Why are people suddenly concluding low tension rings are an issue? They've been standard for decades folks, they aren't a problem.
+1
Why are people suddenly concluding low tension rings are an issue? They've been standard for decades folks, they aren't a problem.
I hope my engine isn't burning that much at 300k miles.The engine has 300,000 miles on it.
The Ford dealership did a lot of warranty engine replacements on 302's in trucks when they went to low tension piston rings in the 90s. Those were before my time (I worked there in 2003-2005 or so) but there was a tsb about it and my friend/coworker at the time actually worked there when they were repairing them for that problem.Why are people suddenly concluding low tension rings are an issue? They've been standard for decades folks, they aren't a problem.
As we've learned, there are tests showing that using ever thinner oils, with HTHS as low as 2.2 did not increase cylinder and ring wear.No. Almost all of these oil burners used 0W20 synthetic from Day 1.
Mustang (302HO) got low tension rings in 1985, it was never an issue with the cars from what I recall.The Ford dealership did a lot of warranty engine replacements on 302's in trucks when they went to low tension piston rings in the 90s. Those were before my time (I worked there in 2003-2005 or so) but there was a tsb about it and my friend/coworker at the time actually worked there when they were repairing them for that problem.
0W-20 is exempt from the API ring deposit maximum. Combine low tension rings and poorly designed pistons with an oil grade allowed to leave more ring deposits than industry standard and you end up with a bunch of oil burners. The 0W-20 may not have ruined them outright, but I can't help think it was a contributing factor.Which do you mean:
- they were on synthetic oil from day 1 (0w-20 being synthetic I imagine)
or
- 0w-20 viscosity ruined them?
Ehhh.. @OVERKILL Maybe, in this case, it could be as simple as Toyota just didn't make them that well. I don't know that for a fact, no, BUT. (Engines were already assembled when they came in where I was at, they make them somewhere else, I want to say Kentucky is engine plant but not 100% sure on that.) Enter Toyota. 1ZZ-FE is same issue. The ZZ family replaced the extremely popular cast-iron block 4A engines.Why are people suddenly concluding low tension rings are an issue? They've been standard for decades folks, they aren't a problem.
I wonder if the dexos1 spec many 0W-20s meet has criteria for piston ring deposits. There was talk here MMA/“star” polymer VIIs are a bit more resistant to degrading unlike OCP VIIs. Could that have an impact on ring deposits?0W-20 is exempt from the API ring deposit maximum. Combine low tension rings and poorly designed pistons with an oil grade allowed to leave more ring deposits than industry standard and you end up with a bunch of oil burners. The 0W-20 may not have ruined them outright, but I can't help think it was a contributing factor.
Ed
Low tension rings can be a problem and certainly were in the 2AZ-FE, used mainly in 2007-2009 Camry. This is not new, nor sudden. Toyota engineers made that conclusion back in 2011. Toyota issued a TSB and redesigned the rings to a higher tension spec. Along with a slightly updated piston design, that solved the problem for good.Why are people suddenly concluding low tension rings are an issue? They've been standard for decades folks, they aren't a problem.
I was told they didn't see issues with the Mustangs either...but it could be that they were broken in harder than the trucks (better for seating the rings) or that they didn't sell many compared to the trucks (this was the north country). They also didn't see many issues with crown vics or grand marquis and they tend to get babied.Mustang (302HO) got low tension rings in 1985, it was never an issue with the cars from what I recall.
Now, Ford DID go to hypereutectic pistons in like '92?
The trucks were late to go roller cam, like mid 90's? and were batch-fire, had their own intake, the lopo firing order and a few other oddities, so perhaps something there got buggered up? But I've never personally heard of this.
Why bet, in video he said that owner did oil changes himself.I'm willing to bet this car (and nearly 100% of the cars on the road) got/gets quickie lube bulk crap.
No. Almost all of these oil burners used 0W20 synthetic from Day 1.
That engine just imo looks severely neglected. Maybe he did more extended intervals than was admitted.Why bet, in video he said that owner did oil changes himself.
Looked pretty good to me for 300k miles, also the guy taking it apart said it looks good.That engine just imo looks severely neglected. Maybe he did more extended intervals than was admitted.
300,000 miles is definitely ALOT of miles! I'm impressed how clean that car is, and the fact that it's a standard!Looked pretty good to me for 300k miles, also the guy taking it apart said it looks good.
Is this the updated piston design with more numerous and larger oil return holes? If so, then that's the root cause, not the rings. That TSB does indicate that the piston assembly was updated:Low tension rings can be a problem and certainly were in the 2AZ-FE, used mainly in 2007-2009 Camry. This is not new, nor sudden. Toyota engineers made that conclusion back in 2011. Toyota issued a TSB and redesigned the rings to a higher tension spec. Along with a slightly updated piston design, that solved the problem for good.
Think the definition is pretty universal. I'm not sure why Toyota has had piston/ring design issues, too much CAD and not enough testing? LOL!Unfortunately for the owners who didn't meet the minimum oil burn rate during the powertrain warranty period, they're stuck with doing the repair on their own dime. So, ironically, owners who used high quality oil and changed it frequently were more likely to miss out on free warranty repairs.
That said, Toyota's definition of "low-tension" may be very different from Ford's definition.
I do remember that oil consumption could be a problem if the PCV screen on the cars got plugged. That was an odd design, there being that metal mesh "filter" located below the PCV valve in the back of the intake, so you clearly couldn't see it.I was told they didn't see issues with the Mustangs either...but it could be that they were broken in harder than the trucks (better for seating the rings) or that they didn't sell many compared to the trucks (this was the north country). They also didn't see many issues with crown vics or grand marquis and they tend to get babied.
I personally knew a few people that blew up early 90s f150 302's back in the early 2000s. All I know is people that were working at the dealership before me told me it was due to the switch to low tension piston rings.