Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / September 2004
Oil Change observation
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Wayne Van Kirk - 06 Sep 2004 17:11 GMT Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. Quite a bit of additional oil started draining out. I then replaced the drain plug and changed the filter. After letting the recommended 4.5 quarts settle in, a check of the level showed it to be about 3/4 of a quart low.
I was surprised that that much old oil remains in the engine.
WVK
Daniel J. Stern - 06 Sep 2004 18:30 GMT > Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After > draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. Very stupid thing to do.
Wayne Van Kirk - 06 Sep 2004 18:32 GMT Which begs the question: Why?
>>Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After >>draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. > > Very stupid thing to do. Daniel J. Stern - 06 Sep 2004 20:00 GMT >>> Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After >>> draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds.
>> Very stupid thing to do.
> Which begs the question: Why? It is often said that there's "no such thing as a stupid question". That's wrong; there certainly is. A stupid question is the kind that's asked even though a few moments' additional thought on the part of the asker would reveal the answer. This is in contrast to a question asked out of ignorance, which the asker could not answer even if he thought and thought and thought about it.
Yours is the stupid kind.
Wayne Van Kirk - 07 Sep 2004 00:32 GMT >>>>Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After >>>>draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Yours is the stupid kind. Your thoughtful commentary is duly noted. WVK
Daniel J. Stern - 07 Sep 2004 03:03 GMT >>>>>Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After >>>>>draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds.
>>>>Very stupid thing to do.
>>>Which begs the question: Why?
>> It is often said that there's "no such thing as a stupid question". >> That's wrong; there certainly is. A stupid question is the kind that's >> asked even though a few moments' additional thought on the part of the >> asker would reveal the answer. This is in contrast to a question asked >> out of ignorance, which the asker could not answer even if he thought >> and thought and thought about it. Yours is the stupid kind.
> Your thoughtful commentary is duly noted. So it's not necessarily that you're *unable* to think -- it's that you're *unwilling* to do so.
Fascinating. Sad, but fascinating.
Ken Pisichko - 08 Sep 2004 03:09 GMT Hey Dan, with all due respect we all know YOU are smarter than me (and perhaps the remainder or the readers combined). That said, stop with the bull sh.t pontification and answer the "why" question.
Never mind if it is stupid or not - just tell us why, and SUBSTANTIATE your opinion. Data would be useful.
Thanks.
Ken Pisichko
> >>> Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After > >>> draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Yours is the stupid kind. Ted Mittelstaedt - 07 Sep 2004 09:47 GMT > Which begs the question: Why? You need to understand that the rod and main bearings in an engine in operation are oil bearings. In short, the crankshaft rides on a thin, microscopically thin, oil film. There is no metal-to-metal contact between the crankshaft and the bearings at speed.
This oil film only exists because oil is being pumped under high pressure into the bearings, of course the oil comes out the sides of the bearings, but as long as the oil is flowing into the bearings through the journals, this film is maintained.
When you don't have a steady flow of oil going to the bearings, such as when you are sucking air into the oil system, and air bubbles are going to these bearings, the oil film is wiped away and the crank starts rubbing against the main and rod bearings. Very shortly after that the bearing material is destroyed and your engine sounds like an old threshing machine which someone dumped a load of pea gravel into it's gearbox - that is, if a rod don't seize and the rod be driven through the side of the engine block.
You probably took 20-30,000 miles of life off your engine in the 10 seconds it was running on dry bearings.
Ted
Alex Rodriguez - 07 Sep 2004 19:13 GMT >Which begs the question: Why? Running your motor with little oil in it is gong to cause unecessary wear. --------------------- Alex
Matt Whiting - 07 Sep 2004 22:52 GMT > Which begs the question: Why? > >>> Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After >>> draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. >> >> Very stupid thing to do. Somebody with your knowledge of cars should NOT be changing his own oil.
If someone drained all of your blood out, would you be surprised that you died?
Matt
Wayne Van Kirk - 08 Sep 2004 00:09 GMT >> Which begs the question: Why? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Matt If only for a few seconds, maybe yes
WVK
Daniel J. Stern - 08 Sep 2004 01:09 GMT > > Somebody with your knowledge of cars should NOT be changing his own oil. > > If someone drained all of your blood out, would you be surprised that > > you died?
> If only for a few seconds, maybe yes Wow. Your stupidity knows no bounds, as it seems. Or at least no bounds you've displayed so far.
Denny - 06 Sep 2004 18:35 GMT > Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After > draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. Quite a bit [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > WVK Wayne, do as you want, it's your set of wheels, but I wouldn't start an engine up, even for 10 seconds, when the oil is drained. There is an oil film that clings to the metal so you probably didn't do it any real harm, but it sure isn't good for it either. If you are that concerned with getting all the dirty oil out, drain it, add a couple of quarts of new oil and leave it run for a minute or two and then drain it again, change the filter and refill the crankcase. BTW, the service manual I have says it holds 5 1/4 quarts with filter.
Denny
nospam.clare.nce@snyder.on.ca - 06 Sep 2004 22:03 GMT >> Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After >> draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. Quite a bit [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Denny Canadian or American quarts?? Or Liters?
Denny - 06 Sep 2004 22:08 GMT > >> Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After > >> draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. Quite a bit [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Canadian or American quarts?? > Or Liters? Sorry, U.S. quarts
Denny
Wayne Van Kirk - 07 Sep 2004 00:31 GMT >>Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After >>draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. Quite a bit [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Denny Actually it was more like, at most, 5 seconds, started it then immediately turned it off. (Next time I will add Slick 50 before changing so it can be run dry for 1/2 hour:-) The owners manual under Fluid Capacities has "Engine Oil 4.5 quarts" mentions nothing about with or without filter. But since it did require 5 1/4 Qt. perhaps the additional oil got pumped from the filter and associated plumbing when I dry started it. I guess that would make the procedure both risky and pointless.
WVK
Denny - 07 Sep 2004 02:30 GMT > >>Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After > >>draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. Quite a bit [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > WVK Before you try that Slick 50 experiment with your van motor, get an old lawn mower that is close to used up and add the Slick 50 to it. Then try your experiment on it. When the motor ties up after a few minutes, you won't be out much. No, I don't believe all the advertisements about slick 50, duralube, spooge-in-a-tube and all the rest. If that stuff worked like it is advertised, you would have no need for any internal lubrication or cooling systems cause there would be no heat build up cause there wouldn't be any friction.
Denny
nospam.clare.nce@snyder.on.ca - 07 Sep 2004 02:57 GMT >> >>Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After >> >>draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. Quite a bit [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > >Denny At MoparFest in New Hamburg 2 weeks ago, they did the "engine blow" contest, where you pay to guess how long an engine will run with a brick on the accellerator before it blows up. Saterday's car was a 2.0 liter Pontiac Sunfire. To avoid antifreeze and oil all over the track when it lets go, they drain the oil and antifreeze before starting the engine. Darn thing ran over 20 minutes before it blew up - and that was WITHOUT Slick 50 or DuraLub.
Wayne Van Kirk - 07 Sep 2004 04:24 GMT >>>>>Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After >>>>>draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. Quite a bit [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > engine. Darn thing ran over 20 minutes before it blew up - and that > was WITHOUT Slick 50 or DuraLub. I was kidding about the Slick 50 which I understand to be snake oil. However considering this 20 minute to blew example I have doubts that running an engine for a few seconds without oil will harm it if it was fully warmed up and fully lubricated (as it was) then shut down right before draining the pan. OTOH I wouldn't try this on a cold engine.
WVK
Denny - 07 Sep 2004 06:56 GMT > >>>>>Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After > >>>>>draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. Quite a bit [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > WVK Another thing to remember is your hydraulic lifters are running with no oil pressure. I would think you would have a bit of valve train noise after a few seconds of running.
Denny
Joe Brophy - 13 Sep 2004 17:23 GMT Better yet, use TUFOIL, then you will be able to reference the Guiness Book of World Records.
