Engines prone to oil sludging

[Built_Well]

This is a list from Amsoil of engines prone to sludge.

"The engines identified in the following chart have
been reported to be prone to sludge. [End quote]

^^^^^^^^^^
For Audi/Volkswagen (L stands for Liter):

1.8 L 4-cylinder Turbo

Automobile Models and Years:

1997 - 2004 A4
1998 - 2004 Passat

New Warranty Coverage: 8 years / unlimited mileage (I guess
Audi/Volkswagen voluntarily extended the warranty for the sludger.)

Oil drain intervals for warranty coverage:
5,000 miles / 6 months (normal/severe)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

For Chrysler/Dodge:

2.7 L V6

Automobile models and years:

1998-2002 Concorde
1998-2002 Sebring
1998-2002 Intrepid
1998-2002 Stratus

New Warranty Coverage: None, handled on a case-by-case
basis (Not as nice as the Audi/VW deal above)

Oil drain intervals for warranty coverage:
3,000 miles/three months (severe)
5,000 miles/six months (normal)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

For Dodge/Jeep:

3.9 L V6
5.2 L V8
5.9 L V8

Models and years:

1994-1999 Ram Truck
1994-1999 Ram Van
1994-1999 Dakota
1994-1999 Durango
1994-1999 Grand Cherokee

New Warranty Coverage: None, handled on a case-by-case
basis.

Oil drain intervals for warranty coverage:
3,000 miles/three months (severe)
5,000 miles/six months (normal)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

For Lexus/Toyota:

2.2 L 4-cylinder ( 5S-FE )

Models and years:

1997-2001 Camry
1997-2001 Solara
1997-1999 Celica

New Warranty Coverage: 8 years / unlimited mileage.

Oil drain intervals for warranty coverage:

5,000 miles/four months (severe)
7,500 miles (normal)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There's a second engine for Lexus/Toyota:

3.0 L V6 ( 1MZ ) [Actually "IMZ" appears, but the "I"
must be a misprint. It's gotta be 1MZ.]

Models and years:

1997-2002 Camry
1999-2002 Solara
1998-2002 Sienna
1997-2002 Avalon
2001-2002 Highlander

Same warranty coverage and oil drain intervals as the first
Toyota engine above.

Sidenote: The 3.0 Liter V6 1MZ engine was used in some 2006
Camrys, so I don't know why the '06 model year doesn't appear
in the list above. The Amsoil document is copyrighted 2008,
so it shouldn't be a matter of old information. Was the sludge
problem somehow fixed in the 1MZ after 2002 ?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

For Saab:

2.0 L 4-cylinder Turbo

Models and years:

2000-2002 9-3 Hatchback
2000-2003 9-3 Convertible

Another Saab engine: 2.3 L 4-cylinder Turbo

Models and years:

1999-2003 9-5
1999-2003 Viggen

New Warranty Coverage: 8 years / unlimited mileage

Oil drain intervals for warranty coverage:
5,000 miles/4 months (severe)
10,000 miles (normal)


000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The Amsoil document lists its sources for the above info as
Audi of America's warranty extension letter, Volkswagen of America's
warranty extension letter, AutoSafety.Org copy of Toyota notification
letter, and Saab Cars USA special warranty coverage letter. Amsoil's
source for the Chrysler/Dodge information is ConsumerReports.Org and
the source for Dodge/Jeep info is a Chrysler TSB 09-05-00 (I guess
this is a Technical Service Bulletin issued by Chrysler on 9/5/2000).
Finally, Amsoil got the info for the oil drain intervals to meet
warranty coverage from "2005 Car Care Guide" put out by Motor
Information Systems.

Here's a link to the .pdf file:

http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g1490.pdf

 

[Built_Well]

Are there other engines known to sludge, or did the Amsoil document cover them all?

 

[KL2BE]

I have read (and heard on Car Talk) that some BMW engines are prone to sludging, but don't know switch ones; can anyone help here?
What in an engine's design promotes Sludgeing???

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Built_Well
Are there other engines known to sludge, or did the Amsoil document cover them all?


