 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / December 2004Oil pressure warning light on '95 Voyager w/ 3.0L
We're 200 miles from home tonight with an erratic low oil pressure light on our '95 Voyager, 3.0L, with 110,000 miles. The repair manual and virtually all of my tools are 200 miles away :-(. The light goes on and out. I do not hear any clattering or ticking like I'd expect to hear if the oil pressure were truly low. I'm thinking that it's likely to be the oil pressure sending unit. On a Sunday, I *might* be able to get a new unit and the appropriate socket. Is it likely to be the sending unit? Should I just wait until Monday to get it to the Dodge dealer where I am? I'm walking distance to the dealer here in Gurnee, IL. If I were to try to change the sending unit, is it mounted on the oil filter housing? I see something there that kind of looks like what I'd expect. If so, how do you get to it wihout a hoist and without removing the lower radiator hose? What I wouldn't give for that repair manual sitting at home... -- Jeff Wieland > We're 200 miles from home tonight with an erratic low oil pressure light I just replaced the oil pressure sensor on my 3.0 1988 New Yorker. The sensor was screwed into the oil filter adaptor just above the starter. Not difficult to charge. Second one I have replaced in 60,000 miles (car has 103,000 miles total). Easy job on that car. Your problem could also be a loose connector going to the sensor. Steve >> We're 200 miles from home tonight with an erratic low oil pressure light >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Steve Steve, I've been able to find a picture on one of the 3.0L related web sites that shows the location of the sensor. It doesn't look too hard to get at *except* for the lower radiator hose running right over it. It looks like I'd have to pull the hose and drain the coolant to get the sensor off. What sort of tool do you need to remove the sensor? Some sort of socket? -- Jeff Wieland On the New Yorker the radiator hoses are not a problem. The New Yorker sending unit was too long to put a socket over. It sends signals to an oil pressure gauge in the electronic cluster rather than a light so the unit is probably bigger than what you are working with. I had enough clearance to use an adjustable open end wrench to replace the sender. If clearance is tight you might be able to get a crows foot for a 3/8 inch socket drive or a small box wrench to do the job. Even a pair of channel lock pliers will do it if you don't have the tools around and are careful not to round off the edges you are gripping. It wasn't hard to turn at all. Because I was so close to the starter I disconnected the battery before I started the repair. I guess I should have verified if anything was always live going to the starter first but it was easier just to disconnect the battery just in case I dropped a wrench across something down there. Good Luck Steve >On the New Yorker the radiator hoses are not a problem. You're lucky. >The New Yorker sending unit was too long to put a socket over. >It sends signals to an oil pressure gauge in the electronic cluster rather than [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Steve Steve, The biggest problem that I've got with trying to do this myself is that all but a handful of my tools (and ALL of my metric tools) are 200 miles away, along with the factory repair manual. Of course, when you really need it, it isn't with you. I *do* have channel locks and a 12" adjustable wrench. I even have some non-metric open end wrenches -- I just don't see that I've got enough room to use them. I can barely get my hand down to connector on the sending unit from above, and I can't seem to reach it at all from underneath. I think we're going to try to drive it home tomorrow. If I had to bet money, I'd say that the problem is the sending unit, but with my family in the van, I'm betting something far more valuable. -- Jeff Wieland > We're 200 miles from home tonight with an erratic low oil pressure light > on our '95 Voyager, 3.0L, with 110,000 miles. The repair manual and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > new unit and the appropriate socket. Is it likely to be the sending > unit? Yes, it's likely just to be the sending unit or the wire. If the oil pressure were truly low, you'd be hearing expensive noises. Furthermore, if there were truly "intermittent" low oil pressure, it would occur either only at low RPMs (loose internal clearances and/or weak oil pump and/or stuck-open oil pressure regulator valve) or only at high RPMs (partially-clogged oil uptake screen or pipe, sagged oil filter element endcap). If you're driving along and getting a random intermittent oil pressure light, it's probably because the sender's flaky or the wire is intermittently