>> >>Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After >> >>draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. Quite a bit [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > >Denny Bob Shuman - 07 Sep 2004 15:56 GMT You initially said the filter was replaced, but comments below seem to contradict the previous note. (You should change the filter at the same time you change the oil.) Doing so gets that last 1/2 quart without ever needing to turn over the engine. (I agree with others that attempting to run an engine without oil is not a good thing to do.) If you insist on "pumping out the last little bit, then I'd suggest using the starter motor and disabling the ignition system. But, keep in mind that when the engine is started it will take longer to get oil pumped back to where you succeeded in blowing it out from. I don't think it is worth the risk to get this little bit, especially if you change it at 3K mile intervals.
Bob
> Actually it was more like, at most, 5 seconds, started it then > immediately turned it off. (Next time I will add Slick 50 before [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > WVK Wayne Van Kirk - 07 Sep 2004 17:11 GMT I drained the oil, ran the engine, let the additional oil drain, replace the drain plug, moved the drainpan under the oil filter, removed and replaced the filter, added 4.5 quarts of oil, ran the engine for a bit, let the oil settle back into the oil pan (sump) then checked the level which was slightly above "min" on the dipstick. The owners manual states "Fluid Capacities: Engine Oil 4.5 quarts". No mention if that includes a filter or not. I assumed it did because Chrysler recommends replacing both the oil and filter at each change. (Since the engine is designed to run with a filter, why would Chrysler state the oil capacity without a filter?) As a result it seemed that about 3/4 qt of oil was being left behind since that much additional oil was required to reach "max". Quite a bit more than "pumping out the last little bit".
WVK
> You initially said the filter was replaced, but comments below seem to > contradict the previous note. (You should change the filter at the same [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >>WVK Daniel J. Stern - 07 Sep 2004 18:51 GMT > I drained the oil, ran the engine And you *really* can't figure out why this was a stupid thing to do? Really?
Bob Shuman - 07 Sep 2004 18:55 GMT I suggest you follow these tried and true steps:
1. place drain pan under oil drain plug 2. remove drain plug and allow oil to drain (good time to eat something or have a beer) 3. after slowed to an occasional drip, replace drain plug and tighten 4. move oil catch pan under filter 5. remove oil filter and allow to drain completely 6. clean up drips and make sure the filter gasket did not stick to the engine 7. rub a small amount of fresh oil on the new filter's gasket 7a. for vehicles with vertical mount filters (3.0L, 2.7L), fill filter with fresh oil 8. re-install filter (get tight, but do not overtighten - 1 turn max after hand tight) 9. add oil (I put in 5 qts for my '99 3.8L) 10. start engine, run for 2 minutes, turn off 11. check under vehicle for leaks 12. check oil level using dipstick (usually right at MAX)
Good luck and hope your engine was not damaged too badly by the oil starvation.
Bob
> I drained the oil, ran the engine, let the additional oil drain, replace > the drain plug, moved the drainpan under the oil filter, removed and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > WVK Nomen Nescio - 06 Sep 2004 20:30 GMT Daniel J. Stern posted the disagreeable comment:
>It is often said that there's "no such thing as a stupid question". That's >wrong; there certainly is. A stupid question is the kind that's asked even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Yours is the stupid kind. Mr. Stern, I advise you not to "flame" people with whom your opinion disagrees. Being a foul-mouth can only result in complaints to your ISP provider who has the power to throttle your excesses by pulling your plug. Mazel tov, schlemazzel.
Nomen
Art - 06 Sep 2004 20:35 GMT Why only 10 seconds? LOL
(If engines did not need oil to run without self-destruction, there would not be any used in there in the first place.)
> Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After > draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. Quite a bit [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > WVK Not Me - 07 Sep 2004 03:36 GMT | Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After | draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. Quite a bit [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | I was surprised that that much old oil remains in the engine. Keep that up and you'll be changing an engine.
Matt Whiting - 07 Sep 2004 22:51 GMT > Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After > draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. Quite a bit > of additional oil started draining out. I then replaced the drain plug > and changed the filter. After letting the recommended 4.5 quarts settle > in, a check of the level showed it to be about 3/4 of a quart low. Why would you do something as stupid as running an engine with no oil in the crankcase?
Matt
Wayne Van Kirk - 08 Sep 2004 00:14 GMT >> Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After >> draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. Quite a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Matt Its not like I made a beer run on an empty crankcase, just ran it for a few seconds.
WVK
Matt Whiting - 08 Sep 2004 00:51 GMT >>> Yesterday I changed the oil and filter on our 2001 T&C 3.8. After >>> draining the oil pan, I ran the engine for about 10 seconds. Quite a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > WVK And what is the purpose of doing this? To my what of thinking, anything that is done which carries a real risk of damage and serves absolutly no useful purpose .... is stupid.
Matt
Daniel J. Stern - 08 Sep 2004 01:09 GMT > > Why would you do something as stupid as running an engine with no oil in > > the crankcase?
> Its not like I made a beer run on an empty crankcase, just ran it for a > few seconds. ...in which you probably put about 30,000 miles worth of wear on the engine.
Ken Pisichko - 08 Sep 2004 03:14 GMT This "30,000" figure is based on what? Perhaps it is 80,000, or 20,000. What is the basis of this opinion? Probably just a figure pulled out of the air? or...?
Yes, running an engine without oil is not good - otherwise it would be recommended as a thing to do ((experience sez NOT). but to put exact figures on this event is, perhaps a part of self aggrandization.
Substantiate your figures, Dan.
Ken Pisichko
> > > Why would you do something as stupid as running an engine with no oil in > > > the crankcase? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ...in which you probably put about 30,000 miles worth of wear on the > engine. Ted Mittelstaedt - 08 Sep 2004 10:41 GMT > This "30,000" figure is based on what? Perhaps it is 80,000, or 20,000. What is > the basis of this opinion? Probably just a figure pulled out of the air? or...? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Substantiate your figures, Dan. I'll try my hand at tackling that one.
Another poster here (nospam.clare.nce@snyder.on.ca <nospam.clare.nce@snyder.on.ca>) related a story about how at the MoparFest at NewHamburg they had a Sunfire with a 2.0 liter running with a brick on the accellerator for 20 minutes before it blew up.
Let's assume that this Sunfire's top speed on the highway was about 80Mph, that's pretty consistent with the smaller engine vehicles I've driven. At that speed it would be equivalent to a brick on the accelerator.
So that works out to about 26 miles running without oil before blowing up. (60/20 = 3, 80/3 = 26)
Assuming that a normal engine lifespan is 150,000 miles with an average RPM of 1200 and average speed of 50Mph. Without oil, it's lifespan is 26 miles, or .017% of it's potential lifespan. (26/150000 * 10) Another way of saying this is the wear factor (constant) in terms of miles without oil is 5769 times greater than with oil. (150000/26)
So now we can estimate the amount of damage you did. Let's assume you ran your car at idle for 30 seconds without oil. I'll estimate that at idle your running about half the RPM you would be going at speed with the foot off the throttle, so the damage is more equivalent to 15 seconds at an average RPM used for the normal engine lifespan estimation . Thus, you put approximately the same amount of wear that driving it for 24 hours would have done (((5769*15)/60)/60)=24 and at the 50Mph average we are looking at about 1,200 miles worth of wear put on the engine.
Of course, this is assuming your letting it idle. If you were gassing it for that time, so your average RPM was more like 1200RPM, you would have doubled the amout of life you took off the engine.
And this comparison is also based on a 2.0L. If your vehicle engine is larger, you would want to increase the amount of wear because the increased number of unlubricated surfaces greatly increases the chances of seizing, so presumably a bigger engine would fail faster, and not make it to 20 minutes without oil.
Also, you want to consider that the last 5-8 minutes of the life of the Sunbird's engine that by then the rings were so worn that the engine would not have passed emissions inspection without a rebuild, thus it was effectively used up. So assume more like a 10 mintes lifespan without oil and adjust the calculations accordingly.
So yeah, maybe 30K miles of wear is excessive. But for a big V8 and someone gassing it without oil, I don't think that 10K miles of wear in 30 seconds is that unreasonable.
And if your doing this every oil change, it's going to add up quick.
