Refurbished oil

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:06:47 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
>news:l716m2htfh5dimc6u4i4usu51r3d56m5t6@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 04:21:03 GMT, Joe Lauton <JL@Lauton2000.com>
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Here are a horror stories galore:
>>>[url]http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/toyota_engine.html[/url]
>>>
>>>
>>>Did the apparent engine problems with the Sienna get fixed in the 2006
>>>model?
>>>jl[/color]
>>
>> None of those people had their oil changed.[/color]
>
>Actually all of the people lodging complaints claimed they had changed their
>oil regularly, and most claimed to have receipts for most of the oil
>changes. The site referenced by Joe Lauton is run by trail lawyers, so there
>is an inherent bias to over dramatize problems. However, no other
>manufacturer has near the number of Consumer complaints about sludge damaged
>engines that Toyota has. I am sure 3000 mile oil changes with good quality
>oil would have reduced the number of complaints, but do you believe Toyota
>owners are less likely to change their car's oil regularly than Nissan, GM,
>or Ford owners? And as I recall it, Toyota used to specify 7500 mile oil
>changes for normal service and 5000 miles for severe service. I know that
>today, Toyota specifies 5000 miles across the board for oil changes. Toyota
>clearly had a problem with sludge and trying to smear the people who
>suffered from it is not fair.[/color]

Not one single person that ACTUALLY had their oil changed at the
prescribed intervals ever developed Sludge.

Change your oil, and you won't have a problem.

[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> Change your oil and you won't have a problem.[/color]
>
>How often? My SO's new RAV4 has an oil change reminder. It starts blinking
>at 4500 miles and goes solid at 5000 miles. I'll make sure she changes her
>oil at those intervals. I changed it for the first time at just short of
>3000 miles. I noticed some metal in the filter. Nothing to bad, but it did
>worry me a little bit. The oil that came out of the car looked fine. The oil
>cap and user's guide both recommended either 5W20 or 0W20. Interestingly,
>Toyota doesn't provide instructions for changing the oil in the Owner's
>Guide. You have to go to the Repair Manuel for instruction. It was very easy
>to change the oil. The small size of the filter worried me. I used to much
>larger filters. However, my Nissan truck uses a similar sized filter. I cut
>the Toyota filter open, and it is the strangest looking filter I have looked
>at ( picture is at [url]http://home.earthlink.net/~cewhite3nc/id10.html[/url] ). It
>still bothers me that the engine in the RAV4 requires routine valve
>adjustment. I assume Toyota gets away with this because most people don't
>actually have the valves adjusted and therefore don't have to pay for it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed White
>[/color]

--

Scott in Florida

"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
news:di99m2tngppjqhnuj518679t3iguhhul5h@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:06:47 GMT, "C. E. White"[/color]
[color=blue]
> Not one single person that ACTUALLY had their oil changed at the
> prescribed intervals ever developed Sludge.[/color]

Saying this doesn't make it true.

No other manufacturer has Customers complaining about sludge in anything
like the numbers Toyota has. How do you explain that? Are Toyota owners
especially negligent in maintaining there cars? Are Toyota owners especially
prone to lying? My SO was terrible at maintain Her old Plymouth Grand
Voyager. More than once she went well past 10,000 miles between oil changes
and often drove in stop and go traffic. Despite sporadic maintenance, the
engine was still running OK when the transmission failed at around 200K
miles. My Sister's 1997 Civic is running fine at 150K miles despite having
the oil changed at 7500 mile intervals (that is when the oil change
indicator reminds Her). I know of many other people who are not religious
about oil changes, yet none have developed sludge. I have read that some
Chrysler products also suffer from sludge, but I never hear about Chrysler
problems to the same extent as for Toyota products. So even if all the
people complaining are lying and/or have fake receipts, you still have to
explain why this seems to be a problem that is more significant for Toyotas
than other brands.

Hopefully Toyota has corrected the design problem that made their engines
especially prone to sludge formation. However, I plan to make sure my SO's
new oil changed at the required intervals.

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Xk09h.2812$1s6.505@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> Actually all of the people lodging complaints claimed they had changed
> their oil regularly, and most claimed to have receipts for most of the oil
> changes.[/color]

Yes, they claimed to have changed their oil on a proper schedule. And they
did have receipts.

However, they lied on the first point, and created bogus receipts on the
second point. When we are talking about thousands of dollars for a new
engine, then some people will lie about anything.

"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:7705c$4564a65b$47c2b532[color=blue]
> Your friend's extractor sounds like a better setup than the ones you buy,
> and it probably will last a lot longer.
> --
>
> Ray O[/color]

There are plenty of very good air compressor powered fluid extractors on the
market, but they are not cheap.

The one I used had a hand pump to build up pressure, and it did not work
well after a few times. It only cost about $49.

"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Y8adnf79yf2xYvnYnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com...[color=blue]
> "C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:FD09h.2084$sf5.1517@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=green]
>> I am not sure this is a good move. I recently cut open a bunch of filters
>> and was not overly impressed with the Mobil 1 Filter. It was a decent
>> filter, but nothing special.
>>
>> There is a picture of the cuts of a Toyota OEM filter at
>> [url]http://home.earthlink.net/~cewhite3nc/id10.html[/url] .
>>
>> There is a picture of the guts of a a Mobil 1 FIlter (not for a Toyota)
>> at [url]http://home.mindspring.com/~cewhite3nc/id6.html[/url] .
>>
>> Ed[/color]
>
> Based on the posts you have made over the past few years on this forum, I
> would say that you are definitely not qualified to evaluate oil filters.
> But I would like to know what specifically you dislike about the Mobil 1
> filter as compared to the Toyota filter. Whatever it is, it is certainly
> not clear from looking at the web pages you posted.[/color]

I don't claim to be an oil filter expert, but I do have opinions (see
[url]http://home.mindspring.com/~cewhite3nc/id15.html[/url] ). The Toyota filter is
radically different than the Mobil 1 Filter I cut open. There is nothing
"wrong" with the Mobil 1 filter, but there nothing special about it either.
I don't have a way to measure the characteristics of the media, but in terms
of appearance, feel, and density, the media in the Mobil 1 filter is similar
to most other better quality conventional filters, many that are much less
expensive. Mobil doesn't claim a filtering efficiency that is much different
that a Purolator Pure One Filter, or even the more expensive FRAM filter.
The other elements of the filter are not particularly high end. It is my
opinion that the Mobil 1 Filter is over priced. The OEM Toyota filter didn't
use paper at all. The media was a hard substance that was formed (molded)
over a nylon core that created passages in the media. The filter can, base
plate, relief valve, and anti-drain back valve were all better designed and
made (in my opinion) than the corresponding elements in the Mobil 1 Filter.
Of course I am comparing a Mobil 1 M1-210 Filter to a Toyota Filter. These
are not interchangeable. It might be that the Mobil 1 equivalent to the
Toyota OEM filter is completely different. However, I suspect that if I cut
open the Mobil 1 equivalent to the Toyota OEM Filter, I'd find it to be very
similar to the M1-210 filter.

When I changed the oil in my SO's RAV4, I decided on the Purolator PureOne
filter. After cutting open the Toyota OEM filter, I've decided at the next
oil change I'll go back to the Toyota OEM Filter. I do wonder if it will be
the same as the Japanese filter that came on the car. For my Nissan, I
ordered a case of Nissan filters. They were Japanese made filters, but
weren't much different than the better quality US made filters from
Purolator or Wix.

If you are looking for a well made synthetic media filter, you might look at
the Amsoil Ea filter line. I cut one of these open, and it was a well made
filter with unusual media. Amsoil claims really good efficiency for these
filters, but they are pricey (see
[url]http://home.mindspring.com/~cewhite3nc/id3.html[/url] ). The Denso filter is also
a good looking filter, but they are hard to find.

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:mba9h.2268$sf5.28@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
you posted.[color=blue]
>
> I don't claim to be an oil filter expert, but I do have opinions (see
> [url]http://home.mindspring.com/~cewhite3nc/id15.html[/url] ). The Toyota filter is
> radically different than the Mobil 1 Filter I cut open. There is nothing
> "wrong" with the Mobil 1 filter, but there nothing special about it
> either. I don't have a way to measure the characteristics of the media,
> but in terms of appearance, feel, and density, the media in the Mobil 1
> filter is similar to most other better quality conventional filters, many
> that are much less expensive. Mobil doesn't claim a filtering efficiency
> that is much different that a Purolator Pure One Filter, or even the more
> expensive FRAM filter. The other elements of the filter are not
> particularly high end. It is my opinion that the Mobil 1 Filter is over
> priced. The OEM Toyota filter didn't use paper at all. The media was a
> hard substance that was formed (molded) over a nylon core that created
> passages in the media. The filter can, base plate, relief valve, and
> anti-drain back valve were all better designed and made (in my opinion)
> than the corresponding elements in the Mobil 1 Filter. Of course I am
> comparing a Mobil 1 M1-210 Filter to a Toyota Filter. These are not
> interchangeable. It might be that the Mobil 1 equivalent to the Toyota OEM
> filter is completely different. However, I suspect that if I cut open the
> Mobil 1 equivalent to the Toyota OEM Filter, I'd find it to be very
> similar to the M1-210 filter.
>
> When I changed the oil in my SO's RAV4, I decided on the Purolator PureOne
> filter. After cutting open the Toyota OEM filter, I've decided at the next
> oil change I'll go back to the Toyota OEM Filter. I do wonder if it will
> be the same as the Japanese filter that came on the car. For my Nissan, I
> ordered a case of Nissan filters. They were Japanese made filters, but
> weren't much different than the better quality US made filters from
> Purolator or Wix.
>
> If you are looking for a well made synthetic media filter, you might look
> at the Amsoil Ea filter line. I cut one of these open, and it was a well
> made filter with unusual media. Amsoil claims really good efficiency for
> these filters, but they are pricey (see
> [url]http://home.mindspring.com/~cewhite3nc/id3.html[/url] ). The Denso filter is
> also a good looking filter, but they are hard to find.
>
> Ed[/color]

ExxonMobil does claim that the Mobil 1 filter uses a synthetic fiber blend
filter media. As usual, you comments are completely inaccurate. Insofar as
to your opinion about which filters are better made, you have absolutely no
facts or credentials to back up your "opinions."

Here are the exact claims from the Mobil webstie:

"- Removes more contaminants than conventional filters using an advanced
synthetic fiber blend filter media.

- High-capacity design stores more contaminants (two times the capacity of
the leading brand).

- Reduces resistance to oil flow while improving filter efficiency.

- Withstands up to five times the normal system operating pressure."

"Mobil 1 Extended Performance Oil Filters contain synthetic fibers instead
of the typical cellulose filter media. With a 99.2 percent efficiency rating
(under SAE J1858 Multi-Pass Efficiency Test), the Mobil 1 filter is much
more efficient than a typical oil filter, removing more particles per pass
through the filter. In addition, the synthetic fibers in the Mobil 1 filter
have less resistance to oil flow, reducing the potential for the filter to
restrict the flow of oil to your engine."

All of the above quotes taken from the following website (and associated
links on the web page):
[url]http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Other_Products/Mobil_1_Extended_Performance_Oil_Filters.aspx[/url]

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:uL99h.2296$ql2.33@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> So every person with a sludged engine claiming to have changed their oil
> regularly is a liar? And why are only Toyota owners lying and creating
> bogus receipts? I know there are complaints against a few other brands,
> but nothing like the fire storm around certain Toyota models. Your
> assertion that all these people are liars and cheats is simply not
> believable. It is far more likely that certain Toyota engines are
> abnormally susceptible to sludge formation than your claim that hundreds
> (thousands) of Toyota owners are lying, especially compared to owners of
> most other brands of cars and even other Toyota models. 15 years ago I
> never heard of a problem with Toyota engines being sludge prone. Did
> Toyota owners suddenly become less maintenance conscious and/or more
> dishonest?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White[/color]

I will agree that some modern Toyota engines are more susceptible to sludge
if you don't change the oil at recommended intervals as compared to other
manufacturer's engines where you also don't change your oil at recommended
intervals (and also compared to older Toyota engines).

