Pre Jeep Oil change advice needed.
- Thread starter ARMY_Guy
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
Should I use a K&N, M1, or Wix on the next run of (tdt)?
Any of them are good for 10k+ the way you put on mileage. Take your pick. I'd probably reject the K&N for price and maybe go with the M1 for filtering ability ..but the WIX will do just fine. How's that for clear mud?
Quote:
keep in mind that 4.0 uses timing chain. Don't those tend to add strain to the oil? 10,000 might make nervous, and I used to run all my cars at that oci during a 400mile/week commute.
I never saw too much meat grinder effect on the 4.0 UOAs. It is probably responsible for the higher Fe you see from time to time.
Should I use a K&N, M1, or Wix on the next run of (tdt)?
Any of them are good for 10k+ the way you put on mileage. Take your pick. I'd probably reject the K&N for price and maybe go with the M1 for filtering ability ..but the WIX will do just fine. How's that for clear mud?
Quote:
keep in mind that 4.0 uses timing chain. Don't those tend to add strain to the oil? 10,000 might make nervous, and I used to run all my cars at that oci during a 400mile/week commute.
I never saw too much meat grinder effect on the 4.0 UOAs. It is probably responsible for the higher Fe you see from time to time.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I never saw too much meat grinder effect on the 4.0 UOAs. It is probably responsible for the higher Fe you see from time to time.
I can't imagine that the chain does as much as the flat tappets. Even with the mild valve springs, 12 tappes sliding on 12 lobes surely represents more "chewing" of the oil than a lightly-loaded chain, wouldn't you think?
I had a ~5k mile UOA done on my 4.0 using RTS, and the viscosity was doing just fine. TBN was down to less than 5, so I'm not sure even RTS or TDT would quite make a 10k OCI in my case, but probably would.
I never saw too much meat grinder effect on the 4.0 UOAs. It is probably responsible for the higher Fe you see from time to time.
I can't imagine that the chain does as much as the flat tappets. Even with the mild valve springs, 12 tappes sliding on 12 lobes surely represents more "chewing" of the oil than a lightly-loaded chain, wouldn't you think?
I had a ~5k mile UOA done on my 4.0 using RTS, and the viscosity was doing just fine. TBN was down to less than 5, so I'm not sure even RTS or TDT would quite make a 10k OCI in my case, but probably would.
Originally Posted By: ARMY_Guy
440Magnum asks "why?" I don't know Bro., I just want to make sure I'm doing everything possible to keep him alive and God willing healthy for a very very long time.
I F-in love my Jeep. I'm sticking with that (TDT), I like knowing its in there,
-A
You and me both. Its a Jeep thing, lesser vehicles just can't compare
You're running TDT for exactly the same reason I'm running RTS in mine (and in my 440s, which I've loved even longer than my Jeep...).
If I hadn't already gotten such a grest UOA on RTS, I probably would try TDT. We'll see how RTS does with its new SM/CJ formulation that I've got in there now.
My only question about your procedure is the solvents. I'm a pretty strong anti-additive guy and figure that anything I pour in from a bottle might dilute and weaken the oil.... but that's just me.
440Magnum asks "why?" I don't know Bro., I just want to make sure I'm doing everything possible to keep him alive and God willing healthy for a very very long time.
I F-in love my Jeep. I'm sticking with that (TDT), I like knowing its in there,
-A
You and me both. Its a Jeep thing, lesser vehicles just can't compare
If I hadn't already gotten such a grest UOA on RTS, I probably would try TDT. We'll see how RTS does with its new SM/CJ formulation that I've got in there now.
My only question about your procedure is the solvents. I'm a pretty strong anti-additive guy and figure that anything I pour in from a bottle might dilute and weaken the oil.... but that's just me.
Originally Posted By: ARMY_Guy
I tried tracking gallons used; I became sick... especially since I decided to do that during the Summer 08' Fuel Crisis. (I highly recommend against it Dude.)
-A
Yeah, well at least *you* didn't build yourself a stout 440 (451 including the overbore) with the compression and cam calculated for premium unleaded as a daily driver 1 year before the 08 price spike...
<whistling and counting holes in the ceiling tiles...)
I tried tracking gallons used; I became sick... especially since I decided to do that during the Summer 08' Fuel Crisis. (I highly recommend against it Dude.)
-A
Yeah, well at least *you* didn't build yourself a stout 440 (451 including the overbore) with the compression and cam calculated for premium unleaded as a daily driver 1 year before the 08 price spike...
<whistling and counting holes in the ceiling tiles...)
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I never saw too much meat grinder effect on the 4.0 UOAs. It is probably responsible for the higher Fe you see from time to time.
I can't imagine that the chain does as much as the flat tappets. Even with the mild valve springs, 12 tappes sliding on 12 lobes surely represents more "chewing" of the oil than a lightly-loaded chain, wouldn't you think?
Well, it has more rubbing surfaces than rollerized engines, sure. The same could be said of belt driven vs. chain driven engines.
I don't see the chain being lightly loaded unless the springs are lightly loaded or the lobes not too challenging in lift. I can't separate one from the other(s) ..in my head anyway. You've got a 2:1 gear reduction, but enough is along for the ride. I don't know if one could measure metal fatigue on the same plane as abrasive wear, but chains stretch. What I'm saying (or asking really) wouldn't that kinda discount the lightly loaded part of it?
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I never saw too much meat grinder effect on the 4.0 UOAs. It is probably responsible for the higher Fe you see from time to time.
I can't imagine that the chain does as much as the flat tappets. Even with the mild valve springs, 12 tappes sliding on 12 lobes surely represents more "chewing" of the oil than a lightly-loaded chain, wouldn't you think?
