3 speed Dodge Ram Van oil consumption

John Kunkel 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.
>
>
> Blanket statements like "The engine speed is not connected with the oil
> consumption." invite disagreement.
> If the engine consumes a certain quantity of oil on each full combustion
> cycle, the consumption will increase with engine speed simply because there
> are more cycles per minute.

Going with what you just said, that would mean that oil consumption on a
given engine would be the same amount per mile regardless of speed. IOW
- if you make a 400 mile trip on straight and level hiway, you might
make it in 10 hours or in 5 hours depending on whether you drove 40 or
80 mph. But, from your statement, you would use the exact same amount
of oil for that 400 mile trip (i.e., oil consumption would be have the
same per thousnad mile rate). Not saying I agree or disagree with your
conclusions - just want to be sure you understand the end result of what
you're saying.

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


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Steve > wrote in :


>
> Pretty much ANY engine without a windage tray will consume more oil at
> sustained high RPM. Cylinder walls get over-lubricated so the rings
> have to scrape off more oil, more oil gets flooded into the top end
> and can be sucked up by the PCV system, and general the whole engine
> gets filled with fine oil mist that winds up going straight out the
> PCV system and getting burned. 4 quarts in 800 miles is ridiculously
> excessive, though. Something else is wrong- missing baffles in the
> valve covers, a big leak, or a really worn-out engine.
>
>
>

A certian minute volume of oil is consumed each cycle due to the surface
finish on the cylinder wall. It is designed that way. (Ring
lubrication). There is also a specific volume of oil contained within
the piston skirt surface finish, to lubricate it.
I disagree with the too much oil that it floats the rings theory, in that
the piston is designed to control the oil. The cylinder wall clearances
with the piston skirt determine the maximum volume of oil that can be
passed on to the oil ring. The oil ring and piston are designed to
constructively dispense this known volume of oil to critical places
(wrist pin, for instance).
Increased RPM would not cause any significant increase in oil bypassing
the control ring. This is verified during the engine design and testing
process, oil consumption is a critical testing criteria, along with
emissions, noise, and a host of other items.

4 quarts of oil in 800 miles would be a smoking freight train if it was
burning that much. That volume of oil would foul plugs, choke the valves
with carbon deposits, and **** off anyone driving behind you.
You have a major leak somewhere.



--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
better idiots.

Remove sp to reply via email

Steve > wrote in :


>
> Pretty much ANY engine without a windage tray will consume more oil at
> sustained high RPM. Cylinder walls get over-lubricated so the rings
> have to scrape off more oil, more oil gets flooded into the top end
> and can be sucked up by the PCV system, and general the whole engine
> gets filled with fine oil mist that winds up going straight out the
> PCV system and getting burned. 4 quarts in 800 miles is ridiculously
> excessive, though. Something else is wrong- missing baffles in the
> valve covers, a big leak, or a really worn-out engine.
>
>
>

A certian minute volume of oil is consumed each cycle due to the surface
finish on the cylinder wall. It is designed that way. (Ring
lubrication). There is also a specific volume of oil contained within
the piston skirt surface finish, to lubricate it.
I disagree with the too much oil that it floats the rings theory, in that
the piston is designed to control the oil. The cylinder wall clearances
with the piston skirt determine the maximum volume of oil that can be
passed on to the oil ring. The oil ring and piston are designed to
constructively dispense this known volume of oil to critical places
(wrist pin, for instance).
Increased RPM would not cause any significant increase in oil bypassing
the control ring. This is verified during the engine design and testing
process, oil consumption is a critical testing criteria, along with
emissions, noise, and a host of other items.

4 quarts of oil in 800 miles would be a smoking freight train if it was
burning that much. That volume of oil would foul plugs, choke the valves
with carbon deposits, and **** off anyone driving behind you.
You have a major leak somewhere.



--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
better idiots.

