Advice for stripped threads upstream oxygen sensor exhaust manifold

On 4 Aug 2018 07:56:20 GMT, Clare Snyder wrote:

> If it was P0133 it means slow response - definitely a bad sensoe

I think that's what it was, but what only matters now is what comes back!

BTW, I just bought oxygen sensors for three different vehicles, where I
*hate* throwing parts at a problem. I just hate it.

But it turns out to be difficult to *test* oxygen sensors faithfully.

Sure, you can heat them up and look for a voltage, but after trying that, I
gave up because a "really bad" oxygen sensor has its own code, but a
"slightly bad" oxygen sensor seems to, in my humble experience on two
different vehicles, cause one of two different related codes.

That is, in my experience,
a. A slightly bad lambda sensor can cause a CAT register to never set
b. A alightly bad lambda sensor can cause a "slow response" code

Given that the heat:voltage test of an oxygen sensor isn't really all that
accurate for those two things, and given that oxygen sensors are not only
relatively cheap but also known to not last more than about 100K miles, I
decided on all three vehicles to just "throw the part" at the vehicle.

In the case of the neighbor's CAT register that wouldn't set, it worked.
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=5366040sensorwiring01.jpg>

The neighbor's kid's Mitsubishi is in testing.
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=6815290denso_mitsubishi_02_sensor.jp g>

I'm still working on the bimmer (having just this week replaced the two
front Bosch upstrem lambda sensors).
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=3533947bosch_o2_sensor.jpg>

What's amazing, to me, is that I've never replaced an oxygen sensor before,
in my entire life, but I never worked on such old cars either (two decades
old each of them).

Having zero prior experience with oxygen sensors, I think sometimes,
"throwing parts" at the problem might be OK in the case of emissions codes
because:
a. Oxygen sensors are not permanent parts anyway, and,
b. You have to get past smog (where a ticket is far more expensive), and,
c. You can't really test them accurately (from my experiments anyway).

Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2018 23:27:26 GMT, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't worry about it. Any leakage would be minor.
>> However, if you are worried about it you can put some high temp
>> sealer around it.
>> Don't know if a hose would work in this situation or not due to engine noise.
>> Get lenght of small hose, stick one end in ear, and use the other end
>> to listen for leaks.
>
> Thanks for that advice on the high temp sealer.
> Someone said that the threads are the ground for the electrical connection.

I did not explain well enough before.
Sealer around the sensor did not mean on the threads nor coating the sensor.
Picture a thin rubber band's worth where the sensor and manifold meet.

On 4 Aug 2018 20:02:46 GMT, Clare Snyder wrote:

> Does your insurance company know?
Long ago I checked with the local fire marshall, who told me that they're
perfectly legal as long as they're in legal containers.

I also checked with the CHP 800 number who said transport of gasoline is
perfectly legal as long as it's less than 600 pounds, which is the federal
limit on "hazardous materials" transport. (It's a felony to transport more
than 600 pounds at a time, but that's more gas than a car can carry.)

I checked with CARB who said that emissions standards don't play a role
unless any one container is over 50 gallons (that's why drums, they told
me, are technically 50 gallons but actually less) and the sum total is less
than 300 gallons.

I checked with OSHA who "recommended" a spill pan, and aired enclosure, but
who said OSHA rules don't apply to homeowners.

There are zero "zoning" rules according to the local planning department
(other than structures must be 100 feet from the road or they need a
permit, but that applies to any structure that is less than 10 by 10 (as I
recall) and 12 feet high (as I recall).

> How much fuel do you keep around?

Only about 50 gallons at a time, all in legal containers.

The fire department comes by once a year, unannounced, to write up
fire-break violations - and they "see" the gasoline since it's stored in
big red jugs right out in the open. They don't even blink (and yet, they
make me clear all flammable growth 100 feet from the house and 10 feet from
the propane tanks).

In California, you can't legally fill more than 6 gallon containers at a
gas station, which is a rule that went into effect only relatively
recently, where some of my containers (the WWII style ones) are 6 gallons.