There are others for sure. 4.7L Chrysler comes to mind. Never heard of the 5.9L Chrysler being sludge prone and it is on the list?

 

[mechtech2]

I can't believe the older Ford V6s are not on there.

 

[Jaymus]

Are you talking about the old 3.8 V6's they put in Thunderbirds, etc.? I never heard of them sludging, but I heard they weren't very nice to head gaskets.

 

[moribundman]

Thanks for listing the manufacturers beginning with the one that has the least sludge monsters.

Quote:
For Audi/Volkswagen (L stands for Liter):

1.8 L 4-cylinder Turbo


It's called a 1.8T, and as far as I know the sludge issue is due to lower sump capacity in case of the longitudinally (Passat?) installed 1.8T engines.

 

[globey]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
I can't believe the older Ford V6s are not on there.


The Vulcans? Never heard of them sludging. Near bullet-proof engines. These aren't sludge monsters like the Toyota engines.

 

[NHHEMI]

I worked Ford dealer parts and service for a few years and never saw any sludge issues that I recall with the 3.0L or 3.8L Ford V6's?

 

[ProStreetCamaro]

Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
I worked Ford dealer parts and service for a few years and never saw any sludge issues that I recall with the 3.0L or 3.8L Ford V6's?



Maybe not but the 300 inline 6, 302 and 351 were highly prone to sludge if not changed on a regular basis. I should know we had 3 engines sludged up by 60,000 miles. 2 300 inline 6 and 1 302. This was when i was younger and didnt do the oil changed myself. My father would let them go out to 8K to 10K before he would have the oil changed. You would have thought he would have learned after the first 300 got so sludged at 60K that the pickup screen would fill up with sludge and the engine would loose oil pressure. Stop the truck for a couple minutes and the sludge would fall off and the oil pressure would be good again for a few miles then pick it right back up.

The last 300 that did that we took it to a friends shop to rebuild the engine. At that time i was about 16 and getting heavy into cars. When he took the engine out he told me to start tearing it down. I pulled the valve cover off and the sludge in the head had gotten rock hard like concrete. I had to use a chisel and a hammer to break it apart to get to the head bolts thats how bad it was.

 

[demarpaint]

I run Ford 300 Inline 6's since 1984, never ever had a sludge problem. Talk about bullet proof, they're nearly indestructible! Could be the luck of the draw too!

Frank D

 

[ProStreetCamaro]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I ran Ford 300 Inline 6's since 1984, never ever had a sludge problem. Talk about bullet proof, they're nearly indestructible! Could be the luck of the draw too!

Frank D


Your right they were great engines and made a ton of torque. We used our trucks for work every day and the 300 would pull anything! 1 was in an E250 van and the other an F-150. The 302 that sludged up was in an 89 bronco. The 351 we only had for 2 years because it was a lease and it was in a bronco also. The 351 sounded so bad when you started it it sounded like it was going to fly apart. The 300 inlined made alot more power than the 302 and 351 did thats for sure! The 302 and 351 couldnt get out of there own way.

Right now we have an 02 expedition with the 5.4 and that poor thing is a dog. Barely enough power to move the truck. I was scared to death when I towed my race car with it a couple times. I feared every time I had to merge onto a highway and every time i came to a big hill.

 

[demarpaint]

I love my 88 E-150 with the 4.9L. They pull like a freight train. I wonder if you had PCV issues, that would cause them to sludge up. I change mine every 20,000 miles and could be why I never had sludge problems with any of my 4.9's.

Frank D

 

[Kruse]

Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
I worked Ford dealer parts and service for a few years and never saw any sludge issues that I recall with the 3.0L or 3.8L Ford V6's?


Speaking as a former Ford tech....

The standard 3.0 pushrod engine is about the most durable engine of ANY make, sometimes a little underpowered.
3.8 head gaskets? There wee problems.
The 4.9 is another high torque, reliable motor.
Valve cover and oil pan gasket leaks? Lots of them.

But sludgy motors? I never saw it.
Just his luck, I guess.

 

[ProStreetCamaro]

Originally Posted By: Kruse
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
I worked Ford dealer parts and service for a few years and never saw any sludge issues that I recall with the 3.0L or 3.8L Ford V6's?


Speaking as a former Ford tech....

The standard 3.0 pushrod engine is about the most durable engine of ANY make, sometimes a little underpowered.
3.8 head gaskets? There wee problems.
The 4.9 is another high torque, reliable motor.
Valve cover and oil pan gasket leaks? Lots of them.

But sludgy motors? I never saw it.
Just his luck, I guess.



Our friend had sludged up fords come in a couple times a year. The reason you didnt see it was because most people dont bring something back to the dealer after its out of warranty. We know other people that had sludged up ford engines. A friend of ours owns willon heating and AC and uses nothing but fords and he has a couple of sludged up 300's and 302's.

 

[saaber1]

Thanks for posting this. The final list should be in a FAQ or sticky or something so every potential car buyer can check the list to see if the engine is on the list. If it is on the list they know that they might want to look deeper in terms of inspection.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: ProStreetCamaro
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I ran Ford 300 Inline 6's since 1984, never ever had a sludge problem. Talk about bullet proof, they're nearly indestructible! Could be the luck of the draw too!

Frank D


Your right they were great engines and made a ton of torque. We used our trucks for work every day and the 300 would pull anything! 1 was in an E250 van and the other an F-150. The 302 that sludged up was in an 89 bronco. The 351 we only had for 2 years because it was a lease and it was in a bronco also. The 351 sounded so bad when you started it it sounded like it was going to fly apart. The 300 inlined made alot more power than the 302 and 351 did thats for sure! The 302 and 351 couldnt get out of there own way.

Right now we have an 02 expedition with the 5.4 and that poor thing is a dog. Barely enough power to move the truck. I was scared to death when I towed my race car with it a couple times. I feared every time I had to merge onto a highway and every time i came to a big hill.


The Windsor engines are dirty. Which is why they need the oil changed at least twice as frequently as your dad was doing it. Not the fault of the engine per se, they should just have seen more frequent oil changes. I've seen the same type of accumulation you describe in old GM engines of the same era. We tore into a 400 last year that came out of a truck with an unknown oil change history and the rockers were actually sitting in blocks of sludge that the rockers had "cut" their shape into!

That being said, I run 12,000Km M1 OCI's on my 302's and they are very clean inside; and as a rule of thumb, this is very much a generally accepted characteristic of M1 and why I feel it's a good choice for the Windsor engines.

Also have a 302 in a 1978 Glasstron that has had random dyno in it all it's life and while it's not pretty inside, it's not sludged up.

I agree about the 300 I6 being a great engine. I had one in my F-250. Engine succumbed to an early death (ate a nylon timing gear, my fault) and since all the bolts on the engine were seized solid (you couldn't even get the dizzy out) I opted to swap it out for a 302HO. The truck came from up north and sat most of the time, only being run a few times a year, so corrosion got at all the fasteners.

We've had two different Expeditions; a 1998 and a 2000. The first one was geared for towing and would do so VERY well. This 2nd one is geared for fuel economy and takes noticeably more effort to tow than our previous one. But there is a big difference in gas mileage between the two; favouring the newer one. Both have/had the 5.4L. The engine is 260HP and 345lb-ft, but it makes that torque at a higher RPM point than a pushrod motor, making the rear-end gear selection pretty important for how it's going to "feel" towing any real weight.

I've had the same experience with Chevy trucks. Any of the TBI-era 350's were lucky to be able to get out of their own way, let alone tow anything. But most of them were not geared well for towing either. My F-250 with either engine, the 300 I6 or the 302HO would easily out-tow them. But it had 4.11's and a C6 with a non-lockup. People often grossly underestimate gear selection for towing applications.