Ted
> Ken Pisichko > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ...in which you probably put about 30,000 miles worth of wear on the > > engine. nospam.clare.nce@snyder.on.ca - 10 Sep 2004 01:40 GMT >> This "30,000" figure is based on what? Perhaps it is 80,000, or 20,000. >What is [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > >Ted Nice figuring, Ted, but it doesn't work that way. In 5 or 10 seconds of running, the engine does not get to the point there is no oil, and it does not build up any heat. Although it is not a smart idea to run the engine without oil, the chances he has done ANY harm to the engine are EXTREMELY remote.
The oil has not been wiped off the surfaces, and even if it has, the extreme pressure additives in the oil are there for that purpose. Used to be Zinc, not sure what they use now that zinc has been implicated in catalyst failure when the engine starts to burn oil.
At idle, that engine ( the Pontiac 2.0) may well have run for several hours before it failed.. Damage would have begun within the first minute or so, depending on the condition of the engine, the oil that HAD been in the engine, etc.
>> Ken Pisichko >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > ...in which you probably put about 30,000 miles worth of wear on the >> > engine. WVK - 08 Sep 2004 19:06 GMT >>>Why would you do something as stupid as running an engine with no oil in >>>the crankcase? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ...in which you probably put about 30,000 miles worth of wear on the > engine. I have preformed this proceedure many times on many different vehicles (VWs Oldsmobile, Chrysler, Honda, Chevy)over many years. When sold they had anywhere from 75,000 to 175,000 miles and the engines were running smoothly without any knocks, rattles, thunks, clanks, banging or excessive oil consumposion. If what you say is true (30,000 miles worth of wear) then several of them would have never made it to those milages.
That said you-all have convinced me to discontinue the practice.
WVK
Richard - 08 Sep 2004 20:02 GMT >>>>Why would you do something as stupid as running an engine with no oil in >>>>the crankcase? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > WVK In most vehicles it likely would do not harm. But a better procedure is this. After the last drip, put in about a cup of fresh oil to drain out some of the residual old oil. But I only do this on my motors that lack an oil filter, and perhaps even an air filter, i.e.. (Honda 50cc motorcycle, Honda snow blower, a vintage roto-tiller, & a Honda lawn mower, etc). Remember, an oil is designed to break up the sludge and dirty oil and hold the solids in suspension until you change the oil. A bad oil stays "clean".
Richard.
Bill - 09 Sep 2004 01:31 GMT 30 some posts on THIS? You people need to let this GOOOOO! And Dan, you whipped up a good chunk of this. Ya'll are amazing. Wow! (and no I have not read all of them)
Bill
> >>>>Why would you do something as stupid as running an engine with no oil in > >>>>the crankcase? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Richard. JB? - 09 Sep 2004 04:24 GMT > 30 some posts on THIS? You people need to let this GOOOOO! And Dan, you > whipped up a good chunk of this. Ya'll are amazing. Wow! [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >> >> Richard. You been watching the TV show "MONK"? Sounds like you wanted every last drop of "dirty" oil out and expect to fill up with 100% new oil. you must be thinking that this will extend your engine's life, when after the 10 sec. dry start you just took a few thousand miles off it's life. Of course the oil level will be a little lower on the dip stick after you just purged the oil pump etc. of oil that is supposed to stay in the engine. Adjust the oil level so that it is in the correct area on the dipstick, that would be alot more accurate than putting in exactly "4.5 quarts" when you used a non-standard procedure to expel more oil than usual. I still can't believe what I read in the first post! LOL!!
WVK - 09 Sep 2004 17:48 GMT JB³ wrote:
>>>>>...in which you probably put about 30,000 miles worth of wear on the >>>>>engine. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > non-standard procedure to expel more oil than usual. > I still can't believe what I read in the first post! LOL!! How many miles should I deduct for 5 seconds?:-) As far as oil capacity is concerned, I am still a bit puzzled why Chrysler states (in the owners manual) the capacity as 4.5 qt. when it is apparently 5 1/4?
WVK
doc - 09 Sep 2004 18:55 GMT > How many miles should I deduct for 5 seconds?:-) As far as oil capacity > is concerned, I am still a bit puzzled why Chrysler states (in the > owners manual) the capacity as 4.5 qt. when it is apparently 5 1/4? About a hundred miles*. As for the oil capacity, they're assuming that you won't be running the engine dry during each oil change. The 4.5 quarts should bring the level back to the full mark after a normal oil change. If they said 5 1/4, people would be adding too much oil, which is also not a good idea.