However, if you change your oil at recommended intervals, you will not get
sludge in a modern Toyota engine or any other major manufacturer's engine.

Hopefully the above explanation demonstrates the errors in your "logic."

Considering the number of vehicles that Toyota sells, and the likelihood
that somewhere between 5-10% of owners (especially women are not educated in
auto-maintenance) hardly ever change their oil (this is a very conservative
number), it is surprising that there are not even more sludge problems than
have been reported.

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:50:07 -0600, "Ray O"
<rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:

snip

Even from 10 feet away, there is no way to tell if the[color=blue]
>technician wiped the oil filter mounting surface before installing the new
>filter, if he over or under-tightened the filter or drain plug, or if he
>installed a new drain plug gasket that the parts department gives me with
>every OEM filter I buy.[/color]

1.
Is it correct that any of the above, at worst, could only result in a
loss of oil onto the ground or garage floor and would be detected by
the low oil light at worst? The engine would not be damaged.
2.
Are you a fan of using the self threading repair drain plugs?

jl

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 04:49:30 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:ZZ6dnd6l3dZaYfnYnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@comcast.com...[color=green]
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xk09h.2812$1s6.505@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Actually all of the people lodging complaints claimed they had changed
>>> their oil regularly, and most claimed to have receipts for most of the
>>> oil changes.[/color]
>>
>> Yes, they claimed to have changed their oil on a proper schedule. And they
>> did have receipts.
>>
>> However, they lied on the first point, and created bogus receipts on the
>> second point. When we are talking about thousands of dollars for a new
>> engine, then some people will lie about anything.[/color]
>
>So every person with a sludged engine claiming to have changed their oil
>regularly is a liar? And why are only Toyota owners lying and creating
>bogus receipts? I know there are complaints against a few other brands, but
>nothing like the fire storm around certain Toyota models. Your assertion
>that all these people are liars and cheats is simply not believable. It is
>far more likely that certain Toyota engines are abnormally susceptible to
>sludge formation than your claim that hundreds (thousands) of Toyota owners
>are lying, especially compared to owners of most other brands of cars and
>even other Toyota models. 15 years ago I never heard of a problem with
>Toyota engines being sludge prone. Did Toyota owners suddenly become less
>maintenance conscious and/or more dishonest?[/color]

No, but there are a lot of people out there who can't afford to buy
an expensive car, so they lease. And since they really can't afford
the lease either, they skip the "unnecessary" maintenance, they just
keep tires and brakes on the car for 4 years and turn it back in.

It happens with buyers too, but not as much. They trade every two,
three, four years and get another new car. Sometimes they trade way
too early and the old loan balance gets rolled into the new one, and
they're paying WAY too much just to be the "first on the block" with
(for example) an FJ-Cruiser. And they're so upside-down on the
financing that they can't afford any additional money out of their
budget for the maintenance either.

Or they're just too damned stupid to go get it done.

These certain engines are a lot more sensitive to this kind of abuse
than most, some say it's a redesign in the heads. Where most cars
wouldn't sludge up with an extended 15K - 20K service schedule, these
will. Yes, it's a problem - but ONLY if the maintenance isn't done.

Though in the cases above the current (second) owner of the car may
have done nothing wrong and was doing the maintenance right as called
for, it's the first (long gone) owner or lessee that did the dirty
deed. And the dealership may be partly responsible if they took the
car in off lease and resold it (sometimes as a "Certified" used car)
without checking it over properly - even though the records showed
that they never saw it for maintenance during that four year lease
period, and there were no signs of anyone else doing it either...

And yes, when you are the car owner faced with a $3k to $5K repair
bill for a new engine, and might be able to pawn it off on the Mfgr
"extended sludge warranty" with a little 'creative paperwork
fabrication', /of course/ you are going to lie like a rug that you
didn't do anything wrong.

But when they are pushed for concrete and verifiable proof of the
maintenance work, where you tell them that you will call that mechanic
and see if his stack of service orders matches the customer's copies,
that's when they shut up and slink away rather than hand you an
obvious forgery. We have several Toyota Dealership repair technicians
participating here in the newsgroup who have seen this first hand.

(Gee! What a co-inky-dink! 12 of these "copies of service tickets"
have the exact same crash-printed invoice number, and your name and
address were hand-printed in the entry boxes EXACTLY the same, and the
smudges and greasy fingerprints all match, too - it's almost as if you
made a photocopy of one service ticket, whited out and changed the
dates and mileages, and copied them again to hide the Liquid Paper and
the pen changes...)

--<< Bruce >>--

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 21:20:54 GMT, Joe Lauton <JL@Lauton2000.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Some flake who just bought another new Chevy truck - "because payments
>were only about $50 per month more than for his two year old truck"
>told me that he always took his vehicles to the dealer for service
>because he did NOT want refabricated or re-refined OLD oil in his
>vehicles!
>
>I stated that if this were the case then I would be more suspicious of
>a dealership than a drive in JiffyLube or similar establishment - at
>least there you can observe everything done from five feet away.
>
>Is any of this a serious issue. (Not that the person did not know his
>total purchase price or even interest rate and qualifies for reduced
>utility bills.)[/color]

It is a non-issue. All they do to make "Re-Refined Motor Oil" is
take that old oil back to the refinery and stick it into the exact
same processing systems that the raw crude oil from the well gets -
cataytic cracking, vapor distillation towers, molecular reformers to
join lighter short-chain hydrocarbons (that would make gasoline and
solvents) back into the longer chain ones that make oil, etc.

And it doesn't take as much processing to get back to clean and
pure oil because it was already around the right fractions they were
looking for when they started - it's a heck of a lot cleaner than the
raw crude oil from the well. They just have to drive off or filter
and capture the damaged oil molecules and all the contaminants.

Why they even have to label it as such is beyond me, unless they are
able to skip a few of the normal refining steps because they started
with refined (but dirty) oil. But even then it has to meet the API
specs to be sold as motor oil again.

--<< Bruce >>--

"Joe Lauton" <JL@Lauton2000.com> wrote in message
news:dqpbm2t7ogd8jjflcoplr5dkg1ebhjl2jq@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:50:07 -0600, "Ray O"
> <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> Even from 10 feet away, there is no way to tell if the[color=green]
>>technician wiped the oil filter mounting surface before installing the new
>>filter, if he over or under-tightened the filter or drain plug, or if he
>>installed a new drain plug gasket that the parts department gives me with
>>every OEM filter I buy.[/color]
>
> 1.
> Is it correct that any of the above, at worst, could only result in a
> loss of oil onto the ground or garage floor and would be detected by
> the low oil light at worst? The engine would not be damaged.[/color]

If the oil filter mounting surface is not wiped prior to mounting the
replacement filter, 2 things can happen - if the gasket from the oil filter
is stuck there and a new filter and gasket is mounted on top of the old
filter, you may have a massive oil leak, and any oil residue and dirt on the
mating surface can damage the new oil filter gasket or keep it from sealing
correctly, resulting in a leak. I've seen engines ruined from
double-gasketed oil filters.

The oil light illuminates when there is low oil pressure, IIRC, in the
neighborhood of below 8 PSI. At higher engine RPM, more than 8 PSI is
needed to lubricate the engine. For example, if enough oil leaks out while
cruising on the highway and 12 PSI is needed to lubricate the engine but due
to low oil levels, the pressure is only at 10 PSI, the engine could incur
damage without the oil pressure warning light coming on. The oil pressure
warning light is not an indicator of oil level.
[color=blue]
> 2.
> Are you a fan of using the self threading repair drain plugs?
>
> jl[/color]

I've never had to use one, but I would not be a fan of a self-threading plug
because over time, there is a pretty good chance that it will leak. If the
drain plug were stripped, the proper repair would be replacement of the oil
pan or removing the oil pan, drilling and re-tapping the threads and using a
larger diameter plug.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

"Joe Lauton" <JL@Lauton2000.com> wrote in message
news:j42dm2l7tiaik045tc9e5semuadu9abdnd@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> Until now I thought the oil pressure light was an indication that
> adequate oil was circulating. Live and learn.[/color]

The indicator lights comes on when you turn the ignition on (even before you
start the car) in order to make sure the lights are working. When adequate
oil pressure is reached, then the oil pressure indicator light goes off
(same concept for the other indicator lights).

"Joe Lauton" <JL@Lauton2000.com> wrote in message
news:j42dm2l7tiaik045tc9e5semuadu9abdnd@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:40:34 -0600, "Ray O"
> <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>"Joe Lauton" <JL@Lauton2000.com> wrote in message
>>news:dqpbm2t7ogd8jjflcoplr5dkg1ebhjl2jq@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:50:07 -0600, "Ray O"
>>> <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>> Even from 10 feet away, there is no way to tell if the
>>>>technician wiped the oil filter mounting surface before installing the
>>>>new
>>>>filter, if he over or under-tightened the filter or drain plug, or if he
>>>>installed a new drain plug gasket that the parts department gives me
>>>>with
>>>>every OEM filter I buy.
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> Is it correct that any of the above, at worst, could only result in a
>>> loss of oil onto the ground or garage floor and would be detected by
>>> the low oil light at worst? The engine would not be damaged.[/color]
>>
>>If the oil filter mounting surface is not wiped prior to mounting the
>>replacement filter, 2 things can happen - if the gasket from the oil
>>filter
>>is stuck there and a new filter and gasket is mounted on top of the old
>>filter, you may have a massive oil leak, and any oil residue and dirt on
>>the
>>mating surface can damage the new oil filter gasket or keep it from
>>sealing
>>correctly, resulting in a leak. I've seen engines ruined from
>>double-gasketed oil filters.
>>
>>The oil light illuminates when there is low oil pressure, IIRC, in the
>>neighborhood of below 8 PSI. At higher engine RPM, more than 8 PSI is
>>needed to lubricate the engine. For example, if enough oil leaks out
>>while
>>cruising on the highway and 12 PSI is needed to lubricate the engine but
>>due
>>to low oil levels, the pressure is only at 10 PSI, the engine could incur
>>damage without the oil pressure warning light coming on. The oil pressure
>>warning light is not an indicator of oil level.[/color]
>
> Until now I thought the oil pressure light was an indication that
> adequate oil was circulating. Live and learn.
>[/color]

Better to learn by reading than by first hand experience!
[color=blue][color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>> 2.
>>> Are you a fan of using the self threading repair drain plugs?
>>>
>>> jl[/color]
>>
>>I've never had to use one, but I would not be a fan of a self-threading
>>plug
>>because over time, there is a pretty good chance that it will leak. If
>>the
>>drain plug were stripped, the proper repair would be replacement of the
>>oil
>>pan or removing the oil pan, drilling and re-tapping the threads and using
>>a
>>larger diameter plug.[/color]
>
> Not removing the pan would seem to be asking for contamination with
> metal cuttings - yet everyone other than you have said it was ok to
> use a self-tapping replacement plug and of course install it without
> removing anything. Would any cutting(s) have to pass through the
> filter and thus avoid disaster?
> jl[/color]

The main reason I would not want to use a self-tapping plug is because the
self-tapping properties remain in the plug, so it could eventually cut away
the metal that holds it in place and leak. As far as the metal shavings
(known as swarf) getting into the pan, I think the danger of damage from
that is pretty minimal. As the plug is being tightened, the pitch of the
plug would tend to eject swarf toward the bolt head, not push it into the
pan. Any swarf that got into the pan would probably be picked up by the
magnets in the pan, trapped in the oil pump pickup screen, or trapped in the
oil filter. I would worry about the self-tapping bolt leaking more than the
danger from swarf getting into the pan. IMO, the self-tapping plug is a
stop-gap measure, not a permanent one.

The reason you should remove the pan when drilling and tapping is that the
drill bit will tend to push some swarf into the pan because there is already
a hole in the pan, and tapping will do the same thing.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)