Amsoil and Engine Failures

AndyH · Jul 13, 2006

Mike,

Thanks very much for the compliment.

I'll tell you what I know and qualify it with the 'bounds' of my knowledge. Then you'll get 'the rest of the story'

- I have seen what I consider to be an oil failure. My 1988 Jetta non-turbo gasser, 3000 mile OCIs since new with primarily Castrol GTX. The pan came off three times starting at around 80,000 miles - the oil was forming coffee-ground sized gravel in the pan that kept clogging the oil pump pickup. The engine was trashed at 134,000 miles.

- I've never personally seen an oil failure of any type with any AMSOIL product. Feedback from my mentors (active commercial/retail AMSOIL dealers for about 17 years) and their mentors (Their business goes back to 1976) agrees. These dealers and their networks cover the US and part of Canada. We have a monthly teleconference, daily e-mail, and formal school twice per year. We share the 'good stuff' and the 'gotchas'. Their info agrees with what I've been told in person by the VPs of the company - never in the history of the company has a product failed.

- On the 'I didn't see this but I was told by a dealer that did' side - comes the two failures of Ford engines while using one of the 25,000 mile oils and annual oil changes. The story is that the OEM blamed the extended OCI. AMSOIL replaced the engines and sent the owners on their way. Analysis of the engines proved mechanical failure and the OEM reimbursed AMSOIL for both claims.

Now for trouble that can come from using the wrong products...

- I spoke with a dealer at the Dallas warehouse in February that works with industrial customers. Bad info from the plant maintenance folks led to a bad product recommendation. Gearboxes failed, equipment stopped. AMSOIL paid the bill for the gearboxes, they got the right fluids in them, and all's been well for the past 4 or so years.

The rest of the story...

And one that hits close to home - and deserves it's own thread -- the first PD failure that I've ever heard about that was running synthetic - in this case it appears to be the old AMSOIL AFL formula in an '04. This product was never intended for use in PDs. The car was in serious trouble at around the 122,000 mile mark. It wasn't the injector lobes that failed - it was the regular valve lobes. The injector arms have rollers on them... The car was traded sometime last fall (2005) so photos are not available. Maybe Oilhammer will start a new thread and give the details? This was a car he maintained from new for a customer.

Andy

nicklockard · Jul 13, 2006

Addressing aside: Andy, the valve lobes failing before the injector lobes is consistent with a writeup I've read here on our club: that the valve lobes are significantly narrower than the injector lobes...and moreover they don't push against rollers but hydraulic valve lifters instead.

tditom · Jul 13, 2006

what I don't understand is why would the valve lobes fail? aren't they pretty much the same construction as the pre-PD's? What extra stress would they be under?

EDIT: sorry- I didn't read Nick's post. Does this imply that there is a design weakness in the PD cam (narrower valve lobes)?

wmahaffey · Jul 13, 2006

tditom said:
what I don't understand is why would the valve lobes fail? aren't they pretty much the same construction as the pre-PD's? What extra stress would they be under?

My understanding is that the cam lobes that operate the pump/injector are different/additional cam lobes than the ones that operate the valves. If this is the case, they will not be on the earlier TDI engines.

Bill

wmahaffey · Jul 13, 2006

Andy,

I am aware of a Merceedes diesel failure several years ago. The owner was running the AmsOil 30w diesel. They also tried to run the long drain intervals. I do not what the owner did about filters. I do know that the oil failure was due to fuel and dirt contamination. AmsOil also replace the customer's engine and sent them on their way.

Bill

LanduytG · Jul 13, 2006

AndyH said:
Mike,

Thanks very much for the compliment.

I'll tell you what I know and qualify it with the 'bounds' of my knowledge. Then you'll get 'the rest of the story'

- I have seen what I consider to be an oil failure. My 1988 Jetta non-turbo gasser, 3000 mile OCIs since new with primarily Castrol GTX. The pan came off three times starting at around 80,000 miles - the oil was forming coffee-ground sized gravel in the pan that kept clogging the oil pump pickup. The engine was trashed at 134,000 miles.

- I've never personally seen an oil failure of any type with any AMSOIL product. Feedback from my mentors (active commercial/retail AMSOIL dealers for about 17 years) and their mentors (Their business goes back to 1976) agrees. These dealers and their networks cover the US and part of Canada. We have a monthly teleconference, daily e-mail, and formal school twice per year. We share the 'good stuff' and the 'gotchas'. Their info agrees with what I've been told in person by the VPs of the company - never in the history of the company has a product failed.

- On the 'I didn't see this but I was told by a dealer that did' side - comes the two failures of Ford engines while using one of the 25,000 mile oils and annual oil changes. The story is that the OEM blamed the extended OCI. AMSOIL replaced the engines and sent the owners on their way. Analysis of the engines proved mechanical failure and the OEM reimbursed AMSOIL for both claims.

Now for trouble that can come from using the wrong products...

- I spoke with a dealer at the Dallas warehouse in February that works with industrial customers. Bad info from the plant maintenance folks led to a bad product recommendation. Gearboxes failed, equipment stopped. AMSOIL paid the bill for the gearboxes, they got the right fluids in them, and all's been well for the past 4 or so years.

The rest of the story...

And one that hits close to home - and deserves it's own thread -- the first PD failure that I've ever heard about that was running synthetic - in this case it appears to be the old AMSOIL AFL formula in an '04. This product was never intended for use in PDs. The car was in serious trouble at around the 122,000 mile mark. It wasn't the injector lobes that failed - it was the regular valve lobes. The injector arms have rollers on them... The car was traded sometime last fall (2005) so photos are not available. Maybe Oilhammer will start a new thread and give the details? This was a car he maintained from new for a customer.

Andy

How do we no this was and oil related failure? Could it have been? yes it sure could of. But I have seen many cams go flat 9not on TDI's) and the reason being is bad manufacturing during the harding process. I myself would need a lot more information on this case other than it was the Amsoil that killed it. After all the PD valve train is driven the same as the earlier TDI's. I don't know for sure but I bet the same lifters are used. If Amsoil caused it then fine it did. But lets look at things a little closer before we cry wolf.

Greg

nicklockard · Jul 13, 2006

tditom said:
what I don't understand is why would the valve lobes fail? aren't they pretty much the same construction as the pre-PD's? What extra stress would they be under?

They're (the PD's valve actuating cam lobes) simply narrower(than the VE's cam lobes), but must carry the same loads as their wider fore bearers. Thus, they carry higher pressures and more sliding friction force.

AndyH · Jul 13, 2006

Oilhammer guesstimated the cam lobes for the valves are about 25% narrower to make room for the injector lobes.

Nick - great photo! I hadn't seen that clear a shot of the lobes. They really look narrow!

Roj, Greg -- the old AFL was born from AMSOIL's 10W-40 AMO and was a CI-4+ 12TBN heavy duty diesel oil. In spite of this, it was never recommended for use in a PD and when questioned about using it, AMSOIL expressly forbid using ANY of the company's oils in PDs. That was what started the push for a 505.01 compliant AMSOIL product. So regardless of what happened with this car, this is a case of misapplication. The owner was informed by his trusted mechanic that the oil didn't meet the requirements of the car, and chose to use it anyway. He became his own warranty at that point.

Gasp...the dreaded 'Threadus Creepus'

LurkerMike · Jul 13, 2006

I see it as directly related to the "Amsoil Rules" because I had never heard of any Amsoil failures... granted my circle is much smaller than yours, but still I should have heard of at least a couple of failures blamed on Amsoil by now if it wasn't "all that" or was falling waaay short of claims of being among the very highest quality lubricants.

As a kid in the 60's and 70's, I saw the effects of the old paraffin based formulas like Quaker State first hand... I remember pulling a set of 283 valve covers that had Chevrolet stamped in script on them from a Quaker State motor... They were like jello molds where the waxy gunk buildup was so severe that you could read Chevrolet in it! I mean you couldn't see any rockers or valve springs, just what looked like black valve covers made of thick grease with Chevrolet written in raised script under the valve covers after I removed them...

In recent years a friend taught me the flash light trick, look into the oil fill hole with a bright flashlight to see how clean the inside of an engine looks... Mobil1 and Amsoil motors are always spotless no matter what mileage they have... dino motors can be almost as clean if the oil is religiously changed at 3k miles... but mixed oil brands and Jiffy Quick Lube whatever is on sale this week motors tend to look nasty...

Granted this is empirical data, but it is a trend that I have noticed...

tditom · Jul 14, 2006

tditom said:
... Does this imply that there is a design weakness in the PD cam (narrower valve lobes)?

On second thought, this is the wrong way to look at it. The cam lobe is being asked to do alot more work, surface-area-wise, in a PD than the earlier designs. Can anyone tell me if the valve/spring characteristics are the same between the two designs?

Andy, thanks for the history lesson- very informative.

AndyH said:
... the old AFL was born from AMSOIL's 10W-40 AMO and was a CI-4+ 12TBN heavy duty diesel oil.

Would I be out of line in saying the old AFL was every bit the oil Delvac 1 is and that if it couldn't properly protect the PD cam, then GMark's car is also in great danger? (sorry for the 'jack- please go to the following thread to comment on that)
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=129373

tditom · Jul 14, 2006

Andy-

Can you display the old & new AFL specs side by side so we can compare?

I know this is a long shot, but can you tell us what the magic ingredient is that was used to reformulate the AFL so it meets/exceeds VW505.01?

AndyH · Jul 14, 2006

tditom said:
Andy-

Can you display the old & new AFL specs side by side so we can compare?

I know this is a long shot, but can you tell us what the magic ingredient is that was used to reformulate the AFL so it meets/exceeds VW505.01?

From post 31 in this thread http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=137577

Here's a quick side-by-side of the old and new formula. The Castrol TXT/Old AFL numbers were posted by Ted (TooSlick). I added the new AFL numbers from the VOA posted here: http://www.zamslube.com/images/afl_voa.jpg

Castrol 505.01, AMSOIL AFL (old), AMSOIL AFL (new)

Vis @ 100C... 13.7/15.0/13.58 cSt
HT/HS...?/4.2/3.7 cP
Noack...?/5.5%/8.9%
FP, +440/+449F/+446
PP, -60/-59F/-44
CCS -30C 3400/5200/5204 cP

TBN/ASTM D-4739 ...12.1/12.4/6.39

Silicon ...1 ppm/4 ppm/4 ppm - antifoam additive

Detergent/Dispersant additives:
Calcium...2361/3243/1440 ppm
Mag ......8/11/12 ppm

Antiwear additives:

Phosphorus..1045/906/701 ppm
Zinc .......1270/1000/804 ppm

Moly....none/none/none
Boron ..none/none/50 ppm

We can't tell the whole formulation story from oil analysis, but we can see the reduction in calcium, phosphorus, and zinc and the addition of boron. The oil has lower TBN, and a lower viscosity. The higher volatility could come from a base-oil adjustment, but probably from the significant changes in the additive package.

I don't know about GMark's car. With only one datapoint so far I think it's too early to tell.

Oilhammer runs a shop SW of St Louis and has a pretty large group of VE and PD engines. This was the only PD he's seen fail. I've been talking with TooSlick - he has a significant group of TDI customers in a four-state area, he's a chemist and long-time oil dealer. He's pointed out here many times that he doesn't think that 505.01 is anything special. I guess we need more PDs using non-spec synthetic oil for more than 100,000 miles before we'll get enough data to know what's happening.

Andy

LanduytG · Jul 14, 2006

Oilhammer runs a shop SW of St Louis and has a pretty large group of VE and PD engines. This was the only PD he's seen fail. I've been talking with TooSlick - he has a significant group of TDI customers in a four-state area, he's a chemist and long-time oil dealer. He's pointed out here many times that he doesn't think that 505.01 is anything special. I guess we need more PDs using non-spec synthetic oil for more than 100,000 miles before we'll get enough data to know what's happening.

Andy

Andy this is exactly what I'm talking about. If this is the only PD Brian has seen fail, how can we say the Amsoil caused it? If you remember the new AFL is degraded from the old formula. Would need way more proof for me to buy it. Also I'm not saying that it couldn't of caused it but I really have my doubts.

Greg

Diesel Addict · Jul 14, 2006

My bet is on a mechanical defect that caused the failure, just like with those Ford engines. It's easy to blame engine failures on the lubricant used, but I don't think the lubricant is to blame in most engine failure cases. What we need is an extensive study: one large group running on VW-approved oils, and another large group running on non-approved synthetic oils. Until we have results from both groups, we don't know whether any particular failure can be attributed to a particular lubricant or a weak mechanical design/quality control issue.

Frank M · Jul 14, 2006

Diesel Addict said:
My bet is on a mechanical defect that caused the failure, just like with those Ford engines. It's easy to blame engine failures on the lubricant used, but I don't think the lubricant is to blame in most engine failure cases. What we need is an extensive study: one large group running on VW-approved oils, and another large group running on non-approved synthetic oils. Until we have results from both groups, we don't know whether any particular failure can be attributed to a particular lubricant or a weak mechanical design/quality control issue.

After the engine is dissembled it can be determined by a qualified person if it was lubricant or something else.

wjdell · Jul 14, 2006

Amsoil paid the bill and thats good business. Yes all cams are not of equal hardness, they can vary. A soft cam can happen. VW needs to increase the strentgh of steel quality of their dual mass flywheels also - Our PD design is on its way out, I think. VW will change this in the future I am sure.

If soot makes a oil more viscus - it must be a solid yes or no - long changes are just not as good as many think. The 1.8T had a 10k OCI and they changed it to 5k, VW must have felt it would solve a problem. PD as in all over head cams have the double edge sword - they need oil quickly at start up - thus 0-30 - they need to protect from pressure at high temps - that takes a better additive package in a light oil, or a heavier oil. Maybe thats why the vast range 5 to 40.

I think I will stay with 505.01 - I think I will change by hours and not miles.
I think I will say a few prayers also.

AndyH · Jul 14, 2006

LanduytG said:
Andy this is exactly what I'm talking about. If this is the only PD Brian has seen fail, how can we say the Amsoil caused it? If you remember the new AFL is degraded from the old formula. Would need way more proof for me to buy it. Also I'm not saying that it couldn't of caused it but I really have my doubts.

Greg

Hi Greg,

No-one said the AMSOIL caused it -- just that an engine running a PAO-based non-recommended, never built for 505.01 was used in the engine for it's 122,000 mile life and the cam died.

I spoke with Ted (TooSlick), then with Oilhammer -- the timing belt was done at 100,000 miles and it didn't seem to be as peppy as other cars at that time. Oilhammer suggested that the tempered layer is thin and that it might have held up pretty well until it didn't - and that it would deteriorate quickly once it started to fail. This seems to be consistent with what the owner experienced -- it got bad enough while on a road trip to pull into a 'foreign' dealership - where it was traded on the spot for an '06 TDI.

IF we can draw anything from a one-off event (one single datapoint) - it's that we should have GMark drive someone elses PD to get a performance comparison, then we should look at his camshaft at the 100,000 or so mile point.

Edits underlined.

LurkerMike · Jul 15, 2006

AndyH said:
...we should have GMark drive someone elses PD to get a performance comparison...

GMark needs a GTech.

AndyH · Jul 15, 2006

wjdell said:
If soot makes a oil more viscus - it must be a solid yes or no - long changes are just not as good as many think.

That's one of the factors the oil company takes into account when designing the oil for that application. Diesel oils use dispersants to keep the soot in suspension and keeping it from 'clumping'. Once the dispersants are depleted, the sub-1-micron soot particles increase in size. The thinnest oil film in the engine is on the camlobes - 0 to 1 micron - so this is where abrasive wear is expected to appear first.

wjdell said:
The 1.8T had a 10k OCI and they changed it to 5k, VW must have felt it would solve a problem.

Yup. Some Passats and Audi A4s have 1.8T engines with 3.x quarts of oil, and no requirement to use synthetic. The 4.x quart engines didn't have trouble - just the small ones. The somewhat drastic response was to require synthetic, 502.00, and 1/2 the 10K severe service drain interval in all 1.8Ts. Any one of those should have fixed the problem - as would an oversized oil filter to get the oil volume up I suspect.

wjdell said:
I think I will stay with 505.01 - I think I will change by hours and not miles. I think I will say a few prayers also.

Do you do a lot of idling? That's normally when I have my service fleet customers use hours. Otherwise, the 505.01 spec products are built for a 10K or 1 year (whichever comes first) severe service drain interval.

It took me more than a year of oil sampling to get comfortable with my '96's 6-month/7500 mile OCI - so I understand the feeling of not trusting the product recommendation. Run whatever oil you decide on out to 10K or a year and pull an oil sample as a confidence boost. I promise it will get your attention!

On 505.01 and AFL -- VW doesn't confirm the oil, but the world's largest oil additive company (lubrizol) and AMSOIL both confirm the oil exceeds 505.01 requirements. Chose to use another oil for whatever reason you're comfortable with - absolutely - but one of those shouldn't be because the oil isn't good enough. None of the company's products - including the 5W-40 Euro - are built 'down' to a specification.

I just got out of an all-day class that included company updates from Peter Haines (VP of sales) and Rob Stenberg (SW regional rep) here in San Antonio. The AFL reformulation used the absolute latest chemistry. Other products are also starting to use variations on the theme - like the boron in the AFF 0W-40 ATV oil (more boron than in AFL!). I got a UOA from TooSlick - he ran the ATV oil in his Audi TT for 10,000 miles and it looks fantastic. No viscosity shearing and similar wear rates to AMO 10W-40 and 5W-30.)

Andy

Thermo1223 · Jul 17, 2006

IMO I thought the change from a 10k-5k not only coensided(sp) with a smaller crankcase capacity but the knowledge that people were completely ignoring the required oil in the 1.8t's and just filling them up with the Jiffy Lube special.

Any turbo or supercharged car should use a synthetic whether it is a group 3,4,5, at least something better then just $.99 oil. The fact that the public was ignoring the manual and there reluctent nature to listen to VWoA or even the dealer I think caused them to lessen the OCI to accomindate our stubborness. This and also some Americans thinking at the time that synethic was just a bunch of hoopla.

From gathering opinions and some factual(and argurably non-factual) information of the subject this is the conclusion I came too. I do agree that less then 4 quarts for a turbo engine is really going to stress oil no matter what though.

Frank M · Jul 17, 2006

Thermo1223 said:
Any turbo or supercharged car should use a synthetic whether it is a group 3,4,5, at least something better then just $.99 oil. .

Please explain how thousands of old Mercedes diesels with turbos have been using dino oil all their lives. I have seen them with hundreds of thousands of miles and the original turbo still in place.

That is not even taking into consideration the thousands and thousand of trucks and buses with dino in their turbo charged diesels and almost all have original turbos.

Synthetic is important for its cleaning ability and a stable viscosity.
Diesel Turbos seem to survive very well on dino.

wmahaffey · Jul 17, 2006

Frank M said:
Please explain how thousands of old Mercedes diesels with turbos have been using dino oil all their lives.

Frank,

Experience has shown me that with any good quality oil if you keep it clean and not depelete the additive package, good engines last a long time. There are many ways to accomplish this. The two best are:

1. Change the oil regularly, no extended drain intervals.

2. Keep the oil clean and not deplete the addative package. You keep the oil clean with good air and oil filters. Air filters are every bit as important as oil filters. Fuel dilution has to be kept to a minimum. With gasoline engines you do this by keeping the engine in tune and not running the fuel/air ratio rich. The diesel experts have to tell us how to do that with a diesel. I am a novice with diesels.

Synthetics just work better all around. The base stocks are usually better lubricants.. Usually the additive packages are better in the good synthetics. There are bad synthetics available, so be careful. Synthetics just offer those who like the added measure of protection an alternative.

Nothing wrong with good petroleum lubricants. Just change them regularly.

Bill

Thermo1223 · Jul 17, 2006

Frank M said:
Please explain how thousands of old Mercedes diesels with turbos have been using dino oil all their lives. I have seen them with hundreds of thousands of miles and the original turbo still in place.

That is not even taking into consideration the thousands and thousand of trucks and buses with dino in their turbo charged diesels and almost all have original turbos.

Synthetic is important for its cleaning ability and a stable viscosity.
Diesel Turbos seem to survive very well on dino.

I guess I should have prefixed my statement for anything with OBD2(or even 1) as far as passenger vehicles go. Buses, Semi's, & any form of construction equipment can not be compared to a passenger car or truck in any form.

Such engines were built to last regardless of oil most likely as long as it's changed at a specified OCI. I can say that about MB diesels at least, they seem to outlast dirt in some ways. I can only speculate on the others.

You are correct though, some very strong and robust dino's are made but even with that fact in hand I still go synthetic. Doesn't hurt to take that extra step, as long as it's not off a cliff.

oilhammer · Jul 17, 2006

Frank, all those old MB diesels have a massive 8+ quart oil capacity, a filter THRICE the size of a Volkswagen, very few had an EGR and even the ones that did didn't work for very long, and the engines are massive overbuilt monsters that do not rev over 3500 RPM most of the time. They are more akin to big industrial diesels, which have about as much in common with a TDI as a lawnmower. They also have large turbochargers that do not spin as fast, and did not have to meet the more stringent emissions requirements.

The newer MB diesels require synthetic, just like our TDIs.

BKmetz · Jul 17, 2006

Plus a built in bypass filter for extra-fine oil filtering.

dieselsRus · Jul 17, 2006

I have a ford F-550 rollback with 6liter powerstroke and ford says not to use any synthetic oils in there engine thats probably why the one ford you wrote about failed.

AndyH · Jul 17, 2006

Thermo1223 said:
IMO I thought the change from a 10k-5k not only coensided(sp) with a smaller crankcase capacity but the knowledge that people were completely ignoring the required oil in the 1.8t's and just filling them up with the Jiffy Lube special.

Any turbo or supercharged car should use a synthetic whether it is a group 3,4,5, at least something better then just $.99 oil. The fact that the public was ignoring the manual and there reluctent nature to listen to VWoA or even the dealer I think caused them to lessen the OCI to accomindate our stubborness. This and also some Americans thinking at the time that synethic was just a bunch of hoopla.

From gathering opinions and some factual(and argurably non-factual) information of the subject this is the conclusion I came too. I do agree that less then 4 quarts for a turbo engine is really going to stress oil no matter what though.

I'll not disagree at all on this. I think that VW did a massive 'knee jerk' reaction with this 3-way oil requirement change - synthetic, 502.00, and 5K OCI. I think that any one of these would take care of the small-sump engines. Just my guess, though.

AndyH · Jul 17, 2006

dieselsRus said:
I have a ford F-550 rollback with 6liter powerstroke and ford says not to use any synthetic oils in there engine thats probably why the one ford you wrote about failed.

The only engine I've ever seen that had a 'no synthetic' requirement was pre-1980 Mazda rotary engines. I've heard reports from two mechanics that some of the newer Powerstrokes can surge some at cold idle when oil changes are extended past 7000 miles, but they're completely smooth again after they warm up. This could be related to the foaming effect of silicon in the oil as it leaches out of the gaskets in a new engine. The TSBs I've seen recommend frequent oil changes initially until the gaskets 'season' and the leaching stops.

Andy

Diesel Addict · Jul 17, 2006

oilhammer said:
Frank, all those old MB diesels have a massive 8+ quart oil capacity, a filter THRICE the size of a Volkswagen, very few had an EGR and even the ones that did didn't work for very long, and the engines are massive overbuilt monsters that do not rev over 3500 RPM most of the time. They are more akin to big industrial diesels, which have about as much in common with a TDI as a lawnmower. They also have large turbochargers that do not spin as fast, and did not have to meet the more stringent emissions requirements.

The newer MB diesels require synthetic, just like our TDIs.

This is mostly true information, except that most MB diesels sold in the US do have EGR's, even my '83 240D and the '82 300D that I used to have. Oil capacity is anywhere from 6.5 to 8.5 quarts and contrary to what you may believe, these engines actually rev higher than the TDI's because they use indirect injection. They are indeed built to a very high quality standard which is probably the main reason why they last so long, even some of those that have been neglected. Such quality engines can run on dino oil nearly forever, as long as it's changed every 3000 miles or so. But with synthetics you can go longer between intervals, keep the engine cleaner and have a higher safety margin when it comes to wear protection.

oilhammer · Jul 18, 2006

addict, MB sold diesels for several decades before the '80s. None of these had an EGR valve. If you reread my post you'll see I mentioned the later cars having EGR. However most of these cars either had the system disabled deliberately early on, or the tiny little passage coked shut in about 30k miles anyways. Besides, they did not run nearly as aggressive an EGR as the TDIs did. I know my 300SD and virtually every other MB diesel I've serviced had the EGR system non-funtional. Just did a cylinder head on a 2.5L 190D and its EGR system looked to have been non-funtional for years.

And none of my old MB diesels were ever able to rev as high as a TDI, even if you tried. My 300SD (617 eng.) Could spin up to 4000 RPM if you held it, but had no real power there. On the highway it was cruising along around 3200 RPM, and that is with no lockup convertor. The later 601/2/3 engines certainly could rev faster, but they are built smaller and lighter than the old all-cast-iron behemoths that MB used for years and years.

My old 240D was lucky to get up over 3500 most of the time unless you were on the highway and you'd had it floorboarded for the last, oh, hour or so

Amsoil and Engine Failures

Registered Vendor , w/Business number

Torque Dorque

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Vendor

Torque Dorque

Registered Vendor , w/Business number

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Registered Vendor , w/Business number

Vendor

Veteran Member

BANNED

Top Post Dawg

Registered Vendor , w/Business number

Veteran Member

Registered Vendor , w/Business number

Veteran Member

BANNED

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor

Administrator, Member #10

Veteran Member

Registered Vendor , w/Business number

Registered Vendor , w/Business number

Veteran Member

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor