In a message dated 2/24/00 6:02:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Tim.J.Koth@aexp.com writes:
<< 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. >>
I thought a couple of times and it scared me. I try not to think too much
any more either, but I thought about this one.
The oil filler tube gets too much extreme change in temps during months in a
cold. climate. That tube is also directly in the line of that fan. It gets
heated up by the fan blowing heat from the engine on it. And the short trips
dont help when it cools down too fast and condensates forming moisture on the
inside of the tube
It also allows for steam trapped in the head to rise up to the top of the
tube. Matt drilled a hole in his filler cap and it helped minimize it.
I had an oil analysis done with about 3k on it and no moisture was detected.
I showed excellent wear. I will get the 2nd test in shortly.
DC should have just put a hole in the valve covers, I liked having dual oil
filler holes on my 92.
theres my 2 cents
Boog
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:48:45 EDT