3 speed Dodge Ram Van oil consumption

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.
--
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:
> 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..

I must have comprehended what I read other than what you intended.
Even if it "only" used a quart per 400 miles, you would never have to change
the oil. It would burn 5 quarts every 2,000 miles. This is still not
acceptable oil consumption, and shouldn't be offered as an example of
normal.

> 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.

You must have missed MY point. Burning that much oil means there IS a
problem. Just because you decided not to fix it doesn't change that fact.

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..

I must have comprehended what I read other than what you intended.
Even if it "only" used a quart per 400 miles, you would never have to change
the oil. It would burn 5 quarts every 2,000 miles. This is still not
acceptable oil consumption, and shouldn't be offered as an example of
normal.

> 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.

You must have missed MY point. Burning that much oil means there IS a
problem. Just because you decided not to fix it doesn't change that fact.

Steve wrote:
> Nosey wrote:
>
>>> ...and a non-tired engine will use no more oil at 3500 than at 1800.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not disputing that because I believe in almost every application
>> you are correct, but I did find this article interesting. It explains
>> how low load operation at 4000 rpm causes oil consumption problems in
>> the '97-'01 LS1 and LS6 Corvettes.
>> http://www.idavette.net/hib/02ls6/page5.htm
>
>
> But thank God, we're not talking about a POS SBC here :-p
>
>
the fix is to not drive an LS1 like a sissy. Pound the crap out of it
always. Then it's fine.

Ray

Steve wrote:
> Nosey wrote:
>
>>> ...and a non-tired engine will use no more oil at 3500 than at 1800.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not disputing that because I believe in almost every application
>> you are correct, but I did find this article interesting. It explains
>> how low load operation at 4000 rpm causes oil consumption problems in
>> the '97-'01 LS1 and LS6 Corvettes.
>> http://www.idavette.net/hib/02ls6/page5.htm
>
>
> But thank God, we're not talking about a POS SBC here :-p
>
>
the fix is to not drive an LS1 like a sissy. Pound the crap out of it
always. Then it's fine.

Ray

Yes i undestand there isnt that engine in the van, i have worked on them for
25 yrs for Chrysler.I read alot of posts.people get confused of what they
put in here. i just read someone asking a question about an intrepid with a
3.0 litre, no such thing either, that ram 250 may have omitted the other 0
making it a ram 2500. thats why i say post it all to get the best answer
available from the people who take the time to read them.this is my last
post on this subject, have a nice day
"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> 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???
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >

Yes i undestand there isnt that engine in the van, i have worked on them for
25 yrs for Chrysler.I read alot of posts.people get confused of what they
put in here. i just read someone asking a question about an intrepid with a
3.0 litre, no such thing either, that ram 250 may have omitted the other 0
making it a ram 2500. thats why i say post it all to get the best answer
available from the people who take the time to read them.this is my last
post on this subject, have a nice day
"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> 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???
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >

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.

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.

Matt

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.

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.

Matt

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.