3 speed Dodge Ram Van oil consumption

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004, maxpower wrote:

> I would say yours is....The V10 and the deisel engine does not have the oil
> consumption Technical Service Bulletin as the other engines Chrysler uses,
> There fore it makes a difference..

....except that neither the V10 nor the Cummins was available in the
subject van, a '96 B250. All of the engines that *were* available in the
'96 B250 are prone to the internal oil leak, so no, it DOESN'T make a
difference.

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:52:16 -0700, AZGuy >
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:27:15 GMT, "Nosey"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> ...and a non-tired engine will use no more oil at 3500 than at 1800.
>>>
>>>
>>> Speaking from experience, you are wrong. I had a 350 that in normal
>>> around town and commuting use would go 1000 miles on a quart. But if
>>> I ran it on a high speed trip, even for only 200 miles (and assuming
>>> it was probably already half a quart low to start) it would use nearly
>>> another quart in that 200 miles. It was like that since I bought it
>>> at 24,000 miles and it stayed exactly like that up till the time I
>>> sold it at 124,000 miles.
>>
>>Read the comment again. He said a NON-TIRED engine.
>
>It wasn't tired.
>
>Using over a quart of
>>oil every 200 highway miles is not an acceptable consumption rate, even by
>>1967 standards. Your 350 engine had significant problems at 24,000 miles.
>>This thing must have smoked like a freight train on the highway.
>
>It neither smoked nor leaked. It just used quite a bit of oil, about
>a quart every 400 (if you read my comments again you'll see that's
>what it adds up to) when running long distances at 75 mph..
>
> It sounds
>>like you had the exact same problem outlined in the original question. Using
>>one quart of oil in 200 highway miles adds up to using 4 quarts in 800
>>miles. I suck at math and even I could figure that one out.
>>
>
>Yup, but as my post said, it was about a half quart used on the trip,
>not the entire quart.
>
>In any case, I think you are missing the point I was putting forth,
>which is that it's possible for an engine with nothing wrong (other
>then using more oil then is typical) with it to burn that much oil and
>not smoke. I put 100,000 additional miles on mine and it never
>changed in how it performed and always ran like a top, it just used
>more oil then it should. Oil is a heck of a lot cheaper then an
>engine rebuild that will do nothing but save you the cost of a quart
>of oil a month. Would you spend $2000-3000 to rebuild an engine that
>didn't foul it's plugs or fail emissions or do anything bad but use a
>little too much oil???? Maybe you would. I certainly wouldn't.


Vertually all manufacturers consider anything over 1 quart in 750
miles to be excessive oil consumption, and at that rate an engine WILL
fail an emmission test, at least here in Ontario. Also, it will
eventually kill the Catalytic converter. One quart in 1500Km killed
the cat on my 3.0 Mits, and with the cat removed smoke was VERY
evident. With the damaged cat still in the system no smoke was seen -
and the engine failed the E-Test miserably. With new valve guides
reducing the oil consumption, and a new cat, it passed nicely.

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:52:16 -0700, AZGuy >
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:27:15 GMT, "Nosey"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> ...and a non-tired engine will use no more oil at 3500 than at 1800.
>>>
>>>
>>> Speaking from experience, you are wrong. I had a 350 that in normal
>>> around town and commuting use would go 1000 miles on a quart. But if
>>> I ran it on a high speed trip, even for only 200 miles (and assuming
>>> it was probably already half a quart low to start) it would use nearly
>>> another quart in that 200 miles. It was like that since I bought it
>>> at 24,000 miles and it stayed exactly like that up till the time I
>>> sold it at 124,000 miles.
>>
>>Read the comment again. He said a NON-TIRED engine.
>
>It wasn't tired.
>
>Using over a quart of
>>oil every 200 highway miles is not an acceptable consumption rate, even by
>>1967 standards. Your 350 engine had significant problems at 24,000 miles.
>>This thing must have smoked like a freight train on the highway.
>
>It neither smoked nor leaked. It just used quite a bit of oil, about
>a quart every 400 (if you read my comments again you'll see that's
>what it adds up to) when running long distances at 75 mph..
>
> It sounds
>>like you had the exact same problem outlined in the original question. Using
>>one quart of oil in 200 highway miles adds up to using 4 quarts in 800
>>miles. I suck at math and even I could figure that one out.
>>
>
>Yup, but as my post said, it was about a half quart used on the trip,
>not the entire quart.
>
>In any case, I think you are missing the point I was putting forth,
>which is that it's possible for an engine with nothing wrong (other
>then using more oil then is typical) with it to burn that much oil and
>not smoke. I put 100,000 additional miles on mine and it never
>changed in how it performed and always ran like a top, it just used
>more oil then it should. Oil is a heck of a lot cheaper then an
>engine rebuild that will do nothing but save you the cost of a quart
>of oil a month. Would you spend $2000-3000 to rebuild an engine that
>didn't foul it's plugs or fail emissions or do anything bad but use a
>little too much oil???? Maybe you would. I certainly wouldn't.


