Engine oil and Sludge

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message news:g1jpo0$fu8
>
> There are some synthetic oils that have a lot of detergents in them and
> also
> act as pretty good solvents. These oils _will_ clean out gunk. There are
> a
> lot more that don't. Whether the base is synthetic or not does not really
> have very much to do with how effective at removing varnish an oil is.
> --scott

I can accept that not all synthetics have the glowing characteristics that
are sometimes attributed to them, across the board.

I would not really expect many of them to be very good solvents. That isn't
their role, nor is it always desirable. The polyesters are probably better
at this
than are the polyolefins.

I would still expect almost any sort of oil (with frequent changes) to have
had
a positive effect on the sludging that the OP has detected, but this would
not
seem to be the case....or, the sludge is forming so quickly that this effect
is not noticeable.

HLS > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message news:g1jpo0$fu8
>>
>> There are some synthetic oils that have a lot of detergents in them and
>> also
>> act as pretty good solvents. These oils _will_ clean out gunk. There are
>> a
>> lot more that don't. Whether the base is synthetic or not does not really
>> have very much to do with how effective at removing varnish an oil is.
>
>I can accept that not all synthetics have the glowing characteristics that
>are sometimes attributed to them, across the board.
>
>I would not really expect many of them to be very good solvents. That isn't
>their role, nor is it always desirable. The polyesters are probably better
>at this
>than are the polyolefins.

Yes, and for a motor oil it often is not desirable, because it winds up
causing issues with seals, and it also can get a lot of old varnish into
solution and plug your filter up too.

For some applications it's a big deal... I am amazed at the ability of the
Royal Purple Synfilm to clean old crusty gunk out of sleeve bearings on
small motors, for instance.

>I would still expect almost any sort of oil (with frequent changes) to have
>had
>a positive effect on the sludging that the OP has detected, but this would
>not
>seem to be the case....or, the sludge is forming so quickly that this effect
>is not noticeable.

Could be. Or it could be that the sludge is so extensive and so sticky that
it's just hard to remove. Used to be on those old Valiants you'd pull the
valve covers every year and scrape gunk out with a putty knife....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

jim wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
>> jim wrote:
>>
>>> Closed Crankcase Ventilation and Positive Crankcase Ventilation are the same
>>> thing. The point was the hose to the air cleaner is not what plugs up unless the
>>> ventilation has already failed somewhere else for other reasons.
>> No, they're not "the same thing." They perform the same function, but
>> they're not the same.
>
> OK only functionally they are the same. Regardless of what you want to call it
> if the suction side of the system becomes restricted on any vehicle the result
> is pretty much the same. The point I was making was on any system you need to
> look at the suction side. The other tube is only supposed to be carrying fresh
> air into the engine so if it gets any crud in that side then the whole system
> isn't working as designed.
>
>> PCV uses a valve that changes its metering cross-section under changing
>> engine load.
>
> I never mentioned a valve. Besides the various valves on different vehicles
> aren't all the same thing either.
>
>> The fact that it has a moving pintle inside it makes it
>> somewhat self-cleaning, but as we all know PCV valves do eventually
>> clog. CCV uses a fixed orifice which is a good bit more likely to become
>> plugged and STAY plugged than a PCV valve with its moving pintle. Its a
>> good enough system, but requires more careful maintenance than PCV.
>
> Yes in terms of reliability they probably aren't the same, but the tubing and
> sometimes the baffles in the valve cover are also part of the whole system that
> can also become clogged on any vehicle.

Can't disagree with the bottom line, but I still say that PCV systems
will tolerate a whole lot more neglect than orifice type CCV.


That said, after reading this thread yesterday I pulled the metering
orifice out of the valve cover of my "new to me" 1999 Jeep 4.0. The
previous owner did a whole lot of short-trip driving (lives 4 miles from
the office) interspersed with a good many road trips. Mine was clean as
a whistle, despite the fact that he never used anything but the cheapest
quick-loob places as long as he had the car (117,000 miles when I picked
it up). So I'm still a little baffled as to why the OP's 4.0 sludged up
so quickly, and I'm still inclined to suspect some additive that he used
to quiet the lifters unless he posts back that he never used any such
additive.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Brent P > wrote:
>> Synthetic isn't a magic cleaner that removes the sludge that's already
>> there. It can do some, but expecting it to clean out an engine is a bit
>> much.
>
> There are some synthetic oils that have a lot of detergents in them and also
> act as pretty good solvents. These oils _will_ clean out gunk. There are a
> lot more that don't. Whether the base is synthetic or not does not really
> have very much to do with how effective at removing varnish an oil is.
> --scott


True. From the reading I've done over the last couple of years, it
appears that there are a lot of synthetics on the market now that are
decidedly inferior to the better "dino juice" oils. Furthermore, the
good dino juices are now turning in longevity numbers (total base
number, viscosity increase, and wear metal content) that rival the good
synthetics.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> Could be. Or it could be that the sludge is so extensive and so sticky that
> it's just hard to remove. Used to be on those old Valiants you'd pull the
> valve covers every year and scrape gunk out with a putty knife....
> --scott

Ruh??? I've had a whole lot of old Mopars (a Valiant included) and never
had a sludge issue until Dad's 92 5.2, which developed the issue because
it had that early-Magnum intake problem where the exhaust crossover
passage leaks into the lifter valley.

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> jim wrote:
>>
>> Steve wrote:
>>> jim wrote:
>>>
>>>> Closed Crankcase Ventilation and Positive Crankcase Ventilation are the
>>>> same
>>>> thing. The point was the hose to the air cleaner is not what plugs up
>>>> unless the
>>>> ventilation has already failed somewhere else for other reasons.
>>> No, they're not "the same thing." They perform the same function, but
>>> they're not the same.
>>
>> OK only functionally they are the same. Regardless of what you want to
>> call it
>> if the suction side of the system becomes restricted on any vehicle the
>> result
>> is pretty much the same. The point I was making was on any system you
>> need to
>> look at the suction side. The other tube is only supposed to be carrying
>> fresh
>> air into the engine so if it gets any crud in that side then the whole
>> system
>> isn't working as designed.
>>
>>> PCV uses a valve that changes its metering cross-section under changing
>>> engine load.
>>
>> I never mentioned a valve. Besides the various valves on different
>> vehicles
>> aren't all the same thing either.
>>> The fact that it has a moving pintle inside it makes it
>>> somewhat self-cleaning, but as we all know PCV valves do eventually
>>> clog. CCV uses a fixed orifice which is a good bit more likely to become
>>> plugged and STAY plugged than a PCV valve with its moving pintle. Its a
>>> good enough system, but requires more careful maintenance than PCV.
>>
>> Yes in terms of reliability they probably aren't the same, but the tubing
>> and
>> sometimes the baffles in the valve cover are also part of the whole
>> system that
>> can also become clogged on any vehicle.
>
> Can't disagree with the bottom line, but I still say that PCV systems will
> tolerate a whole lot more neglect than orifice type CCV.
>
>
> That said, after reading this thread yesterday I pulled the metering
> orifice out of the valve cover of my "new to me" 1999 Jeep 4.0. The
> previous owner did a whole lot of short-trip driving (lives 4 miles from
> the office) interspersed with a good many road trips. Mine was clean as a
> whistle, despite the fact that he never used anything but the cheapest
> quick-loob places as long as he had the car (117,000 miles when I picked
> it up). So I'm still a little baffled as to why the OP's 4.0 sludged up so
> quickly, and I'm still inclined to suspect some additive that he used to
> quiet the lifters unless he posts back that he never used any such
> additive.

Back in March of 06 I asked the groups what to do about noisy lifters on
start up. I was advised to use synthetic oil and change oil filters. I was
using Castrol oil and Fram filters.
The Jeep had 58,000 miles on it. So I changed to Mobile1 Synthetic and
Mobile 1 filters.
This did work for about 3 or 4 months and they started clattering again. I
tried several different filters but nothing helped. I never used any
additives and I was afraid to run transmission fluid thru the engine. I
don't know if the orifice was plugged before because my son cleaned the
valve cover
for me. I just know that it was clean when I checked it. The one thing that
I'm going to start doing is driving it to work once or twice a week. I never
realized how bad it is on these engines not to drive them good and hard once
and a while.

Thanks all for taking the time to reply.

Dennis B.

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message news:g1k9ps$7r3
> Could be. Or it could be that the sludge is so extensive and so sticky
> that
> it's just hard to remove. Used to be on those old Valiants you'd pull the
> valve covers every year and scrape gunk out with a putty knife....
> --scott


You arent talking about those old slant six engines, are you? I have seen
them
that looked like the La Brea tar pits, BUT they may have had 300,000 miles
on
them.