* Based on the poster who reported the 20-minute lifetime of the demo engine that ran without oil. My assumptions: demo rpm: 6100 (122,000 total revolutions in 20 minutes) your rpm: 750 (62.5 total revolutions in 5 seconds) average engine life: 200,000 miles You can make your own assumptions, but based on mine, you used about 0.05% of the total revolutions required to destroy that demo engine without oil. There are many variables involved, so it's very difficult to determine with any degree of confidence just how much actual wear was experienced. That said, it's up to you to decide if you want to continue this practice. I wouldn't do it, but that's me.
Richard - 09 Sep 2004 19:21 GMT >> How many miles should I deduct for 5 seconds?:-) As far as oil capacity >> is concerned, I am still a bit puzzled why Chrysler states (in the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > said, it's up to you to decide if you want to continue this practice. I > wouldn't do it, but that's me. When the FTC did their own "run without oil" demo, using the advertised additive, the motor ran out of life very very very quickly. They issued an order to stop the promotions.
Richard.
doc - 09 Sep 2004 20:47 GMT > "doc" <docfarquar@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> > without oil. There are many variables involved, so it's very difficult > > to determine with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > additive, the motor ran out of life very very very quickly. They issued > an order to stop the promotions. Yep. It's always the variables that promise the most fun.
doc
nospam.clare.nce@snyder.on.ca - 10 Sep 2004 02:37 GMT >JB³ wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > >WVK Again, what quarts - or liters???
WVK - 10 Sep 2004 02:59 GMT >>JB³ wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Again, what quarts - or liters??? USA Quarts
nospam.clare.nce@snyder.on.ca - 12 Sep 2004 19:56 GMT >>>JB³ wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > >USA Quarts Remember, 4.5 Canadian quarts is very close to 5.25 US.
Bob Shuman - 10 Sep 2004 14:39 GMT This seems to be consistent with other Chrysler vehicles. IIRC, my 3.5L owner's manual says 5.0 U.S. quarts, but I generally need to put in a full 6 after I drain the oil and change the filter to bring the oil to the top of the full dipstick. Our 3.8L also takes slightly over 5 US quarts, consistent with your finding here.
Bob
> I am still a bit puzzled why Chrysler states (in the > owners manual) the capacity as 4.5 qt. when it is apparently 5 1/4? > > WVK WVK - 10 Sep 2004 16:42 GMT That was the main point of my original post. I thought it unlikely that 3/4 qt of oil would remain in the engine. Chrysler sure seems to have a curious practice by understating oil capacity by almost a qt.
WVK
> This seems to be consistent with other Chrysler vehicles. IIRC, my 3.5L > owner's manual says 5.0 U.S. quarts, but I generally need to put in a full 6 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >>WVK jbharri@comcast.net - 13 Sep 2004 03:13 GMT WOW! Great posting. Could this be a newsgroup equivilent to "War & Peace"?
:-) Suffice it to say WVK's hand has been thoroghly smacked and he stated that he would discontinue this practice.
Now onto the PFTE (PTFE? - whichever - TEFLON) additive portion of this saga - without getting into details a fleet mechanic recently told me to "NEVER use a teflon additive to an internal combustion enigine" as a few years ago they received a bulletin from DuPont stating that teflon was not intended for use in an ICE. DuPont does NOT use it in any of their fleet vehicles. Teflon is a solid and will settle into the oil film space required the keep mulitple pieces of metal from becoming one. Additionally it can and will restrict oil flow throughout the motor.
I know of folks who have used it with no ill effects but this is what I was told.
> That was the main point of my original post. I thought it unlikely that > 3/4 qt of oil would remain in the engine. Chrysler sure seems to have a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >> > >>WVK Matt Whiting - 26 Sep 2004 19:53 GMT > 30 some posts on THIS? You people need to let this GOOOOO! And Dan, you > whipped up a good chunk of this. Ya'll are amazing. Wow! > (and no I have not read all of them) And you need to learn to post at the bottom rather than the top. Top posting is for newbies and WebTV users.
Matt
|
|
|