Remove sp to reply via email

Anthony > wrote:

> 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles would be a smoking freight train if it was
> burning that much. That volume of oil would foul plugs, choke the valves
> with carbon deposits, and **** off anyone driving behind you.
> You have a major leak somewhere.

That's about a 40:1 gas-oil mix (assuming 20mpg for gas), which is pretty
common for two-cycle engines. Not what you're looking for in a four-cycle,
of course, but a smoking freight train?

Anthony > wrote:

> 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles would be a smoking freight train if it was
> burning that much. That volume of oil would foul plugs, choke the valves
> with carbon deposits, and **** off anyone driving behind you.
> You have a major leak somewhere.

That's about a 40:1 gas-oil mix (assuming 20mpg for gas), which is pretty
common for two-cycle engines. Not what you're looking for in a four-cycle,
of course, but a smoking freight train?

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, doc wrote:

> > 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles would be a smoking freight train if it was
> > burning that much. That volume of oil would foul plugs, choke the valves
> > with carbon deposits, and **** off anyone driving behind you.
> > You have a major leak somewhere.
>
> That's about a 40:1 gas-oil mix (assuming 20mpg for gas), which is pretty
> common for two-cycle engines. Not what you're looking for in a four-cycle,
> of course, but a smoking freight train?

20mpg is a ludicrously high estimate for the vehicle in question.

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, doc wrote:

> > 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles would be a smoking freight train if it was
> > burning that much. That volume of oil would foul plugs, choke the valves
> > with carbon deposits, and **** off anyone driving behind you.
> > You have a major leak somewhere.
>
> That's about a 40:1 gas-oil mix (assuming 20mpg for gas), which is pretty
> common for two-cycle engines. Not what you're looking for in a four-cycle,
> of course, but a smoking freight train?

20mpg is a ludicrously high estimate for the vehicle in question.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, doc wrote:
>
> > > 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles would be a smoking freight train if it
> > > was burning that much. That volume of oil would foul plugs, choke
> > > the valves with carbon deposits, and **** off anyone driving behind
> > > you. You have a major leak somewhere.
> >
> > That's about a 40:1 gas-oil mix (assuming 20mpg for gas), which is
> > pretty common for two-cycle engines. Not what you're looking for in a
> > four-cycle, of course, but a smoking freight train?
>
> 20mpg is a ludicrously high estimate for the vehicle in question.

Which would make the gas-oil ratio even higher, wouldn't it? Meaning it
wouldn't smoke as much, would it? The discussion was about excessive oil
usage, Daniel, and how much smoke would be produced by burning 4 quarts in
800 miles, not about gas mileage. You remind me of the old saying: When
you're up to your ass in alligators, it's sometimes difficult to remember
that your original intention was to drain the swamp. Focus, Daniel. Focus.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, doc wrote:
>
> > > 4 quarts of oil in 800 miles would be a smoking freight train if it
> > > was burning that much. That volume of oil would foul plugs, choke
> > > the valves with carbon deposits, and **** off anyone driving behind
> > > you. You have a major leak somewhere.
> >
> > That's about a 40:1 gas-oil mix (assuming 20mpg for gas), which is
> > pretty common for two-cycle engines. Not what you're looking for in a
> > four-cycle, of course, but a smoking freight train?
>
> 20mpg is a ludicrously high estimate for the vehicle in question.

Which would make the gas-oil ratio even higher, wouldn't it? Meaning it
wouldn't smoke as much, would it? The discussion was about excessive oil
usage, Daniel, and how much smoke would be produced by burning 4 quarts in
800 miles, not about gas mileage. You remind me of the old saying: When
you're up to your ass in alligators, it's sometimes difficult to remember
that your original intention was to drain the swamp. Focus, Daniel. Focus.

you just migt have a blown intake plenuim gasket and it's sucking oil from the
lifter valley
a pinging assocated with this can confirm it's taking place

Matt Whiting wrote:

> 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