So Im in Carquest yesterday shootin the bull with the guys. My 1999 Dodge Ram Conversion van has 157k and always run 5w30. The Carquest guy says "With that many miles, I would bump up to a 40 weight oil, it will help the bearings and your engine needs a little heavier oil with those miles." Anybody have an opinion? Worth bumping to a 40W?
Going from 30W to 40W,,need advice
- Thread starter HARTZSKY
- Start date
- Status
I have a 98 dodge conversion with the 5.2 and it calls for 10w30. I'm sure the tolerances did not change between 98 and 99. If you want a thicker oil (for summer) run 10w30. I wouldn't see the need to run 10w-40
If you are not having excessive oil consumption issues, I'd stick with 5w30.
Actually, have you had the van since new? even though the 318 is a very durable engine, the magnum version, which we have, is listed as a sludger. there are plenty of horror stories out there - and a friend of mine actually sludged up his 99 at 45k miles. he thought he was doing 3k OCI's (more or less) but ended up replacing the engine. ouch!
Originally Posted By: HARTZSKY
So Im in Carquest yesterday shootin the bull with the guys. My 1999 Dodge Ram Conversion van has 157k and always run 5w30. The Carquest guy says "With that many miles, I would bump up to a 40 weight oil, it will help the bearings and your engine needs a little heavier oil with those miles." Anybody have an opinion? Worth bumping to a 40W?
No problems but likely not necessary. If it's not losing any oil and the oil pressure is ok, you're probably ok with a 30wt.
So Im in Carquest yesterday shootin the bull with the guys. My 1999 Dodge Ram Conversion van has 157k and always run 5w30. The Carquest guy says "With that many miles, I would bump up to a 40 weight oil, it will help the bearings and your engine needs a little heavier oil with those miles." Anybody have an opinion? Worth bumping to a 40W?
No problems but likely not necessary. If it's not losing any oil and the oil pressure is ok, you're probably ok with a 30wt.
Originally Posted By: tomcat27
I have a 98 dodge conversion with the 5.2 and it calls for 10w30. I'm sure the tolerances did not change between 98 and 99. If you want a thicker oil (for summer) run 10w30. I wouldn't see the need to run 10w-40
I'd run 0w40 and extend the OCI a bit.
I have a 98 dodge conversion with the 5.2 and it calls for 10w30. I'm sure the tolerances did not change between 98 and 99. If you want a thicker oil (for summer) run 10w30. I wouldn't see the need to run 10w-40
I'd run 0w40 and extend the OCI a bit.
If your oil pressure is to the low side of the range for a given RPM when hot, I would try 10w30 or a 5W-40 heavy duty engine oil.
The 5W-40 should help with the hot pressure, protect the engine well, perform similarly to 5w30 conventional under cool conditions, and if it is an HDEO should have an additive package that is more suited to going longer between oil changes as well.
The 5W-40 should help with the hot pressure, protect the engine well, perform similarly to 5w30 conventional under cool conditions, and if it is an HDEO should have an additive package that is more suited to going longer between oil changes as well.
Sorry, I should have noted its a 3.9 V6. thx guys
The 3.9 Chrysler seems to run forever using the recommended 5W30 I have know of two used in commercial towing duties that went well past 200K miles and still ran like new. As a 90 degree V6 it would be an odd firing motor, Chrysler chose to split the crankshaft throws only 15 degrees, stating that a 30 degree split would not be strong enough for towing service. Note that the 3.8 GM motor - with a 30 degree split) was always kept out of pickups (except for the Typhoon?) and never recommended for towing.
I bet Buick GN can tell us lots more here!
I bet Buick GN can tell us lots more here!
I wouldn't touch a thing with the success you're having thus far. 157K is not high mileage for a Dodge smallblock, which is what the 3.9 is (5.2 sans 2 cylinders). We still run 5W30 or 10W30 in all the 318s and 360s (5.2 and 5.9) in my family, ranging from 160k miles (the lowest-mileage one- a 2000 5.9 in a Durango) and 450,000 miles (a '73 318 in my Satellite).
If it would REALLY make you feel better, it wouldn't hurt to go to a robust 5w40 like RTS, or a good High Mileage oil like MaxLife.
If it would REALLY make you feel better, it wouldn't hurt to go to a robust 5w40 like RTS, or a good High Mileage oil like MaxLife.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: fsskier
Note that the 3.8 GM motor - with a 30 degree split) was always kept out of pickups (except for the Typhoon?) and never recommended for towing.
The Typhoon was a 4.3, IIRC (also a 90-degree v6, but based on the Chevy smallblock instead of the Buick architecture).
