Sludge

Bob Shuman wrote:
> Bill,
>
> My Intrepid is an '01 with abut 45K. I've only had it a year now, but know
> the maintenance history since it came from my next door neighbor. I've not
> had the PCV off yet to take a look. Based on your comments, mine may
> already have the redesigned tube.

Yes - probably so. Should be very easy to tell by looking.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:
> maxpower wrote:
>
>> Acually Chrysler doesnt recommend any kind of additives added to the
>> engine
>> oil
>
>
> Sorry Max, but Chrysler (the people who recommend 7,500 mile oil changes
> in these cars) has very low credibility when it comes to this engine. I
> can almost guarantee that with 7,500 mile oil changes and operating
> conditions well within the Schedule A maintenance criteria, a large
> number of these engines would fail by 80,000 miles. I have also seen
> first-hand posts of owners who claim to have presented all oil change
> receipts showing they met the letter of the "law" on oil changes, and DC
> refused to help with engine repair/replacement within the warranty
> period. Their reasoning (paraphrasing): "We don't consider that there
> is such a thing as a Schedule A driving condition. By default, we make
> all of our judgements based on Schedule B. Request for help denied."
>
> Fact is, this is exactly the kind of problem that certain additives
> (MMO, Sea Foam) will help with. BTW - you ought to try the DC anti-foam
> additive that DC recommends against using. It improves 42LE shifting
> without creating problems. Hmm - I wonder why they carry it?
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')

Does anyone know anyone whose driving conditions would qualify as "Schedule
A". I've been driving for 40 years and have never had a vehicle where I would
say I qualified for "Schedule A".

"Schedule B" or "Severe Service" as stated in most owners manuals is a
description of normal driving conditions.

Steve wrote:
> High Sierra wrote:
>
>>
>> I wonder what the failure rate is for properly maintained 2.7 litre
>> engines?
>
>
> But that also begs the question of what, exactly, is "proper
> maintenance." Yes, its following the recommended service procedures, but
> a GOOD engine should be able to tolerate a certain amount of abuse over
> its lifespan without ill effect. If you have to coddle an engine to get
> a reasonable life out of it, its not a "good" design. And running
> synthetic oil on a 3000 mile change interval (as some do with the 2.7)
> is MAJOR coddling in my opinion. Our 3.5 has run 220,000 miles on ~9000
> mile oil change intervals (synthetic) with nothing more than timing
> belts, 2 water pumps, fuel injector O-rings, and one set of lower intake
> gaskets, and my old 318 has gone further than that with LESS meticulous
> care.

There seems to be a consensus that engines used to be able to tolerate a
certain amount of neglect (extended oil changes). However newer engines are
manufacture to tighter tolerances and are expected to produce more horsepower
per cubic displacement. They are also more complicated. Therefore they won't
stand up to as much abuse/neglect.

That is no reason to blame the manufacturer.

Bill Putney wrote:
> High Sierra wrote:
>
>> I wonder what the failure rate is for properly maintained 2.7 litre
>> engines?
>
>
> I doubt if anyone, including DC, knows (but I bet they, from some
> statistics, have a better idea than *we* do). 8^)
>
> I *can* say this: Some changes were made in the '00-'01 time frame for
> the specific purpose of reducing sludge buildup and improving the
> lubrication system.
>
> An example: You'll see posts by people on the Chrysler forums
> (primarilly www.dodgeintrepid.net) about the rubber elbow that connects
> the pipe from the valve cover to the PCV valve routinely clogging up
> (not just partially, but totally occluding) with a mixture of powdery
> and gummy soot (and the walls of the elbow itself getting gooey/gummy.
> Starting in '00 (or '01 - haven't been able to nail it down for
> certain), they redesigned the pipe to the PCV valve to include a little
> heat exchanger (an existing small coolant hose is spliced into the two
> coolant ports of the heat exchanger) to steal some heat to prevent the
> blow-by gases from condensing out in the pipe and clogging it, disabling
> the PCV system.
>
> Why did they do that (and other lube system improvements) if there
> weren't a (real) problem?
>
> (BTW - for those with earlier 2.7 engines, you might be interested in
> replacing the existing PCV pipe with the redesigned one with the heat
> exchanger - it is a drop-in replacement. I did it to mine a few weeks
> ago - DC P/N 04663792AH - $20-30. You need to replace the PCV valve at
> the same time - I recommend dealer item on that too as I've seen too
> much crap in PCV valves in the aftermarket world even from otherwise
> reputable companies like Purolator.)
>
> IMO...
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')

