Ballenxj wrote:
Griff in Fairbanks wrote:
After 5 o 6 unsuccessful attempts, hook up a battery charger and go get a cup of coffee because you've probably flooded the engine.
That's assuming it's a carbureted vehicle? Do fuel injected ones flood?
Yes, I was referring to carbureted vehicles. Unless I specifically mention newer technology, such as fuel injection, it's safe to assume I'm talking about older vehicles. (As a teenager, I started with a 1947 Willys Overland wagon and moved "up" to a 1949 International Metro van.)
I only know of one case of fuel injection flooding. An acquaintance tried to boost engine performance by drilling out his injectors. He didn't realize he would have needed to reprogram his computer to stand any chance of this working. The result was crappy performance when the engine actually managed to run and top end performance effectively disappeared.
Fuel injector system problems are typically the opposite of flooding. Instead, fuel starvation is the usual problem, due to gummed up injectors or malfunctioning high pressure fuel pump. (My 1990 Ford E-150 van has three fuel pumps ... one in each of the two fuel tanks and a third inline pump that boosts fuel pressure to the level needed by the injectors.)
It's also safe to assume I'm talking about cooler or colder temperatures. (Most of my vehicles experience difficulty when ambient temperatures rise above 80°F.)
LPG (i.e., propane) remains in a liquid state when temperatures fall below -30°F. Vaporization of gasoline is slower than propane, even at temperatures above zero. So, colder temperatures increase flooding problems.
Newer computerized vehicles arguably have an advantage over older vehicles. The multitude of sensors allows the computer to continuously adjust the engine to compensate for a wide range of conditions, such as ambient temperature, demand on the engine, etc.
There's a downside to the computer's ability to compensate for the ignition system being in less than ideal condition. This ability allows people to ignore routine maintenance until things are so far out of whack that the engine simply won't run.
A well-maintained computerized engine is slightly more efficient than an equally maintained non-computerized engine. However, the improvement in efficiency is not as great as most people believe. This slight efficiency advantage quickly disappears when people fail to properly maintain their engine.
A little more than 15 years ago, I proved a non-computerized, carbureted engine can be set up to be more efficient than a newer vehicle. After rebuilding the 351M engine in my 1980 Ford Bronco, I got access to an expensive diagnostic machine, which we used to "dial in" the engine specifically for my typical uses. After tweaking the ignition and carburetor, we put it on an emissions measurement machine and the results surprised the emissions technician. He discovered my engine was putting out less emissions than a new vehicle, even testing a car with less then 500 miles for comparison.
Before closing, I'd like to point out something in my previous post you may have overlooked. Assume a poorly maintained engine with thicker oil. Starting this engine in colder temperatures would require extended cranking, routinely drawing the battery down to the 30% discharge level. On a daily driver, assuming two starts per day, the battery would be tango-uniform in less than six months.
On the other hand, consider the OEM battery that came with my 1990 Ford E-150 van when I bought it, with less than 10 miles on the odometer. This van was my daily driver and the original battery lasted over ten years before I was finally forced to replace it.
