3 speed Dodge Ram Van oil consumption

"John Kunkel" > wrote in
news:gRU9d.217774$D%.77477@attbi_s51:

>
> "Anthony" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >
>> >
>> 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).
>
> Depends on what you call "minute", many engines in good condition go
> 5000+ miles with no discernible consumption as gauged by the dipstick.
>
> In high school auto shop I attained the Hasting Piston Rings "Doctor
> of Motors" certificate (I know, big deal). The training taught that
> proper cylinder/ring lubrication can be attained with no loss of the
> lubricant.
>
> The phenomenon was illustrated by placing a hankerchief over a silver
> dollar and placing a lit cigarette (gasp) on the hankerchief. Other
> than a brown smudge, the hankerchief is not burned because the coin
> absorbs the heat; same thing happens in the combustion chamber, the
> heat of combustion passes through the microscopic film of oil without
> burning it away and is absorbed by the mass of the cylinder wall.
>
> If not for this phenomenon, the oil on the part of the cylinder wall
> exposed to combustion heat would be burned away and there would be no
> lubrication for the rings as the piston travels from BDC to TDC on the
> exhaust stroke; ring life would be very short.
>
>
>


By minute, I meant an extremely small amount. There is *some* oil burned,
but you would probably need some pretty sensitive scientific instruments
to detect it.


--
Anthony

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

Remove sp to reply via email

John Kunkel wrote:

> The phenomenon was illustrated by placing a hankerchief over a silver dollar
> and placing a lit cigarette (gasp) on the hankerchief. Other than a brown
> smudge, the hankerchief is not burned because the coin absorbs the heat;

Heh heh! Kind of reminds me of the "goes against commons sense" fact
that you can boil water in a paper cup over a flame without burning the
paper. Phenomenon of finite thermal gradient.

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 =---

John Kunkel wrote:

> The phenomenon was illustrated by placing a hankerchief over a silver dollar
> and placing a lit cigarette (gasp) on the hankerchief. Other than a brown
> smudge, the hankerchief is not burned because the coin absorbs the heat;

Heh heh! Kind of reminds me of the "goes against commons sense" fact
that you can boil water in a paper cup over a flame without burning the
paper. Phenomenon of finite thermal gradient.

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 =---

John Kunkel wrote:

> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>John Kunkel 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>
>
> Suppose an engine consumes one microgram of oil on each full combustion
> cycle (two revolutions), at 3500 rpm it would consume 1750 micrograms per
> minute but at 1800 rpm it would only consume 900 micrograms per minute.
> If a given vehicle is geared so that it turns 3500 rpms at a given road
> speed it will consume more oil per mile than one geared to turn 1800 rpm at
> the same road speed.
> Therefore the statement "The engine speed is not connected with the oil
> consumption.' is incorrect.

Ah! I didn't realize you were talking about varying the engine speed by
changing the gear ratio.

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 =---

John Kunkel wrote:

> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>John Kunkel 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>
>
> Suppose an engine consumes one microgram of oil on each full combustion
> cycle (two revolutions), at 3500 rpm it would consume 1750 micrograms per
> minute but at 1800 rpm it would only consume 900 micrograms per minute.
> If a given vehicle is geared so that it turns 3500 rpms at a given road
> speed it will consume more oil per mile than one geared to turn 1800 rpm at
> the same road speed.
> Therefore the statement "The engine speed is not connected with the oil
> consumption.' is incorrect.

Ah! I didn't realize you were talking about varying the engine speed by
changing the gear ratio.

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 =---

maxpower wrote:
> you r wrong Bill
> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message

I already said that I didn't realize in my previous post that John was
talking about different gearing. Is that what you are referring to? If
so, what's your point? If not, then what exactly are you referring to
that I was wrong about?

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 =---

maxpower wrote:
> you r wrong Bill
> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message

I already said that I didn't realize in my previous post that John was
talking about different gearing. Is that what you are referring to? If
so, what's your point? If not, then what exactly are you referring to
that I was wrong about?

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 =---

> ...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

> ...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

maxpower wrote:
> you said>>>>The engine speed is not connected with the oil consumption. If
> your

No. I said that **based on *his* assumption of the same quantity of oil
being lost for each revolution regardless of engine speed** that the
consumption per mile would be the same (for my assumption of same gearing).

I did not say that I agreed with his assumption of engine speed being
irrelevant - I just said that, **given his assumption** (of same amount
of oil per revoultion) that it (engine speed) would be irrelevant.

I covered myself in that same post in my very last sentence (becuase I
figured someone would misinterpret what I was saying to mean that I
agreed with his statement that oil lost was independent of engine speed)
by saying: "Not saying I agree or disagree with your conclusions -
just want to be sure you understand the end result of what **you're**
saying." (emphasis added)

And to reiterate - I did make the mistake of not seeing that he was
talking about varying the gearing, but that's all.

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 =---