Honda J35 V6 (J35Z4) Sludge and Cam Scoring

[SubieRubyRoo]

I don't actually believe this. There is NO WAY this was just Amsoil Signature Series and only 15K/yearly changes. Now it is possible they skipped a year or they drove a heck of a lot more than "15K" in a year the last few years. Amsoil Sig does not "chunk" like that in 15K. Sorry no offense to you Mike, and I know VCM is hard on oil, but did you collect an oil sample? I am guessing it was a different oil changed in perhaps.

The 06 Odyssey I used to own has been on a “WM quick-change & Fram Orange 6607 when we remember AND can afford it” maintenance plan with my stepson & DIL for the last 80k miles and doesn’t look this bad. I’ve done 2 changes for them out of pity for the engine during their ownership, and I would bet they’ve probably done less than 4 changes themselves since they’ve owned it. It was also on a Quick Change plan for its first 135k at unknown intervals. I replaced the PCV at about 140k, but I’m fairly certain that’s the only time it’s ever been done. About the only thing that was done on time were the 100k & 200k timing belt services. It has been muzzled since about 138k, but that doesn’t get rid of some inherent shortcomings in that design.

I agree, I’d like to see receipts for the Sig Series to believe it. That cam lobe damage to me says either bad heat treat of the cam, or the valve spring lost tension and the roller was hammering the lobe and caused the spalling, or both.

@Trav is this lobe damage something you’ve seen multiple times? Edit: saw other evidence in this thread about the cams. This was one issue I had not known about with the J35; glad it didn’t affect mine.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

I will spend less on oil changes than if I did extended oil changes with some super expensive oil and then had to do UOA's to prove to myself that engine wear was not excessive. Also, since UOA's don't measure gradual sludge/varnish accumulation from extended oil changes, I don't see a reason to ever order a UOA. Just my humble opinion.

You’ve kinda got your beliefs on UOAs backwards; trying to use a UOA to determine wear is like using a ratchet to drive nails… it’s not the correct tool for that. However, a UOA that measures oxidation and nitration (along with a VOA to compare to) can definitely tell you when the oil is past a condemnation point that would lead to sludge and varnish conditions.

You can use UOAs to trend the metals in a UOA and use that as an indicator that something is becoming amiss, but not to say “oh, oil X causes more wear than oil Y”. Single-digit changes in trends are generally statistical noise; you’d be looking for something that had been trending at say 7ppm over 3+ UOAs jumping to 50 or higher, and then you would have cause to do further investigation.

Folks that change from one brand to the other and lose their minds over a 3ppm bump or drop in a given metal signature in a UOA are borderline ludicrous.

 

[JustN89]

Another fine example of BITOG logic by many.

If this engine looked nice and clean, it would’ve been universally stated it was thanks to the oil choice.

Since the outcome is not pretty, it could not have been because of the oil and chosen OCI, nope. Some other bad mojo is going on.

Because in the case of clean engine internals, it can only be a result of a good maintenance program, whether it was intervals, oil choice, or both.

In the case of dirty, damaged engines, it’s almost always a result of an improper maintenance program and not a failure of the oil.

I don’t think this is a “fine example of BITOG logic”, but rather just common sense.

 

[KrisZ]

Because in the case of clean engine internals, it can only be a result of a good maintenance program, whether it was intervals, oil choice, or both.

In the case of dirty, damaged engines, it’s almost always a result of an improper maintenance program and not a failure of the oil.

I don’t think this is a “fine example of BITOG logic”, but rather just common sense.

Right, so for the success, oil choice is a factor, but in case of a failure it is not. That is not logical or even common sense. How do you know another oil brand would result in the exact same failure in this case? Could another oil choice result in something different? I think it’s a possibility.

Of course it is a failure of the lubricant. It likely resulted from the oil choice, OCI length, duty cycle and this specific application.
But we are fine with speculating metallurgy, heat treatments, manufacturing defects, but are forbidden to say lubricant failure.

The lubricant absolutely failed in this case. It is likely not the root cause, but it clearly failed.

 

[JustN89]

Right, so for the success, oil choice is a factor, but in case of a failure it is not. That is not logical or even common sense. How do you know another oil brand would result in the exact same failure in this case? Could another oil choice result in something different? I think it’s a possibility.

Of course it is a failure of the lubricant. It likely resulted from the oil choice, OCI length, duty cycle and this specific application.
But we are fine with speculating metallurgy, heat treatments, manufacturing defects, but are forbidden to say lubricant failure.

The lubricant absolutely failed in this case.

If you use a hammer to try to screw in a lag bolt and it doesn’t work, did the hammer fail? Or are you just mis-using it?

First of all, we don’t really have any verifiable evidence what the oil used was, what its interval was, or what the environment was that the vehicle was subjected to. All we know is that we had a damaged engine and it was so because the owner neglected it.

 

[KrisZ]

If you use a hammer to try to screw in a lag bolt and it doesn’t work, did the hammer fail? Or are you just mis-using it?

First of all, we don’t really have any verifiable evidence what the oil used was, what its interval was, or what the environment was that the vehicle was subjected to. All we know is that we had a damaged engine and it was so because the owner neglected it.

Your analogy is flawed. This case may be more like torquing a bolt designed for 50ft-lbs with a 100ft-lb torque setting.
When the bolts snaps or pulls the threads there is no question the bolt or threads have failed. Why it failed is another story, but it failed.

With oil though, it can never be seen as a failure. When the evidence is clear it has in this particular case. Why it has failed is that’s something else.

 

[JustN89]

Your analogy is flawed. This case may be more like torquing a bolt designed for 50ft-lbs with a 100ft-lb torque setting.
When the bolts snaps or pulls the threads there is no question the bolt or threads have failed. Why it failed is another story, but it failed.

With oil though, it can never be seen as a failure. When the evidence is clear it has in this particular case. Why it has failed is that’s something else.

This isn’t worth the effort. I guess common sense isn’t so common.

 

[Pablo]

Sure whatever oil was in there, yes eventually, it was so spent the oil itself looks to be highly degraded.

The word "fail" is not exactly applicable.

As noted the root cause was not some weakness in the oil, whatever oil it was (as in a bad batch impacting a single engine) Maybe stick with root cause investigation - and there we just don't have hard evidence of much. Likely the OCI was too long. How long? Likely this engine is nasty on oil. Likely there have been failures in valve mechanisms in this engine.

Probably a combination.

 

[Bill7]

You’ve kinda got your beliefs on UOAs backwards; trying to use a UOA to determine wear is like using a ratchet to drive nails… it’s not the correct tool for that. However, a UOA that measures oxidation and nitration (along with a VOA to compare to) can definitely tell you when the oil is past a condemnation point that would lead to sludge and varnish conditions.

You can use UOAs to trend the metals in a UOA and use that as an indicator that something is becoming amiss, but not to say “oh, oil X causes more wear than oil Y”. Single-digit changes in trends are generally statistical noise; you’d be looking for something that had been trending at say 7ppm over 3+ UOAs jumping to 50 or higher, and then you would have cause to do further investigation.

Folks that change from one brand to the other and lose their minds over a 3ppm bump or drop in a given metal signature in a UOA are borderline ludicrous.

Thanks SubieRubyRoo for your response.
Yes, the statistical deviation (margin of error) of the UOA limit's it's usefulness. In my post, I meant that looking for a huge jump like the 7ppm to 50ppm that you mentioned. The point I was trying to make is that you will spend less money and it will be better for the engine to do short OCI's with a low priced full synthetic than extended oil changes + UOAs with an expensive oil.

 

[cheesepuffs2]

I think you guys are being really underestimating how much of a design flaw the VCM with these J35s is. It isn't either just an oil failure or a maintenance failure. These engines are very hard on oil when the VCM isn't disabled.

 

[The Critic]

I think you guys are being really underestimating how much of a design flaw the VCM with these J35s is. It isn't either just an oil failure or a maintenance failure. These engines are very hard on oil when the VCM isn't disabled.

Older ones. I’ve serviced many of the recent ones and they do not seem to have this issue.