Delivery of gasoline less than 200 to 300 gallons is problematic, where my
ultimate "station" will be in 40-gallon epoxy-lined drums with an electric
pump just like the gas-station pumps. (I have plenty of room for it.)

> There are very real safety issues to address - as well as hydrocarbon
> emission issues.

I don't do things lightly - I plan them out - as you know. It's no less
safe than you storing a single 5-gallon can of gasoline - the only
difference being the amount - but my 50 gallons is exactly as safe as your
5 gallons. Exactly. The safety is the same. It's only the amount that is
different.

Of course, gasoline is flammable, and of course there are hydrocarbons, but
I am a thorough person, who checked with all the relevant authorities. I
leak as many hydrocarbons as you do when you fill your lawn mower (in fact,
I'm VERY WELL AWARE of hydrocarbons, so I might even leak less than you do
since my process takes them into account somewhat).

If the gas is stored in approved containers, you can keep hundreds of
gallons legally at home. You can fill every inch of your front lawn for
example. As long as each container is legal, there is no limit on numbers
of containers (if they're 5-gallon jugs).

There are no rules for how you get the gasoline OUT of the container with
respect to emissions either. But I'm very good about that too.

(Of course, the containers themselves are CARB/EPA approved so, as you're
well aware, the gas goes in and doesn't come out easily - due to the ****ty
spouts - but that's a different beast altogether which I've solved
separately by not using them).

Sure, gas is flammable. But so is the gasoline stored at everyone elses'
house too. They just don't have as much of it. Most people with three cars
in the garage have as much as I have for example, outside.

>>2. Habitually mount, balance & patchplug tires at home (I've done 20 now)
>
> I "rough balanced" the tires on the '53 MGTD I'm currently babysitting
> and working on - to make it smooth enough to drive while I
> troubleshoot other issues - but the tires are going onto the dynamic
> balance at the first oppoertunity. I will be doing the balance - but
> on proffessional equipment.

Yup. I know all about it.

Let's not argue here, but at least you have balanced wheels so you're one
of the very rare people who knows what you're talking about when you say
you wouldn't do it at home (because you don't like the job).

Most people only talk bull**** when they cry that they can't mount,
balance, and properly patchplug repair tires at home.

If they've never done it, then they're just talking out of their asses.
I know you've done it - although I think you used professional equipment.

Even with harbor freight Chinese crap tools, it's a piece of cake to
unmount and mount a tire, particularly a non-SUV passenger-car tire. The
wheels don't take a beating, even on my bimmer despite the fact the
crybabies assume they will (it's far more gentle than what a shop typically
does).

Those who cry that it is too much work, or that it's too expensive, or that
it takes too much time, or that it's dangerous, etc., are all just
crybabies who are just scared of their own shadow and afraid to get their
hands dirty.

It's so easy that I can do it in 15 minutes easily, although I am never in
a rush so the time is just to explain how easy it is. I scrub the wheels. I
remove the old weights. I match mount if possible the new tire. I am aware
of the drop center (thanks!). I replace the valves (that stupid valve stem
removal tool is a waste of money and space in the tool drawer - although
the valve seat removal tool is a godsend).

Anyway, tires are so easy that anyone who says they are not just proves
that they are an idiot.

The only thing you can't do easily at home is dynamically balance, but the
test for dynamic imbalance is free as you're already well aware. You just
don't know which tire it is!

>>3. Remove & repair a transmission (just did my 1st clutch, thanks to you!)
>> ============
>>4. Measure & align what is designed to be adjusted (that's next on my list)
>
> As an ex professional mechanic, I'll do toe-in adjustment as part ofa
> front end repair - but it will go onto a REAL alignment machine before
> it gets any miles on it - because I KNOW how important it is to get it
> right - and how hard it is to do it right without proper equipment

I disagree but I understand. The reason people don't do each of the six
things is different for each item, where alignment makes the brain hurt.

