3 speed Dodge Ram Van oil consumption

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
>
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Jay wrote:
>
> > Got a '96 Dodge Ram Van 250. It's a 3 speed, no overdrive.
>
> I doubt that very much. Are you sure there's not an "O/D OFF" button on
> the dashboard that's pressed and you just didn't notice it?

The 727 was still available well into the nineties, I have a friend with a
'95 van with a 727. I didn't believe it myself until I crawled under; no OD.

>
>
> > The engine runs way too fast on the highway, it consumed 4 quarts of oil
> > in 800 miles on a highway run at 65-70 mph.
>
> The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption. If your engine
> "consumed" (or lost) 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles, you either have a
> whipped engine or a large leak.

Disagree, many vans had ridiculously low axle ratios and the absence of OD
would have the motor running at 3500+ rpm's at freeway speeds.
A tired motor will suck more oil at 3500 than it will at 1800.

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, John Kunkel wrote:

> > The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption. If your
> > engine "consumed" (or lost) 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles, you either
> > have a whipped engine or a large leak.
>
> Disagree, many vans had ridiculously low axle ratios and the absence of
> OD would have the motor running at 3500+ rpm's at freeway speeds. A
> tired motor will suck more oil at 3500 than it will at 1800.

....and a non-tired engine will use no more oil at 3500 than at 1800.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, John Kunkel wrote:
>
>> > The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption. If your
>> > engine "consumed" (or lost) 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles, you either
>> > have a whipped engine or a large leak.
>>
>> Disagree, many vans had ridiculously low axle ratios and the absence of
>> OD would have the motor running at 3500+ rpm's at freeway speeds. A
>> tired motor will suck more oil at 3500 than it will at 1800.
>
> ...and a non-tired engine will use no more oil at 3500 than at 1800.

But it will "get" tired at least twice as fast

Bob wrote:

> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> n.umich.edu...
>
>>On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, John Kunkel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption. If your
>>>>engine "consumed" (or lost) 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles, you either
>>>>have a whipped engine or a large leak.
>>>
>>>Disagree, many vans had ridiculously low axle ratios and the absence of
>>>OD would have the motor running at 3500+ rpm's at freeway speeds. A
>>>tired motor will suck more oil at 3500 than it will at 1800.
>>
>>...and a non-tired engine will use no more oil at 3500 than at 1800.
>
>
> But it will "get" tired at least twice as fast
>
>

Not necessarily.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Bob wrote:
>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
>> n.umich.edu...
>>
>>>On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, John Kunkel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption. If your
>>>>>engine "consumed" (or lost) 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles, you either
>>>>>have a whipped engine or a large leak.
>>>>
>>>>Disagree, many vans had ridiculously low axle ratios and the absence of
>>>>OD would have the motor running at 3500+ rpm's at freeway speeds. A
>>>>tired motor will suck more oil at 3500 than it will at 1800.
>>>
>>>...and a non-tired engine will use no more oil at 3500 than at 1800.
>>
>>
>> But it will "get" tired at least twice as fast
>
> Not necessarily.
>
>
> Matt
>

If everything else is equal it certainly well.
Bob

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:23:05 -0500, "Bob" > wrote:

>
>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>> Bob wrote:
>>
>>> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
>>> n.umich.edu...
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, John Kunkel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption. If your
>>>>>>engine "consumed" (or lost) 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles, you either
>>>>>>have a whipped engine or a large leak.
>>>>>
>>>>>Disagree, many vans had ridiculously low axle ratios and the absence of
>>>>>OD would have the motor running at 3500+ rpm's at freeway speeds. A
>>>>>tired motor will suck more oil at 3500 than it will at 1800.
>>>>
>>>>...and a non-tired engine will use no more oil at 3500 than at 1800.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it will "get" tired at least twice as fast
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
>If everything else is equal it certainly well.
> Bob
>
But not all else IS equal. Given the same load, the engine running at
higher RPM is running under less load (less torque) which translates
to lower cyl pressures, lower bearing loads, etc. A "free running"
engine generally lasts longer than a lugged engine.