Well then, I'm glad my Sebrings a 2004.

BTW would you consider a check of the PCV system part of a grease, oil, filter
job?

High Sierra wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> High Sierra wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder what the failure rate is for properly maintained 2.7 litre
>>> engines?
>>
>>
>>
>> I doubt if anyone, including DC, knows (but I bet they, from some
>> statistics, have a better idea than *we* do). 8^)
>>
>> I *can* say this: Some changes were made in the '00-'01 time frame for
>> the specific purpose of reducing sludge buildup and improving the
>> lubrication system.
>>
>> An example: You'll see posts by people on the Chrysler forums
>> (primarilly www.dodgeintrepid.net) about the rubber elbow that
>> connects the pipe from the valve cover to the PCV valve routinely
>> clogging up (not just partially, but totally occluding) with a mixture
>> of powdery and gummy soot (and the walls of the elbow itself getting
>> gooey/gummy. Starting in '00 (or '01 - haven't been able to nail it
>> down for certain), they redesigned the pipe to the PCV valve to
>> include a little heat exchanger (an existing small coolant hose is
>> spliced into the two coolant ports of the heat exchanger) to steal
>> some heat to prevent the blow-by gases from condensing out in the pipe
>> and clogging it, disabling the PCV system.
>>
>> Why did they do that (and other lube system improvements) if there
>> weren't a (real) problem?
>>
>> (BTW - for those with earlier 2.7 engines, you might be interested in
>> replacing the existing PCV pipe with the redesigned one with the heat
>> exchanger - it is a drop-in replacement. I did it to mine a few weeks
>> ago - DC P/N 04663792AH - $20-30. You need to replace the PCV valve
>> at the same time - I recommend dealer item on that too as I've seen
>> too much crap in PCV valves in the aftermarket world even from
>> otherwise reputable companies like Purolator.)
>>
>> IMO...
>>
>> Bill Putney
>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> adddress with the letter 'x')
>
>
> Well then, I'm glad my Sebrings a 2004.
>
> BTW would you consider a check of the PCV system part of a grease, oil,
> filter job?

Sure. But whether it is considered as part of the other maintenance
items, the important thing is that it does get checked and maintained on
some regular basis.