grounding. Me, I'd just go have the oil and filter changed (with a quality filter, to eliminate the chance of filter problems), unplug the sender and drive home, then diagnose and fix it there. > Should I just wait until Monday to get it to the Dodge dealer where I > am? The dealer? I'd never take an out-of-warranty vehicle to the dealer for service. DS >> We're 200 miles from home tonight with an erratic low oil pressure light >> on our '95 Voyager, 3.0L, with 110,000 miles. The repair manual and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >pressure light, it's probably because the sender's flaky or the wire is >intermittently grounding. The engine sounds normal. I'd really expect to hear the lifters clattering if there were no oil pressure. The first time it came on the engine was idling. It went out after I pulled into the street, and then went back on and off traveling at some 40 to 50 mph. I know that by the time you hear something, it can be too late. FWIW, we've been driving through rain today. Of course, we drove 200 miles through a snow storm Wed. night with no problems. >Me, I'd just go have the oil and filter changed (with a quality filter, to >eliminate the chance of filter problems), unplug the sender and drive >home, then diagnose and fix it there. Hmmm. The oil was just changed last Friday, and a Mopar filter was used. >> Should I just wait until Monday to get it to the Dodge dealer where I >> am? > >The dealer? I'd never take an out-of-warranty vehicle to the dealer for >service. Yep, I know. I've had trouble finding someone who knows their way around a Mopar (especially a Mopar with a Mitsubishi engine). >DS Thanks for your reply. > The engine sounds normal. I'd really expect to hear the lifters > clattering if there were no oil pressure. Exactly. > Hmmm. The oil was just changed last Friday, and a Mopar filter was > used. =Fram. Go get a different brand. > Yep, I know. I've had trouble finding someone who knows their way > around a Mopar (especially a Mopar with a Mitsubishi engine). That's a little difficult for me to believe. There are millions of Mopars with Mitsubishi engines on North American (South American, Middle Eastern, European) roads. They're practically as common as Chevrolet Caprices with 305 V8s were a decade ago. >> The engine sounds normal. I'd really expect to hear the lifters >> clattering if there were no oil pressure. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >=Fram. Go get a different brand. Seriously?? I've heard the critisms of Fram, but I didn't know that's what Chrysler is using. Damn... That's what I've got on my Neon R/T, too. >> Yep, I know. I've had trouble finding someone who knows their way >> around a Mopar (especially a Mopar with a Mitsubishi engine). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >European) roads. They're practically as common as Chevrolet Caprices with >305 V8s were a decade ago. >>> The engine sounds normal. I'd really expect to hear the lifters >>> clattering if there were no oil pressure. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >that's what Chrysler is using. Damn... That's what I've got on >my Neon R/T, too. When did Allied Signal start making Mopar filters?? Last I heard, here in Canada anyway, they were Danas. >>> Yep, I know. I've had trouble finding someone who knows their way >>> around a Mopar (especially a Mopar with a Mitsubishi engine). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>European) roads. They're practically as common as Chevrolet Caprices with >>305 V8s were a decade ago. >> We're 200 miles from home tonight with an erratic low oil pressure light >> on our '95 Voyager, 3.0L, with 110,000 miles. The repair manual and [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >DS I did have one experience with an early 3.0 Dodge van where the oil light came on at highway speed and would (usually) go out when the engine was slowed down. A light valve clatter started about when the light came on, and went away seconds after the light went off. Oil level was right on the full mark. The engine had 200 Km on a fresh oil change. When I checked the dipstick, the oil was thin as water. I limped it in to the nearest garage and had the oil changed. Put in Castrol oil to replace the cheap Penzoil that was in it, and never had another problem. Almost 3000 Km in one week of driving. As for taking OOW vehicles to the dealer for service, it depends an awfull lot on the dealer, and who else is available. When I was service manager at a dealership (toyota) our 3 year weighted retention rate was consistently between 70% and 110% - (meaning we were servicing, on a regular basis, between 70% and 110% of the number of vehicles we had sold over the last three years) - so there were a LOT of people who felt it was worth while returning their out of