76 car and that the techs you worked with were confused by the lean-burn system. Your argument does NOT account for the numerous documented cases (like the guy in the video I linked to) of lean-burn equipped vehicles that never ran right even when brand new sitting on the dealer's lot. Lean burn was an early design, perhaps a noble attempt, but it was flawed. Chrysler kept it probably because it was already done. They were in the middle of developing turbo technology, the K platform, and other electronic computer and vehicle controls. By the end of the 80s very few vehicles used lean burn (full size trucks and vans and the Fifth Avenue and Diplomat lines), and even during the mid 80s trucks and vans could be ordered without it in many areas. Back when I had my 86 Dodge van, I priced out the cost of trying to resurrect the dead but complete lean-burn system. You can still get the lean-burn computer new from car computer remanufacturers, but they cost hundreds of dollars. The stepper motors used in the computer controlled carbs are not available new. Thus, it is not worth anyone's time to repair it when a better system is so cheap and readily available. If he switches to HEI all he needs is the readily available standard electronic ignition distributor, some wire, a relay (if he wants it), some crimp-on terminal (which can be soldered if he is finicky), and HEI unit, some heat sink compound, some screws to mount the assembly, and a hunk of aluminum to act as a heat sink. |
|
| Author: | diy_darryl [ Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Reed, and others, appreciate the insight. As far as the manuals isn't the RAMCHARGER an SUV Blazer, Bronco body style? Yes, lots of ramcharger manuals but not finding the true D150 Truck manuals, possibly it really doesn't matter as far as engine and drivetrain etc......(Note: Have NOT checked your link yet) HEI conversion? Yes, I would do it in a heartbeat but....... Stepson so far shows little interest in his FREE truck after I have spent hours and $$$$$ fixing it up. It is in fantastic shape and his mom bought it from Grandpa. It's a GREAT CLASSIC TRUCK! You'd think there would be sentimental value too! KIDS!!!! The only problem so far is that it is FREE and therefore just an old piece of sh!t truck when a few of his buddies are driving newer pickups! If it would have come out of his wallet he'd be out there shining it up. I am just losing some interest until he starts SHOWING some interest! At this point he can pony up for the HEI if he wants it. Right now it will reliably get him to work and back so I have more than done my job! Sorry about my rant! |
|
| Author: | Reed [ Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Ramcharger is identical to the D-150 save for the body. They use the same factory service manual. I agree. Make your kid start paying for anything on the truck. He won't appreciate it until he works to get it. |
|
| Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC-07:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|