Vertually all manufacturers consider anything over 1 quart in 750
miles to be excessive oil consumption, and at that rate an engine WILL
fail an emmission test, at least here in Ontario. Also, it will
eventually kill the Catalytic converter. One quart in 1500Km killed
the cat on my 3.0 Mits, and with the cat removed smoke was VERY
evident. With the damaged cat still in the system no smoke was seen -
and the engine failed the E-Test miserably. With new valve guides
reducing the oil consumption, and a new cat, it passed nicely.

maxpower wrote:
> I would say yours is....The V10 and the deisel engine does not have the oil
> consumption Technical Service Bulletin as the other engines Chrysler uses,
> There fore it makes a difference..


It would... IF there had been any Ram 250 VANS built with the V10 or
Diesel...

Wanna try to dig that hole a little deeper, or are you just gonna step
out of it now?



you must be one of the guys that come
> into a parts department and ask for an certain part without stating what
> engine you have then complain because you got the wrong part !!!!
> """"""" IOW, it doesn't make ANY difference which engine he has. Now which
> is
>
>>the dumbest post???""""" Yours is still the dumbest
>
>
> "Steve" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>maxpower wrote:
>>
>>>i must say this is one of the dumbest posts i have ever read, does
>
> anyone no
>
>>>what engine the vehicle has????? i mean it does make a big difference!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>Its a 96 Ram 250. It can have one of 3 different engines (3.9, 5.2,
>>5.9), and the vast majority of Ram 250's had ONE of those engines (5.9)
>>and I'll wager that somewhere between "none" and .1% had the 3.9. All 3
>>engines are the same family, same overall design. 2 of them even use
>>exactly the same pistons and rings (3.9 and 5.2), all 3 use the same
>>design cylinder heads and intake manifolds.
>>
>>IOW, it doesn't make ANY difference which engine he has. Now which is
>>the dumbest post???
>>
>>
>
>
>

maxpower wrote:
> I would say yours is....The V10 and the deisel engine does not have the oil
> consumption Technical Service Bulletin as the other engines Chrysler uses,
> There fore it makes a difference..


It would... IF there had been any Ram 250 VANS built with the V10 or
Diesel...

Wanna try to dig that hole a little deeper, or are you just gonna step
out of it now?



you must be one of the guys that come
> into a parts department and ask for an certain part without stating what
> engine you have then complain because you got the wrong part !!!!
> """"""" IOW, it doesn't make ANY difference which engine he has. Now which
> is
>
>>the dumbest post???""""" Yours is still the dumbest
>
>
> "Steve" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>maxpower wrote:
>>
>>>i must say this is one of the dumbest posts i have ever read, does
>
> anyone no
>
>>>what engine the vehicle has????? i mean it does make a big difference!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>Its a 96 Ram 250. It can have one of 3 different engines (3.9, 5.2,
>>5.9), and the vast majority of Ram 250's had ONE of those engines (5.9)
>>and I'll wager that somewhere between "none" and .1% had the 3.9. All 3
>>engines are the same family, same overall design. 2 of them even use
>>exactly the same pistons and rings (3.9 and 5.2), all 3 use the same
>>design cylinder heads and intake manifolds.
>>
>>IOW, it doesn't make ANY difference which engine he has. Now which is
>>the dumbest post???
>>
>>
>
>
>

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, maxpower wrote:

> Yes i undestand there isnt that engine in the van, that ram 250 may have
> omitted the other 0 making it a ram 2500.

Oh, come *on*. There's no such thing as a "1996 Ram 2500 van".

> thats why i say post it all to get the best answer

That's a good policy, but just admit you made an error and let it go.

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, maxpower wrote:

> Yes i undestand there isnt that engine in the van, that ram 250 may have
> omitted the other 0 making it a ram 2500.

Oh, come *on*. There's no such thing as a "1996 Ram 2500 van".

> thats why i say post it all to get the best answer

That's a good policy, but just admit you made an error and let it go.

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:09:32 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>AZGuy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:20:47 -0400, Matt Whiting
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>AZGuy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:49:28 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>Everything else isn't even close to equal. It is pretty well documented
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Where could I see this documentation?
>>>
>>>Yahoo, Google, etc. with these keywords: most engine wear occurs start
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Tried that. All you get are ads for various oil additives that start
>> with the same unsupported statement of "most engine wear occurs....".
>> Saying something doesn't make it true.
>>
>> I'm interested in documents that show the results of actual tests
>> proving that an engine started and stopped x number of times wears
>> out X number of running hours sooner then one that isn't.
>
>I don't think I've seen such a test as the cost of doing so would be
>horrendous. I've seen over the years data from fleets of aircraft that
>shows clearly that airplanes flown a lot of hours as a function of the
>number of engine starts last many more hours TBO than airplanes that
>experience a lot of start/stop cycles.
>

I don't understand that statement. Based on my somewhat limited
knowledge of air craft requirements I thought that regardless of how
an aircraft was operated the engine HAD to be overhauled at a fixed
number of hours of operation even if it was running perfectly. That's
in addition to all the mandatory inspections at other fixed, and
shorter, intervals.

