Ha. BMW N63 valve stem fiasco front and center at the top of the list.
Could synthetic have saved this Camry?
- Thread starter Thermo1223
- Start date
If you look at when he points out where the cylinders are missing the cross hatch. It's not missing all around the cylinders but only where the piston is under a side load and the piston skirts are pressed against the cylinder walls. Perhaps the piston wears down the cross hatch removing the ability of the cylinder wall to retain oil for ring lubrication. The rings then wear and heat up leading to oil consumption and cooked rings. Longer coated skirts might prevent this?
It's been a while for me too, so I can't remember everything. I know it affected early 90s f150s right up to a 97 old style f250 with a 351 (which our dealership replaced the engine for oil consumption). Although it's possible the problem was fixed earlier and the 97 was just a fluke?
Personally I had an 88 grand marquis with 170k and it didn't burn a drop.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
There's this list of TSB's:
1995 FORD F-150 Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs) - Ford F150 Forum - Community of Ford Truck Fans
1995 ford f-150 Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs). Check for technical service bulletins (TSBs) on your vehicle by make, model, and year.
www.f150forum.com
One notes:
RECORD_ID: 110929
Bulletin Number: 01246
Replacement Service Bulletin Number: N/A
NHTSA Item Number: 630515
Date Posted: 12-10-2001
Component Name: 061100 ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING: ENGINE: GASOLINE
Make: FORD
Model: F-150
Year: 1995
Date Added: 04-18-2002
Summary: ENGINE OIL SYSTEM PRIMING PROCEDURES, SERVICE TIPS FOR REPORTS OF PREMATURE ENGINE FAILURE. *TT
But unfortunately many are pretty vague.
IMO, vehicles with low tension rings (prone to burn oil), doing long OCI intervals cakes up the rings, in conjunction viscosity breaks down and exacerbates the problem.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Ring coking certainly doesn't require low tension rings, we've seen multiple examples (Toyota, Saturn) where the oil drainback holes located behind the oil control ring stack aren't large enough or numerous enough and are prone to plugging. That leads to rapid and heavy coking, at which point oil control stops and oil consumption becomes significant.
If the issue was simply low tension rings, most engines produced for the last several decades would consume oil, because, as I noted earlier in the thread, Ford went with low tension rings starting in 1985! Now, low tension is of course a range, but its presence certainly doesn't guarantee a predisposition to oil consumption or coking. As with many things, it ultimately comes down to a design issue, often due to inadequate testing by the OEM.
To clarify I don't think 1 qt every 5000 miles is a prolific oil burner, in fact it is probably below average and most definitely below average for this engine platform.
As far as maintenance goes, the maintenance required notification comes on at 5000 miles, I change the oil with M1 0W20 AFE as I said. One thing I can say for sure is that the internals are much cleaner than the 300,000 mile engine shown in that video
"may" is the operative word there. It's lawyer-speak. I know you're not quoting it word-for-word, but I have no doubt it says something like "may", like you typed. No way an automaker will say not using a specific oil will void the warranty.
It also says you MUST use an approved oil, and can add no more than half a qt of non approved oil in an emergency... there's some mealy mouth lawyer words but they aren't nearly as ambiguous as most.
I predict in the very unlikely event an engine fails anyone who used non approved oil will have an uphill battle.
Only on BITOG could we manage to turn a 300,000 mile Toyota teardown into a VW approved oil argument.
I predict in the very unlikely event an engine fails anyone who used non approved oil will have an uphill battle.
Only on BITOG could we manage to turn a 300,000 mile Toyota teardown into a VW approved oil argument.
My cat died at 292,000 on my 2015 Honda Civic but of course as you all will remember I used Redline 0w20 for the majority of the time and it had a higher zinc content. Getting those cats hot, keeps things going, and long highway driving will get that converter a long life.
Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
Not sure why this is so tough, but 0W-20 was not "bulk oil". These also called for 5W-20 and it probably had most of its life on "conventional"/blend 5W-20. Everyone loves misinformation to misinform...
I'm not bothering with this video, but I've gathered it made it over 300K and now uses some oil. Not exactly grist for the Thick vs. Thin mill as plenty of cars using thicker oils have grenade'd far before that mark...
Yes and that specific language is entirely due to CAFE requirements and has exactly zero to do with technical needs of the engine.
Oh and I would have had no uphill battle considering the dealer changes were also 504 00 oil.
"may" is the operative word there. It's lawyer-speak. I know you're not quoting it word-for-word, but I have no doubt it says something like "may", like you typed. No way an automaker will say not using a specific oil will void the warranty.
I think they word it this way to cover those situations where the owner was using cheap dollar store type oil.
You assume it's a specialty shop. I assume it's a chain built on profit so we'll just agree to disagree on what we think he did.
Yea, I’m staying to think if an oil has a high VI, it’s due to either naturally high VI oils(like POE or PAO) or a slug of VII added. Idemitsu’s 0W-20 which I used with success to curb oil consumption on a Subaru has a 200+ VI, supposedly it uses MMA “star” polymer VIIs which are more volatile but don’t break down as much. I’m seeing 170-190 VIs in other 0W-20s. Most, if not call 0W-20s are primarily GIII base stock via hydrocracking and dewaxing or GTL.
That said, I’ve switched all the 0W-20 cars I maintain to 5W-30 but I’m keeping one on 0W-20(RAV4, 2AR-FE) to see how that fares.
There is no assuming what we think he did. What the owner did is spelled out in the video starting at 3:35 :
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
- Messages
- 2,406
I like the car care nut, however THIS video and his other video where he talks about how 10,000 mile oil changes ruined a car, kind of contradict themselves.
The extended oil interval “failure”, THAT car lasted 200,000 before (if i remember) it became an oil burner because of stuck rings. And needed replacement. He blamed the long intervals, however that particular engine was known for a design flaw (rings). He blamed the interval, if I remember.
And now THIS engine failed and became an oil burner, a severe oil burner at 300,000 miles, however when did that consumption start? In the video it sounded like something the customer was dealing with for a long long while. Did the consumption start at 200,000 miles? Then grow and grow until it became unmanageable? Sounds like it did. Either way, we have two oil burners here - one with 5,000 mile intervals, the other with 10,000 mile intervals - the results were the same. Engine failure.
Oil brand, interval (within reason) isn’t going to save an engine that has design flaws/known failure issues.
The extended oil interval “failure”, THAT car lasted 200,000 before (if i remember) it became an oil burner because of stuck rings. And needed replacement. He blamed the long intervals, however that particular engine was known for a design flaw (rings). He blamed the interval, if I remember.
And now THIS engine failed and became an oil burner, a severe oil burner at 300,000 miles, however when did that consumption start? In the video it sounded like something the customer was dealing with for a long long while. Did the consumption start at 200,000 miles? Then grow and grow until it became unmanageable? Sounds like it did. Either way, we have two oil burners here - one with 5,000 mile intervals, the other with 10,000 mile intervals - the results were the same. Engine failure.
Oil brand, interval (within reason) isn’t going to save an engine that has design flaws/known failure issues.
Well, they are. Or let's say they may be part of the problem. Saab H-engines went from bulletproof to "meh" with the b205/b235. These engines drink hilarious amounts of oil, even after the PVC was sorted out. They are also prone to oil sludge and coked oil blocking the pickup screen.
Main difference* to the b204/b234, who like previous generations don't drink at all? Low-tension piston rings...
*there were other differences, too. Valvetrain was lighter and apparently, the head flowed better. But this does not affect blow-by or oil consumption...
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
They CAN be part of a larger problem, when not properly implemented, but that's not a fault of the rings, it's a fault of the design choices made, like, as I mentioned, Toyota and Saturn (GM) both spec'ing inadequately sized, and an insufficient number, of oil drain holes in the oil control ring groove. The fact that most marques have not had problems with them in the decades they've been used is evidence enough of that.
It's like shipping a car with PSS's on it and it snapping axles and then folks blaming the tires.
Just like we don't universally condemn VCT because Ford's 3V was highly problematic, just like we don't universally condemn cam-in-block engines because FCA and GM have had lifter issues...etc.
Similar threads
- Sticky