warranty Toyotas to OUR dealership for service. Lots who wouldn't take their car to the dealer they bought it from, but preferred to have my mechanics work on it for them. My mechanics were NOT paid flat rate, were all well trained, and the customer was ALWAYS treated fairly. If the Boss thought I was doing too much for the customer, he was free to get rid of me and find someone who would make more money for him. I lasted 10 years. In that 10 years the service department made the owner over a million dollars. After 10 years, we parted ways, the shop went to Flat Rate, a lot of customers became unhappy and left. I imagine the next ten years made him another million. I know a much larger percentage of the work was vehicles under warranty. I suspect the retention rate got a lot closer to the national average, which was, at the time, somewhare under 50%. That said, a GOOD independent shop is very often a better deal, all around, for routine maintenance, than the dealership. Sadly, GOOD independent shops are every bit as hard to find as GOOD dealerships. And the good independents are finding it harder every year to get and keep good techs. you have that right about an out-of-warranty vehicle to the dealer. you don't even get a kiss with the screwing you'll take. remember, tho, the 3.0 is the mitsu and they can be a real pain. if it only comes on at idle, i'd drive it home. good luck, sammmm > > We're 200 miles from home tonight with an erratic low oil pressure light > > on our '95 Voyager, 3.0L, with 110,000 miles. The repair manual and [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > DS >you have that right about an out-of-warranty vehicle to the dealer. >you don't even get a kiss with the screwing you'll take. >remember, tho, the 3.0 is the mitsu and they can be a real pain. >if it only comes on at idle, i'd drive it home. >good luck, sammmm We made it home OK. Interestingly, the light went out after about 30 minutes on the road. It came back on about an hour after that. Then, on a particularly rough state highway, we noticed that the light would flicker when we hit bumps. To me, that points to some sort of electrical problem, or maybe the sensor itstelf. There's no way that hitting those bumps can affect the actual oil pressure, right? We'll get it checked out tomorrow -- it will be interesting to see what we find out. About two weeks ago I'd been talking to a salesman at the dealership about buying a new van. My wife hates the current colors so much that she's quite opposed to the idea (the van is hers), so as long as the '95 is running reasonably well and is safe to drive, she wants to keep it. She wants a forest green color like our '95. I'd like to get her into something with ABS and better airbags (and that doesn't have that old 4-speed automatic tranny). We'll see after tomorrow. -- Jeff Wieland > We made it home OK. Interestingly, the light went out after about 30 > minutes on the road. It came back on about an hour after that. Then, > on a particularly rough state highway, we noticed that the light would > flicker when we hit bumps. To me, that points to some sort of > electrical problem, or maybe the sensor itstelf. There's no way that > hitting those bumps can affect the actual oil pressure, right? Right. My money is now on a faulty wire grounding out on adjacent metal. > About two weeks ago I'd been talking to a salesman at the dealership > about buying a new van. My wife hates the current colors so much that > she's quite opposed to the idea (the van is hers), so as long as the '95 > is running reasonably well and is safe to drive, she wants to keep it. The current minivans have lots of neato features, but they are really no longer "mini". DS >> About two weeks ago I'd been talking to a salesman at the dealership >> about buying a new van. My wife hates the current colors so much that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >DS My wife wants the short wheelbase model with the middle bench seat, and since I think it it should have a V-6, we were looking at the SWB base model T&C. The only thing I'd like to get that isn't available on the SWB model is traction control. -- Jeff Wieland > Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:28:55 +0000 (UTC) > From: Jeff Wieland <wieland@nospampurdue.edu> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > -- > Jeff Wieland Dan's right, the newer vans are much porkier than your '95. That said, our '03 GC is a superior vehicle to our old '95 SWB Caravan in a lot of ways, not the least of which is the convenience of the driver's side slider and the far superior 3.3L engine. Our '03 doesn't have traction control, and it could definitely use it; there's enough torque available down low in the 3.3's RPM range to easily and inadvertently spin the front tires in the wet. I wonder if