I don't know what the pin separation of either of those engines is right off the bat. The Mopar 3.9 is slightly odd-firing as you said- its got firing intervals of 112 and 128 degrees instead of all being at 120. Bill Weertman's book on Chrysler engines confirms that this was done to keep the crank stronger, but IIRC they chose to stick with a configuration suitable for cast cranks. A forged crank with a wider pin split would probably be almost as strong.
Note that the 3.8 GM motor - with a 30 degree split) was always kept out of pickups (except for the Typhoon?) and never recommended for towing.
The Typhoon was a 4.3, IIRC (also a 90-degree v6, but based on the Chevy smallblock instead of the Buick architecture).
I don't know what the pin separation of either of those engines is right off the bat. The Mopar 3.9 is slightly odd-firing as you said- its got firing intervals of 112 and 128 degrees instead of all being at 120. Bill Weertman's book on Chrysler engines confirms that this was done to keep the crank stronger, but IIRC they chose to stick with a configuration suitable for cast cranks. A forged crank with a wider pin split would probably be almost as strong.
Go with the 5W40.
Originally Posted By: fsskier
The 3.9 Chrysler seems to run forever using the recommended 5W30 I have know of two used in commercial towing duties that went well past 200K miles and still ran like new. As a 90 degree V6 it would be an odd firing motor, Chrysler chose to split the crankshaft throws only 15 degrees, stating that a 30 degree split would not be strong enough for towing service. Note that the 3.8 GM motor - with a 30 degree split) was always kept out of pickups (except for the Typhoon?) and never recommended for towing.
I bet Buick GN can tell us lots more here!
If you saw what the crank looks like you would swear it would break at 100hp. The turbo cranks are the same casting but with rolled fillets on the rod journals. That's the usual failure point as people found out when trying to run the NA crank in the higher hp GNs. That crank is always in the back of my mind every time I'm on the throttle. We run into crank flex in the higher hp cars. People are running prepped stock blocks (same block NA or turbo) into the 9s and a couple in the 8s but head gasket seal becomes a problem with only 8 bolts per head. Crank is considered reliable into the upper 10s with many going mid 10s for years on it. Some run bottom 10s to high 9s on it but at that point it's a ticking timebomb and will eventually fail.
The 3.9 Chrysler seems to run forever using the recommended 5W30 I have know of two used in commercial towing duties that went well past 200K miles and still ran like new. As a 90 degree V6 it would be an odd firing motor, Chrysler chose to split the crankshaft throws only 15 degrees, stating that a 30 degree split would not be strong enough for towing service. Note that the 3.8 GM motor - with a 30 degree split) was always kept out of pickups (except for the Typhoon?) and never recommended for towing.
I bet Buick GN can tell us lots more here!
If you saw what the crank looks like you would swear it would break at 100hp. The turbo cranks are the same casting but with rolled fillets on the rod journals. That's the usual failure point as people found out when trying to run the NA crank in the higher hp GNs. That crank is always in the back of my mind every time I'm on the throttle. We run into crank flex in the higher hp cars. People are running prepped stock blocks (same block NA or turbo) into the 9s and a couple in the 8s but head gasket seal becomes a problem with only 8 bolts per head. Crank is considered reliable into the upper 10s with many going mid 10s for years on it. Some run bottom 10s to high 9s on it but at that point it's a ticking timebomb and will eventually fail.
Originally Posted By: fsskier
The 3.9 Chrysler seems to run forever using the recommended 5W30 I have know of two used in commercial towing duties that went well past 200K miles and still ran like new. As a 90 degree V6 it would be an odd firing motor, Chrysler chose to split the crankshaft throws only 15 degrees, stating that a 30 degree split would not be strong enough for towing service. Note that the 3.8 GM motor - with a 30 degree split) was always kept out of pickups (except for the Typhoon?) and never recommended for towing.
I bet Buick GN can tell us lots more here!
Well, I'd better chime in too. The 231/3.8/3800 is one of the most reliable, solid engines that's ever applied torque to a transmission. Although it was originally an odd-fire engine, early in its life (late 60s, early 70s, I forget exactly when) GM went with a split crank pin which made the engine even-fire, despite its 90 deg bank angle.