Not saying the high revving engine WILL last longer, but it's not as
simple as "engine runs twice as fast, wears twice as fast (or more)"

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:23:05 -0500, "Bob" > wrote:

>
>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>> Bob wrote:
>>
>>> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
>>> n.umich.edu...
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, John Kunkel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption. If your
>>>>>>engine "consumed" (or lost) 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles, you either
>>>>>>have a whipped engine or a large leak.
>>>>>
>>>>>Disagree, many vans had ridiculously low axle ratios and the absence of
>>>>>OD would have the motor running at 3500+ rpm's at freeway speeds. A
>>>>>tired motor will suck more oil at 3500 than it will at 1800.
>>>>
>>>>...and a non-tired engine will use no more oil at 3500 than at 1800.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it will "get" tired at least twice as fast
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
>If everything else is equal it certainly well.
> Bob
>
But not all else IS equal. Given the same load, the engine running at
higher RPM is running under less load (less torque) which translates
to lower cyl pressures, lower bearing loads, etc. A "free running"
engine generally lasts longer than a lugged engine.

Not saying the high revving engine WILL last longer, but it's not as
simple as "engine runs twice as fast, wears twice as fast (or more)"

Bob wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Bob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
ngin.umich.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, John Kunkel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption. If your
>>>>>>engine "consumed" (or lost) 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles, you either
>>>>>>have a whipped engine or a large leak.
>>>>>
>>>>>Disagree, many vans had ridiculously low axle ratios and the absence of
>>>>>OD would have the motor running at 3500+ rpm's at freeway speeds. A
>>>>>tired motor will suck more oil at 3500 than it will at 1800.
>>>>
>>>>...and a non-tired engine will use no more oil at 3500 than at 1800.
>>>
>>>
>>>But it will "get" tired at least twice as fast
>>
>>Not necessarily.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
> If everything else is equal it certainly well.

Everything else isn't even close to equal. It is pretty well documented
that most wear occurs during startup, especially when the engine is
cold. Running at twice the RPM doesn't yield even close to twice the
rate of wear. The difference, in fact, may be virtually negligible.
Cars that are run long periods at a time and not started all that often,
especially cold starts, tend to have engines that last a LOT longer.


Matt

Bob wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Bob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
ngin.umich.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, John Kunkel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption. If your
>>>>>>engine "consumed" (or lost) 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles, you either
>>>>>>have a whipped engine or a large leak.
>>>>>
>>>>>Disagree, many vans had ridiculously low axle ratios and the absence of
>>>>>OD would have the motor running at 3500+ rpm's at freeway speeds. A
>>>>>tired motor will suck more oil at 3500 than it will at 1800.
>>>>
>>>>...and a non-tired engine will use no more oil at 3500 than at 1800.
>>>
>>>
>>>But it will "get" tired at least twice as fast
>>
>>Not necessarily.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
> If everything else is equal it certainly well.

Everything else isn't even close to equal. It is pretty well documented
that most wear occurs during startup, especially when the engine is
cold. Running at twice the RPM doesn't yield even close to twice the
rate of wear. The difference, in fact, may be virtually negligible.
Cars that are run long periods at a time and not started all that often,
especially cold starts, tend to have engines that last a LOT longer.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Bob wrote:
>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
>> n.umich.edu...
>>
>>>On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, John Kunkel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption. If your
>>>>>engine "consumed" (or lost) 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles, you either
>>>>>have a whipped engine or a large leak.
>>>>
>>>>Disagree, many vans had ridiculously low axle ratios and the absence of
>>>>OD would have the motor running at 3500+ rpm's at freeway speeds. A
>>>>tired motor will suck more oil at 3500 than it will at 1800.
>>>
>>>...and a non-tired engine will use no more oil at 3500 than at 1800.
>>
>>
>> But it will "get" tired at least twice as fast
>
> Not necessarily.
>
>
> Matt
>

If everything else is equal it certainly well.
Bob