Tried and True Sludge Removal?

Well, nobody says you have to accept it. Steve and I will continue to
enjoy the many benefits of synthetic and you will not. No problems!


Matt

 

If you're going to quote old southern sayings, at least quote them
correctly. 8^)

The proper quote is: "You pays your money and you takes your chances" -
has more of an attitude, with racial overtones. My grandmother was from
Atlanta, and used to say that all the time in the not-so-p.c. days.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

I dunno, Bill, but that phrase is still in somewhat common usage around here
(not everyday, but you still hear it) and nobody takes it as any sort of
racial comment. Why would you? The Eubonics factor?

--Geoff

 

I'm curious - do you hear it exactly like I quoted it, or do you hear it
grammatically cleaned up? The way I quoted it was a stereotypical way
of characterizing certain people in that time and place (if you ever
heard Uncle Remus and Amos and Andy, etc.), kind of ingrained in the
culture. The fact that it is still quoted with the grammatical errors
intact may be lost on people today (i.e., they don't realize the origins
of the grammar).

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Exactly like you quoted it, you pays your money and you takes your chances.

--Geoff

 

Just make sure you do a gentle/slow (not rapid) flush before switching
over to a synthetic on a high mileage engine. The bit about synthetics
quickly breaking loose old deposits is not an old wives' tale. Ask me
how I know. 8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

How do you know? At what mileage did you switch? The highest mileage
car I ever switched had 50,000 on it and I had zero problems.


Matt

 

Absolutely - there are variables. You might take a look at this 300M
ezBoard thread that started out to be about blends, but also became a
discussion on potential problems and precautions of switching to synth
at high mileage:
http://pub88.ezboard.com/f300menthusiastsclubfrm24.showMessage?topicID=37.topic
- see my second post in that thread.

IMO, 50k miles would be very low risk for a sudden change to synthetic
except in the extreme end of the bell curve (i.e., an engine that is
prone to sludging up, such as the 2.7L Chrysler and certain Honda and
Toyota engines, probably others, that has had poor maintenance, like oil
changes at 15k miles, and mostly stop and go short-trip driving).

For a typical engine in which the maintenance and driving history is
unknown, I would say do a gentle MMO or Sea Foam cleanout for anything
over 40k miles to be on the safe side (for an engine that is known to
have sludge problems, I would do it regardless of the mileage - unless
it's 10k or something like that). If I knew the engine had been
maintained properly, then anything over 60k miles would get an initial
cleanout. If over 110k miles, it would get a more extended cleanout -
maybe 3 or 4 short interval changes. Filter changed with oil in all
cases.

Can I prove any of the above? No. Just gut feelings formed over 35
years of driving and DIY maintenance and one bad experience in which I
did a sudden changeover to synth at 180k miles with a successful
non-invassive recovery switching back to non-synth with MMO, and using
MMO on every car that I've bought since (initially and thereafter as a
preventative).

Could someone take a 200k mile engine and suddenly switch over and never
have a problem? Absolutley. I know it's been done. But as you said,
"How do you know?". The answer is, you don't, so you take precautions
using some common sense (and letting any pertinent knowledge you have
about the particular vehicle affect the decision).

BTW - that 180k Mile changeover vehicle was a turbo'd '86 Subaru wagon.
Sold it last year at 275k miles with original engine and original turbo
still running great. The guy who bought it e-mailed me two weeks ago to
tell me the frame had collapsed (cancer), but he saved the engine to
transplant as-is to another vehicle. One amazing engine!

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

I've heard the tales about synthetic magically removing sludge, but I've
never heard it from what I consider to be an "official" source such as
an engine maker, oil maker, independent oil testing lab, etc. I've only
heard it in the form of anecdotes from individuals. No offense
intended, but that is also the source of every other old wives tale and
urban legend so I place very little credibility on such information.

I know that synthetics are supposed to cause less sludge formation, and
I think that is true, but I don't even have any hard evidence of that.
What little I can see of my engines, and from the Honda I had which
required 15K mile valve adjustments so I had to pull the valve cover
periodically, I seem to get less sludge than I did 25 years ago before I
started using Mobil 1. However, it could also be that modern engines
are less prone to sludge formation and what I'm seeing MAY not be the
oil at all, but better engine technology. Without running a controlled
experiment, there is just no way to know such things. I'd love to have
the resources to run such a test, but it would cost lots of $$ and take
many years with many vehicles.

And even if it is true that synthetics cause less sludge formation, it
doesn't necessarily follow that they have a greater solvent action to
remove existing sludge. I know of at least one situation where
synthetics caused a LOT more sludge, and that was aircraft engines using
high-lead content gasoline. This is well documented and was admitted to
by Mobil who subsequently pulled their aviation synthetic oil from the
market. So even though synthetics are better than conventional oil in
almost every way (except price!), they aren't necessarily better at
everything.