>Also, if you look at vehicles such as taxis and police cars, they tend
>to last a lot longer than cars used for daily commuting.
>

I agree but I don't think it has anything to do a 'start' causing
engine wear but has to do with the fact that the vehicle is always
warmed up. Or to put it another way, I think it's COLD starts that
would maybe cause extra wear, not just any start. So if you are
comparing a car that gets started cold in the morning and then gets
started over and over during the day after sitting 10 minutes (so they
are "hot" starts) you wouldn't see any extra wear from the hot starts.
(other then the starter wearing out). Plus the oil is always warm and
doesn't build up sludge from cold operation. Compared to the little
old lady who only makes one trip a day to the store 3 miles away, the
little old ladies car is going to have much more "wear" in 50,000
miles then the taxi. But it's the kind of starts much moreso then the
number of starts. That's just my theory. I'd still like to see some
kind of data for wear due to each type of start - but I bet it's hard
to come by.
--
Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . .
Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of
the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House
of Representatives, August 17, 1789

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:09:32 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>AZGuy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:20:47 -0400, Matt Whiting
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>AZGuy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:49:28 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>Everything else isn't even close to equal. It is pretty well documented
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Where could I see this documentation?
>>>
>>>Yahoo, Google, etc. with these keywords: most engine wear occurs start
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Tried that. All you get are ads for various oil additives that start
>> with the same unsupported statement of "most engine wear occurs....".
>> Saying something doesn't make it true.
>>
>> I'm interested in documents that show the results of actual tests
>> proving that an engine started and stopped x number of times wears
>> out X number of running hours sooner then one that isn't.
>
>I don't think I've seen such a test as the cost of doing so would be
>horrendous. I've seen over the years data from fleets of aircraft that
>shows clearly that airplanes flown a lot of hours as a function of the
>number of engine starts last many more hours TBO than airplanes that
>experience a lot of start/stop cycles.
>

I don't understand that statement. Based on my somewhat limited
knowledge of air craft requirements I thought that regardless of how
an aircraft was operated the engine HAD to be overhauled at a fixed
number of hours of operation even if it was running perfectly. That's
in addition to all the mandatory inspections at other fixed, and
shorter, intervals.

>Also, if you look at vehicles such as taxis and police cars, they tend
>to last a lot longer than cars used for daily commuting.
>

I agree but I don't think it has anything to do a 'start' causing
engine wear but has to do with the fact that the vehicle is always
warmed up. Or to put it another way, I think it's COLD starts that
would maybe cause extra wear, not just any start. So if you are
comparing a car that gets started cold in the morning and then gets
started over and over during the day after sitting 10 minutes (so they
are "hot" starts) you wouldn't see any extra wear from the hot starts.
(other then the starter wearing out). Plus the oil is always warm and
doesn't build up sludge from cold operation. Compared to the little
old lady who only makes one trip a day to the store 3 miles away, the
little old ladies car is going to have much more "wear" in 50,000
miles then the taxi. But it's the kind of starts much moreso then the
number of starts. That's just my theory. I'd still like to see some
kind of data for wear due to each type of start - but I bet it's hard
to come by.
--
Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . .
Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of
the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House
of Representatives, August 17, 1789

"AZGuy" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:09:32 -0400, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
> >AZGuy wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:20:47 -0400, Matt Whiting
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>AZGuy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:49:28 -0400, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Everything else isn't even close to equal. It is pretty well
documented
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Where could I see this documentation?
> >>>
> >>>Yahoo, Google, etc. with these keywords: most engine wear occurs start
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Tried that. All you get are ads for various oil additives that start
> >> with the same unsupported statement of "most engine wear occurs....".
> >> Saying something doesn't make it true.
> >>
> >> I'm interested in documents that show the results of actual tests
> >> proving that an engine started and stopped x number of times wears
> >> out X number of running hours sooner then one that isn't.
> >
> >I don't think I've seen such a test as the cost of doing so would be
> >horrendous. I've seen over the years data from fleets of aircraft that
> >shows clearly that airplanes flown a lot of hours as a function of the
> >number of engine starts last many more hours TBO than airplanes that
> >experience a lot of start/stop cycles.
> >
>
> I don't understand that statement. Based on my somewhat limited
> knowledge of air craft requirements I thought that regardless of how
> an aircraft was operated the engine HAD to be overhauled at a fixed
> number of hours of operation even if it was running perfectly.

If the aircraft is flown for hire the engine must be overhauled at the
manufacturer's specified TBO, if not flown for hire there is no TBO; all the
engine has to do is pass an annual condition inspection.