"There will certainly be cases where the owners were negiligent in their maintenance and are at fault, but this was not the case with many of the Sludge Policy models."
I maintain that most, if not all, cases of engine sludge are due to improper maintenance, not, as implied by the above statement that "this was not the case with 'many' of the sludge policy models".
This wildly irresponsible speculation is typical of what's wrong with controversy surrounding the sludge issue.
How does this poster know "this was not the case with 'many' of the sludge policy models"?? Does the poster have some sort of verifiable data to support this contention? Can the poster show how this speculative conclusion was arrived at? How 'many' owners with sludge policy models have ever shown concrete evidence of their claims?
I doubt very much that the poster can truthfully respond to these kinds of questions!
It's exactly this kind of misleading hype that's given rise to so much attention to the issue over the past year or so.
As I said earlier, we have yet to see any form of documented proof--anywhere-- that a properly maintained engine developed a sludge problem.
In all my 38 years in the automotive repair business, I have never seen a case of sludge that wasn't due to poor maintenance.
I simply do not accept stories being circulated by some that properly maintained engines have developed sludge. Every one of these stories is conspicuous by the lack of factual verification shown with them. The majority are simply are third and fourth hand anecdotes which one can find repeated at many sites around the net.
There is just too much of what appears to be very deliberate efforts by some to make the issue 'appear' to be something that it is not.
I would also like to have posters like the above accurately describe (and verify) what 'significant changes' were made to the V-6 engine as suggested. To my knowledge, only minor 'running changes' (basically, routine ongoing improvements) have been made to the V6 engine in the past 4 or 5 years. Is this yet another example of misleading or misunderstood information being tossed around indiscriminately for what appears to be propaganda value only?