It's not so much that there's trig involved, but it's more that the spec is
never in the same "thing" that you're measuring. For example, the damn
bimmer spec is in degrees of toe to the centerline. WTF.

It's not too hard to find the centerline, but you generally measure in
inches, not in degrees of toe.

At least camber is usually spec'd in degrees, which is what you measure.

Just like with tire-changing tools, every year the tools to measure camber
and toe (which is all the bimmer can adjust anyway) get better and cheaper.

You can do it with a plumb bob and ruler, but I prefer to measure toe in
inches and camber in degrees.

The hard part (other than the conversions of degrees to inches) is changing
toe without having to roll the car back and forth. Also, for the bimmer,
you need about 500 pounds of weight, but that's where all those gas cans
come in handy (filled with water).

>>5. Prep & paint an old vehicle (that is also next on my do-b4-I-die list)
>
> As long as you don't mind driving your screw-ups (and there WILL be
> several, at the very least - for sure -) go for it. I've painted a
> few - and never been truly happy with any of my paint jobs. They've
> been good - but not up to "my standards".

I completely understand. Remember, these cars are two decades old. Any
paint job will be a good paint job. It's like the old saying pilots have
for what a good landing is.

I think California just recently enacted a law saying you can't paint at
home anymore - but I'd have to check up on that with CARB as I haven't
spoken to them in a year (I call them up all the time and they're actually
very helpful engineers).

>>6. Remove & repair an engine (haven't done this - major downtime issue)
>
> \Go for it. Start with a lawnmower motor. Then go to a simple older
> engine like a sixties chevy, ford, or Chrysler six - on a "peoject
> car" - or start with an old tractor that you don't need - but can use
> when it's done for plowing snow or cutting grass - - -

I've taken apart some engines but the problem with a car is that it's a LOT
of stuff that has to come out, so there is a huge downtime that most people
just can't afford.

In summary, I've thought about the six jobs for years, and I've asked
people, but very few give an answer that makes sense. Your answers make
sense except for the refueling, but the rest make sense.

The main reasons, as I see them, summarized to fit on one line, are.
1. Gas: Most people just stop at a gas station; which is easy.
2. Tires: Most people pay $20 per tire; which is easy.
3. Trans: Most people just pay a mechanic $500 to $1000; which is easy.
---------- (these below I haven't done yet) ----------
4. Align: Most people's brains would explode with all the thinking.
5. Paint: A body shop will always do a far better job.
6. Engine: Nobody can afford the downtime for a daily driver.

On 5 Aug 2018 07:01:48 GMT, Arlen Holder wrote:

> I checked with CARB who said that emissions standards don't play a role
> unless any one container is over 50 gallons (that's why drums, they told
> me, are technically 50 gallons but actually less) and the sum total is less
> than 300 gallons.

Actually, as I recall, there are two limits for CARB, one of which is the
49 gallon drum, and the other of which is the 300 gallons.

The emissions don't hit until you store more than 300 gallons and the drums
don't hit if they're a fraction under 50 gallons.

As I recall.

The point is that I currently have a dozen 5-gallon legal "jugs", any one
of which and all of which are perfectly legal as there is no limit anywhere
to how many you can store according to my research years ago.

And, I'll go to two-49-gallon drums when I upgrade to the pump system (I'm
going for a 12V pump but you can do hand-operated pumps - but why bother
since it's so easy without any pump that if you're gonna pump - you may as
well go well-grounded electrical).

The big problem is delivery.
Not the storage or refueling (both of which are utterly trivial).

Arlen Holder > wrote:
>BTW, I just bought oxygen sensors for three different vehicles, where I
>*hate* throwing parts at a problem. I just hate it.
>
>But it turns out to be difficult to *test* oxygen sensors faithfully.
>
>Sure, you can heat them up and look for a voltage, but after trying that, I
>gave up because a "really bad" oxygen sensor has its own code, but a
>"slightly bad" oxygen sensor seems to, in my humble experience on two
>different vehicles, cause one of two different related codes.

