4.7 million cars prone to sludge?

[tenderloin]

This months Consumer Report lists 447,000 1997-2004 Audi/VW 1.8 turbo's, 797,000 1998-2002 Chrysler 2.7L V-6, 1,577,000 1997-2001 Toyota/Lexus 3.0L V-6, 1,757,000 1997-2001 Toyota 2.2L 4, 82,000 2000-2003 Saab 2.0L 4 Turbo, 68,000 1999-2003 1999-2003 prone to sludge and how the different manufacturers handle this problem.

Some companies have offered extended warranties, others it is a case by case situation. It also tells how some owners have to jump through hoops to get help, especially if you changed your own oil.

Consumers Reports also recommends using synthetic oils in these prone to sludging engines and or extreme service OCI's

Overall, an interesting read.

 

[Pablo]

Do they actually list the "cause"?

 

[tenderloin]

They mention "sludge-prone designs" as well as poor up keep by owners.

 

[MIAMI-DADE]

Are you sure it's consumer reports?I don't see it in the July issue as i just read it.
I was waiting for them to finally test oil.

Back around 95 they said syntheic wasn't worth it after testing syn and dino in New York City Taxis.The Caprice at that time.
As i recall the dino held up just as well as the syntheic at 6k oci at that time.So they said.

Maybe now their changing their tune.

 

[wavinwayne]

I remember reading that C.R. story on syn. vs conventional oil, too...circa 1995. It was one of the main reasons I never considered synthetics until I purchased my VW 1.8T.

 

[wavinwayne]

quote:

---

Originally posted by tenderloin:
They mention "sludge-prone designs"....

---

Do they try to define "sludge-prone designs"?

 

[DD]

How ironic that CR, by saying synths weren't worth it, may have inadvertently contributed to the sludge problem they're now writing about.

I still have to wonder why this is so rare in Europe, especially in the cases where they have a nearly identical engine on the market (e.g. Aud/VW 1.8T, Saab 2.0 turbo).

And, no, I don't really believe that Europeans are universally better/less lazy about car maintenance to enough of a degree to account for all of it. They're human, too.

Maybe it's gas or driving pattern differences?

DD

 

[moribundman]

quote:

---

And, no, I don't really believe that Europeans are universally better/less lazy about car maintenance to enough of a degree to account for all of it. They're human, too.

---

Those blasted Europeans must be selling the factory rejects as export models.

Don't forget that Europe was hit hard by sludge, known as Black Death, in the 1970s. As a result, the Euro car makers became much more strict when it came to oil choice. In the late '80s I was already using nothing but full synthetic oil in my used 1980 VW Scirocco. I never had an issue with sludge in any of my cars in Europe or here. In my opinion, sludge is always due to improper oil choice and/or vastly exceeded oil change intervals.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MIAMI-DADE:
Back around 95 they said syntheic wasn't worth it after testing syn and dino in New York City Taxis.The Caprice at that time.

---

There you go. One particular engine design, with a particular style of use, in a particular climate and they assumed it applied to every situation.

A real scientist/engineer would be yelling "run for the hills, amateurs are trying to establish universal laws again."

 

[labman]

Did this statistic come from the same source as the one in the thread about spilled oil? I could care less about any study of NY taxis. Their usage is so different from mine, that any data is meaningless to me. Sometimes CR collects some good data, but I think they write the conclusions before, not letting facts influence their agenda.

 

[tenderloin]

Much of the information gathered was taken from the car companies themselves, and how THEY are responding to a problem THEY have acknowledged exists.

 

[Ugly3]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MIAMI-DADE:
Back around 95 they said syntheic wasn't worth it after testing syn and dino in New York City Taxis.The Caprice at that time.

---

There you go. One particular engine design, with a particular style of use, in a particular climate and they assumed it applied to every situation.

A real scientist/engineer would be yelling "run for the hills, amateurs are trying to establish universal laws again."

---

Did anyone bother to read the report? CR didn't say any of these things.

CR said that "in their test" conventional and synthetic performed equally well and that "there may be some small diferences that out tests didn't reveal". CR also said that synthetics should be considered for extreme conditions such as high temps, high loads, and very cold temps. CR specifically did not say synthetis are not worth it.

CR did not say their test was typical of anything, they reported the test criterian and the test results they got. If the reader would like to assume the test results are universal that can but CR did not assert that.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ugly3:
Did anyone bother to read the report? CR didn't say any of these things.

CR said that "in their test" conventional and synthetic performed equally well and that "there may be some small diferences that out tests didn't reveal". CR also said that synthetics should be considered for extreme conditions such as high temps, high loads, and very cold temps. CR specifically did not say synthetis are not worth it.

CR did not say their test was typical of anything, they reported the test criterian and the test results they got. If the reader would like to assume the test results are universal that can but CR did not assert that.

---

Yes. I just reread it for the 6th time.

I learned early on in life that written communications can be interpreted differently by different groups people depending on many different factors. Surely as a critical BITOGer you might notice all the caveats such as "in our tests", but what was the general impression left in the mind of the average CR reader?

I contend that when the average CR reader saw the test described as: Our test conditions were grueling, to say the least. The typical Big Apple cab is driven day and night, in traffic that is legendary for it's perversity, by cabbies who are just legendary for their driving abandon.

And the main topic sentence in the recommendations is: None of the tested oils proved better than others in our tests. There may be small differences that our tests didn't reveal, but unless you typically drive under more severe conditions than a New York cab does, you won't go wrong if you shop strictly by price or availabiluty.

...the average person who thinks little about oil and oil changes probably continued to do so. That group includes people who only changed their oil when they remembered and went away thinking they could continue to do so, that is, until they bought a vehicle where the scheduled oil changes were critical.

 

[Ugly3]

Ya know, I think you are on to something here. I didn't have a problem when CR reported that wear differences between conventional and synthetic were insignificant. I was concerned when they reported that longer OCIs also made little if any difference.

The guy who is a short tripper may think it is OK to go 6,000 miles based on this report. I know they had lots of recommendations but I am concerned that some folks may not read that thoroughly.

 

[shanneba]

I posted some info on this a few days ago.
It is in the August 2005 issue

Sludge engines and 8 year warranties

 

[shanneba]

You may be able to view the 8/2005 Consumer reports article online here.

http://www.consumerreports.org/main...?FOLDER<>folder_id=665845&bmUID=1120688516543

 

[The Critic]

Michael, I have to delete your picture. It is of a copyright article. Only use the link. Thanks

[ July 06, 2005, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]

 

[MIAMI-DADE]

Here in Florida already some short tripper's and i mean SHORT TRIPPERS'S think they really can go 6k OCI's which would mean OCI every 3 years.
After i explained to them that was a bad idea they thought about it most agreed.Most of these people don't go over 30 mph to begin with.

My boss bought one of those cars low milege cars for his long communte about 60 miles each way.Most highway.I said bad idea cause the car never went on the highway in 35k.

Of coarse it fell on deaf ears like i knew it would. So the first day he got it he was a no show.He blew his engine in the first 10 miles.LOL.

 

[toyo]

I have a 2001 Lexus Rx300. It has 145k miles on it. I have changed the oil and filter every 4k miles since new. Always used Mobil 1 5w30 until 120k miles, then switched to Mobil 1 10w30. Always use a Toyota filter. The engine sees all kinds of driving conditions. I have removed the valve cover several times. It is like brand new inside. I have alos removed the oil pan, again it is like new. My theory on theese engines: Yes, they are more likely to sludge up when you DONT change the oil on a regular basis. Some engines can just be abused more without a problem. I know there are some engines out there that have failed with oil change reciepts. I know the lead tech at my Lexus dealership, and he tells me some funny stories about people and there reciepts.

 

[Mitch Alsup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by shanneba:
I posted some info on this a few days ago.
It is in the August 2005 issue

Sludge engines and 8 year warranties

---

I happen to have 3 vehicles with engines on that list (one with 125,000 miles, one with 80,000 miles, and one with 75,000 miles). None of my cars have a sludge problem, and all have been on a 3,000 conventional oil regimine (at the local Quickie Lube).