Dennis wrote:
> "Steve" > wrote in message
> ...
>> jim wrote:
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Closed Crankcase Ventilation and Positive Crankcase Ventilation are the
>>>>> same
>>>>> thing. The point was the hose to the air cleaner is not what plugs up
>>>>> unless the
>>>>> ventilation has already failed somewhere else for other reasons.
>>>> No, they're not "the same thing." They perform the same function, but
>>>> they're not the same.
>>> OK only functionally they are the same. Regardless of what you want to
>>> call it
>>> if the suction side of the system becomes restricted on any vehicle the
>>> result
>>> is pretty much the same. The point I was making was on any system you
>>> need to
>>> look at the suction side. The other tube is only supposed to be carrying
>>> fresh
>>> air into the engine so if it gets any crud in that side then the whole
>>> system
>>> isn't working as designed.
>>>
>>>> PCV uses a valve that changes its metering cross-section under changing
>>>> engine load.
>>> I never mentioned a valve. Besides the various valves on different
>>> vehicles
>>> aren't all the same thing either.
>>>> The fact that it has a moving pintle inside it makes it
>>>> somewhat self-cleaning, but as we all know PCV valves do eventually
>>>> clog. CCV uses a fixed orifice which is a good bit more likely to become
>>>> plugged and STAY plugged than a PCV valve with its moving pintle. Its a
>>>> good enough system, but requires more careful maintenance than PCV.
>>> Yes in terms of reliability they probably aren't the same, but the tubing
>>> and
>>> sometimes the baffles in the valve cover are also part of the whole
>>> system that
>>> can also become clogged on any vehicle.
>> Can't disagree with the bottom line, but I still say that PCV systems will
>> tolerate a whole lot more neglect than orifice type CCV.
>>
>>
>> That said, after reading this thread yesterday I pulled the metering
>> orifice out of the valve cover of my "new to me" 1999 Jeep 4.0. The
>> previous owner did a whole lot of short-trip driving (lives 4 miles from
>> the office) interspersed with a good many road trips. Mine was clean as a
>> whistle, despite the fact that he never used anything but the cheapest
>> quick-loob places as long as he had the car (117,000 miles when I picked
>> it up). So I'm still a little baffled as to why the OP's 4.0 sludged up so
>> quickly, and I'm still inclined to suspect some additive that he used to
>> quiet the lifters unless he posts back that he never used any such
>> additive.
>
> Back in March of 06 I asked the groups what to do about noisy lifters on
> start up. I was advised to use synthetic oil and change oil filters. I was
> using Castrol oil and Fram filters.
> The Jeep had 58,000 miles on it. So I changed to Mobile1 Synthetic and
> Mobile 1 filters.
> This did work for about 3 or 4 months and they started clattering again. I
> tried several different filters but nothing helped. I never used any
> additives and I was afraid to run transmission fluid thru the engine. I
> don't know if the orifice was plugged before because my son cleaned the
> valve cover
> for me. I just know that it was clean when I checked it. The one thing that
> I'm going to start doing is driving it to work once or twice a week. I never
> realized how bad it is on these engines not to drive them good and hard once
> and a while.
>
> Thanks all for taking the time to reply.
>
> Dennis B.
>
>

I'd also keep a close eye on that coolant. You said it was losing
coolant, and with all the other info I now have to wonder if there isn't
some very, very slow path for coolant to get into the oil, increasing
its moisture content and also slowly contaminating it with glycol, which
gets really nasty when mixed with oil. It could be something as
insidious as a casting flaw or porosity in either the head or block.
That kind of thing is much more common on aluminum blocks and heads than
on a solid iron engine like the 4.0, but its not impossible. Even with
all the short-trip driving, it just doesn't sound like it should have
gotten as bad as it did using modern oils- even "cheap" modern oils.

Steve wrote:

>
> I'd also keep a close eye on that coolant. You said it was losing
> coolant, and with all the other info I now have to wonder if there isn't
> some very, very slow path for coolant to get into the oil, increasing
> its moisture content and also slowly contaminating it with glycol, which
> gets really nasty when mixed with oil. It could be something as
> insidious as a casting flaw or porosity in either the head or block.
> That kind of thing is much more common on aluminum blocks and heads than
> on a solid iron engine like the 4.0, but its not impossible. Even with
> all the short-trip driving, it just doesn't sound like it should have
> gotten as bad as it did using modern oils- even "cheap" modern oils.

I would agree the missing coolant could have something to with it.

But even without that it is easy to see that in the winter time trips of
only 1.5 miles can result in a complete failure of the crankcase
ventilating system. Ice can build up in the tubing each time you make a
trip and the engine never gets warm enough to thaw so after some number of
such short trips their maybe no flow at all. Of course once the weather
warms up the problem disappears but at that point you could have an
accumulation of sludge.

-jim


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---