MortonPhotographic

Hmm, I don't remember who told me that, but it was a long time ago. Interesting their FAQ includes a questions about that. I could be wrong, or maybe Armor All used to have Karosene, alcohol or some other form of petroleum distilates. And then again, they don't deny having these things in their FAQ. I mean, what is a "gloss enhancer" anyway?

Armor All has been around for a very long time and it stands to reason that maybe they did use Kerosene or something else that wasn't good for vynil long-term before there were space-age polymers and other modern chemicals. Maybe an old oil-based formula has given way for new, more environmentaly friendly water-born chemicals. And maybe they got a bad rap for what they had in the past (which might explain this line in the FAQ).

It's gonna be hard to tell either way, but I can say that a lot of people in the custom car world share the opinion that Armor All is bad for rubber vynil and plastic. I have also heard that Armor All is fine as long as you keep applying it, but will dry out these materials once you stop using it.

Anyway, I have no scientific proof, I am just going by what I have heard and experienced.

gary96360

Suscribed

85gijunk4x4

bump on a crazy old thread. I actually saw a glimpse of this thread, and when i tried searching for it again i coudnt find it. its been like 20hours and i've finaly found it, thanks to yotatech.

anyway, BUMP. theres some awesome info inside that thread, everybody should take a peek at it!!

Webbuff

Subscribed and bumped. I bought my 88 Runner with blown headgaskets and will be replacing the engine but will be swapping over the intake, etc so its good to know what all I should get new with it so its in top shape. Awesome post!

bone collector

subscribed

'86Owner

Good info.

coloradotom

Dang, this guy bumps a 2.5-year-old post into view and all of a sudden I want a truck with a 3VZE so I can put on a cat-back, advance the timing, put in red anti-freeze and rock that thing into the next decade!

dsleggett

So go get one Tom! Get a second gen 4Runner so you can get up over Monarch Pass all winter. Heard you guys got some snow out of this last storm.

coloradotom

Monarch ski area a mile east of the pass got about 6" out of this last one. Better than nothing but still a really poor snow year so far.

I've always been a 22RE fan and dissed the 3.0 because of the underwhelming power, mediocre mileage and head gasket issues. But if you want 4wd, the 22RE is pretty anemic. I'm rolling a '91 2wd 22RE strippy and it's got plenty of go, but I've 4 wheeled a little in a 22RE 4x4 and it was 1st gear 4L or stall.

Colorado is lousy with early 90s V6 4Runners and extra-cab pickups. They sold like hotcakes 20 years ago. You can find the 22RE standard cabs with manual hubs all over the place, but 4 cylinder extracabs and 4Runners aren't common. I'm too tall for the standard cab. I've been using my little 2wd truck as my daily driver, but it's getting old. I'd move the seat back 5" or more if I had the room. Certainly not interested in buying another standard cab. So I'd pretty much been thinking I'd get a 3.4 V6 Taco or another T100 if I get another 4x4. This post opened my mind a little.

But for now I'm probably going to just stick with my 22RE pickup and 2010 1.8L Matrix to see what gas prices are going to do this year. I've been hearing it's going to be back to 2008 prices later this year.

dsleggett

6" is better than most areas got, except the very southern ones which I heard got up to 19". Not much of a ski year thus far. I had a 1990 4Runner with the 22RE in 1990, at the same time I had an '86 4Runner with the 22R. The '90 was a dog, but light years more comfortable. I traded in the '90 in 1994 for my current vehicle, should have waited a year for the 3.4. Oh well. I get OK mileage, about 17-20 depending, it's ultra reliable, inexpensive to maintain, and fun to drive. It was my wife's "minivan" for several years with two kids, then used to teach those kids to drive and driven to high school daily by my duaghter for a couple years. It's my daily right now while I frankenstein two VR6 Jettas together. I put 40,000 miles on it in the past 15 months. I think I'll have it forever but it's starting to burn a little oil right now. I might try something exotic once my Jetta is running, swap in a VW TDI and a have more power PLUS 40 mpg. I have promised my wife the garage will be empty first, before another project begins.

coloradotom

That VR6 engine is incredible. Friend of mine had an almost new VR6 Passat when they first came out. That car would RIP, really blurred the telephone poles. I can't imagine what kind of performance you'd get out of having that little rockstar motor in a Jetta. I think I'd rack up too many speeding tickets even owning one of those, not to mention the tires I'd go through.

drmix

Thats a pretty big increase in MPG just for adding a new muffler. Hmm maybe I should do that soon

sb5walker

Well first, it wasn't just a muffler but a 2.25" cat back which included the Borla Turbo muffler model 40652 (that model muffler is still available - summitracing carries it - see this post: https://www.yotatech.com/forums/f116...l#post51272909 )

Second, that was 1996 when there was no alcohol in the fuel. My best mileage now is 19 mpg.

Third, I'm not sure whether this was a factor, but I also installed a K&N Filtercharger intake, which is basically a very nice ISR with a K&N filter. I did that before replacing the muffler, and there was zero discernible benefit from the K&N. Whether the Borla cat-back would have given as much benefit without first opening up the intake side, IDK. But the K&N by itself did nothing.

dsleggett

That's why they make Valentine ONE radar detectors. They've been putting that VR6 in Jettas and Golfs since the mid 90's. I had a 2008 VW R32 for a couple years, 3.2L VR6 and all wheel drive. What a car. Speed limited at 130, found that out a couple times on the LA freeways at 2am.

Sorry to get off topic guys.

itsbroke

Awsome post just what this guy was looking for.

Ps my other car is a 97 vr6 jetta. Love my vws had one at all times since I was 15 haha. Nice to see some love on another forum

aviator

useful OP

MudHippy

1. Exhaust valves don't stretch. They wear at the point of contact with the valve seat. Which also wears, at a slightly slower rate(due to their being slightly harder). The wear induced on both parts causes the exhaust valve to gradually be pulled/lifted further upward into the head when it closes. This is the true cause of the valve lash/clearance shrinkage observed over time(between adjustments). They burn when clearances becomes insufficient. That is true. But not the real reason why they burn either. The root cause is as I said, the wear. But more specifically the poorly designed, thermally inefficient, exhaust manifold. Simply put, the exhaust runs too hot and the exhaust valves pay the heaviest dues for it.

2. We both know that's false what you're stating about the octane requirement for this engine. In fact it was "designed" to run on octane grades ≥ 87. RON 91(~AKI 87) yields the stock "performance curve". And we also know that you'll achieve more power when running higher octane fuel, without the need to change or modify anything else to do it. The ECU is fully capable of managing the fuelling and ignition timing adjustments necessary all on it's own.

Exhibit A...


Exhibit B...

Note: The stated HP was up +5 after 88. This was taken from a brochure published then, refering to MY 88. I'm in the middle of investigating the reason(s) for the HP increase in 89.

Plugs - I choose the other stock plugs personally, BCPR5EYA/BKR5EYA

Plug wires - Stock sucks(it's adequate, but nothing special). Accel 8mm SuperStock solid core perform much better IMO.

TNRabbit

Excellent, MH. I always knew it was the wear of the valves that caused the clearance to decrease. Valves do not "stretch" LOL~

jammin962

MudHippy is right about the valve wear. and that's interesting to see the recommended octane rating ... I can't image paying for premium and getting the mpg's of the 3.0 .. maybe meet in the middle with some mid grade! .. better than nothin

MacGyver!

The 91 octane rating is for RON designation, in the USA and Canada we use AKI. A RON 91 rating is equivalent to an AKI 87 rating. So 87 octane in the USA and Canada is the correct fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating