Sludge

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')

For those interested, I posted some photos of the redesigned PCV valve
hose on DI.net:
http://www.dodgeintrepid.net/forums/...2&page=1&pp=15

Scroll about half-way down the first page of that thread (I'm Peva
there) to the post where the photos are. Since that thread, I have
actually installed the new hose with heat exchanger - just haven't
posted the post-install photos. Might get around to it some day. The
install was 10 minutes - plug-n-play, perfect fit.

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

Bill Putney wrote:

>
> For those interested, I posted some photos of the redesigned PCV valve
> hose on DI.net:
> http://www.dodgeintrepid.net/forums/...2&page=1&pp=15
>
> Scroll about half-way down the first page of that thread (I'm Peva
> there) to the post where the photos are. Since that thread, I have
> actually installed the new hose with heat exchanger - just haven't
> posted the post-install photos. Might get around to it some day. The
> install was 10 minutes - plug-n-play, perfect fit.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')


And here's an earlier thread on DI.net in which I and a few others are
quite by accident stumbling onto the addition of the heat exchanger in
later years of LH cars:
http://www.dodgeintrepid.net/forums/...1&page=1&pp=15

Three pages of discussion, head, scratching, etc., but a 'Eureka!!'
ending. Good reading if you have trouble sleeping tonight. 8^)

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

Bob Shuman wrote:

> Could you provide a bit more info? Specifically: What year? Were you the
> original owner? How many miles when it died? What was the maintenance
> history, especially regarding oil changes? What type & supplier of oil
> and
> filter was used? Were there any early symptoms of pending failure and if
> so, what were they?

.... Are you married? How many kids do you have? You have pets? Which one is
your favorite? Does your wife snore?

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> 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')

No need to apoligize again. I am posting what I have been told by Chrysler
and their TSB's.

maxpower wrote:
> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>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')
>
>
> No need to apoligize again. I am posting what I have been told by Chrysler
> and their TSB's.

The answer is knowing when they are conveying useful, accurate info. and
when they are F.O.S. On this subject they are absolutely F.O.S.
(because they are covering their legal and financial butts).

It is totally conceivable that they have blanket statements of "no
additives" peppered throughout their documentation at the insistence of
their lawyers and MBA's so that they can deny warranty claims if an
additive were used. Wouldn't put it past them one bit.

IOW - "We're not going to admit a problem, we're not going to tell you
what we know to be the root causes of the problem so that you can take
pre-emptive action on your own, we'll not recommend or require the use
of synthetic oil like some of our competitors with similar problems have
done because jeopardize any legal case if it came to that (admission of
a problem), we'll put out b.s. publicity information (mis-applied and
meaningless/incomplete statistics about numbers of complaints on the
problem) to hide the problem while in the background we're making
internal design changes to correct the "non-problem" so we can use it on
our new line of vehicles, we'll try to use any excuse we can to deny a
claim if it fails, and if you do anything on your own to try to avoid a
failure, like using additives, and it still fails, we'll use that as an
excuse not to pay too."

Did I leave anything out?

And once again, I'm very , very sorry! 8^)

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

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> maxpower wrote:
> > "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>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')
> >
> >
> > No need to apoligize again. I am posting what I have been told by
Chrysler
> > and their TSB's.
>
> The answer is knowing when they are conveying useful, accurate info. and
> when they are F.O.S. On this subject they are absolutely F.O.S.
> (because they are covering their legal and financial butts).
>
> It is totally conceivable that they have blanket statements of "no
> additives" peppered throughout their documentation at the insistence of
> their lawyers and MBA's so that they can deny warranty claims if an
> additive were used. Wouldn't put it past them one bit.
>
> IOW - "We're not going to admit a problem, we're not going to tell you
> what we know to be the root causes of the problem so that you can take
> pre-emptive action on your own, we'll not recommend or require the use
> of synthetic oil like some of our competitors with similar problems have
> done because jeopardize any legal case if it came to that (admission of
> a problem), we'll put out b.s. publicity information (mis-applied and
> meaningless/incomplete statistics about numbers of complaints on the
> problem) to hide the problem while in the background we're making
> internal design changes to correct the "non-problem" so we can use it on
> our new line of vehicles, we'll try to use any excuse we can to deny a
> claim if it fails, and if you do anything on your own to try to avoid a
> failure, like using additives, and it still fails, we'll use that as an
> excuse not to pay too."
>
> Did I leave anything out?
>
> And once again, I'm very , very sorry! 8^)
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')

Once again, no need to be sorry.. As I said, The dealer reps inform us to
not use additives, they do not want us putting MOA or any other additves in
the engine oil. I believe the biggest reason was because it caused emissions
component to fail prematurely and that some owners thought it would extend
the oil changes to twice that was recommended . As I said, this is what I
was told, Im sure Lite bulb Stern willl put his 2 cents in on this and then
hide under his rock again

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Geno wrote:

> Bob Shuman wrote:
>
> > Could you provide a bit more info? Specifically: What year? Were you
> > the original owner? How many miles when it died? What was the
> > maintenance history, especially regarding oil changes? What type &
> > supplier of oil and filter was used? Were there any early symptoms of
> > pending failure and if so, what were they?
>
> ... Are you married? How many kids do you have? You have pets? Which one
> is your favorite? Does your wife snore?

....And does your chewing gum lose its flavour on the bedpost overnight?

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:15:57 -0300, High Sierra
> wrote:

>Bill Putney wrote:
>> Robert Meyer wrote:
>>
>>> The 2.7 L sludge issue may be a non-issue. FWIW, the reported failure
>>> rate is something like 650 complaints out of a possible 750,000
>>> engines. See the ongoing discussion on allpar.com:
>>>
>>> http://www.allpar.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=59368
>>>
>>> I'm going to change my oil and not worry about it!
>>>
>>> SpongeBob
>>
>>
>> You just made a sh**load of assumptions there as to it being a
>> non-issue. Are you assuming that 100% of owners of failed engines filed
>> a formal complaint? That would not be a wise assumption. What if only
>> 1 out of 50 owners of failed engines complained? That would represent
>> almost a 5% failure rate.
>>
>> You would have to look at percent of owners of other engines (known not
>> to have a design problem that would lead to failure) who filed
>> complaints (that wouldn't be scientific either, but a better inidcator
>> than just looking at raw percent of compliants). IOW, if engine X
>> (known to have no design problems) had a failure complaint rate of
>> 0.87%, comparing that to the failure complaint rate indicates that the
>> 2.7L is of similar good design. HOWEVER, if the engine of known good
>> design has a failure complaint rate of only 0.02%, then it could be a
>> reasonable conclusion that the 2.7L has a problem. As it is, you don't
>> have enough data to go on.
>>
>> Not saying that the alleged 2.7L problems are real or imagined, but I
>> certainly am not prepared to lean towards there not being a problem
>> based on "only" 650 complaints out of 750k owners. And I say that as an
>> owner of a 2.7L with 140+kmiles on it that runs as good as the day it
>> left the factory.
>>
>> Bill Putney
>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> adddress with the letter 'x')
>
>
>I wonder what the failure rate is for properly maintained 2.7 litre engines?

What percentage of engines ARE properly maintained? Sticking to
"american" brands, I'd say significantly below 25% With the imports,
for the first 5 years, likely closer to 40%. Some brands significantly
higher, in some areas.
When I was Toyota service manager, something like 50% were
consistently within time/mileage for the driving type experienced,
25%, more or less were within the "regular" schedule and should have
been extreme, and possibly 25% went significantly over either by time
or mileage on a fairly regular basis. Numbers mabee closer to 50, 40
and 10. - but I drilled the importance of mainenance into the owners'
heads relatively effectively.

I agree though, that a PROPERLY maintained engine would be extremely
unlikely to die due to coking/sludge.

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.

Bob

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Have you ever checked
> the PCV valve hose? If so, what did that elbow look like inside - the
> one that plugs right into the PCV valve?
>
> Bill Putney