Originally Posted by
lancerman
What I know is if you remove the nitriding from camshafts they will wear out in months. This will happen in every motor. Not even dsm specific. Its just a known fact. Cams must be nitrided. This is knowledge not theory.
When you remove the nitide coating from a crank. The crank wears out quicker. The rods bearing spin very easy. And the thrust surface wears down much faster. This is also fact not theory. again not dsm specific but very common knowledge. Also common knowledge 7 bolts spin bearings very easy comparred to 6 bolts . They also walk easier.
If you cant make the jump here and understand that if you go the opposite direction and nitride a surface that previously was not you gain durabilty. In the case of cams you gain literally 300 times the lifespan. How hard is it to believe that nitriding the crank will add durabilty? All I see is you are stupid if you dont get this. The definition of stupid is one without intelligence. It is knowlege not a theory.
You are right though. testing this knowledge in a dsm 7 bolt is not going to happen. I have stated many times it is impossible to test in practical terms to show the ignorant. So the theory is just a theory and always will be. Thats fine with me. Your loss. Takes knowledge to go fast.Too bad your not gaining any here.
That's a whole lot of equivocation, inflammatory nonsense, and a clear misunderstanding of my contention.
I don't care what causes crankwalk in 7-bolt 2g engines. And, I'm fine with the contention that nitriding a crank increases its durability (a tested claim). But, I am bothered by people making claims about causal relationships without testing when the questions are empirical and
can be tested. It's fine that you believe you're onto something, but to offer your idea as law is careless and misguided (a claim, I believe, that you've made of several others in this thread and the other 6-bolt v. 7-bolt thread who have done essentially the same thing you are doing here).
The jump you refer to is a giant leap. The proper jump would be to the hypothesis that (A) not nitriding the cranks in 7-bolt 2g engines causes (B) crankwalk, at which point you would test that claim. When the preponderance of evidence suggests that (A) causes (B), then you present it as such. You've jumped from "this is an interesting observation" to "this
must be the cause," and that's reaching (without testing).
This sort of leap occurs all the time in other contexts. I'm not sure why you cannot recognize the error in this one.