I can think of a dozen people I whould ask for OCI advice before a mechanic.
Chrysler Mechanic thoughts on longer drain intervals
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by Malo83
Originally Posted by pitzel
Direct injection demands longer, not shorter intervals. As exposure to virgin motor oil is a very significant root cause of the intake contamination issues.
Of course lubricant quantity is very important.
And you know this how?
Let's see. Have a watch of this guy:
https://youtu.be/66C4YIiwRbM?t=676
Cites a 2011 SAE study that basically indicates that disproportionately high levels of the components associated with engine oil additives are found in the intakes of cars that are affected by the intake clogging.
It is well known that the OEMs have demanded much tighter NOACK volatility specs of the latest API spec oils. The manufacturers have been heavily pushing long drain intervals, whether explicitly, or through OLMs. And more or less the intake clogging issues do not arise in Europe where there is not a culture of "lubricant fraud" at dealers / quickie lubes, nor overly frequent changing of motor oil (because oil changes are $$$$, not $39.95!).
Even in North America, those who seem to be most afflicted with the issues are enthusiasts, who, out of a misguided belief that they're prolong the longevity of their engines, change oil far more frequently than spec'ed. And some of the worst cases seen are those who had their oil changed overly frequently by vendors highly prone to lubricant fraud.
The intake issues have been particularly vexing for the OEMs as its very hard to come up with tests to actually re-create the conditions. Engines at manufacturers are tested to the manufacturer's spec -- it was previously inconceivable that OEM engineers had to come up with test cycles that actually contemplated the sort of engine abuse that overly frequent oil changers subject their equipment to.
Originally Posted by pitzel
Direct injection demands longer, not shorter intervals. As exposure to virgin motor oil is a very significant root cause of the intake contamination issues.
Of course lubricant quantity is very important.
And you know this how?
Let's see. Have a watch of this guy:
https://youtu.be/66C4YIiwRbM?t=676
Cites a 2011 SAE study that basically indicates that disproportionately high levels of the components associated with engine oil additives are found in the intakes of cars that are affected by the intake clogging.
It is well known that the OEMs have demanded much tighter NOACK volatility specs of the latest API spec oils. The manufacturers have been heavily pushing long drain intervals, whether explicitly, or through OLMs. And more or less the intake clogging issues do not arise in Europe where there is not a culture of "lubricant fraud" at dealers / quickie lubes, nor overly frequent changing of motor oil (because oil changes are $$$$, not $39.95!).
Even in North America, those who seem to be most afflicted with the issues are enthusiasts, who, out of a misguided belief that they're prolong the longevity of their engines, change oil far more frequently than spec'ed. And some of the worst cases seen are those who had their oil changed overly frequently by vendors highly prone to lubricant fraud.
The intake issues have been particularly vexing for the OEMs as its very hard to come up with tests to actually re-create the conditions. Engines at manufacturers are tested to the manufacturer's spec -- it was previously inconceivable that OEM engineers had to come up with test cycles that actually contemplated the sort of engine abuse that overly frequent oil changers subject their equipment to.
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
Originally Posted by pitzel
Direct injection demands longer, not shorter intervals. As exposure to virgin motor oil is a very significant root cause of the intake contamination issues.
Of course lubricant quantity is very important.
Huh?
So virgin oil is more dangerous than built-up carbon oil or fuel diluted oil?...... hahahahahaha
What's 'built up carbon oil'? Do you mean insolubles? We never see even DI oils even remotely anywhere near condemnation limits in the UOA sections.
Fuel dilution is transient, and except for gross cases (ie: those Hondas apparently), a lot of the problem in the contemporary context is simply measuring such. The EPA regs, for instance, require an extra rich mixture at startup to quickly light off the catalytic converter. However, when people change oil, they usually start from cold, and, at best, run the vehicle a few minutes to warm it up, and then shut it down. A more accurate way to measure in-service fuel dilution would be to remove a sample of oil from a hot, *running* engine. But literally how many people have that capability? Almost nobody.
Of course there's a balance that needs to be struck between preserving low-volatility oil in the crankcase, and actually having oil that has acceptable lubricating qualities for the components that actually need lubrication. Manufacturers, in their OCI guidance, make a first order attempt at such, given that they're doing so for what they believe is the lowest common denominator of oil at the time of the vehicle's manufacturing. Those who foolishly override the manufacturer's guidance and change oil more frequently than spec (or with the wrong oil) are definitely leaving themselves open to the induction of issues, such as intake contamination, not contemplated by the manufacturer's spec'ed interval.
Originally Posted by pitzel
Direct injection demands longer, not shorter intervals. As exposure to virgin motor oil is a very significant root cause of the intake contamination issues.
Of course lubricant quantity is very important.
Huh?
So virgin oil is more dangerous than built-up carbon oil or fuel diluted oil?...... hahahahahaha
What's 'built up carbon oil'? Do you mean insolubles? We never see even DI oils even remotely anywhere near condemnation limits in the UOA sections.
Fuel dilution is transient, and except for gross cases (ie: those Hondas apparently), a lot of the problem in the contemporary context is simply measuring such. The EPA regs, for instance, require an extra rich mixture at startup to quickly light off the catalytic converter. However, when people change oil, they usually start from cold, and, at best, run the vehicle a few minutes to warm it up, and then shut it down. A more accurate way to measure in-service fuel dilution would be to remove a sample of oil from a hot, *running* engine. But literally how many people have that capability? Almost nobody.
Of course there's a balance that needs to be struck between preserving low-volatility oil in the crankcase, and actually having oil that has acceptable lubricating qualities for the components that actually need lubrication. Manufacturers, in their OCI guidance, make a first order attempt at such, given that they're doing so for what they believe is the lowest common denominator of oil at the time of the vehicle's manufacturing. Those who foolishly override the manufacturer's guidance and change oil more frequently than spec (or with the wrong oil) are definitely leaving themselves open to the induction of issues, such as intake contamination, not contemplated by the manufacturer's spec'ed interval.
Seems like only mechanics are recomending short oci to protect your engine. Mechanics vehicles are usually the worst of the worst and they need money to survive. I make a better living since I no longer work for dealer. Most people who abuse their cars from lack of maintenance get high mileage out of vehicles. Heck poor people buy junk and never change oil and still go on long trips. Hmmm
Stevie, my dad was a proponent of extended OCIs on the taxis, but he didn't want to go beyond 10,000 km, wanting to get under the car at least that often to check things over. Underhood was checked daily, so that part was never an issue.
Originally Posted by caprice_2nv
Also someone in here seems to be confused about using an oil pressure gauge as a warning that the oil level is low. I didn't see any comments on that. Oil pressure won't drop noticeably until the oil pump sucks air from being so low (probably during cornering, acceleration etc when you likely aren't looking at the gauge). Also if it's a Ford oil pressure shows perfect right until the pressure drops below spec.
Dude I literally quoted the two messages about oil level monitoring...
I explained why it's pretty useless to have something other than a dipstick to monitor oil level, not that you can use a oil pressure gauge to monitor oil level. My only point with that is that an engine has an acceptable range of psi, and that oil level has an effect on it.
Also someone in here seems to be confused about using an oil pressure gauge as a warning that the oil level is low. I didn't see any comments on that. Oil pressure won't drop noticeably until the oil pump sucks air from being so low (probably during cornering, acceleration etc when you likely aren't looking at the gauge). Also if it's a Ford oil pressure shows perfect right until the pressure drops below spec.
Dude I literally quoted the two messages about oil level monitoring...
I explained why it's pretty useless to have something other than a dipstick to monitor oil level, not that you can use a oil pressure gauge to monitor oil level. My only point with that is that an engine has an acceptable range of psi, and that oil level has an effect on it.
Originally Posted by Garak
Stevie, my dad was a proponent of extended OCIs on the taxis, but he didn't want to go beyond 10,000 km, wanting to get under the car at least that often to check things over. Underhood was checked daily, so that part was never an issue.
Yeah and they are usually hot most of the day so while it is short trip driving and extended periods of idling it's different than short trips with cool down periods where the oil goes back to a cold state and doesn't stay hot or warmish all day (depending on the weather).
My dad used to service a few taxi's in the 1980's at his shops in Toronto. Never had sludging issues and they always were past the recommended OCI.
Stevie, my dad was a proponent of extended OCIs on the taxis, but he didn't want to go beyond 10,000 km, wanting to get under the car at least that often to check things over. Underhood was checked daily, so that part was never an issue.
Yeah and they are usually hot most of the day so while it is short trip driving and extended periods of idling it's different than short trips with cool down periods where the oil goes back to a cold state and doesn't stay hot or warmish all day (depending on the weather).
My dad used to service a few taxi's in the 1980's at his shops in Toronto. Never had sludging issues and they always were past the recommended OCI.
Yes, that was never a problem. He certainly didn't want leaving the suspension or steering completely unobserved for months at a time. Cab drivers aren't easy on suspension components, to say the least.
Originally Posted by Garak
Yes, that was never a problem. He certainly didn't want leaving the suspension or steering completely unobserved for months at a time. Cab drivers aren't easy on suspension components, to say the least.
That and the rear-ends back in the day. Always whining and always in need of service / rebuilding. It used to be super common unlike today.
Yes, that was never a problem. He certainly didn't want leaving the suspension or steering completely unobserved for months at a time. Cab drivers aren't easy on suspension components, to say the least.
That and the rear-ends back in the day. Always whining and always in need of service / rebuilding. It used to be super common unlike today.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by PWMDMD
That's not objective data - that's your theory on how fuel dilution could be dentrimental. What I'm asking for and have never seen is real data showing fuel dilution adversely affects the engine in some meaningful way. All of your points may be true but they do not prove it's detrimental.
Sorry...scientist by training. Lots of things seems strait forward and obvious and turn out to be competely wrong...that's why we have the scientific method. Most here seem to just assume this is a real problem and so much time and effort and discussion has gone into this "problem" and we still have never even once established it is actually a problem.
Some intro documents and techniques:
https://www.spectrosci.com/product/q6000/?fileID=8a8081894ccb3b72014d104badbb2999
https://www.lubricants.total.com/fuel-dilution-engine-oil-causes-and-effects
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/fuel-dilution
And an actual study:
https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/75680
Thanks for posting these.
Interesting that fuel dilution can actually cause oil viscosity to increase when bio in fuel.
Originally Posted by PWMDMD
That's not objective data - that's your theory on how fuel dilution could be dentrimental. What I'm asking for and have never seen is real data showing fuel dilution adversely affects the engine in some meaningful way. All of your points may be true but they do not prove it's detrimental.
Sorry...scientist by training. Lots of things seems strait forward and obvious and turn out to be competely wrong...that's why we have the scientific method. Most here seem to just assume this is a real problem and so much time and effort and discussion has gone into this "problem" and we still have never even once established it is actually a problem.
Some intro documents and techniques:
https://www.spectrosci.com/product/q6000/?fileID=8a8081894ccb3b72014d104badbb2999
https://www.lubricants.total.com/fuel-dilution-engine-oil-causes-and-effects
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/fuel-dilution
And an actual study:
https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/75680
Thanks for posting these.
Interesting that fuel dilution can actually cause oil viscosity to increase when bio in fuel.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by andyd
If tire pressure has to monitored Why aren't oil and coolant levels monitored as well? They all are amber alerts
Seems silly they aren't doesn't it? How hard is a float switch to include on the sump and have it check when the key is turned on before the engine cranks. It would take it no time to read the value.
My 1993 Aerostar with the 4.0l V6 had a oil level sensor in the oil pan. When it was a quart low, a light appeared on the dash. That certainly helped that engine live a long life when my wife drove it. My 1996 Aerostar didn't seem to have one, probably one of the decontenting cuts made. Wish more vehicles had something similar.
Originally Posted by andyd
If tire pressure has to monitored Why aren't oil and coolant levels monitored as well? They all are amber alerts
Seems silly they aren't doesn't it? How hard is a float switch to include on the sump and have it check when the key is turned on before the engine cranks. It would take it no time to read the value.
My 1993 Aerostar with the 4.0l V6 had a oil level sensor in the oil pan. When it was a quart low, a light appeared on the dash. That certainly helped that engine live a long life when my wife drove it. My 1996 Aerostar didn't seem to have one, probably one of the decontenting cuts made. Wish more vehicles had something similar.
I agree with the mechanic. His advise does not apply to anyone who visits this site.
The average joe does not lift the hood, or know what anything under the hood does or is.
Getting the car in for service at 3k will at least let someone check something.
My wife would never lift the hood on her car for any reason. She asked me why I was so paranoid, for changing out her dryrotted drive belt as it looked fine to her.
I check oil once a week and top off as necessary.
The average joe does not lift the hood, or know what anything under the hood does or is.
Getting the car in for service at 3k will at least let someone check something.
My wife would never lift the hood on her car for any reason. She asked me why I was so paranoid, for changing out her dryrotted drive belt as it looked fine to her.
I check oil once a week and top off as necessary.
Originally Posted by StevieC
That and the rear-ends back in the day. Always whining and always in need of service / rebuilding. It used to be super common unlike today.
We were fairly lucky, but it wasn't unheard of to have a problem in that regard, either. Cabbies liked to hit curbs and potholes and screw up suspension components most of all, though. At least the wheels were steel.
That and the rear-ends back in the day. Always whining and always in need of service / rebuilding. It used to be super common unlike today.
We were fairly lucky, but it wasn't unheard of to have a problem in that regard, either. Cabbies liked to hit curbs and potholes and screw up suspension components most of all, though. At least the wheels were steel.
Originally Posted by JustinH
I agree with the mechanic. His advise does not apply to anyone who visits this site.
The average joe does not lift the hood, or know what anything under the hood does or is.
Getting the car in for service at 3k will at least let someone check something.
My wife would never lift the hood on her car for any reason. She asked me why I was so paranoid, for changing out her dryrotted drive belt as it looked fine to her.
I check oil once a week and top off as necessary.
Agreed
My dad has only Toyota whole his life, when it was 3k or 3 months, he took it for oil change every 3k or 3 months. Now Toyota goes 10k miles, he will takes to dealer for maybe once a year. Thats giving mechanic to look over maybe 5 or 6 times before his powertrain warranty goes out.
I agree with the mechanic. His advise does not apply to anyone who visits this site.
The average joe does not lift the hood, or know what anything under the hood does or is.
Getting the car in for service at 3k will at least let someone check something.
My wife would never lift the hood on her car for any reason. She asked me why I was so paranoid, for changing out her dryrotted drive belt as it looked fine to her.
I check oil once a week and top off as necessary.
Agreed
My dad has only Toyota whole his life, when it was 3k or 3 months, he took it for oil change every 3k or 3 months. Now Toyota goes 10k miles, he will takes to dealer for maybe once a year. Thats giving mechanic to look over maybe 5 or 6 times before his powertrain warranty goes out.
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by StevieC
That and the rear-ends back in the day. Always whining and always in need of service / rebuilding. It used to be super common unlike today.
We were fairly lucky, but it wasn't unheard of to have a problem in that regard, either. Cabbies liked to hit curbs and potholes and screw up suspension components most of all, though. At least the wheels were steel.
Yes and later, sub-frames.
Originally Posted by StevieC
That and the rear-ends back in the day. Always whining and always in need of service / rebuilding. It used to be super common unlike today.
We were fairly lucky, but it wasn't unheard of to have a problem in that regard, either. Cabbies liked to hit curbs and potholes and screw up suspension components most of all, though. At least the wheels were steel.
Yes and later, sub-frames.
- Status
Similar threads