You don't test them on the bench. You use the scanner. You set the scanner
to give you a display of the oxygen sensor signal (and it will show the
nominal level, but if it's so bad it's setting codes you'll likely see the
pointer slammed to one side or another). So now you know what the computer
is doing.

You also know what the engine is doing. The exhaust smells rich or lean.
You can put your hand over the intake... if it runs better, the engine is
too lean.

When you know what the engine is doing and you know what the computer is
doing, you know all you need to know about the oxygen sensor. If the
computer thinks it's too rich but it's really too lean, it's likely the
sensor, but if the computer thinks it's too lean but can't enrichen it out
far enough, it's likely not.

Timing and ignition problems will produce poor combustion which will show
up as oxygen sensor errors... but you can see THOSE because the computer
gives you ignition timing information.

The scanner will tell you all of the inputs and all of the outputs.

>That is, in my experience,
>a. A slightly bad lambda sensor can cause a CAT register to never set
>b. A alightly bad lambda sensor can cause a "slow response" code

Ignore the damn codes. The codes let you know that something is out of
range but it doesn't tell you anything else. Look at the plots. If you
just spend your time staring at the codes you won't understand what is
going on inside the box.

>What's amazing, to me, is that I've never replaced an oxygen sensor before,
>in my entire life, but I never worked on such old cars either (two decades
>old each of them).

They do fail, but the vast majority of 'oxygen sensor' error codes have
absolutely nothing to do with the oxygen sensor itself. They are faithfully
recording that the exhaust is way wrong.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 6/8/18 12:22 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Arlen Holder > wrote:
>> BTW, I just bought oxygen sensors for three different vehicles, where I
>> *hate* throwing parts at a problem. I just hate it.
>>
>> But it turns out to be difficult to *test* oxygen sensors faithfully.
>>
>> Sure, you can heat them up and look for a voltage, but after trying that, I
>> gave up because a "really bad" oxygen sensor has its own code, but a
>> "slightly bad" oxygen sensor seems to, in my humble experience on two
>> different vehicles, cause one of two different related codes.
>
> You don't test them on the bench. You use the scanner. You set the scanner
> to give you a display of the oxygen sensor signal (and it will show the
> nominal level, but if it's so bad it's setting codes you'll likely see the
> pointer slammed to one side or another). So now you know what the computer
> is doing.
>
> You also know what the engine is doing. The exhaust smells rich or lean.
> You can put your hand over the intake... if it runs better, the engine is
> too lean.
>
> When you know what the engine is doing and you know what the computer is
> doing, you know all you need to know about the oxygen sensor. If the
> computer thinks it's too rich but it's really too lean, it's likely the
> sensor, but if the computer thinks it's too lean but can't enrichen it out
> far enough, it's likely not.
>
> Timing and ignition problems will produce poor combustion which will show
> up as oxygen sensor errors... but you can see THOSE because the computer
> gives you ignition timing information.
>
> The scanner will tell you all of the inputs and all of the outputs.
>
>> That is, in my experience,
>> a. A slightly bad lambda sensor can cause a CAT register to never set
>> b. A alightly bad lambda sensor can cause a "slow response" code
>
> Ignore the damn codes. The codes let you know that something is out of
> range but it doesn't tell you anything else. Look at the plots. If you
> just spend your time staring at the codes you won't understand what is
> going on inside the box.

It always amazes me the dependence people place on those codes without
really understanding the *system* that is generating the codes and, in
most cases, the *limitations* of those systems.
>
>> What's amazing, to me, is that I've never replaced an oxygen sensor before,
>> in my entire life, but I never worked on such old cars either (two decades
>> old each of them).
>
> They do fail, but the vast majority of 'oxygen sensor' error codes have
> absolutely nothing to do with the oxygen sensor itself. They are faithfully
> recording that the exhaust is way wrong.
> --scott
>


--

Xeno

"The best way to make a fire with two sticks is to make sure one of them
is a match."
-- Will Rogers

On 5 Aug 2018 07:31:19 GMT, Xeno wrote:

> It always amazes me the dependence people place on those codes without
> really understanding the *system* that is generating the codes and, in
> most cases, the *limitations* of those systems.

I agree with both you and Scott that *most people* (not me, but most
people), when they see a sensor code, they replace the sensor.

It could be a temperature sensor for heaven's sake, and they replace the
sensor.

As I told Scott, I'm an EE so I know how to test a sensor, but in the case
of oxygen sensors, I've had five years' experience with the toyota and
bimmer where a bad sensor will make the FTP not set the related monitors
for hundreds of miles. IN the case of the toyota, it took about 400 miles,
and it took more than a thousand in the case of the bimmer.

In *both* cases, I took it to the smog referee and passed with flying
colors, even with the registers unset (since that's what the BAR smog
referee did in years past). They don't do that anymore, so you're stuck
now.

I know the FTP inside and out, and spoke to the BAR engineers who know it
even better than I do. I went over all the dozen conditions that an engine
must be in order for a monitor to be set.

Remember, in both cases, the bar smog referee PASSED the vehicle.

The problem is much more sinister than you seem to have experience with.
But I do agree with you that *most people* just throw parts at a problem.

What I find hilarious is what happens AFTER people throw parts at a
problem. Let's take the two corner cases, assuming, for example, that a
problem can have FIVE (for argument's sake) caususes:

1. If they guess right on the first pass, they claim that they are an utter
genius, and after that, for the rest of their lives, anyone who has that
same problem, they swear the answer is that first solution.
2. If they guess wrong, and have to replace all five parts, they swear that
the first four parts were bad, until they finally get to the right part.

Anyway, the main point here is that we all agree that throwing parts at a
problem is a crazy way to "fix things" but you have to admit a lot of car
problems are fixed that way.

I find the funniest "throwing parts" at a problem to be "brake warp".
I'm sure the intelligent ones here know that street rotors just don't warp.
So I will assume you know that.
(Nobody ever measures warp - but it's easy to measure warp which you do
measure for a head, for example.)

So what do the morons do when they get a brake-related vibration at speed?
They throw rotors (& sometimes pads & even bigger calipers) at it.

Guess what?
That solves the warp!
Instantly!

They *think* they're an utter genius.
They *think* they proved they had rotor warp.

Every brake vibration for the rest of their lives, is due to "warp".
Hehhehheh ....

Q: Why does this work?
A: Because the *short term* solution is *different* than the long-term one!

While brake-related judder can be caused by many things (look up the Tire
Rack vibration flow chart as just one example), let's assume that judder
was due to uneven pad deposition.

You can't measure that stuff (not with home equipment you can't).
So the rotors measure fine (not that anyone who thinks they warp measures
anything).

What happened in the case of "warp", is that there was uneven pad
deposition (let's say for this case), and so, replacing (or machining) the
rotors "solved" the problem but - get this - the warp comes back.

The guy who *thinks* the rotors warped is dumbfounded.

The short term solution solved the "warp", but the long term solution
didn't.
Q: What's the short term solution?
A: Change your rotors (or machine them or rebed them).

Q: What's the long term solution?
A: Change your braking habits.

My point is that, while I'm not a mechanic, and while I only have the
experience of the cars that I own or that friends/neighbors own, I
generally troubleshoot a problem to the UNDERSTANDING of teh cause of the
problem.

In the case of oxygen sensors, I know, from my experience with two old
vehicles, that an o2 sensor can be just bad enough to not set codes but to
take between 400 and 1000 miles to set all the registers - even as the
emissions are perfect.

If you can diagnose *that*, you'd be my hero!
Likewise, if you can suggest a working $100 smoke machine, I'd love you!

Arlen Holder > wrote:
>I do have live data and freeze frame though, but I'm not sure what to look
>for.

Well, THERE is your problem. Look at what is going on with a correctly
running engine.

It is a closed loop system. Data comes in from the lambda sensor, and
once the machine is warmed-up and the system is running closed-loop, the
oxygen concentration is used by the computer to set the mixture control.

You can watch it on the scanner... watch the sensor value when you open
and close the throttle by hand, watch it when you squirt a little WD-40
in there. The output of the lambda sensor goes into a second order
function that is nonlinear but time-invariant and what comes out is the
error for the mixture. The mixture is adjusted in realtime based on that
error value.

If you do not understand that this is a simple single-loop feeback system,
we have a problem.

>For example, it has been four or five years running now that the bimmer
>wouldn't set a register after clearing the codes (two different smog
>cycles) where, finally, after many hundreds of miles, the registers all
>finally will set.

All that is nice, but who cares? Get the engine running well. When the
engine runs well, you won't have to worry about smog testing. The key
is to get the engine running well.

>Remember, the sensor is working as the code is NOT an oxygen sensor code.
>There is no code on the bimmer. The register just won't set.

The bit gets set when a certain amount of time has taken place without
particular parameters being out of range. If the bit isn't being set,
something is going out of the nominal range. Looking at the values in the
scanner will tell you what the inputs and outputs are, and if you have the
BMW scanner you can see a lot of the intermediate calculations going on as
well.

Stop wasting your time worrying about the bits not being set and worry about
why the engine isn't running as well as it could be.

[irrelevant junk removed about diagnosing vacuum leaks]

>> When you know what the engine is doing and you know what the computer is
>> doing, you know all you need to know about the oxygen sensor.
>
>Maybe. I think you know far more than I do.
>The only reliable data I would have is freeze frame and live data.
>On the Bimmer, I have INPA/EDIABAS on a PC (and DIS, Progman, etc.) so that
>tells me a lot.
>
>But you have to know exactly what to look for.
>I don't.

That tells you EVERYTHING you need to know about what is going on with the
computer. You get to see all the inputs and all the outputs, and you should
have a pretty good notion of what the computer algorithm is if you have read
the manuals.

NOW you need to learn to know what is going on with the engine, using your
basic senses. When what is going on with the engine is at variance with
what the computer sees, you have found the problem.

>> If the
>> computer thinks it's too rich but it's really too lean, it's likely the
>> sensor, but if the computer thinks it's too lean but can't enrichen it out
>> far enough, it's likely not.
>
>I don't understand.

It's clear that you don't. It's a feedback loop. Do you remember control
theory in school? The computer sees the input, it uses it to adjust the
output. If the input is wrong, the output will be wrong in the opposite
direction.

>> Timing and ignition problems will produce poor combustion which will show
>> up as oxygen sensor errors... but you can see THOSE because the computer
>> gives you ignition timing information.
>
>Timing, nowadays, isn't usually an issue.

Ignition timing is OFTEN an issue. Valve timing isn't so often an issue,
but you get a free valve timing test when you're checking the ignition
timing anyway.

The computer controls the ignition timing, and it does so based on a number
of inputs most notably the ping sensor. The computer will advance and retard
the timing, and you can see it happening on the scanner display. It does
not always do so properly.

In fact on some modern engines (like BMWs with VANOS), the computer has control
over the valve timing and that might be based on feedback or it might just be
a lookup table where RPM goes into the function and VANOS servo position comes
out. Again, the scanner will let you watch it happening, the manual will
describe how it's supposed to happen, and your brain can correlate the two.

>> The scanner will tell you all of the inputs and all of the outputs.
>
>You have to realize that I "think" that an "almost good almost bad" sensor
>is hard to diagnose. It won't set a sensor code. It will just prevent the
>related register from being set.

This is because you're fixated on the codes. Stop worrying about the codes,
stop worrying about the register bits, start worrying about how well the
engine is running.

>> Ignore the damn codes. The codes let you know that something is out of
>> range but it doesn't tell you anything else. Look at the plots. If you
>> just spend your time staring at the codes you won't understand what is
>> going on inside the box.
>
>You have to understand that I'm an electrical engineer.
>I'm not your typical person.

Then start acting like an engineer and stop acting like a board swapper.

>It seems that you may not have had the experience I have with a sensor that
>is good enough to pass smog wonderfully, even by the BAR referee, but which
>is bad enough not to allow a cat-related register to set.
>
>If you can diagnose that, from the live data and freeze frame data, I'd
>love to know how because that would be an art unto itself.

Of COURSE you can diagnose that from the realtime scanner data. That's what
the scanner is FOR. Stop worrying about the stupid codes, stop worrying
about errors and register bits, start thinking about what it takes for the
mixture to be correct and how far off the mixture is likely to be.

If the oxygen sensor output is in the normal range, but the injector duty
cycles are all way out of the normal range, you have a mixture problem.
Because the computer is working hard to move the sensor values into that
normal range.

It won't set any codes, it won't produce any errors, but the car won't run
right. Maybe you have a leak, maybe you have a plugged injector, maybe you
have low fuel rail pressure. The computer lets you see that there is a
problem, THEN you can start measuring things to see where it is.

Because the system is closed-loop, the computer will compensate for problems
in the system... until it no longer can and THEN once it get catastrophically
bad and something is totally out range, THEN it will set an error.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 08/05/2018 01:01 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> (Of course, the containers themselves are CARB/EPA approved so, as you're
> well aware, the gas goes in and doesn't come out easily - due to the ****ty
> spouts - but that's a different beast altogether which I've solved
> separately by not using them).

'Repair kits' are popular around here and include a free flowing spout
and vent. Of course, they should only be used to repair older containers.

The asshole who mandated those spouts should spend eternity filling a
lawnmower with a full 5 gallon jug equipped with the monstrosity.

On 5 Aug 2018 11:28:32 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> 'Repair kits' are popular around here and include a free flowing spout
> and vent. Of course, they should only be used to repair older containers.
>
> The asshole who mandated those spouts should spend eternity filling a
> lawnmower with a full 5 gallon jug equipped with the monstrosity.

I've spent a lot of time on the phone with CARB who says that they don't
"design" the things ... they just mandate that the gas has to stay inside
them.

I joked back that it stays inside - it just won't come out.

I know all about the gas jug mods that people do (mostly to get air to come
in while the gas is pouring out).

Me?
The only mod I make is the trivial one that makes the cap child proof.
I just cut off the tap or remove the clip.

I don't ever use the spouts though.
They are nothing, to me, other than bung caps.

All I use is a 10 foot 1/2 inch clear vinyl hose.
I have four of them so that the siphoning is always dry.
(Each hose gives me five gallons - they dry out in a few hours.)

I also put a steel pipe that is a few inches longer than the depth of the
jug, but that's just finesse to keep the bottom of the hose at the bottom
corner. I also have a wooden triangle ramp that tilts the can slightly, but
again, that's just finesse. A long funnel with a few inches of flexible
half-inch hose on the output end completes the gas-station tack.

It's so easy and trivial to refuel that it's not funny.
Filling up is also easy, since I fill the car at the same time.

The main lesson I learned is that the more gas cans you pack in the trunk
the better, because I live on a very windy hill so the trunk has to be
packed such that nothing can tilt and everything will be at a 9% grade for
a very long time.

I generally flip all the cans upside down after filling to ensure they
don't leak.

All I need, in terms of gas caps, is a bung. The simpler the better.
It just needs a cap and nothing else.

Filling a lawn mower or other equipment I do the old school way from a one
or two gallon gas can (which I don't use for the cars).

Same with a chainsaw (I keep a German coke bottle of the right size to fill
the tank of the chainsaw.)

I have it down to a science. I used to stuff a rag in the top around the
hose, but then I realized the vapors are gonna leak when I remove4 the rag
anyway. The inside of a jug is about 22psi (depending on temp) for the
vapor pressure of gasoline, as I recall.

The real problem for most people is they can't keep a dozen gas jugs on
their lawn, but I'm rural so there's nobody to be bothered by the eyesore.

I do get comments when filling up at a gas station by morons though.
They think filling a gas jug is unsafe.

I wonder how many cars have plastic gas tanks nowadays?