why women carnt fix cars? (18+ !.. NSFW)

[PeterN]

I'm not talking specifically about 406s I agree the turbo's dont fail in them, but there are hundreds if not thousands have failed in the 1.6 Hdi engine both in Citroens and Fords. The oil change intervals specified are far to long and the sump to small.

The 1.6 HDi had (has?) a well-known design flaw. It has nothing to do with long oil change intervals directly or the total amount of oil in it, the real problem is that the original sump design doesn't drain correctly. There's plenty of oil in it, but every oil change leaves the dirtiest nastiest bits in the pan, because the drain isn't at the lowest point, for some unfathomable reason.

Normally, this wouldn't be a problem resulting in catastrophic failure. It would just reduce the service life of the engine/turbo a bit, were it not for another design flaw or oversight. The banjo bolt attaching the turbo oil feed line to the block has a small mesh filter in it. This is to protect the bearings in the turbo from gunk and particles, in order for them to last longer.





The combination of a bad sump design, the filter in the banjo bolt and a fluid-bearing turbo causes the turbo to be starved of oil, and no turbo can survive that for long.

A quick fix is to remove the mesh filter from the banjo bolt. Of course, this causes more gunk and particles to reach the turbo's fluid bearings, but instead of catastrophic failure, you will have plenty of noisy whistling warning before it finally lets go.

The proper solution is to fit a redesigned oil pan that drains properly. Or you could drop the pan and clean it out manually at every oil change. I know which option I prefer :-)

I have been running diesels since 1959 and I have never had a turbo fail although the early ones didn't have them but the oil change intervals were 2,000 miles with the early Perkins engines and subsequently 6,000 although I used to change mine at 5k, it was easier to remember. I also have had diesels XMs with 300k on them and original turbos but we are talking about modern engines.

You have to remember that back in those days, engines were built with much looser tolerances, diesel was far dirtier and engine oil was closer to raw crude oil than the advanced synthetic oils we use today.

Yes I know about that but the fact remains that if the oil was changed more frequently it wouldn't get sludgy enough to clog the turbo feed filter and reduce if not alleviate the problem

Peter

[KozmoNaut]

This is quite an interesting case study on a turbo failure on the DV6 engine:
http://www.theturboguy.com/uploads/1/0/ ... es-3-2.pdf

I can remember reading in CM magazine that the engine almost needs to be stripped down and all traces of carbon removed to ensure a new turbo will last, i certainly remember on my cousins 307 that almost every part of the engine had tonnes of carbon sludge inside it.
Its a shame a DV6 has these problems, with a high mileage XUD or DW10/12 there is not really any worries of the engine failing unless its been very badly neglected, but a DV6 with over 70,000 miles is always a bit of a gamble on the used market.

It's a real shame. The DV6 is such a nice engine to drive, very smooth and even power band, and I averaged over 50 mpg when I had one in a DS4 hire car in Scotland last year. Adequate power for the hilly, narrow and twisty highland roads and it cruised well at 70+ mph on the motorway from the airport. Shame the steering wheel was on the wrong (right) side ;-)

Yes I know about that but the fact remains that if the oil was changed more frequently it wouldn't get sludgy enough to clog the turbo feed filter and reduce if not alleviate the problem

Well yes, it would put off the problem slightly, but failure is still inevitable. Perhaps it would buy just enough time to be OK until the second or third owner...

[Welly]

I have not once "attacked" a member of this site, and I would very much like you to retract that blatantly false accusation.

Thank you. Sir.

I am happy to retract my blatantly false accusation but I'd like you to look at these quotes from your posts and explain why I might have thought these things about you.

Everything else in your post was basically rubbish

Two words for you: Bull and sh*t

You're absolutely wrong

You're being silly now

Ok, "attacks" was a bit strong maybe and I apologise if you feel offended, maybe I should have said that you "strongly enforce" your views.

You see, a lot of members have been here a long time and it takes time to all settle in and get along, you came here and very quickly started objecting and questioning things so what are we supposed to think?

[Bailes1992]

The oil in my car was changed the day before I bought it. It was services using Ford spec oil and a Mann filter.
At 12,000miles I took a sample and sent it off to be tested and was advised to half the intervals because there was so much soot and dirt in the oil.
These days I even change the viscosity of the oil depending on the time of year.
January to March - 0w30 A5/B5
April to June - 5w30 A5/B5 or Ford Specification
July to September - 5w40 A5/B5
October to December - 5w30 A5/B5

My oil never really goes black any more, engine never uses a drop of oil and is smooth as silk. Well as smooth as a 1970s Diesel engine can be!

[KozmoNaut]

Everything else in your post was basically rubbish

Two words for you: Bull and sh*t

The poster in question was claiming a 30% drop in fuel economy from using supermarket petrol compared to name-brand petrol. I think I was quite right in calling bovine excrement on his claims.

You're being silly now

You're absolutely wrong

These was in reply to a poster who firstly compared fuel additives with adding honking great superchargers to econoboxes to "be the best". If there was such an additive that would significantly improve performance and economy, it would be in all fuel very very quickly. On the other hand, big superchargers have obvious drawbacks in both cost and strengthening of parts, so they will never be put on all engines as standard. It was a silly comparison, so I called it silly.

The second quote was in reply to his claim that high-octane or premium petrol has a higher energy content than normal petrol. This is blatantly false. The only thing a higher octane rating adds is resistance to detonation, allowing you to run higher compression ratios. The energy content is the same.

Ok, "attacks" was a bit strong maybe and I apologise if you feel offended, maybe I should have said that you "strongly enforce" your views.

You see, a lot of members have been here a long time and it takes time to all settle in and get along, you came here and very quickly started objecting and questioning things so what are we supposed to think?

Perhaps that seniority does not equal knowledge and wisdom?

The only things I have been objecting to and questioning are the misconceptions that exist among some car enthusiasts, stemming either from wishful thinking or outright misinformation.

[steve_earwig]

Perhaps that seniority does not equal knowledge and wisdom?

I think it's more that new posters that come along and immediately start telling everyone they're wrong in a rude, offensive and brash manner without providing anything whatsoever to prove their claims are probably not worth listening to.

[Welly]

The only things I have been objecting to and questioning are the misconceptions that exist among some car enthusiasts, stemming either from wishful thinking or outright misinformation.

That's fine but you can't just tell everyone they're wrong and be surprised when they react back. Motoring is full of misconceptions as are lots of other industries; as car buyers we don't get to see why manufacturers do certain things and what oil and fuel suppliers do in their labs in fact we get the raw end of the deal because we end up 'testing' their ideas out in the field - THIS is where all the silly facts and wives tales begin and to be fair we mostly try to follow what seems to be the norm and stick with that. I could probably fill my oil sump with vegetable oil but I'm dammed if I'm going to try it because it might wreck the engine.

Sure now we have the added benefit of the internet to do our research but this comes with mixed views mostly so actually getting to speak to someone that's run their car for 50,000 miles on 'X' oil or 'Y' diesel is very helpful, that's why these forums are popular...to sort of fuse opinions together.

[Rolebama]

We had problems with CVH engines back in the early/mid 80s caused by using flushing oil on engines with 80k miles. The flushing oil seemed to adhere to carbon build ups, causing a slow breakup of the carbon and the release of paritcles into the oil system. After a while, the accumulated particles would block the filter, causing the bypass valve to open, and unfiltered carbon particles would enter oilways and promptly block them, leading to oil starvation and ruined engines. Consequently, we started recommending NOT to use flushing oil in higher mileage engines.
The thing that puzzles me about that article is that he is inferring that oil is pumped directly from the sump to the turbo, without the carbon particles being filtered out. Surely, this is wrong as all oil is pumped via the filter to all engine components and the turbo?

[KozmoNaut]

The only things I have been objecting to and questioning are the misconceptions that exist among some car enthusiasts, stemming either from wishful thinking or outright misinformation.

That's fine but you can't just tell everyone they're wrong and be surprised when they react back.

No no, that's not a problem at all, I love a good factually-based discussion, as long as they don't dissolve into hearsay and "if it's good enough for my grandpa, it's good enough for me!" type arguments.

But a lot of the time, people are just wrong or at least misinformed, for whichever reason.

The thing that puzzles me about that article is that he is inferring that oil is pumped directly from the sump to the turbo, without the carbon particles being filtered out. Surely, this is wrong as all oil is pumped via the filter to all engine components and the turbo?

That was my immediate reaction, too. Surely the much finer main oil filter would remove the gunk and particles before they reached the mesh filter in the banjo bolt?

But I think what is happening is that the main oil filter gets clogged first, and more oil starts going through the pressure bypass. That's probably how the dirty oil could reach the banjo bolt.

Either that, or Ford/PSA really f*cked up their engine design.