Sludge Inspection Procedure

Read the information on this site:

http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html

Not what I could exactly classify as "scientific" - but done well enough that it could be reproduced by others. I would like to see a test with minimal about of outside influences and carefully controlled - but that doesn't happen or seen in the real world, so to speak. Also influenced me to try it myself and see what my Corolla could do - results are very similar.

Summary of what they did:

- They ran a synthetic oil life study on a LS1 powerplant (Camaro/TransAm/Corvette) to see how far they can run the oil. They also provide some details on testing procedure, and report results of UOA from different labs for comparison sake.

Summary of what they found:

Running the oil out to 8K or more was no problem. Adding makeup oil - vastly improved oil life and additive package, older oil also produced less wear (referred to SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-3119). Not a whole lot of difference between the two synthetics they used - both provide good protection and oil life.

What I picked up from this and the references they mentioned:

- Oil does age - as such, its additive package is used up - run it enough in this "depleted" mode and you will seriously hurt the oil's ability to protect against deposits. IMO, this is the big factor in sludge formation.

- Adding make up oil (either replacing oil lost in testing or lower oil levels) significantly boosts the additive package and renews the oil in the engine. Keeping a eye on oil levels is very important - his ensures that you will always have enough oil to properly cool, lubricate, and chemically protect the engine (lower levels equals less additives to fight deposits).

- Even though this was done with PAO or Group IV oils "true" synthetics - using modern conventional oils should have the same general effect, though probably not to the mile extent they got here. Changing your oil at 3K intervals is probably changing it more often than you need.

urconscience, you said "PS. That April 27th article I quoted that was dismissed as irrelevant?? I wrote it!!"

Are you saying you wrote the article that you introduced with "I came across another excellent tutorial on sludge--it's worthy of a read, plus it further underscores my contention that education is probably the 'real solution' to the sludge issue"?
That is just plain weird that you reference something you wrote yourself in this manner. Of course something you wrote would underscore your own beliefs. A little heavy on the ego, too, describing something you wrote as "an excellent tutorial".
To each his own. But if you are quoting something you wrote yourself then I don't think you need to acutally present it as a quote giving the impression someone else wrote it.

DB1, It comes as no surprise to see a comeback like yours.

It's typical of a staunch advocate mindset that Toyota should ante up for every case of sludge out there. It's all Toyota's fault!! Call the Lawyer!! Scream "lemon law!! Sign a petition!! Notify the media!! It's all been said many times.

And when someone comes out with a common sense statement that can't be argued with, hit them with the personal approach--push the "ego" or "wierd" or "you're biased" buttons. Just change the subject and get them out of the way!

I flat don't agree with the advocate's contention and their chosen solutions, and it's a fact folks who know better wouldn't agree either.

Why?? Because it's not realistic!! In fact, it's just nuts to suggest that all sludge problems be pointed only at the automaker.

You can sluff off the article I wrote, and call it ego, just plain wierd, underscoring my own beliefs, or whatever else you choose to poo poo it with.

But it doesn't change the fact that what I wrote is RIGHT, not to mention a darn helpful and truthful piece of common sense!!

I take a lot of comfort knowing that.

And maybe it will have helped someone--a much better approach in my books than simply echoing the "dreaded sludge--avoid Toyota--it's an engine flaw--sue, sue, sue" dogma that advocates tend to inundate the net with.

And Fishexpo--a story for you. A few years back, I worked on an under warrantee Ford engine which had sludged badly because the owner didn't believe in oil changes. I removed one valve cover, and the goop in there was just like a Jello mould--it remained in place after the valve cover was removed. The guy swore up and down it was all Ford's fault. He didn't get warantee.

And Fishexpo--a story for you. A few years back, I worked on an under warrantee Ford engine which had sludged badly because the owner didn't believe in oil changes. I removed one valve cover, and the goop in there was just like a Jello mould--it remained in place after the valve cover was removed. The guy swore up and down it was all Ford's fault. He didn't get warantee.

I don't doubt that - I've seen all kinds of engine issues from non-maintenance and just about every story in the book about why they did or didn't do. Here are two examples of extreme cases that actually had warranty work done: Infinity J30 - owner never changed oil from day he purchased it - two years and 17K miles later, engine spun a bearing - Infinity replaced the engine under warranty. New VW Beetle - woman didn't know that you had to change oil (engine sludged over - starved bearings for oil), said salesman never told her - drove 18 months/24K miles - engine also replaced under warranty. No top off oil in either case - just pumped in gas and drove - both were also leases.

These were also extreme cases - they got the engines replaced under warranty where they should not have been replaced (owner misuse/negligence) even though the owner's manual clearly outlines regular maintenance. Since the dealership didn't hold their hands and make them come in for service - they blamed the dealership/manufacturer for making a faulty product. I feel bad for the guy that had something truely wrong with his car and get turned down for warrany work and goofball owners getting the manufacturer to pay for their mistakes - but such is life.

I feel bad for the guy that had something truely wrong with his car and get turned down for warranty work and goofball owners getting the manufacturer to pay for their mistakes - but such is life.

How true!

And it does happen! Too often, I'm sorry to say.

If it wasn't for those who do almost anything to to avoid responsibility for their actions, life would be a whole bunch easier for everyone.

Instead of saying "such is life", I think it more appropriate to say "Such is human nature!"

DB1, It comes as no surprise to see a comeback like yours.It's typical of a staunch advocate mindset that Toyota should ante up for every case of sludge out there. It's all Toyota's fault!! Call the Lawyer!! Scream "lemon law!! Sign a petition!! Notify the media!! It's all been said many times.

And when someone comes out with a common sense statement that can't be argued with, hit them with the personal approach--push the "ego" or "wierd" or "you're biased" buttons. Just change the subject and get them out of the way!
I flat don't agree with the advocate's contention and their chosen solutions, and it's a fact folks who know better wouldn't agree either.
Why?? Because it's not realistic!! In fact, it's just nuts to suggest that all sludge problems be pointed only at the automaker.
You can sluff off the article I wrote, and call it ego, just plain wierd, underscoring my own beliefs, or whatever else you choose to poo poo it with.
But it doesn't change the fact that what I wrote is RIGHT, not to mention a darn helpful and truthful piece of common sense!!
I take a lot of comfort knowing that.
And maybe it will have helped someone--a much better approach in my books than simply echoing the "dreaded sludge--avoid Toyota--it's an engine flaw--sue, sue, sue" dogma that advocates tend to inundate the net with.
And Fishexpo--a story for you. A few years back, I worked on an under warrantee Ford engine which had sludged badly because the owner didn't believe in oil changes. I removed one valve cover, and the goop in there was just like a Jello mould--it remained in place after the valve cover was removed. The guy swore up and down it was all Ford's fault. He didn't get warantee.

You are attributing words to me that I have never said and positions I have never taken. Please stop.

See every reply in these pages: