NYTimes article on sludge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
616
Location
Texas
February 4, 2007
Technology
Engine Sludge: When Good Oil Goes Bad
By CHRISTOPHER JENSEN

FOR people buying a used car, there is a very important but rarely checked factor to consider that goes beyond kicking the tires: original sin.

Some best-selling models appear to have an increased risk of serious mechanical problems, particularly if scheduled oil changes were not made during the vehicle’s formative years. The threat is the buildup of sludge — gooey tarlike deposits — that reduces or shuts off oil circulation and can mean thousands of dollars to repair or replace an engine that has seized.

Sludge is a thickening and breakdown of the oil as it deteriorates, as moisture and contaminants build up. This causes the oil to gel, resulting in excess wear as friction increases or, in extreme cases, a stop-right-now failure.

Worse, experts warn that there is no foolproof way subsequent owners of a trouble-prone vehicle can protect themselves. And if there is a problem caused by sludge, an automaker may reject a warranty claim because the new owner may not be able to prove that previous owners made the required oil changes.

Dean Tomazic, director for performance and emissions at FEV Engine Technology, a consulting firm in Auburn Hills, Mich., said the owner of a used car could conscientiously change the oil every 3,000 miles and still have a problem if the previous owner neglected the maintenance. The engine may be so damaged from the past abuse, he said, it could “eternally cause sludge formation.”

Thousands of owners of vehicles of popular brands like Chrysler, Dodge, Toyota, Lexus, Volkswagen, Audi and Saab have had sludge problems.

On Wednesday, a state judge in Louisiana is scheduled to give final approval to an out-of-court settlement of a class-action suit against Toyota covering 3.5 million vehicles. Under the settlement, Toyota will repair vehicles with sludge damage if owners can prove a reasonable effort at maintenance.

Chrysler has a serious sludge problem with the 2.7-liter V-6 engine used on some of its Concordes and Sebrings and also on some Dodge Intrepids and Stratus in the 1998-2002 model years, said Clarence M. Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety. Mr. Ditlow said the center’s Web site (autosafety.org) had about 2,800 complaints of failures from sludge.

Sam Locricchio, a Chrysler spokesman, said the center was exaggerating the problem. He said the center received many duplicate complaints as well as cases in which it could not be shown that the vehicle had been properly maintained.

A lack of adequate oil changes is the explanation for damage given by Audi, Lexus, Saab, Toyota and VW. Yet unlike Chrysler and Dodge, those automakers have formal compensation programs for sludge damage, although in some cases consumers must provide detailed service records — and in the case of Saab, must have used oil filters sold only by the company.

Used-car owners are not alone in having sludge problems. The class-action suit brought against Toyota was started by Jeff Meckstroth of New Orleans.

Mr. Meckstroth was so impressed with the high marks earned by Lexus in quality studies by J. D. Power & Associates that he replaced a Mercedes-Benz with a new 1999 Lexus RX 300 sport wagon.

In October 2000, at about 42,000 miles, the engine failed because of a sludge problem. The RX 300 was still under warranty, and though Mr. Meckstroth had receipts showing he had made all the oil changes, Lexus refused to cover the $8,000 repair, asserting poor maintenance was to blame.

A Better Business Bureau arbitrator later ruled the car was properly maintained and that Lexus should repair it under warranty. But there were other expenses Lexus would not cover, and Mr. Meckstroth was angry about the way he was treated.

“Toyota knew they had a defect and didn’t want to admit it,” he said. “That’s when and why I sued.”

Toyota denied there was a problem with the engine. The company said the settlement was similar to a repair program it started in 2002 to fix engines damaged by sludge. But Gary G. Gambel, one of the New Orleans lawyers who brought the Toyota class-action suit, said the settlement went beyond the 2002 program by, among other things, reimbursing owners for the reduction in the vehicle’s value.

There is no national database on sludge. Still, problems seem to be increasing, said Mike Caruso, a technical specialist with the Automotive Engine Rebuilders Association, a trade group in Buffalo Grove, Ill.

Mr. Caruso said he suspected that two factors were combining to gum up the internal-combustion works. He said that people might be more lax about changing oil and that oil changes had become very important as engines have become more sophisticated.

Yet, given the millions of engines in the United States, the number of sludge-related failures is microscopic, said Robert J. Last, vice president of operations at FEV.

Consumer Reports magazine has said “the problem rate as reflected in our reliability data is very low.”

That is little consolation to owners who suddenly find themselves with a bill of $5,000 or more to replace an engine on a vehicle with only 60,000 miles, Mr. Ditlow said. He said that if poor maintenance alone were to blame, virtually every engine from every automaker would have a serious sludge problem. He finds it impossible to believe that maintenance scofflaws are all attracted to certain engines. The logical explanation is that poor maintenance affects some engines more than others, he said.

If the Toyota case had gone to trial, said Joseph M. Bruno, another lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the Toyota suit, expert witnesses would have asserted that the problem was related to design changes made by Toyota to meet emissions standards.

Toyota has denied any design problem with its engines. The proposed settlement (posted at oilgelsettlement.com) notes that it does not mean that “Toyota or Lexus vehicles are predisposed to develop oil gel.”

It is difficult to say why some engines would be more vulnerable than others, although regular oil changes would be more important with turbocharged engines, Mr. Last said. Engines with turbochargers are more highly stressed.

VW and Audi officials have noted that proper maintenance is crucial with the turbocharged 1.8-liter engine used in the 1998-2004 VW Passat and 1997-2004 Audi A4. VW also said that the 1.8-liter engine used in the New Beetle, Jetta and Audi TT was not as likely to have a problem because that engine contained more oil.

Oil capacity may also be a factor with Chrysler’s 2.7-liter V-6. The automaker decided to use a smaller oil sump so consumers could save on oil, giving the engine a five-quart capacity instead of six, a Chrysler engineer, Burke Brown, said in a 2005 interview with The Plain Dealer newspaper of Cleveland.

“In retrospect, that took away the margin,” Mr. Brown told the paper. “If you don’t change the oil on schedule, they don’t tolerate a lot of abuse in that regard,” he said, referring to the 2.7-liter V-6 engine.

What all this means to consumers looking for a used car is that they need to get the vehicle’s record of oil changes and other maintenance. Then, they need to make sure those records match up with the automaker’s requirements as listed in the owner’s manual.

But the automakers’ extended sludge warranties are still good for only eight years after the vehicle was first sold. So some experts said the smartest thing for consumers was just to stay away from engines with sludge reputations.

“It is almost like clogged arteries,” said Mr. Caruso of the engine rebuilders association. “You look good on the outside, but you don’t know what is on the inside.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/automo...;pagewanted=all
 
Quote:


Worse, experts warn that there is no foolproof way subsequent owners of a trouble-prone vehicle can protect themselves.




I sorta disagree. BiTOG'ers got it solved.
smile.gif


I tell you if people don't know about sludge engines by now they've been watching too much Leave it to Beaver.
 
Sludge isn't as mysterious as the article indicates. We know that certain engine designs are more prone to sludge, such as engines that allow high temperatures in certain areas that the oil is exposed to. A six quart sump may have helped the Chrysler 2.7 but the engine design is the real factor. Plenty of hulking V8's and high output V6's got along just fine on 5 quarts of oil.
 
Pablo - Some people will still not believe such a brand name and high cost vehicle would have such a problem..."They've got it all figured out." My father didn't belive me the few times I mentioned it, and then I sent him a link to the pending class action. Hummm...
 
Quote:


Quote:


Worse, experts warn that there is no foolproof way subsequent owners of a trouble-prone vehicle can protect themselves.




I sorta disagree. BiTOG'ers got it solved.
smile.gif


I tell you if people don't know about sludge engines by now they've been watching too much Leave it to Beaver.




I assume by subsequent owner they mean the person buying a used car that is prone to sludging. How could I protect myself if buying one of those used? If I bought it new it would not be an issue or if I knew how it had been taken care of previously it wouldn't be a problem. But if I blindly bought a used one, how could I protect myself? What if it was all sludged up when I bought it? Or is that not what you meant?
 
Quote:


Quote:


Worse, experts warn that there is no foolproof way subsequent owners of a trouble-prone vehicle can protect themselves.




I sorta disagree. BiTOG'ers got it solved.
smile.gif


I tell you if people don't know about sludge engines by now they've been watching too much Leave it to Beaver.




Well , I do agree BITOGrs have it solved , although there are just over 16,200 of us , so its " sorta " disingenious at best to suggest that everybody else knows - esp in light of the endless spin by the OEMS in general and most particularly toyota who also is into a very large and sophisicated suppression program of all relevant information .

Speaking of that and your quotes above , esp your mention of how we have it solved here ,I'm having a problem finding the 30 -50 really outstanding threads we had here in regards to toyota and sludge .

Its probably my lack of search technique , but I can find , I think , every other manufacturer - sludge thread except toyotas. I'm not talking about the less developed threads we still have left .


There is one I'd like to ask your help with - because its no longer findable anywhere on the Internet in general - and I know you have it - I remember you discussing and explaining it in fine fashion .


Could you repost Amsoil's test and conclusions on the toyota 1MZ-FE 3.0L V6 sludge monster they did several years ago ?


I do have all this and more disappeared material in hard memory and on paper but unfortunately ,its 1800 NM or so away from here in storage . So , working from memory , the one I'm asking your help on is when they covered both the oil munching cam gears and oil frying cylinder heads .


FWIW , if you will do that you'll regain at least 1 -12 Amsoil customers , starting with me first .
See , after starting with Amsoil in 1972 I quite in protest when they took down the articule and then not long after , if I remember the sequencing correctly , put the one up about bad 76? Corvette window caulk and toyota something or other .

My thanks in advance for restoring Amsoil's credibility with me .
 
Fellows - I was being a bit "tongue in cheek" hence the smiley face. No deep meaning, just saying if the average BiTOG cling-on inherited a sludge monster that hadn't reached the engine grave, we could come up with the appropriate cure - usually involving AutoRx, then Amsoil flush, and a super LC swish and spit followed by a couple 2K Havoline runs, then Amsoil for 6K OCI's. Problem solved. The rest of the public doesn't know what they are missing here, what can I add?
smile.gif
 
We had some sludge problems with a group of vehicles, that according to the service records were serviced every 5-7.5k miles. We ran a little sting operation and found out that the company hired to do the service work was just skipping some oil changes, but turning in the service orders for payment. There were 17 vehicles in this sting that had more than three skips in 30k miles. 11 of the 17 had serious sludge problems with receipts. We went to court and won a large settlement to repair these vehicles and the settlement included the loss of value and use, on top of the repairs. There are at least three stings going on right now and all three are exposing this kind of skipped oil change problem. I think the reason that some dealerships deny claims even when receipts are available is because they know a little too much about skipped services.
 
I only see one potential problem with this articule - thanks for posting it up .
cheers.gif


The " problem " is that the average non automotive guy is going to come away , I think , assuming all these engines and " their " sludge issues are somehow the same or similar .


Of course , here at BITOG we know better , that nothing could be farther from the truth .

Are there some commonalities ? Oh yea , for sure .

Are there dissimilarities ? Yep . And how .

Where there possibly some things each OEM could have done differently and better , that would have helped ?
Sure , and depending on which one , anywhere from alot to some .

As each engine developed its notoriety could each OEM have reacted quicker with , if not a permanent solution , at least a workable band aid ? Yep .

Where there maintenance " neglectors " for each and everyone of these engines ? yes - always is .

Where there extra/prudent to do maintenance steps that the owners could have put in place and there by avoided all this mess ? Definitely .

Are the answers for each engine in regards to the above questions the same or different ? Well ,that depends ....short answer is both .

There all the unanswerable questions not asked , as well .

And then in regards to our uninformed NYT reader , we have the " consumer oriented " people with their true colors on full display , engaged in full speed CYA for themselves and others , and by doing so , adding smoke instead of illumination .

Finally , when we examine the situation on the ground so as to speak and this articule , we can be sure that the NYT hasn't lost any advertizers . This is no surprise either , when other ground situations are considered along with their reporting .
Still , sad to say , more than most .....on sludge .
 
Last edited:
"I tell you if people don't know about sludge engines by now they've been watching too much Leave it to Beaver."
-------------------------------------------------------------

I tell you, P. Impossible to watch too much.
 
Lonnie.........well , at least you try and swing the bat , although you would probably do more for your team if .......you just sat down .
OK , this is a gentle call , since you went to court that means there is a court record .
Super .
So ........ I'd like the references to look that up myself .

And let me guess , these were all toyotas - but only with the sludge monster engines , right ?
See , if they weren't that would explain most all your erroneous posting of late , and if they were and it doesn't check out ,it does the same thing . Follow me ?
Think about it , talk to your boss or maybe your bosses boss .
 
g20ooh, I'll ask. They might not want the details posted on a web site and I was giving the info as just that. The wrong doing was the service not the vehicles, did I know make that clear. The point I was making is that oil changes appear to be skipped but the paper work and the bill are not. Oil changes are really needed and missed changes can lead to problems. At least that's what we found. We have no experience with extended oci's with synthetic oil. They just are not done by anyone I know. And what's with putting Toyota's on me?
 
I guess for somebody who is old school and falls for the Jiffy Lube "change your oil every 3k or it will blow up" - if they unknowingly had one of these sludge prone Toyotas - well then they would be protected. So it goes to show you that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

I think the guy who bought the Lexus in the article finally learned his leason about cars and reliability lists. Always buy for what makes you happy and not what a list says is number 1.
 
Just throwing this out there-

With the rash of sludge concerns almost all at once, does anyone think its the formulation of additives in new oils? If these engines were designed on the limits of "older" oil specs, would a slight change in the general formulation to meet, say, some new Ford or Honda spec (who don't seem to have these issues), have caused this problem? It just seems strange that so many different OEMs, with so many different engines could suddenly have all this difficulty. The Saabs and VW's I can see some correlation with the turbo chargers but for Toyota and Chrysler, with non-turbo'd engines, it just seems strange.

Again, just throwing this out there and thinking out loud. Maybe somebody has a good understanding of the additive changes in the last 10 years...
 
My opinion only ; its timely , in light of toyotas offer to settle , and that maybe it or there maybe more to it .

Whether intended or not , it functions as a very sophisticated type of covering fire for toyota .

Just consider the two extremes ; Chrysler and toyota .

Really look at them and how they get to sludge .

In outline form ,from what I see here ;

Chryslers 2.7L looks to be a matter of an engine that although well designed for its price point , does not have the same margin for " bad maintenance " that Mopar has provided much more often than not .

It really looks to me to be no responsibility of Chryslers .

Now consider toyota , their two engines and their sludge stories , which are on the other end of the scale and totally different .

Short version ;
completely misdesigned or not designed and validated , or completely lacking in design integration - most likely all three , all virtually inexcusable , all toyotas error .

You've got 10/ 12 major mistakes by toyota ( depending only on how you count ) right out of the gate , NOT counting what they did as the situation developed .

In regards to these design /maintenance schedule flaws any one of which is both beyond dumb and a really bad idea in general , you have in their neccessary interaction everything you need for complete disaster which is exactly where they and most of their owners are at .This has/is /will occur in any number of ways , even for some of those who have prevously lightly " overmaintained " their oil .

Its worth a look at the others as well .

The VW/AUDI engines are pretty much an issue of the wrong quality /spec oil , both by their dealer group and outside on engines that have a tight margin for error .

The Saab I haven't completely made my mind up on , although some of it definitely ressembles the VW/AUDI - Chrysler situations , maybe with a very ,very tight and specific margin for error .
dunno.gif


When you really consider how different all these sludge stories are , whatever they are , you can see how toyota is getting that very special covering fire that they so richly do not deserve .

Hey for you toyotaites who so often drag everything possible into the story including the cat , heres one to consider . Also opinion , but an informed one at that , the toyota 3.0L V6 1MZ-FE involved here is pretty much equivalent to the GM 5.7L diesel story - start to finish , although its not finished .
 
Last edited:
anyone here know how "sludge prone" a 1992 Galant is? I bought her at 104k miles and she has 140k now....since i've had it, 3k mile OCI's. runs well, slight tick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top