First impressions after adding Auto-RX

[G-MAN]

I've put about 120 miles on my van since adding the Auto-RX. I can't see any evidence of cleaning yet by looking in the oil fill on the valve cover, and the oil on the dipstick hasn't darkened any. However, I can definitely tell the esters are doing something.

A couple of times when I've had the van in for service in the past, I've received "complimentary" oil changes. I was able to tell both times that they'd done this simply by listening to the engine when I'd start it up. The tell-tale piston slap that virtually all 3.1 and 3.4 GM engines have is MUCH more noticeable in my van with regular dino oil. Mobil 1 keeps it down to an almost imperceptable level, and I always attributed that to the esters "sticking" to the pistons and cylinder walls and cushoning the slap. I think Auto-RX has confirmed this because the engine is just as quiet running this Conoco Hydroclear with the Auto-RX as it ever was with Mobil 1.

 

[2K2AcuraTL]

..also would like to add that using an oil filter that flows well also lessens the GM engine slap.
Jean

 

[MarkC]

And which would you recommend?

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2K2AcuraTL:
..also would like to add that using an oil filter that flows well also lessens the GM engine slap.
Jean

---

I've only used three makes of filters on my van: AC Delco, SuperTech, and Purolator. (I guess this is really two makes if you consider that the AC units were made by Champion.) I didn't notice any difference in engine noise with any given filter. So long as I use Mobil 1, my 3.4 is quieter than any GM 3.1 or 3.4 I've ever heard with the slap problem.

Case in point: A good friend of mine has a 2000 Buick Century with the 3.1. She came by the other day and I could not believe how loud here engine was. It was fully warmed up on a 95°+ and it sounded like a diesel. Her car only has about 20,000 miles on it, and my van with 140,000 is quieter (with Mobil 1, that is).

 

[JohnBrowning]

G-Man II You can here most 3.1 and 3.4 V6's comeing. The high millage ones sound like a diesel with a really guite exhaust. I can not help but stare when I hear one in the parking lot of Walmart! I mentioned that my engine ran smoother and quiter as well once to Frank when running Auto-Rx. My noise was not piston slap just normal engine harmonics. I could tell that the engine was much quiter and the pitch was different.

It is amazeing that the power train engineers can tollerate their reputation being this soiled. I would be ashamed to admit that these were my engines!! You really can not fault the customer if they are following the service schedule and their engine is slap happy by 20,000 miles!

It has been my experince that some are worse then others right from the factory. So lets hope you got a quite one! It is too bad they do not offer the 3.8 in that van. They really need to phase out the 3.1 and 3.4 and replace them with the 3.8. Then offer the high content V6's that are comeing to market in the vechiles that previously used the 3.8!

!

[ August 31, 2003, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: JohnBrowning ]

 

[guitargeek]

quote:

---

It has been my experince that some are worse then others right from the factory. So lets hope you got a quite one! It is too bad they do not offer the 3.8 in that van. They really need to phase out the 3.1 and 3.4 and replace them with the 3.8. Then offer the high content V6's that are comeing to market in the vechiles that previously used the 3.8!

---

The 3.1 should have been aborted before it was ever concieved.

I'll be sad when the 3.8 is finally phased out, though. Great durable motor (well, now anyways. It sucked when it first came out).

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by guitargeek:
The 3.1 should have been aborted before it was ever concieved.

I'll be sad when the 3.8 is finally phased out, though. Great durable motor (well, now anyways. It sucked when it first came out).

---

Actually, the basic design of the 3.1 and 3.4 is sound, dating back to the 2.8 that was introduced in the 78 Citation. The major advantage the 3.1 and 3.4 have over the 3.8 is that they are 60° even firing engines. The 3.8 was originally "designed" by lopping off two cylinders of the small block Buick V8, the rights to which were later sold to Rover in England. A 90° V6 is an inherently out of balance engine. Buick "fixed" this problem in the mid 80s by splitting the connecting rod journals on the crankshaft to approximate 60° between firing.

 

[2K2AcuraTL]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkC:
And which would you recommend?