this would be improved by replacing the factory Goodyears with something a little better. --Geoff >> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:28:55 +0000 (UTC) >> From: Jeff Wieland <wieland@nospampurdue.edu> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >--Geoff Our '95 with the 3 liter has no trouble squealing the tires, even on dry pavement. We have 205/70R-14 Kelly Navigator Gold tires on it now. It looks like the 2005 SWB T&C is about 600 lbs heavier than the '95. I know that there are issues with this engine -- we've been through oil leaks and a water pump -- but I've always liked the way it runs. It doesn't seem to run out of breath when it shifts down to second for passing, for instance. -- Jeff Wieland > >Dan's right, the newer vans are much porkier than your '95. That said, > >our '03 GC is a superior vehicle to our old '95 SWB Caravan in a lot of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > -- > Jeff Wieland True, that's the one redeeming feature of the 3.0L in the short wheelbase 2nd-gen minivans: adequate power. Mine went through two sets of headgaskets, innumerable oil leaks, bad engine mounts, etc., but the engine was quite strong. Surprising, too, since it was only rated at 141HP/170ft-lbs of torque; the torque curve must be fairly flat. I never had any trouble squawking the tires...or beating the "NOS Equipped Type-R" badged Honduhs from a stoplight, either. But the 3.3L on wet pavement is in a different league of wheelspin. I've normally got a heavy right foot, but I've had trouble being gentle enough to launch smoothly on wet pavement, and the tires are still in very good shape. And it seems that the wheels will spin forever until you lift off the gas entirely, which is what I frequently have to do. You'll notice that extra 600 pounds, but it does contribute to a much smoother ride, too. Personally, I went up a size from the SWB to the LWB, which is a difference closer to 1,000lbs IIRC. There's a perceptible difference in full-throttle accel; I'm pretty sure the 3.0L van would beat it. Not certain about how the SWB '03 would compare to the SWB '95...might be a draw. Sadly, I killed our '95's trans with neglect, and the body was starting to rust out, so it was time to turn it in. I liked that thing, and didn't want to see it go, but I'm happy with the newer van and I've got no regrets. --Geoff In article <Pine.WNT.4.56.0411291303240.3244@geoff23.americas.hpqcorp.net>, The 3.0 in my 88 New Yorker gets up to 32mpg on the highway. My 2000 300M gets at best 26.5 mpg highway. Best results with my 4.6 v8 1995 T-Bird is 29 mpg highway. The older the car the better the gas mileage in my fleet. Steve >True, that's the one redeeming feature of the 3.0L in the short >wheelbase 2nd-gen minivans: adequate power. Mine went through two sets [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >squawking the tires...or beating the "NOS Equipped Type-R" badged >Honduhs from a stoplight, either. Well, we've never had to do head gaskets on it (yet). The good news is that the oil pressure sending unit was leaking and shorting out the connector, so that is being replaced. The oil pressure on the engine itself is fine (whew!). They did find that by manipulating the wiring harness, they could make the light go off and on, so there is a problem with in the wiring somewhere, but given the expense of fixing that, we'll let it lay for now. We'll know to get it addressed if the warning light doesn't come on when the key is on and the van has yet to be started. >But the 3.3L on wet pavement is in a different league of wheelspin. >I've normally got a heavy right foot, but I've had trouble being gentle >enough to launch smoothly on wet pavement, and the tires are still in very good shape. >And it seems that the wheels will spin forever until you lift off the >gas entirely, which is what I frequently have to do. That's why I'm glad my Neon R/T has traction control. I've been known to have a bit of heavy foot myself... It's too bad that it isn't an option on the SWB vans. >You'll notice that extra 600 pounds, but it does contribute to a much >smoother ride, too. Personally, I went up a size from the SWB to the >LWB, which is a difference closer to 1,000lbs IIRC. There's a >perceptible difference in full-throttle accel; I'm pretty sure the 3.0L >van would beat it. Not certain about how the SWB '03 would compare to >the SWB '95...might be a draw. For the SWB '05 vs. the SWB '95, you're adding about 18% more weight but also adding better than 25% more horsepower (and somewhat better than 19% more torque). I suspect that the SWB with the 3.3L would be just as quick as the '95 with the 3.0L. Out of curiousity, what sort of mileage do you get? We get a very consistent 20 mpg with our usual city/highway mix. It drops off a bit in really cold