Where the heck is the oxygen sensor ??

[ngzcaz]

Thank you 85 Ranger 4X4 Your completely logical to the point response is appreciated, especially the part where its up for debate whether the O2 sensor is set up for max mileage or whether its set up for maximum longevity. And you are probably also correct that fiddling with it might be almost impossible to get right. ( does anyone remember wrapping aluminum foil around cable /antenna to get free channels and or/ better reception ? ) Had I stated it that simply and eloquently all this other verbiage probably wouldn't have occurred.
As for Kunar.. well I guess his post speaks for itself. But if you would elaborate exactly what I was " bitching " about, well... I dont recall throwing the first stone, just covering up throwing an occasional jab..
And if I can get off the computer long enough to try it, I'll post my IMPRESSIONS and OPINIONS, not facts.

 

[MAKG]

Is that Centigrade or Celsius ?

Oh my. Care to share the difference?

And you put quite a lot of assumptions in my name. No, I did not believe there were WMDs in Iraq. I never saw anything but hearsay from really obviously non-neutral and for the most part non-critical parties about it. Exactly the same thing you are hearing about your oxygen sensor mod. Credibility is everything. The Bush Administration doesn't have it. Neither should your source.

If you think your 1972 fuel tank is worse than the 1973-78 version (which did NOT have tanks in the cabs), look up the results. And anecdotes are not evidence, or we're all dead from driving more than 10 miles in RBVs. They DO have that rep, especially Bronco IIs or anything with Firestone tires.

Yes, the best place for the tank is between the frame rails. This is understood now, and you will not find a truck newer than 30 or so years old that has a tank in the cab. If you REALLY think that the cab fuel tank is an important issue, sell your truck. And what the F does this have to do with a stupid misunderstood control system modification?

Now, these are all nonsequitirs. If you want to prove me wrong by putting tinfoil on your oxygen sensor, go ahead. Just BE HONEST and report a reliable figure. Somehow, I doubt you can estimate the reliability of your fuel mileage measurements.

 

[Psychopete]

And if I can get off the computer long enough to try it, I'll post my IMPRESSIONS and OPINIONS, not facts.

Wait, so if you're not dealing with facts, then what is it exactly that's going to get accomplished? My opinion is that adding a throttle body spacer between the TB and upper intake will yeild 20h.p. and gain 10mpg, the fact is, there's no way in hell.

As far as your idea, I don't know if it will work, obviously the first route to take would be to try it and see since you're certain of youself that it will work. No sense in bantering over this..

Pete

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Oh my. Care to share the difference?

If you think your 1972 fuel tank is worse than the 1973-78 version (which did NOT have tanks in the cabs), look up the results. And anecdotes are not evidence, or we're all dead from driving more than 10 miles in RBVs. They DO have that rep, especially Bronco IIs or anything with Firestone tires.

Yes, the best place for the tank is between the frame rails. This is understood now, and you will not find a truck newer than 30 or so years old that has a tank in the cab. If you REALLY think that the cab fuel tank is an important issue, sell your truck. And what the F does this have to do with a stupid misunderstood control system modification?

It was my great grandfathers truck, we just putt around with it and go to shows, it doesn't really bother me but just kind of makes me think "what would make them think that would be a good place?" I agree, fuel tanks on the outside of the frame is a even worse idea. I am really not sure why this brought was even brought up, I was just replying to your previous post while I was putting my .02 into the topic at hand.

 

[almostclueless]

Oh my. Care to share the difference?

HAHAHAHA...didn't even notice that at first.

The dumbass would rather waste time arguing than try the stupid idea he originally posted about. Just an attention whore.

 

[samsonitesamsonite]

\
AND.... if the fuel tank was so safe behind your head, why did they move it ? Could it have been the people that were burned alive and families filed suit ? Do you actually believe that was the place for a fuel tank ? A simple yes or no will do nicely. Thank God you aren't in Detroit. What an idiotic remark to make ( again my opinion, not b.s. )

That is ignorant BS. even though it is not related to the subject at hand. Let me give you a little lesson. You show me proof of people being burned alive by those tanks and I MAY believe you. I have been on scene of literally hundreds of MVA's and not ONE has had the gas tank explode, many early senventies and late sixties trucks with that same style tank, NOT ONE caught fire, exploded or did anything to even let you know it was there.


Also before you call respected staff idiots and discount very knowledgable advice, I would check yourself first.

 

[ngzcaz]

Never called anyone an idiot, just the idea and I stand by that. Anyone who doesnt think having a cremation device 9 inches from his head a bad idea just isnt thinking straight. And that truck is long gone.. The idea that one could produce certifiable evidence that people were burned alive and then a reader MAY believe that suffers from making the same idiotic remark. Note that one doesnt have to be an idiot to make an idiotic remark. And of course this has nothing to do with the issue.
I never said this was " my idea " and even semi agreed that it working to a degree that makes a noticeable difference was up in the air but it might be worth a shot. All I got in return was immediate nay sayers and people trying to make a fool of someone.
Why dont you calmly look at Ranger 4X4's response and see if it doesnt make sense. If all the responses were posed that way something good may have happened by this post.

As you may have noticed I dont back away from a confrontation but I would prefer to look at it rationally. The moderators have infinitely more knowledge than I on most issues relating to vehicles but that doesnt say I cant ask a question and expect to get a response without wearing a flamesuit. And it also doesnt mean they are right 100 percent of the time.

 

[krugford]

So have you tried this yet? It's been almost three weeks since the original post.....

The burden of proof is on you in this situation. Let's at least see some.

-krug

 

[samsonitesamsonite]

the point has been argued enough. if you believe it will work prove it with some real world numbers.

 

[kunar]

So have you tried this yet? It's been almost three weeks since the original post.....

The burden of proof is on you in this situation. Let's at least see some.

-krug

the point has been argued enough. if you believe it will work prove it with some real world numbers.

thats what i said but you guys were a little nicer...

 

[Hahnsb2]

Dude, just STFU already and do it so we can prove you wrong...

 

[holyford86]

From what I've been reading it will SLIGHTLY fool the computer into running a bit lean side. No one has posted that it would " burn up " the engine and likewise, no one has posted that it had any deleterious effects. If some of you are of the opinion that you trust Detroit, the oil cartel, and the car manufacturers that they are producing the best product they can ( read that the Pinto, gas tanks INSIDE the passenger compartment of the old Chevy trucks, the Corvair, etc etc How many do you want me to name ? ) then so be it. I happen to be a bit more skeptical.
I do find it interesting however, that people can post a definitive conclusion on something they have never tried or had any experience with.. : - )

An oxygen sensor isn't affected by heat unless it isn't up to operating temp. The only thing that wrapping foil around it would do is make it heat up to operating temp marginally quicker, and since the computer waits a certain amount of time before it uses the data it would be a pretty much useless mod. If it made any difference on mileage at least one manufacturer would have done it by now. As far as I know no-one has done it because it does absolutely nothing. An engine was designed to only run so efficient, wrapping foil around a sensor isn't going to do shit. Is along the same lines as wrapping foil around your head to make you smarter. It may make you think you're smart but everyone else would be led to believe that you are quite retarded. Now I will be the first to admit that I don't know everything about electronic engine controls but I know bullshit when I see it and this is a flaming load of So stop smoking your pot and read a goddamn book.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I read it as the foil might fool the computer into thinking it is running rich because it wouldn't pick up as much oxygen in the exhaust. I doubt it will work, but I think I can somewhat see what he is trying to get at.

 

[MAKG]

As I said several days ago, someone read and didn't understand an article on electrochemistry.

If you really wanted to make it run lean, replace the sensor with a 1V battery. Though I won't be responsible for the detonation damage and the excessive NOx.

 

[kunar]

If you really wanted to make it run lean, replace the sensor with a 1V battery.

but all my AA's say 1.5V

If it made any difference on mileage at least one manufacturer would have done it by now.

do you know how much money they could make marketing a fiberglass insulator sleeve as a fuel saver?? (i mean, you know, if it does work)