---

At the momment am using an oversized K&N filter HP-2001 If I remember correctly. It was vast improvment over Fram.. Would like to try a M1 filter, but thry are not availble in CanuckLand

[ September 02, 2003, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: 2K2AcuraTL ]

 

[JohnBrowning]

G-Man II I think the track record of the engines speak for them selfs. The 3.8 even when it was odd fire was still preety durable! The 3.1 and 3.4 have never lived up their potential. I have to add that the 2.8 was not that hot of a motor either. My 2.4l 22RE I4 used to spank the S-10 Blazers with the 2.8V6. My little I4 made more HP and Torque and made them lower. To make matters worse my 4Runner out weighted the Jimmy by a large margin.

The 3.1 and 3.4 are decent engines for low cost econo-vechile but have no place in a higher price vechile. The 3.8 needs better isolation (hydralic filled mounts)and variable valve timeing. Fix the upper and lower intake leak problems and you have a realy sweet engine. Match it to a 5 or 6 speed automatic that is much more refined and you would have a real winner.

P.S. A little bit of extra metal like stiffening ribs would also reduce the noise from the engine.

 

[CJH]

I ran the Auto Rx and a treatment of BG44K in my 1997 Lumina 3.1 that has a history of oil consumption and a decent build up of varnish. I did not notice much during the 1,000 miles the AutoRx was in the car, but during the rinse cycle, the engine is soooo smooth once it is warm (still have the piston slap when cold, of course).

I looked down the oil-fill hole tonight and about fell over when I saw that the varnish had been removed from the part of the aluminum head that you can see and it is gone from most of the metal that is visible on the valve springs. There is still a good coat of varnish on the sides of the fill hole just below the cap and some other metal parts of some kind that sit up high near the cap. The varnish in the hole just below the cap looked "soft", so I reached in, rubbed it with my finger and I actually ended up with some varishy substance on my finger. This is in an area where they oil probably does not flow directly, or at least with not much force.

The other thing is that while this car has had consumption problems, my indication at this point is it is not consuming any noticable amount of oil. So far there are 650 miles on the rinse, so the oil level normally would have dropped about 1/3 quart at this point. I am almost (but not quite) ready to scream "MIRACLE". Since I have been fooled by drawing oil consumption conclusions from small samples before, I am going to wait for a couple thousand miles first.

At this point, I am very excited and optimistic. When the apparant success is confirmed by more data, I will write a success story thread on my experience. I have good records of oil consumption, but no pictures. I don't have a good camera, and even if I did, I doubt the shade of the varnish would show up in pictures well enough to tell the story.

Amazing...just amazing.

 

[mebanditws6]

The 2.8 wasn't real durable until 87 when GM redesigned the bearings in the bottom end and some other improvements. By the time the 3.1 came out, these engines were actually very durable and had impressive power. I doubt they're as durable as the 3.8 which is basically bulletproof like the Chevy small blocks, but compared to even some of the OHC motors in imports, they're still a great value compared to 4cyl Camry's, Accords, etc.

Jason

 

[Swift]

I sold an 84 Camaro in 1993 with 170,000 trouble free miles on her 2.8L V6.

Wish I'd kept that car!

 

[CJH]

Well, as it turns out, the rinse did use some oil, and when viewed in daylight, the varnish on the aluminum head was not completely removed, but there was some progress. I am reserving judgement until I measure the rate of oil consumption with my usual oil which is now back in the car after the rinse. I have closely monitored the consumption rate with this oil, and I will know if it improves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CJH:
I looked down the oil-fill hole tonight and about fell over when I saw that the varnish had been removed from the part of the aluminum head that you can see and it is gone from most of the metal that is visible on the valve springs. There is still a good coat of varnish on the sides of the fill hole just below the cap and some other metal parts of some kind that sit up high near the cap. The varnish in the hole just below the cap looked "soft", so I reached in, rubbed it with my finger and I actually ended up with some varishy substance on my finger. This is in an area where they oil probably does not flow directly, or at least with not much force.

The other thing is that while this car has had consumption problems, my indication at this point is it is not consuming any noticable amount of oil.

---

 

[Ken2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2K2AcuraTL:
..also would like to add that using an oil filter that flows well also lessens the GM engine slap.
Jean

---

Why? The cylinder walls and piston skirts are not part of the pressure lube system.


Ken