165 HP Mercury Inboard - Gm engine

[broke_not]

No need for hostility broke_not.

The "hostility" comes from my frustration with the way you make matter-of-fact statements, and then back-pedal when you're called on it. The other frustrating thing, is that as you're back-pedaling, you do so in a manner intended to appear as though you're educating me.

Remember the electric fuel pump topic? You stated, (once again matter-of-factly), that electric in-tank pumps were brushless. When you were corrected, (by me), you responded by saying that fuel pumps had Hall Effect sensors inside. I responded to that by asking why the Hall Effect sensors were inside. You replied with a description of what Hall Effect sensors are.

I must confess that when I asked why the Hall Effect sensors would be inside, I did so just to see how far you would take it. In other words, I knew that you knew at that point that your original matter-of-fact declaration that the pumps were brushless was incorrect. And instead of just 'fessing up, you took the opportunity to *educate me* on Hall Effect sensors.

Here, you did it again. When I brought up lean misfire conditions due to a vacuum leak, did it ever occur to you that I may have seen it happen? And if I had seen it happen, (and recognized it), then does it not seem plausible that I might know what a vacuum leak is and how it can occur?

Apparently not, since you felt it necessary to explain what a vacuum leak is.

I merely explained why, given the way the question was phrased, the cause of the problem must be electrical.

Yeah, that's what you're saying now.....and it's a perfect example of your-back-pedaling.

Your original statement:

With equal compression and 3 cylinders firing, the problem can only be electrical.

Two questions come to mind.

Question 1: Do your two statements mean the same thing? Read them again. "Must be" and "can only be".

Question 2: Are you an attorney or politician? I'm just wondering , because the techniques you employ seem similar.

If you knew how the manifold to cylinder hed joint looked like on a 470 then you would know its just about impossible to have a vacuum leak

That may be true, but once again troubleshooting steps taken shouldn't automatically rule things out. My intial response in this thread was not intended to indicate that a vacuum leak is causing this person's misfire.

My initial response was very much intended to counter CDK's original assertion that since all of the cylinders have compression, then the problem can only be electrical.

That statement is dead wrong.....and he knows it. Read his last post.

"There are even more exotic reasons possible why one cylinder doesn't operate...."

How can there possibly be more reasons, if the problem can only be electrical?

[CDK]

Originally Posted by broke_not

Two questions come to mind.

Question 1: Do your two statements mean the same thing? Read them again. "Must be" and "can only be".

Question 2: Are you an attorney or politician? I'm just wondering , because the techniques you employ seem similar.

"There are even more exotic reasons possible why one cylinder doesn't operate...."

How can there possibly be more reasons, if the problem can only be electrical?

I will limit my answers to your questions so we do not drift too far from the topic at hand.

First of all I use a foreign language here, so the difference between "must be" and "can only be" eludes me. I can also express my thoughts in German, French and Croatian, but suffer the same limitations. In Dutch I have no such restrictions.

Question 2:
I am neither. I studied mechanical engineering in Amsterdam in the late 50's and early 60's, also briefly in London to graduate, but my real passion was electricity and electronics. Subsequently I learned how to fly military aircraft, was an air traffic controller for 6 years, had an advertising agency for technical accounts for almost 10 years and founded a rather successful electronics company in 1969 where I stayed until my retirement in the early 90's. The company actually was a group under a holding, I did not keep track of the subsidiaries, but they all seemed to do much better while I was at the helm.
In between I also was president and major shareholder in a company that produced electronic musical instruments, but that was only to get back what they owed me, which was a lot at the time. They were near-bankrupt when I took over and really went that way when I was finished; I never had any affinity with music.

So that's my cv in a nutshell. If you try to add it all up it is more than a lifetime, but that's because I did a lot simultaneously. Didn't need a lot of sleep in those days. I also was allowed to skip classes in school.....

And the last -implicit- question.

There are always far-fetched possibilities I do not need to sum up.
In the intake plenum of a diesel engine I once found a dried-up mouse that ate its way through the air filter and died at the narrow bend. In a gasoline engine it might have caused misfire.

In a forum, you diagnose based on the information supplied. In this case that means: it can only be electrical. I know how trustworthy a distributor cap may look to the average observer and still cause problems.

I am truly sorry I antagonized you by lecturing, but you now have my resume and I still don't know yours.

[broke_not]

There are always far-fetched possibilities I do not need to sum up.

That's all fine and dandy, but the situation I brought up isn't "far-fetched" at all. You know it isn't. And if you don't know that it isn't, you don't know enough to comment.

First of all I use a foreign language here, so the difference between "must be" and "can only be" eludes me.

Still? It's not like I haven't mentioned it to you before. Remember the horsepower thread? I had quite a discussion with you about it then. And once again, when I supplied evidence to counter your opinions that you stated as fact, you replied with "Perhaps I see facts where others do not".

So which one is it? Is it really a language/translation issue, or is that just the latest "explanation"? (There's no need to respond to that one, because I already know the answer. You aren't confused by the difference between "must be" and "can only be", and it's obvious because of the way you backed away from your original "can only be" statement when you were challenged.)

I am truly sorry I antagonized you by lecturing, but you now have my resume and I still don't know yours.

First of all, NOTHING on you resume' explains your lecturing. I already said this once, but I'll say it again because it's not registering with you. In this thread, I posted that a vacuum leak can cause an individual cylinder to miss. Simply by making that statement, it should be OBVIOUS that I've experienced a vacuum leak, and observed the effects it can have. So it also should be OBVIOUS that I know what a vacuum leak is. Therefore I don't need a lecture on what vacuum leaks are and how they can occur. When you *explain* what a vacuum leak is, all you're doing is make some engineer-esque commentary that is first of all....unnecessary, and second of all.....condescending.

As for my resume', I'll just say that I turn wrenches every day to pay the bills, and have done so for 27 years. I started out in the automotive field, and switched to construction equipment in the late 80's. Powertrains, hydraulics, electronics, etc. ten hours a day, every day. So in a nutshell, I'm not the typical hobbyist or weekender that's going to pull up a chair and sit there all wide-eyed as you theorize about this or that.

I could have ignored this thread, just like I could have ignored the other threads I mentioned. But what would have happened if I had? I guarantee that someone who's *impressed* by your posts would have taken your matter-of-fact statement(s) as fact.

It's good that we have your resume', perhaps from now on when you post something, your experience with the topic being discussed can be compared with the information on your resume' for, well......relevance.

[CDK]

Good post, Broke_not!
Amazing for a guy who has turned wrenches ten hours a day for 27 years.

You will understand that I do not agree with every line, but you are obviously talented: had you started out with more education, paying the bills would have been a lot easier.

A pity that you keep all this experience to yourself, 27 posts starting June 2008 is a bit meagre.

I remember stepping on your toes with the "Brunswick shareholder remark, that obviously still hurts.

Now I suggest we wait until the original poster tells us what caused the problem.

[broke_not]

I remember stepping on your toes with the "Brunswick shareholder remark, that obviously still hurts.

Nice try, but you still don't get it. I wasn't upset that you implied I was a Brunswick shareholder, I was upset because that was just another attempt of yours at misdirection. You might find this hard to believe, but when someone points out that you're wrong about something, your attempts at changing the subject and/or discrediting that person by making such idiotic comments don't always accomplish what you want them to accomplish.

You showed your true colors when you made that statement, and frankly....I'm glad you did so.

A pity that you keep all this experience to yourself, 27 posts starting June 2008 is a bit meagre.

So you really do think that quantity trumps quality? Go ahead and jack up your post count. See if it makes you *more right* about anything.

This thread and those other threads should be made "stickies" by the site administrator. That way, anyone who's on the fence about how "straight-up" a guy you are, can take a peek and see.

Good day.

[CDK]

Originally Posted by capt littlelegs

There's more to life than sitting on your fat arse gobbing off on a forum all the time like you and it might have escaped you that people actually enjoy what they do and are real contributors to the world. You denegrate people who have talent and can use their hands as having no education (not quite true) and yet you seek to join their ranks with your "expert" contributions! Me thinks you are a stuffed shirt and a little jealous of the real experts but can't hack it, one reason is because you don't like the smell of diesel and schmoke too much of that Dutch wacky baccy! It's a pity I have no idea what a Brunswick shareholders is!

Wrong again littlebrain!
No fat arse: I need suspenders to keep my pants up. Built the house we are living in with my own hands, just for fun (http://www.puntakriza.com/english.htm). Foundation to roof, plumbing, installation, heating, automatic doors & windows. While you are musing under your stone I'll reprogram the solar system to cope with today's 34 C.
And I think it is denigrate, not denegrate, but it's your language, not mine.

[powerabout]

Capt
Its got a delco distributor with points.
The model designations for the engines were 470, 170, 165, 485, 488 and 190

PS
The Renault was a diesel

[capt littlelegs]

Originally Posted by powerabout

Capt
Its got a delco distributor with points.
The model designations for the engines were 470, 170, 165, 485, 488 and 190

PS
The Renault was a diesel

Thanks, if I recall the Delco was a bit wobbly so could be the points are a bit tight and not opening on all lobes.

It's nearly thirty years since I did my Mercruiser course, I thought it was a small petrol but you may well be right. I still have the manuals stored in the workshop so I'll have to look see.