weather. For expressway driving (70 MPH with a fair amount of stuff in it), we see 20 or maybe 21 mpg. >Sadly, I killed our '95's trans with neglect, and the body was starting >to rust out, so it was time to turn it in. I liked that thing, and >didn't want to see it go, but I'm happy with the newer van and I've got >no regrets. The 4-speed auto in our van was rebuilt at something like 55K. It has been fine since, with regular fluid and filter changes. I'm more worried about the transmission than anything else. The body is still really good (OK, it does have a few dings and scratches, but no rust). >--Geoff -- Jeff Wieland > Out of curiousity, what sort of mileage do you get? We get a very > consistent 20 mpg with our usual city/highway mix. It drops off a bit > in really cold weather. For expressway driving (70 MPH with a fair > amount of stuff in it), we see 20 or maybe 21 mpg. Gas mileage is not this thing's strong point. It's mostly a short-trip-mobile grocery-getter. In that sort of driving, it gets about 15-17MPG. It has done worse. This (and horsepower-to-weight) were my objections to getting the LWB van, but my wife wanted the extra space, and it worked out to be the same price, so I went along with it. I try to get it out and really get it thoroughly heated up at least once or twice a week to stave off sludging and corrosion issues, but mostly my wife drives it, and fairly gently; probably most of the shifts are well below 3K RPM. On highway trips, which are mostly through northern MI over several-hundred-mile distances, it does 21-22MPG, which is a few MPG worse than the '95 got on the same trip. If it was driven a bit closer to the speed limit, there might be a 1-2MPG improvement. > >Sadly, I killed our '95's trans with neglect, and the body was starting > >to rust out, so it was time to turn it in. I liked that thing, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > worried about the transmission than anything else. The body is still > really good (OK, it does have a few dings and scratches, but no rust). Really, the thing that gets 'em is heat, from what I've read. It destroys the transmission fluid in short order, and then you get into wear issues quickly. So if the fluid and filter is being regularly maintained, you should get a lot of miles out of it. Mine was a 3-speed automatic, and I relied a bit too much on its reputation for reliability and didn't maintain the fluid. By the time I discovered the error of my ways (after it stopped shifting properly), the trans pan was filled with thick, metallic sludge, and not a lot in the way of fluid. Needless to say, it was over with at that point. Incidently, all of these seem to rust in the same places: starting on the underside of the doors at the pinch-weld, especially the passenger side and slider. They also tend to rust around the rear window, although mine hadn't started to yet. I was going to swap the doors out next spring if the trans hadn't gone; I was even keeping an eye out for the forest green-colored ones to match. Glad to hear all you had was a bad sending unit. Keep a close eye for coolant loss/leaks, that's the telltale sign that there's headgasket problems looming. --Geoff > > Our '95 with the 3 liter has no trouble squealing the tires > > I know that there are issues with this engine -- we've been through oil > > leaks and a water pump -- but I've always liked the way it runs. > True, that's the one redeeming feature of the 3.0L in the short > wheelbase 2nd-gen minivans: adequate power. Yep, the 3-litre engine runs well and is very driveable. I bought a '92 Spirit ES with 60K miles on it early this year, with 3.0/A604, in North Carolina. Got in it, pointed it West, and drove it to Ventura, CA. The engine and trans worked perfectly on this lengthy trip, returning 29 mpg or so and quietly producing plenty of oomph. Nevertheless, the car is no longer equipped with either the 3.0 or the A604. *evil grin* DS > Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:57:10 -0500 > From: Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > DS How has that Mexican-spec Spirit project been going anyway, Dan? Any pics up? --Geoff > I'd like to get her > into something with ABS and better airbags (and that doesn't have that > old 4-speed automatic tranny). We'll see after tomorrow. > -- > Jeff Wieland Jeff, Chysler only has the troublesome 4 speed electronic tranny in all 2005 minivans. Mopar Man >> I'd like to get her >> into something with ABS and better airbags (and that doesn't have that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Mopar Man I thought that this tranmission had been replaced in the newer models (somtime post 2000). Am I wrong? Are they still as troublesome as ever? -- Jeff Wieland |
Reply to this Message |
 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.