I've owned a couple examples of this engine, in supercharged form, no less. I don't think from my study of the design that it was so much a matter of it being kept out of the trucks because it wasn't up to the task, GM simply had engines that were better suited to the task. Don't forget that this was an engine that originally went into production in 1961 (coincidentally, the year I appeared in this existence...), and had roots in GM's experimental aluminum V-8 from the 50s (hence the 90 deg bank angle). During this time, GMC had a series of MONSTER truck V-6 engines (perhaps not by then shared with other divisions) that obviated any need to pull the 231 from the cars. IIRC, the GMC V-6 topped out at over 7L of displacement (that must have been a smoothie...). IMO, no need to have used the 231 in the trucks -- plenty of other engines meant for the task from the outset.
p.s. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC, the venerable 231/3.8/3800 actually started production as a 198 cid engine (roughly a 3.2 or 3.3 depending upon rounding).
The 3.9 Chrysler seems to run forever using the recommended 5W30 I have know of two used in commercial towing duties that went well past 200K miles and still ran like new. As a 90 degree V6 it would be an odd firing motor, Chrysler chose to split the crankshaft throws only 15 degrees, stating that a 30 degree split would not be strong enough for towing service. Note that the 3.8 GM motor - with a 30 degree split) was always kept out of pickups (except for the Typhoon?) and never recommended for towing.
I bet Buick GN can tell us lots more here!
Well, I'd better chime in too. The 231/3.8/3800 is one of the most reliable, solid engines that's ever applied torque to a transmission. Although it was originally an odd-fire engine, early in its life (late 60s, early 70s, I forget exactly when) GM went with a split crank pin which made the engine even-fire, despite its 90 deg bank angle.
I've owned a couple examples of this engine, in supercharged form, no less. I don't think from my study of the design that it was so much a matter of it being kept out of the trucks because it wasn't up to the task, GM simply had engines that were better suited to the task. Don't forget that this was an engine that originally went into production in 1961 (coincidentally, the year I appeared in this existence...), and had roots in GM's experimental aluminum V-8 from the 50s (hence the 90 deg bank angle). During this time, GMC had a series of MONSTER truck V-6 engines (perhaps not by then shared with other divisions) that obviated any need to pull the 231 from the cars. IIRC, the GMC V-6 topped out at over 7L of displacement (that must have been a smoothie...). IMO, no need to have used the 231 in the trucks -- plenty of other engines meant for the task from the outset.
p.s. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC, the venerable 231/3.8/3800 actually started production as a 198 cid engine (roughly a 3.2 or 3.3 depending upon rounding).
I forgot a couple things in my earlier post....
I've wondered why the 3.8L never saw truck use. It makes good torque for it's size at a relatively low rpm but then again with the 4.3 out there, maybe there just was no place for it.
Some of the cars the 3.8L were put in weigh as much as some of the light truck so I don't think it was a durability issue.
Where I've seen the old RWD NA crank give out is as low as 350hp in a GN but at the time that happened the owner didn't know much about tuning so it's not completely fair to say they give up at 350hp if he was running 30psi boost on 87 octane.
The late '80s FWD cranks all had rolled fillets on both the mains and rods. I bought a ton of them out of the junkyard for future use in my GN for $15 a crank. The flywheel bolt pattern is smaller and I was told it may cause reliability issues (breakage at the flywheel to crank area)but once I go through my stash of RWD turbo cranks I will try the FWD ones.
I've wondered why the 3.8L never saw truck use. It makes good torque for it's size at a relatively low rpm but then again with the 4.3 out there, maybe there just was no place for it.
Some of the cars the 3.8L were put in weigh as much as some of the light truck so I don't think it was a durability issue.
Where I've seen the old RWD NA crank give out is as low as 350hp in a GN but at the time that happened the owner didn't know much about tuning so it's not completely fair to say they give up at 350hp if he was running 30psi boost on 87 octane.
The late '80s FWD cranks all had rolled fillets on both the mains and rods. I bought a ton of them out of the junkyard for future use in my GN for $15 a crank. The flywheel bolt pattern is smaller and I was told it may cause reliability issues (breakage at the flywheel to crank area)but once I go through my stash of RWD turbo cranks I will try the FWD ones.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: fsskier
The 3.9 Chrysler seems to run forever using the recommended 5W30 I have know of two used in commercial towing duties that went well past 200K miles and still ran like new. As a 90 degree V6 it would be an odd firing motor, Chrysler chose to split the crankshaft throws only 15 degrees, stating that a 30 degree split would not be strong enough for towing service. Note that the 3.8 GM motor - with a 30 degree split) was always kept out of pickups (except for the Typhoon?) and never recommended for towing.
I bet Buick GN can tell us lots more here!
Well, I'd better chime in too. The 231/3.8/3800 is one of the most reliable, solid engines that's ever applied torque to a transmission. Although it was originally an odd-fire engine, early in its life (late 60s, early 70s, I forget exactly when) GM went with a split crank pin which made the engine even-fire, despite its 90 deg bank angle.