BTW - there's not really anything to do in the "grease" category, unless
you have a separate differential sump like on the LH cars and
check/periodically change the gear oil (if you want to call that
"grease". 8^) Only time you would have zerks is if you have certain
aftermarket suspension parts.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:
> High Sierra wrote:
>
>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>> High Sierra wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder what the failure rate is for properly maintained 2.7 litre
>>>> engines?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt if anyone, including DC, knows (but I bet they, from some
>>> statistics, have a better idea than *we* do). 8^)
>>>
>>> I *can* say this: Some changes were made in the '00-'01 time frame
>>> for the specific purpose of reducing sludge buildup and improving the
>>> lubrication system.
>>>
>>> An example: You'll see posts by people on the Chrysler forums
>>> (primarilly www.dodgeintrepid.net) about the rubber elbow that
>>> connects the pipe from the valve cover to the PCV valve routinely
>>> clogging up (not just partially, but totally occluding) with a
>>> mixture of powdery and gummy soot (and the walls of the elbow itself
>>> getting gooey/gummy. Starting in '00 (or '01 - haven't been able to
>>> nail it down for certain), they redesigned the pipe to the PCV valve
>>> to include a little heat exchanger (an existing small coolant hose is
>>> spliced into the two coolant ports of the heat exchanger) to steal
>>> some heat to prevent the blow-by gases from condensing out in the
>>> pipe and clogging it, disabling the PCV system.
>>>
>>> Why did they do that (and other lube system improvements) if there
>>> weren't a (real) problem?
>>>
>>> (BTW - for those with earlier 2.7 engines, you might be interested in
>>> replacing the existing PCV pipe with the redesigned one with the heat
>>> exchanger - it is a drop-in replacement. I did it to mine a few
>>> weeks ago - DC P/N 04663792AH - $20-30. You need to replace the PCV
>>> valve at the same time - I recommend dealer item on that too as I've
>>> seen too much crap in PCV valves in the aftermarket world even from
>>> otherwise reputable companies like Purolator.)
>>>
>>> IMO...
>>>
>>> Bill Putney
>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>> adddress with the letter 'x')
>>
>>
>>
>> Well then, I'm glad my Sebrings a 2004.
>>
>> BTW would you consider a check of the PCV system part of a grease,
>> oil, filter job?
>
>
> Sure. But whether it is considered as part of the other maintenance
> items, the important thing is that it does get checked and maintained on
> some regular basis.
>
> BTW - there's not really anything to do in the "grease" category, unless
> you have a separate differential sump like on the LH cars and
> check/periodically change the gear oil (if you want to call that
> "grease". 8^) Only time you would have zerks is if you have certain
> aftermarket suspension parts.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')

Thanks for the info.

As far as grease fittings, on my Sebring, I was just using 'grease, oil &
filter" as an expression.

Now, my RAM 1500, that's a different story. :-)

On the one hand, I'm glad they did something to fix the problem.

On the other hand, that fix sounds like treating a broken leg by
surgically attaching a third leg... :-/



Bill Putney wrote:

> High Sierra wrote:
>
>> I wonder what the failure rate is for properly maintained 2.7 litre
>> engines?
>
>
> I doubt if anyone, including DC, knows (but I bet they, from some
> statistics, have a better idea than *we* do). 8^)
>
> I *can* say this: Some changes were made in the '00-'01 time frame for
> the specific purpose of reducing sludge buildup and improving the
> lubrication system.
>
> An example: You'll see posts by people on the Chrysler forums
> (primarilly www.dodgeintrepid.net) about the rubber elbow that connects
> the pipe from the valve cover to the PCV valve routinely clogging up
> (not just partially, but totally occluding) with a mixture of powdery
> and gummy soot (and the walls of the elbow itself getting gooey/gummy.
> Starting in '00 (or '01 - haven't been able to nail it down for
> certain), they redesigned the pipe to the PCV valve to include a little
> heat exchanger (an existing small coolant hose is spliced into the two
> coolant ports of the heat exchanger) to steal some heat to prevent the
> blow-by gases from condensing out in the pipe and clogging it, disabling
> the PCV system.
>
> Why did they do that (and other lube system improvements) if there
> weren't a (real) problem?
>
> (BTW - for those with earlier 2.7 engines, you might be interested in
> replacing the existing PCV pipe with the redesigned one with the heat
> exchanger - it is a drop-in replacement. I did it to mine a few weeks
> ago - DC P/N 04663792AH - $20-30. You need to replace the PCV valve at
> the same time - I recommend dealer item on that too as I've seen too
> much crap in PCV valves in the aftermarket world even from otherwise
> reputable companies like Purolator.)
>
> IMO...
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')

High Sierra wrote:

> Steve wrote:
>
>> High Sierra wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I wonder what the failure rate is for properly maintained 2.7 litre
>>> engines?
>>
>>
>>
>> But that also begs the question of what, exactly, is "proper
>> maintenance." Yes, its following the recommended service procedures,
>> but a GOOD engine should be able to tolerate a certain amount of abuse
>> over its lifespan without ill effect. If you have to coddle an engine
>> to get a reasonable life out of it, its not a "good" design. And
>> running synthetic oil on a 3000 mile change interval (as some do with
>> the 2.7) is MAJOR coddling in my opinion. Our 3.5 has run 220,000
>> miles on ~9000 mile oil change intervals (synthetic) with nothing more
>> than timing belts, 2 water pumps, fuel injector O-rings, and one set
>> of lower intake gaskets, and my old 318 has gone further than that
>> with LESS meticulous care.
>
>
> There seems to be a consensus that engines used to be able to tolerate
> a certain amount of neglect (extended oil changes). However newer
> engines are manufacture to tighter tolerances and are expected to
> produce more horsepower per cubic displacement. They are also more
> complicated. Therefore they won't stand up to as much abuse/neglect.
>
> That is no reason to blame the manufacturer.

I disagree. New engines are built to essentially the same tolerances
(clearance-wise) as engines built from 1960 onward. Its easy to say "new
engines have tighter tolerances" but go look it up- they don't (with the
sole exception of cylinder-to-wall clearance on engines that use
hypereutectic pistons). On top of that, new engines DO have fuel
management systems that are tremendously better than carburetors. Fuel
dilution, carbon-fouling, and poor mixture distribution induced
hot-spots are all things of the past. Plus they are treated to oils that
are orders of magnitude better than what was available even as recently
as 1980. Problems are showing up only in engines where design
COMPROMISES have been made, usually to reduce emissions. Both the Toyota
and Chrysler "sludge engines" are ones with PCV systems that just aren't
up to the job.

I said it was one of *several* things they did. I didn't say it was the
*only* thing. Personally, I can definitely see how a clogged PCV system
could contribute to accumulation of sludge.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


Steve wrote:
> On the one hand, I'm glad they did something to fix the problem.
>
> On the other hand, that fix sounds like treating a broken leg by
> surgically attaching a third leg... :-/

>> I doubt if anyone, including DC, knows (but I bet they, from some
>> statistics, have a better idea than *we* do). 8^)
>>
>> I *can* say this: Some changes were made in the '00-'01 time frame for
>> the specific purpose of reducing sludge buildup and improving the
>> lubrication system.
>>
>> An example: You'll see posts by people on the Chrysler forums
>> (primarilly www.dodgeintrepid.net) about the rubber elbow that
>> connects the pipe from the valve cover to the PCV valve routinely
>> clogging up (not just partially, but totally occluding) with a mixture
>> of powdery and gummy soot (and the walls of the elbow itself getting
>> gooey/gummy. Starting in '00 (or '01 - haven't been able to nail it
>> down for certain), they redesigned the pipe to the PCV valve to
>> include a little heat exchanger (an existing small coolant hose is
>> spliced into the two coolant ports of the heat exchanger) to steal
>> some heat to prevent the blow-by gases from condensing out in the pipe
>> and clogging it, disabling the PCV system.
>>
>> Why did they do that (and other lube system improvements) if there
>> weren't a (real) problem?
>>
>> (BTW - for those with earlier 2.7 engines, you might be interested in
>> replacing the existing PCV pipe with the redesigned one with the heat
>> exchanger - it is a drop-in replacement. I did it to mine a few weeks
>> ago - DC P/N 04663792AH - $20-30. You need to replace the PCV valve
>> at the same time - I recommend dealer item on that too as I've seen
>> too much crap in PCV valves in the aftermarket world even from
>> otherwise reputable companies like Purolator.)
>>
>> IMO...
>>
>> Bill Putney
>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> adddress with the letter 'x')

Steve wrote:

> ...Problems are showing up only in engines where design
> COMPROMISES have been made, usually to reduce emissions. Both the Toyota
> and Chrysler "sludge engines" are ones with PCV systems that just aren't
> up to the job.

How can you say that after your previous post saying that fixing a
chronically clogging PCV system as equivalent to adding a third leg to
fix a broken leg? What are you thinking? (And as I pointed out, there
were other changes made.)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')