Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / September 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Oil Change observation

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.