I've owned a couple examples of this engine, in supercharged form, no less. I don't think from my study of the design that it was so much a matter of it being kept out of the trucks because it wasn't up to the task, GM simply had engines that were better suited to the task. Don't forget that this was an engine that originally went into production in 1961 (coincidentally, the year I appeared in this existence...), and had roots in GM's experimental aluminum V-8 from the 50s (hence the 90 deg bank angle). During this time, GMC had a series of MONSTER truck V-6 engines (perhaps not by then shared with other divisions) that obviated any need to pull the 231 from the cars. IIRC, the GMC V-6 topped out at over 7L of displacement (that must have been a smoothie...). IMO, no need to have used the 231 in the trucks -- plenty of other engines meant for the task from the outset.
p.s. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC, the venerable 231/3.8/3800 actually started production as a 198 cid engine (roughly a 3.2 or 3.3 depending upon rounding).
It was something like that. It's based on the old 215" aluminum V8 and was eventually increased to a 3.8L. I can't remember just how small the orignal Buick V6 was. The 3.0L destroked V6 was installed in many FWD cars of the late 80s.
Originally Posted By: fsskier
The 3.9 Chrysler seems to run forever using the recommended 5W30 I have know of two used in commercial towing duties that went well past 200K miles and still ran like new. As a 90 degree V6 it would be an odd firing motor, Chrysler chose to split the crankshaft throws only 15 degrees, stating that a 30 degree split would not be strong enough for towing service. Note that the 3.8 GM motor - with a 30 degree split) was always kept out of pickups (except for the Typhoon?) and never recommended for towing.
I bet Buick GN can tell us lots more here!
Well, I'd better chime in too. The 231/3.8/3800 is one of the most reliable, solid engines that's ever applied torque to a transmission. Although it was originally an odd-fire engine, early in its life (late 60s, early 70s, I forget exactly when) GM went with a split crank pin which made the engine even-fire, despite its 90 deg bank angle.
I've owned a couple examples of this engine, in supercharged form, no less. I don't think from my study of the design that it was so much a matter of it being kept out of the trucks because it wasn't up to the task, GM simply had engines that were better suited to the task. Don't forget that this was an engine that originally went into production in 1961 (coincidentally, the year I appeared in this existence...), and had roots in GM's experimental aluminum V-8 from the 50s (hence the 90 deg bank angle). During this time, GMC had a series of MONSTER truck V-6 engines (perhaps not by then shared with other divisions) that obviated any need to pull the 231 from the cars. IIRC, the GMC V-6 topped out at over 7L of displacement (that must have been a smoothie...). IMO, no need to have used the 231 in the trucks -- plenty of other engines meant for the task from the outset.
p.s. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC, the venerable 231/3.8/3800 actually started production as a 198 cid engine (roughly a 3.2 or 3.3 depending upon rounding).
It was something like that. It's based on the old 215" aluminum V8 and was eventually increased to a 3.8L. I can't remember just how small the orignal Buick V6 was. The 3.0L destroked V6 was installed in many FWD cars of the late 80s.
And how ironic it is that the GM 60 deg engine, which started production life as a measly, and horribly unreliable 2.8L V-6 has now survived the venerable Buick V-6, and is installed in -- a Buick -- sporting a displacement of 3.9L, having "displaced" the venerable 90 deg 3.8L engine.
Just when I was starting to feel some sympathy for GM. . .
Just when I was starting to feel some sympathy for GM. . .
Thanks for all the advice! I will say this, this van has given me very little problems over the years, the Cat Converter went out at 50K but was covered under warranty. Other than that, nothing really major. I don't get why they put a 3 speed transmission in this thing, I mean, at 55 mph its begging you to shift again to overdrive, for what thats worth.
Last edited:
If the oil pressure is good and no consumption then no need to automatically use thicker oil! I would never run a 0W40 in an Magnum engine V6 or V8 not a good combo. If you decided to go to a 40 weight Rotella T Synthetic 5W40 which is available at a modest price at Walmart would be my first choice for year round use in a 40Wt.
In fact a high milage oil like Maxlife 10W30 would probably do the trick!
As far as sludge goes all the magnum engines had problems with their belly pan gaskets blowing and this is a major source of sludge and deposits.Those of us that like mopar use special plate that elimanates the belly pan so that this is not a problem!
In fact a high milage oil like Maxlife 10W30 would probably do the trick!
As far as sludge goes all the magnum engines had problems with their belly pan gaskets blowing and this is a major source of sludge and deposits.Those of us that like mopar use special plate that elimanates the belly pan so that this is not a problem!
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Locked