"I wouldn’t try it on a modern engine "
++++1. This is NOT a good idea on a modern engine. Diesel fuel will NOT provide the sufficiently pressurized fluid barrier necessary to protect the crank and connecting rod surfaces from contacting the bearings. It’s MUCH too thin. You could do serious damage to a good engine this way.
Years ago a guy bought a '64 Chevy Nova 6-cyl with 100k miles for $100. He said he took the valve cover off and could barely see the rockers under the sludge. He put the cover back on and just added a quart of oil every 1000 miles or so and drove it another 50k miles. Those were the days…
@GeorgeSanJose:
I remember an old friend of my dads that did the exact same thing. That was probably in the Mid 60s. Maybe that was a common thing with many people. I can remember my dad argueing against the method with the guy.
Yosemite
Maybe it appeared in some car magazine or something back then @Yosemite . I never asked my dad how he came up with this idea. But that’s what he did on every oil change.
People who have limited understanding of how the lubrication system actually works sometimes do odd things that seem logical. It seems logical that diesel fuel would cut the crud and in the unknowledgeable mind cutting crud is always good, so therefore running diesel through the engine must therefore be good… right? Seems logical.
Sort of like in the 18th century it was believed that draining blood from a sick person reduced the amount of bad stuff in them and therefore bloodletting was used to cure sick people. Perfect logic. Fortunately, we’ve learned a great deal since then. The logic was good, but the knowledge was lacking.
I do a lot of blood letting yet, but it’s usually my own. But my clients are used to it, "it’s that horseshoer again…get out the bandaids!!!
Yosemite