sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

Hole? I'm not aware of any "hole"? I'm the guy using logic and reason and an open mind, not the one mindlessly genuflecting in front of the altar of "we've always done it this way, that's just how we do it here" wihtout the slightest hint of an inkling of WHY. At least I'm not making wild unsupportable claims... like claiming that 0 engines have ever failed after being "primed".

I'd still like to see the data on that last whopper there.

1gary

As stated a number of times in,what 52 posts mostly you,our ongoing current research has shown the only proven best method is a pressurized fill.And I want to add you novice status is so noted.Yep that hole.................

redneckjoe

ive found alot of info from both sides useful.
ive also found myself checking this thread for laughs now, to see what you guys are argueing about. lol.
kinda funny.

do you guys know if a cut crank is parkerized or hardened again after the cut?

i dont understand the bashing of hotrod or the likes? most of those members go on the hotrod power tour and are potential, future customers. maybe not everybody is a rocket scientist, but they could be nice people? comic books? come on,...most of those guys just want to have a good time.

it is interesting to see intelligent, knowledgable people on different sides of the fence though.

i never knew there was such a difference of opinion about priming an engine.
,joe

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

And the data from that "research" would be ,,, ..... where?

Especially about that "0 failures" part. Now if I were to see THAT data, coupled of course with a more or less equal amount of data showing that NOT "priming" resulted in a statistically significantly GREATER # of failures, then that would be a different matter.

As it is, all we have heard so far, is "our process scared the frog off of the Moon last night, see the Moon is still there tonight, that's proof our process works".

But I guess you can "prove" anything no matter how circular the logic is, if your mind is sufficiently closed to the idea that "we've always done it that way" doesn't automatically mean that it's "the best" way, let alone "we HAVE TO do it that way".

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

To the best of my knowledge, no; at least, not in general.

The REALLY high-$$$ ones, maybe; most of what any of us here would be dealing with, no.

In the case of a stock one, it would cost more than just replacing it; and wouldn't address the other issues that plague their longevity, such as work-hardening and surface cracks.

redneckjoe

i didnt think so either.
the only problem i see is, a cheap, stock, cast, affordible, aftermarket crank,....is usually made over-seas= not the best quality. idk?

on a side note,...ive had many cranks and 400 cranks turned for strokers,{350 mains}, and never had a problem. i doubt they hardened the cranks? maybe hardening is not that important or the hardening goes a little deeper?

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

Back in the day, I had a few done that way too; I'm quite sure they weren't re-hardened; seems like those motors came out just generally short-lived, for reasons not directly attributable to the crank's surface hardness on the mains. Seems like they all lived a VERY hard life and eventually suffered all of the usual "abuse" types of failures... spun rod bearings, broken pistons, seems like a rod bolt broke one time, stuff like that. Don't ever recall a mains failure. So, maybe it's not just utterly totally critical, if you don't expect too much to begin with.

But yeah these days, with replacements as cheeep as they are, and I'd say in most cases no worse than stock if not much better, it just doesn't make sense to spend that kind of money on an old used stock crank, and in the end, still have .... an old used stock crank.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

The factory doesn't prime their new production engines. That pretty well settles it for me.

1gary

The prove is the professional advise I have provided and the advise from a trade article.It is that advise you have rejected in some sort of silly competition which I suggest if anyone has been suborn and closed minded it is certainly been you.And then again trying to discredit that advise with child like side stories. With each word you do dig a deeper hole.

I am telling you Chevy did test run their engines filling them with a pressure fill.I know that because I was there doing it.

That is our record.0 failures of engines primed.Not the one or two you have done I guess,but 40 yrs of it.

This is the stage in a thread like this we exchange calling each other names.Right??. Wrong!!.

The grounds you have consistently side stepped is we on this forum have a number of first time engine builders who would be well advised to check their work and save themselves money by PRIMING THEIR ENGINES.

ex-x-fire

Most new engines can't be primed in the traditional way, they need pressurized oil pumped in through an oil filter or sending unit connection.
I had a buick 455 loose its prime on me while waiting for a new oil filter, It wouldn't stop rattling after the oil change. I pulled the filter(it was empty), filled it w/ oil, left it alittle loose, disabled the ignition, & cranked it till oil spilled out. Tighten up the filter & topped the oil level off & everything was fine.

1gary

Yep-that is also the reason I said we need to build a pressurized oil fill.

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

OK so here's another way to look at the problem with claiming that "priming" the oil system "caused" 0 failures...

Maybe the REAL reason there were 0 failures was because ALL of the engines were painted black.

Or maybe it was because Barb ran the machine that tightened the 3 cam bolts on ALL the engines, but they never let Al do it because "everybody" "knows" that Al "can't be trusted with something that important".

Or maybe it was because all the spark plugs were AC/Delco.

Or maybe it was because the oil was all 10W-30 instead of 10W-40.

Or maybe it was because every night, in between shifts, they washed the floor with Mr Clean instead of Pine-Sol.

Or maybe it was because .... who knows?

The basic law of these things is, CORRELATION IS NOT PROOF OF CAUSATION. And even worse still, we have no evidence that there's even a correlation!

Just like beating drums and dancing and muttering incantations at the frog: just because the tribe was dutiful and pious and did all that, doesn't mean it had any connection whatsoever with the eclipse ending. If the eclipse had occurred during the day where the tribe happened to live and therefore been invisible (as happens in any one given place for nearly 50% of all lunar eclipses.... since about half the time, the eclipse occurs during night on one half of the globe and day on the other) the tribe wouldn't even have known about it, and therefore wouldn't have scared off the frog, but the eclipse would have ended ANYWAY!! The eclipse would have ended (or not) COMPLETELY independently of the behavior of the tribe. Ultimately, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.

Same thing with "priming".

I maintain that the alleged "record" of failures, WHATEVER the TRUE number might have been, 0 or otherwise, is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of this "priming". Which is to say, PRIMING DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. I'd be willing to bet, having worked in factories producing all manner of products myself off and on for many decades now, that some significant number of those motors got through there with that step in the process either overlooked altogether, performed incompletely, held for less than the spec amount of time (when schedules got tight), and so on; and there were still "0 failures". Not, "we discovered that if we primed for 15 seconds we had 0 failures, but if we only primed for 5 we had a failure rate of .001%" or "when we were running 3 shifts and still couldn't keep up with production so we sped it up by eliminating that step and suddenly had .05% failures" or anything else rigorous like that.

Without DATA that says, we "primed" these motors here and x% of them failed traceable to lack of lube at initial startup (in this "0 failures" claim, one of the things that makes it so ludicrous and SO OBVIOUSLY FALSE, is that it wasn't even qualified THAT far; and having seen no telling how many motors over the years fail during the warranty period, I know that claim to be A LIE beyond any shadow of doubt) and we DIDN'T "prime" these motors here but they had a y% failure rate traceable to lack of lube at initial startup, and we ran a 2-sample t-test assuming unequal variance on the data to determine the significance ("significance" being, whether if we took more samples, what the probability of the results turning out any different would be, as opposed to whatever results we saw merely being the outcome of randomness), can we really draw the conclusion that "priming" adds value to the process? Anybody with any actual EXPERIENCE in statistical process control will INSTANTLY recognize that analysis.

Without data, it is NOT POSSIBLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ANY CLAIM that "priming" was even RELATED TO any failure rate, LET ALONE that it CAUSED it.

Personally I have seen no data, EVER, collected by ANYONE ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME IN ANY WAY, that would substantiate this claim.

But what we have seen so far, is 2 of the classic logical fallacies, used in support of one another. The first one is the "fallacy of false cause", specifically, the "causation vs correlation" version. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical...of_false_cause Then in support of this fallacy, another fallacy is offered, the "appeal to authority" one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical...ant_conclusion AT NO TIME have we seen EITHER: statistical proof using actual outcomes; OR, a "scientific" sort of explanation involving any of the underlying natural phenomena. All we've got instead, is a bunch of useless crap and magazine-thumping, defending a "feel good" non-value-added waste of time.

Alot of us had SO hoped that when Algore invented the Internet, allowing the free spread of INFORMATION and TRUTH, it would put an end to this sort of thing. But instead it's turned out that the same old fallacious drivel just gets transformed from Friday night McDonalds parking lot monkey-spank, to .... Internet monkey-spank, and perpetuated by the superstitious on the gullible. Oh well.

1gary

Yeah,yeah,yeah Grasshopper more story telling and yep everytime you open your mouth "that Hole" gets deeper.

Seems you can't find the big boy pants.So I'll end it here.I'm done.

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

You just don't "get it", do you?

Those nicely-dressed young men that come to my front door on Saturdays passing out their leaflets make just about as good a case for "proving" their point as your "name-calling", as you yourself put it, does for yours.

All I'm asking for, is the PROOF. Show us this data about "0 failures" (while I remember back to my little brothers who worked in dealerships repairing or replacing engines FULL-TIME 40 HRS A WEEK after they had experienced bottom-end failures). I want to see how that data was doctorerd so as to accidentally neglect to show the warranty claims records. Show us this data about how "priming" was "responsible" for this mythical "0 failure" rate.

WITHOUT DATA, IT DOESN'T EXIST. It's drivel. Just a bunch of Internet hot air.

InfernalVortex

iTrader: (4)

Thirdgen.org has a nice mixture of old school and new school guys who know how to separate superstition from reality. The internet in general has a way of doing that, but given the vast spectrum of smogger 305's to twin turbo LS swap cars here you have a lot of people who have been burned by antiquated hot rodder theories.

So when you show up and say "This is the correct way to prime because this magazine says so, and I never had a single engine failure doing it this way", that's fine, but that doesn't necessarily mean that priming actually does anything at all significant. It just means it probably doesn't hurt - and for a lot of people that's plenty, it is for me. But that doesn't stop people from trying to actually apply their noggin to what's going on in there, instead of just taking tradition, groupthink, and superstition at face value.

1gary

HEY.KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE OLD SCHOOL B.S.!!!!. We are as much ahead of the curve as anyone making money in this business.That ticks me off and it is total nonsense. PERIOD. Damm it.

3rdgenmaro

iTrader: (9)

Let me see if I got the cliff notes right.

There is no proven reason to prime an oil pump.

There is no proven reason NOT to prime an oil pump.

Something about a frog.

Something about somebody is always right and the other person is always wrong and blah blah blah prove it blah blah blah dig a hole blah blah blah frog.

I think that covers it. Do we need more of this BS arguing? Point made. SOB!

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

Data?

I know it's aggravating when somebody asks for facts, to back up whatever claims; but sometimes, ya just gotta cough em up, or else, continue to look like a fool.

All it will take to put it to rest, is for the person who is making claims they can't back up, to admit it.

afremont

Is that something they've always done, or a change in procedure? Just curious that's all. Of course someone could say that this is because it's unnecessary, but the real truth may be that the factory does it because they know exactly how much damage they cause to the engine waiting for the filter to fill up and then flow oil to the rest of the engine. They might know that this wear still leaves an engine that will survive beyond the warranty period, just not too long beyond it. How would they know, how would they not know. If anyone has tested and studied the gen1 small block, it's chevrolet. I'm sure they have put engines together and destroyed them in ways that even the most unknowledgable DIY mechanic wouldn't think to do, just to see what happens.

I'm certainly no pro engine builder, but I will use assembly lube AND prime any engine I assemble until I see a good reason not to do it. Not because some magazine said to, but because my pre-Internet trusty old "How to Hot Rod the Small Block Chevy" and "How to Rebuild the Small Block Chevy" (I think those are right titles) said to do it. Having oil pressure immediately because the filter is full and the galleys filled, can't be harming the engine any. I think we can all agree on that. I'm pretty sure that every second my engine runs without oil pressure is harming it, at least as much as it is me, from worrying and waiting for the needle to move. For my own peace of mind, I'll keep priming.

1gary

LOOK YOU IDIOT.I SAID AS THE PROFESSIONAL THAT IS THE FACTS.

YOUR IF THAT ISN'T ENOUGH FOR ONLY YOU,SO BE IT.

KNOCK OFF THE B.S. DRAWING ATTENTION TO YOURSELF.

SITE MANAGEMENT THIS USER NEEDS DIRECTION.

1gary

Yep-I worked in the Chevy Engine plant dyno rm running programs that was sole intend was to blow up SBC's and BBC's running them 24/7 at 1,500 and 4,000.Then we would take them apart to see what failed.
What has been overlooked in this thread is assembly lube which is as it sounds to turn over a engine during assembly and break-in oil which it's intend is for running the engine during break-in.The two are not alike.If priming a engine is the same as having a residue of oil on parts after running a engine to say the store and turning it off and then restarting it.That residue isn't the same thing as a dry no prime start.Fact is that residue is the sole protection from engines seizing on every restart.

All this is covered in the original article.But for some,it is more important to argue for a argument's sake never even bothering to read the article.

This thread was posted as simple as the title.It has been blown way out of proportion and one only has to ask the motive why which is abundantly clear.

I will not say I am sorry for my background,my professional business,my racing operation when I post.

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

:bowdown:

:worship:

:notworthy:

I'm not a UAW member and never have been as far as you know, so I guess that means I'm not a "professional". Right?

Facts. Data. Back up these "0 failures" claims with PROOF, that involves FACTS and DATA. And THEN, back up the claim that the "0 failures" claim, is "caused" by "priming".

That's all you gotta do. Real simple. Shouldn't be a problem. If ya got em, show em. Bluffing time is OVER. Time to TELL THE TRUTH.

Come on, you can do it. (???) I'd love to see the FACTS behind these claims. Show us all. Prove it.

The motive is real simple: SEPARATE FACT FROM BS. Ideally, that's what the Internet is for. But, hasn't always turned out that way; instead it's been just another venue for perpetuating the myths of the past in too many cases. It kinda goes in a chain: "we've always done it that way", that's just how we do it here", "we have to do it that way", "it's the only way", "if you think there's another way it could only be because you're a dangerous subversive from China terrorist commie pinko un-American {fill in some more blanks} representative of management".

So, show us the FACTS. If you can't, we can only assume that it's because (a) you don't have them, or (b) you're hiding something. Prove us wrong. PLEASE. We'd LOVE TO see the proof.

1gary

Credit for almost a post about the topic.The proof is what I told you.It's just that simple.Compounded for the tenth time it is surely in the best interest of never build before engine builders to check their work with verifying oil pressure and reenforced by what I posted about residue oil and then finally confirmed between the difference between assembly lube and break-in oil.

I think it is pretty safe to say we're all very tired of the merry-go-round posts from you......................and you repeating yourself over and over again.

Do aleast read the article and you might learn something not being so close minded.

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

OK, if you've got the "proof", show us.

That's all I'm asking. At this point, I've called your bluff; if you don't have the proof, we'll just have to assume ..... the same thing YOU'D assume about somebody that made some kind of preposterous claim but couldn't show any FACTS to back it up. If you can't show the proof, then we have no choice but to assume ... that other thing.

I did read the article. I'm HONEST about such things. Not sure what you're thinking I might have missed?

All I'm asking for here, is some HONESTY. TRUTH. FACTS. DATA. Not, repeating the same chest-pounding and self-importance and feel-good security-blanket mystic mythology over and over again, without any FACTS to base it in.

Can I use those words any more to get my point across? Honesty? Truth? Data? Facts? I'm not here to start some kind of fight; I'm only here to finish one, that SOMEONE ELSE started, if need be. All YOU have to do to get me to back down, is provide THE PROOF that (a) "primed" engines (in general) have a "0 failure rate", and (b) "priming" is the SINGLE PROVEN FACTOR that "causes" this unprecedented spectacular phenomenon. Why, if you make it REAL good, I might even go back to "priming" engines again, like I used to do myself back when I was a n00b kid, before I EXPERIMENTED AND COLLECTED DATA and discovered that it didn't make a damn bit of difference. I had 0 failures traceable to lack of lube at initial startup when I was doing it, and 0 failures traceable to lack of lube at initial startup after I quit. (there was the occasional failure for other reasons of course, same as any other builder, but none directly attributable to the act in question) Now I don't know how you would summarize the results of that experiment, but in my book, that's "no difference". Fail to reject the null hypothesis. Done. Move on.

So, show us the data you have, that demostrate how much of an improvement "priming" made for you. I'm assuming you must have had LOTS of failures BEFORE you started doing that, and then ... ? SHOW US THE DATA. That's all we ask.

1gary

Now the same proof your asking for would apply to you and your word.Wouldn't it??.
That is why all this is so,so,silly.

Dialed_In

iTrader: (3)

I've never come across someone so adamant about not priming an engine. It's not just about "filling the galleys". Priming a new engine also rules out a number of potential problems which would otherwise cause severe damage. If you don't prime, how do you know the relief valve in the pump is working? How do you know that you don't have a defective lifter? How do you know you didn't block a hole when installing the cam bearings? How do you know an oil galley isn't blocked? How do you know you didn't accidentally swap an upper and lower main bearing shell? All of these things will show up when you prime the engine. How do I know? Because I've seen them all firsthand. Ever seen a pushrod that wasn't bored all the way through? I have. I'm glad I caught all of these issues before firing the engine.

The best engine builders in the world prime their engines. They know a hell of a lot more than me so I'm certainly not about to argue.

1gary

Thanks for that bud.Very good points well said.

InfernalVortex

iTrader: (4)

I dont know about it being overlooked, but that has been my only point of contention. How much difference is there from a dry no prime start, an engine that is dry with moly all over the innards, and an engine that has an oil film residue all over its innards.

Can moly lube stay in place during priming? Is an oil film superior to assembly lube? How quickly does pressure build up once the starter is triggered? How many revolutions?

These would be "facts" and these are things I presume you would know given your vast experience but you havent been very forthcoming with that type of information yet. Im all ears about it.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I think we've seen enough of this.

Frankly, I've got better things to do with my time than referee "my dad's bigger than yours" arguments.