Well, it has more rubbing surfaces than rollerized engines, sure. The same could be said of belt driven vs. chain driven engines.
I don't see the chain being lightly loaded unless the springs are lightly loaded or the lobes not too challenging in lift. I can't separate one from the other(s) ..in my head anyway. You've got a 2:1 gear reduction, but enough is along for the ride. I don't know if one could measure metal fatigue on the same plane as abrasive wear, but chains stretch. What I'm saying (or asking really) wouldn't that kinda discount the lightly loaded part of it?
The chain tentioner in a 2.5L/4.0L engine is a drag style. IMO, that's where some of the iron comes from in UOA's. I don't think stock cams/lifters are loaded too hard compared to the chain. It's probably 50/50 as both assemblies go the distance in longevity.
I think that factory oil pumps are undersized at idle for these engines (maybe not so much for the 2.5L) . I've experienced several 4.0L's (including one of my own) that had a periodic lifter noise at idle only. When you increased the idle slightly, the lifter noise vanished. These were cured by installing a HV pump.
I think that factory oil pumps are undersized at idle for these engines (maybe not so much for the 2.5L) . I've experienced several 4.0L's (including one of my own) that had a periodic lifter noise at idle only. When you increased the idle slightly, the lifter noise vanished. These were cured by installing a HV pump.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I don't see the chain being lightly loaded unless the springs are lightly loaded or the lobes not too challenging in lift. I can't separate one from the other(s) ..in my head anyway. You've got a 2:1 gear reduction, but enough is along for the ride. I don't know if one could measure metal fatigue on the same plane as abrasive wear, but chains stretch. What I'm saying (or asking really) wouldn't that kinda discount the lightly loaded part of it?
I guess it depends on what you mean by "lightly" loaded
My meaning was that you don't see the same kind of metal-to-metal pressure (in terms of PSI) on the chain rollers that you do the lobes. The chain spreads the load out over a bunch of links, the lifters have a tiny little contact patch so its thousands of PSI pressure.
And Zaedock wrote:
Quote:
The chain tentioner in a 2.5L/4.0L engine is a drag style. IMO, that's where some of the iron comes from in UOA's.
Actually its not a "tensioner" Its just a snubber. The chain doesn't rub hard against it under tension, the chain just "rattles" against it to damp vibration. I don't think the snubber accounts for much wear, myself, but then I'm just guessing. It is a part that most chain-timed engines don't have.
Another reason I don't think the timing chain does much to oil compared to the lifters is that there are lots of other engines out there with more complex timing chains and snubbers (Ford Modular, Chrysler 4.7, Cadillac Northstar) but they all have roller lifters. I don't see anyone posting "meat grinder" oil results on them either.
You guys may be exactly right, just explaining my train of thought.
I don't see the chain being lightly loaded unless the springs are lightly loaded or the lobes not too challenging in lift. I can't separate one from the other(s) ..in my head anyway. You've got a 2:1 gear reduction, but enough is along for the ride. I don't know if one could measure metal fatigue on the same plane as abrasive wear, but chains stretch. What I'm saying (or asking really) wouldn't that kinda discount the lightly loaded part of it?
I guess it depends on what you mean by "lightly" loaded
My meaning was that you don't see the same kind of metal-to-metal pressure (in terms of PSI) on the chain rollers that you do the lobes. The chain spreads the load out over a bunch of links, the lifters have a tiny little contact patch so its thousands of PSI pressure.
And Zaedock wrote:
Quote:
The chain tentioner in a 2.5L/4.0L engine is a drag style. IMO, that's where some of the iron comes from in UOA's.
Actually its not a "tensioner" Its just a snubber. The chain doesn't rub hard against it under tension, the chain just "rattles" against it to damp vibration. I don't think the snubber accounts for much wear, myself, but then I'm just guessing. It is a part that most chain-timed engines don't have.
Another reason I don't think the timing chain does much to oil compared to the lifters is that there are lots of other engines out there with more complex timing chains and snubbers (Ford Modular, Chrysler 4.7, Cadillac Northstar) but they all have roller lifters. I don't see anyone posting "meat grinder" oil results on them either.
You guys may be exactly right, just explaining my train of thought.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
I don't see anyone posting "meat grinder" oil results on them either.
Well, we're almost a decade into more shear resistant oils too. I can't recall a 30 grade reduced to a 20 without fuel dilution. I don't think we have as much VII to chop up anymore.
I don't see anyone posting "meat grinder" oil results on them either.
Well, we're almost a decade into more shear resistant oils too. I can't recall a 30 grade reduced to a 20 without fuel dilution. I don't think we have as much VII to chop up anymore.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
And Zaedock wrote:
Quote:
The chain tentioner in a 2.5L/4.0L engine is a drag style. IMO, that's where some of the iron comes from in UOA's.
Actually its not a "tensioner" Its just a snubber. The chain doesn't rub hard against it under tension, the chain just "rattles" against it to damp vibration.
Actually, it's a tensioner. It's spring loaded and places tension on the chain continuously. A snubber has no moving parts.
And Zaedock wrote:
Quote:
The chain tentioner in a 2.5L/4.0L engine is a drag style. IMO, that's where some of the iron comes from in UOA's.
Actually its not a "tensioner" Its just a snubber. The chain doesn't rub hard against it under tension, the chain just "rattles" against it to damp vibration.
Actually, it's a tensioner. It's spring loaded and places tension on the chain continuously. A snubber has no moving parts.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
That's the nomenclature used in the FSM, a tensioner. Spring loaded with locked and unlocked positions for ease of assembly.
- Status