I'm sure you'll get a laugh out of these, as I bet you can relate to them

Background: A good friend of mine bought an F-150 4x4 to replace his ageing (1970-something) Bronco plow truck. Engine had an unknown history and even though the guy who owned it said it was well maintained, for the price of the truck, we pretty much knew otherwise. Both of these engines have, for all intensive purposes, the same mileage on them. 1st engine is the one out of the truck. 2nd engine is a 302HO out of a Mustang with 5K OCI's on AMSOIL that we put in to replace it. 3rd engine is the engine out of my '87 GT with 330,000 on it. It's been run on M1.

Engine from truck:

Donor engine from Mustang:

Current 330K engine in my Mustang:

 

[mechtech2]

Ford V6 - Actually, I was referring to the intakes getting sludged up, not classic in the engine /under the valve cover build up.

 

[ProStreetCamaro]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: ProStreetCamaro
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I ran Ford 300 Inline 6's since 1984, never ever had a sludge problem. Talk about bullet proof, they're nearly indestructible! Could be the luck of the draw too!

Frank D


Your right they were great engines and made a ton of torque. We used our trucks for work every day and the 300 would pull anything! 1 was in an E250 van and the other an F-150. The 302 that sludged up was in an 89 bronco. The 351 we only had for 2 years because it was a lease and it was in a bronco also. The 351 sounded so bad when you started it it sounded like it was going to fly apart. The 300 inlined made alot more power than the 302 and 351 did thats for sure! The 302 and 351 couldnt get out of there own way.

Right now we have an 02 expedition with the 5.4 and that poor thing is a dog. Barely enough power to move the truck. I was scared to death when I towed my race car with it a couple times. I feared every time I had to merge onto a highway and every time i came to a big hill.


The Windsor engines are dirty. Which is why they need the oil changed at least twice as frequently as your dad was doing it. Not the fault of the engine per se, they should just have seen more frequent oil changes. I've seen the same type of accumulation you describe in old GM engines of the same era. We tore into a 400 last year that came out of a truck with an unknown oil change history and the rockers were actually sitting in blocks of sludge that the rockers had "cut" their shape into!

That being said, I run 12,000Km M1 OCI's on my 302's and they are very clean inside; and as a rule of thumb, this is very much a generally accepted characteristic of M1 and why I feel it's a good choice for the Windsor engines.

Also have a 302 in a 1978 Glasstron that has had random dyno in it all it's life and while it's not pretty inside, it's not sludged up.

I agree about the 300 I6 being a great engine. I had one in my F-250. Engine succumbed to an early death (ate a nylon timing gear, my fault) and since all the bolts on the engine were seized solid (you couldn't even get the dizzy out) I opted to swap it out for a 302HO. The truck came from up north and sat most of the time, only being run a few times a year, so corrosion got at all the fasteners.

We've had two different Expeditions; a 1998 and a 2000. The first one was geared for towing and would do so VERY well. This 2nd one is geared for fuel economy and takes noticeably more effort to tow than our previous one. But there is a big difference in gas mileage between the two; favouring the newer one. Both have/had the 5.4L. The engine is 260HP and 345lb-ft, but it makes that torque at a higher RPM point than a pushrod motor, making the rear-end gear selection pretty important for how it's going to "feel" towing any real weight.

I've had the same experience with Chevy trucks. Any of the TBI-era 350's were lucky to be able to get out of their own way, let alone tow anything. But most of them were not geared well for towing either. My F-250 with either engine, the 300 I6 or the 302HO would easily out-tow them. But it had 4.11's and a C6 with a non-lockup. People often grossly underestimate gear selection for towing applications.

I'm sure you'll get a laugh out of these, as I bet you can relate to them

Background: A good friend of mine bought an F-150 4x4 to replace his ageing (1970-something) Bronco plow truck. Engine had an unknown history and even though the guy who owned it said it was well maintained, for the price of the truck, we pretty much knew otherwise. Both of these engines have, for all intensive purposes, the same mileage on them. 1st engine is the one out of the truck. 2nd engine is a 302HO out of a Mustang with 5K OCI's on AMSOIL that we put in to replace it. 3rd engine is the engine out of my '87 GT with 330,000 on it. It's been run on M1.

Engine from truck:

Donor engine from Mustang:

Current 330K engine in my Mustang:

Oh man that first picture brings back to many bad memories!


We also have a 98 K2500 with the 5.7 vortec, 4L80E and 4.10 gears in the 14 bolt rear. That things tows anything you throw behind it. Our new 2500HD with the 6.0 is simply amazing. It has 3.73 gears and the 6 speed automatic and 35X hp and 37X ft/lb of torque. Gas mileage is very good for such a big powerful engine and the 6 speed auto and 3.73 really helps with that but it still tows like nothing is even behind it!

Our first expedition was the first year a 97 with the 4.6 and towing package with 3.55 gears. Our second and current is an 02 with the 5.4, towing package and 3.55 or 3.73 I forget now. Its just very weak compared to all the gm trucks we have owned. [censored] our frineds (father and son) are old ford nuts! They have over 40 old fords. Even they said if they had to buy a new truck it would be a GM. My uncle has a 3 years old F-250 FX4 with the diesel. That poor truck has been in the shop over 15 times since he bought it new. I dont know man nobody we know has ever had good luck with fords.

 

[OVERKILL]

That's unfortunate. We've had nothing but great luck with ours. Our first Expy I think had 3.73's. This new one I believe has 3.27's. Pretty big difference. The first one may even have had 4.11's.

The Chev's I'm taking about would have had the equivalent of 3.08's or something in the back. NOT good gears for towing AT ALL. A good friend of mine is a manager of a trailer park and one of the work trucks is a '98 Vortec 1500 with a 305. Thing has LOTS of jammo in the upper RPM range, but it's geared to be a highway truck and you put ANY weight behind it and it's an absolute dog.

That '98 of yours would have towed VERY well given the gearing.

If that F-250 is the 6.0L (which it sounds like it is) then I understand. Ford dropped the ball on that one. They have been a real headache for Ford which is why apparently they are working on a new in-house diesel from Ford Germany to replace the International motors they are currently using. The VT365 is apparently a good motor in International trim, but when the programming was changed (by Ford) for use in a pickup, things did not go well. It's strange, but some of the trucks of this series are problem-free, while others are plagued with issues.

In contrast, the old DT444 (7.3L) was often regarded as bulletproof, whereas the GM diesels of the era were garbage.

And then there's the Cummins in the Dodge

Off-topic, but I was at the truck and tractor pulls yesterday. It was interesting the turn-out.

First class was gas trucks. There were a LOT of Chevies, at least 3/4 of the field. There were two Ford's, a 1983 long-box crew cab, and a 1981 F-250 4x4 short-box flairside with, from what I understand, a 460 in it. There were also two Dodges, one of the newer body style, and an old girl with a built smallblock that developed some problems and was losing several litres of oil per run.

1st place, with a full pull under it's belt was the '81 F-250 shortbox. Thing was a monster.

2nd place was a yellow 1983 Chevy regular cab, it worked VERY well. Unfortunately, it grenaded in the "pull-off" with the F-250, something made a HUGE bang, and then the starter dropped off into the wheel well and they were picking up large chunks of bellhousing and block off the track as well as the entire flexplate. I'm not sure what let go.

3rd place was the 1983 Ford, and 4th, 5th and 6th were Chevies. The Dodges didn't place, and neither did the two Toyotas that entered, one being a new (2008) Tundra, another a 98 Tundra.

Then we get to Diesel.

There were three Fords and the rest were all Dodges; not a single GM truck.

1st place went to a black regular cab 4x4 Dodge.
2nd place went to a white F-250 4x4 extenda-cab long-box. This was somebody's work truck.

Both trucks made a number of full pulls but the F-250 got major wheel-hop in the pull-offs and had to let off, losing by a couple of feet.

3rd was another Dodge, 4th was some random Harley Davidson F-350 dually, 4th was a Dodge dually....etc.

I was surprised not to see a single Duramax.

Today they are having the mud bogs. A couple of buddies of mine are trailering in their Toyota field truck for fun

I'm waiting to hear how it does! LOL!