What needs to be realized here is that ALL internal combustion engines are
constantly pulling air into the crankcase and
then at times expelling it. The PCV valve became prevalent in the sixties to
help keep the engine bays clean as without one
(or if yours gets clogged) then when the crankcase is 'expelling' air it is
full of oil vapour and quickly grimes up your valve
covers etc. Now, since all internal combustion engines must breathe, if the
ambient humidity is very high, the engine will be
pulling in moisture constantly. This 'humidity' combines with the oil and it
WILL collect on cold portions of the engine internals
as a milky ugly ooze. I grew up in Virginia, spent 15 years in Kansas City and
EVERY vehicle I've owned exibited these
properties during cool damp weather. Now, as the engine warms up most of this
ooze gets absorbed and the moisure gets
'burned off' or heated out of suspension with the oil.
You can perform your own test and see it for yourself (if you live where
it's cold and/or humid). This test can rarely be performed
where I live now (Phoenix Az, never cold and very low humidity). Next time
it's raining and about 40 out, go drive about 5 miles or so.
No more. Then pull your oil filler cap. Batcha a brewski there will be
dynosaur snot startin to form on the inside. Drive another half
hour and chances are it'll be gone. This is true of 3.9's, 5.2's, 5.9's,
4.7's, 2.2's , lawnmowers, garden tractors, you name it.
Now I think (and I know... it usually only gets me in trouble..) the
reason that it seems to be a problem more-so with the 4.7 is that
it has a tall filler neck mounted right on the front of the engine in the
cold-air path. Being raised so high from the engine block it
doesn't get much of a chance to heat up and therefore doesn't 'burn off' the
dyno-snot. Here in sunny AZ mine has not developed
any goo yet (2800 miles). I'd be willing to bet if I were still in KC that
stuff would have showed up a time or two on me by now.
Do I think this is a problem? Sure, if it collects in the neck and doesn't
go anywhere. I think Ma Mopar should design a 'shorty'
oil filler neck for people in the northern 2/3s of the country where this is
an issue. I do however have to side with Ma Mopar that it
is not 'damaging' to the engine in any way as all engines develop that stuff.
It's just that most engines don't have a ready made
'collector' of the dyno snot where it doesn't burn off and provides such easy
viewing for the owner
Just my .02 worth.
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:46:42 -0500
From: "Josh Stolarz" <jstolarz@loa.com>
Subject: DML: RE: Condensation in Oil filler tube update (4.7L)
That's really nice. There has to be something that can be done about this. T
hat water in there is not a good thing, and my service manager agreed. I gue
ss we will have to try and fix it ourselves. If anyone out there has a fix t
hat is working, or reduces the problem I love to hear about it.
Josh
http://dakota.jumpautos.com
>Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 06:41:04 -0800 (PST)
>From: Nate Johnson <natedak2k@yahoo.com>
>Subject: DML: Condensation in Oil filler tube update (4.7L)
>Got a call from my service manager yesterday. He said there is a TSB in
<for the Condensation problem finally! he's gonna give me a copy but I
<haven't picked it up yet, I'll post the exact contents when I get it
<(afternoon). Here's the bad news. basically he said the TSB states that
<there is no detrimental effect on the engine and that the "condensation"
<is normal. There will be no "fix" for the problem. He said it goes into
<alot more depth (over a page), I'll post the TSB # and exact contents as
<soon as I pick it up!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:48:45 EDT