I personally like Mobil 1 and have used it since about 1979, but I'll
admit to being at a loss for much hard evidence on many of its
performance parameters. I use it mainly for the winters we have where I
live, and I do know that the difference in cold cranking is very
noticeable, especially below zero. Above 32, the advantage isn't
noticeable compared to a conventional 5W30, but at -20, the difference
is dramatic.


Matt

 

I've switched several cars at over 100,000 miles, one of them at over
200,000. Zero problems. They were using very good conventional oils
before hand and were in great shape (or I certainly wouldn't have
switched them anyway!) I wouldn't recommend switching a car that's been
running the cheapest oil you can buy for 80,000 miles without being
careful, but I'd do it. I'd just change the filter and oil every 1000
miles for about 3 changes, then increase to a more normal interval.

 

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

No, its very DEFINITELY the oil that has changed. Much more than engine
tech. I've run several old engines (66, 69, 73) with both synthetic and
modern conventional oils and had absolutely none of the deposit
formation that I used to see years ago in these same engines. I wouldn't
call it "sludge" because I didn't get sludge in my engines 25 years ago
because I was always picky about running the best oil I could find, but
even then there used to be a dark sort of non-sticky, non-flaky varnish
that would build up which I do not see in the same engines with modern
oils. The last time I had a valve cover off my '69 440, I was frankly
shocked that the metal wasn't the typical amber color I used to see, but
still bright silver.

The much bigger problem was that most synthetics weren't suitable for
use with silver-containing bearings commonly found in A/C engines.

 

My Honda had a light honey color on the valve cover even though I ran
Mobil 1 in it from 5,000 miles onward. However, it was a very thin
layer and could be wiped off with your finger. Nothing even close to
sludge.

However, even Mobil 1 couldn't keep the cam and rocker arms from self
destructing at less than 80,000 miles...

The engines that failed with Mobil synthetic aviation oil failed from
sludge build-up long before the bearings failed. As I recall, the
typical failure mode was the prop governor, or feather control in a
twin, would stop working properly due to clogged oil passages. I don't
recall of hearing about any issue with bearings.


Matt

 

Like I said, no surprise. Different engines have different
sensitivities.

The Subaru engines (EA82 variety) are prone to lifter clatter due to
very small oil ports in the lifters (technically "lash adjusters").
Also, they have pressure relief valves - one in each head - that
regulate pressure up in the valve train area. Also, keep in mind that
the oil pressure at idle on those engines drops pretty close to zero at
normal operating temperatures.

Within a few days of suddenly switching over to synthetic, the lifters
started clattering (the oil had been changed religiously using Castrol,
which I consider a quality oil). I switched back to non-synthetic and,
over a period of months, I was able to get rid of the clatter by using
MMO in the oil and changing the oil and filter relatively frequently.
My theory is that some crud got into the lifter ports or in the pressure
relief valves, and had to work its way out. This scenario, with minor
variations, was repeated by several others on Subaru forums.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

If you theory about synthetic dissolving sludge is correct, wouldn't it
have been better to just leave the synthetic in until the ports were
cleared rather than switch back to conventional oil? I believe that MMO
is as much solvent as oil, so I don't see how adding that to
conventional oil is any different than using synthetic, assuming
synthetic really has a solvent effect. I'm not convinced it does, but
then I don't know that it doesn't either.


Matt


Matt

 

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

Mainly a problem with older aircraft engines- big radials especially.
Silver bearings would be toast in a matter of HOURS with some oils. Not
because of the base oil, but because of the additive package. I think it
sorta soured the whole aviation community on synthetics, though. And
given the fact that no one in their right mind would do "extended drain
intervals" on an aircraft engine, and engine life is set not by wear but
by required overhauls based on accumulated hours, synthetics really
don't have an advantage.

 

The hope would be that the synthetic would not have had time to do a
complete disolution of the sludge, and cleanout at a slower controlled
rate could be achieved.

According to my theory, 1/8 to 1/4 qt. of MMO diluted with 4 to 5 quarts
of conventional oil is not nearly as solvent as straight synthetic. In
preparing for a switchover to synthetic, the idea is to do a gradual
cleanout at a rate that the lubrication system can handle. This can be
accomplished with the diluted MMO, or by doing a couple of changes with,
say, 1 qt. synth to 4 qts. conventional, which is another method that
many people recommend.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

All of the sludge problems I read about affected the horizontally
opposed Conti's and Lyc's. I don't recall reading anything about radials.


Matt

 

yeah high detergent oils like Super-D III Kendall will wash it out but you
run the risk of plugging an oil galley. use a good quality oil and change
it alot.



I'd stay away from quacker hack and pennzoil.

 

yeah high detergent oils like Super-D III Kendall will wash it out but you
run the risk of plugging an oil galley. use a good quality oil and change
it alot.



I'd stay away from quacker hack and pennzoil.

 

Why stay away from Pennzoil??

The oil analyses & reports from bobistheoilguy.com forum show Pennzoil
to be an excellent oil.


-
--
Curtis Newton

http://surf.to/cnewton
<delete remove-me. to respond to email>
ICQ: 4899169