TrailRecon- Engine Failure

[TheRaven]

You need to do more research--it is quantifiable and it is especially quantifiable from an OEM's perspective who has access to the controlled testing that is required to prove it and gained the credits that come with it. Why do you think there are now oils on the market that are 0W-16, 0W-12, and soon to be 0W-8? Do you think they are for longevity or for MPG?

Whether you believe it or not is your choice, but your opinion does not make it less true.

No. The thinner oils are for modern engines using modern alloys and a lot more schtuff that needs to be oiled, quickly. The "increased fuel mileage" claim is a gimmick backed by oil companies to sell oil. It's not new...they've been selling "fuel mileage" oils for decades. It's a marketing gimmick now just as it's always been.

Sponsored

 

[Maverick909]

what octane fuel do you typically run?

i usually run 87 but @Maverick909 recommended running 91. he said he noticed it helped with the slight engine ticking. i try to put 91 when i remember to.

The biggest problem with the 3.6 is the bs Teflon coated rockers. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard of. The Teflon coating wears too quickly to be on rockers that have pressure on them all time. They should be using rollers that will last 20x longer.

 

[Maverick909]

Still doesn't explain why bean counters would care about oil viscosity beyond longevity. But your example with the GT500 is DIRECTLY about longevity. You can generally get a lot more power out of any given engine by pushing it closer to its limit...but that's bad for longevity which is one of the biggest reasons it didn't come from the factory that way.



LOL no. The idea that a switch from 5w-30 to 0w-20 results in a measurable increase in fuel mileage is laughable. That's ridiculous. Yes less friction equates to more efficiency...but that's internal to the motor...we're talking minute changes here that wouldn't even show up when looked at at a generational level. It's just too small a difference. That's not even addressing the fact that no automaker is going to risk the reputation of their drivetrains for a chance at a 0.01mpg increase.

No, automakers are not sacrificing longevity for miniscule improvements in fuel mileage.

Sadly this isn’t 100% manufacturers just want it to make the 60-100k mile warranty. Once that’s out they have been designed to fail. I remember an interview with Toyota’s CEO bashing on everyone else for doing this. One of the reasons you see Toyota cars with so many miles with minimal issues is due to them being engineered to last on avg 200k miles. Thus I am not a fan of Toyota. The logic is pretty spot on these days

 

[TheRaven]

Sadly this isn’t 100% manufacturers just want it to make the 60-100k mile warranty. Once that’s out they have been designed to fail. I remember an interview with Toyota’s CEO bashing on everyone else for doing this. One of the reasons you see Toyota cars with so many miles with minimal issues is due to them being engineered to last on avg 200k miles. Thus I am not a fan of Toyota. The logic is pretty spot on these days

Automakers don't "design to fail". That would be suicide.

 

[Odyssey USA]

It is not silly. Bean counters care about beans, specifically how many they have or do not have.

Oil viscosity is related to beans, whereas reducing the viscosity equates to increased MPG, but typically at the cost of longevity. Why would they care about MPG? Simply put, the corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, equates to millions of dollars across a fleet when that fleet has many gas guzzlers. In a fleet with low MPG vehicles like the Wrangler, the OEM does everything it can to increase the MPG to obtain those credits.

From lowering viscosities and capacities to introducing the maximum number of plastics throughout the vehicle, including the engine, to front axle disconnects, to transmissions with multiple overdrive gearing, to start/stop systems, to weight reductions, and the list goes on, none of those changes are conducive to longevity.

I do think the switch from the 6qt to 5 qt crankcase oil capacity from the JK to JL could very well be a factor in regards to recommended oil change intervals letting the oil degrade further than before. I don’t know if that leads to JK 3.6’s really lasting longer, but it’s reasonable to think they are better off with the same recommended interval for the JK & JL. I believe the manuals still say use the oil change indicator, but not to exceed 10k miles/1 year/350 hours as they did with the JK.

 

[Flip]

Got some

I didn't have very good luck with those wipe thingys.

 

[Odyssey USA]

The biggest problem with the 3.6 is the bs Teflon coated rockers. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard of. The Teflon coating wears too quickly to be on rockers that have pressure on them all time. They should be using rollers that will last 20x longer.

A big IF… but if the rub block/follower had oil that would protect a flat tappet cam AND the lifter didn’t collapse causing excess clearance to cause the parts to hammer against each other likely breaking through that oil boundary layer, all should be fine. Just gotta keep these lifters from sticking/collapsing. Then I think the newer API SP oils should be ok with a flat tappet kind of actuation from what I’ve heard as the SP is much better than the SN for flat tappets. (Lake Speed Jr)

 

[Jeep Junkie]

I’ve do think the switch from the 6qt to 5 qt crankcase oil capacity from the JK to JL could very well be a factor in regards to recommended oil change intervals letting the oil degrade further than before. I don’t know if that leads to JK 3.6’s really lasting longer, but it’s reasonable to think they are better off with the same recommended interval for the JK & JL. I believe the manuals still say use the oil change indicator, but not to exceed 10k miles/1 year/350 hours as they did with the JK.

That's why I am determined, 2000 mile oil changes. 5 quarts is a joke, that's Prius stuff

 

[Odyssey USA]

That's why I am determined, 2000 mile oil changes. 5 quarts is a joke, that's Prius stuff

More capacity would be better. As to oil changes, you can send the oil off for lab testing. If I recall correctly, I believe 5ppm iron or less per 1k miles driven between changes is considered good.

 

[Jeep Junkie]

Guys, maybe Trail Recon's 3.6 was screwed together when masks were mandatory Mine is 2024, I am pretty hopeful.

 

[DanW]

That's why I am determined, 2000 mile oil changes. 5 quarts is a joke, that's Prius stuff

Wait a minute....someone just said Toyota was the holy grail. Which is it? I´m confused. Lol.

If the 5 quart capacity had anything to do with it you´d see oil breakdown in the UOA´s. I´ve done UOA´s as far out as 8k miles and the oil was perfectly fine. One of those was after a trip to Moab with lots of crawling in 100+ degree heat. So that guess just doesn´t hold water.

There has not been one shred of actual evidence of oil having anything to do with it.

 

[gato]

He is also fortunate to have what looks like a very good relationship to a shop.

He also does not do any work on the Jeep himself - he takes them to shops or have people come over to work on them. He also panders to all the brands.

His content is become more and more "soft" and "empty". No in depth look at any mode or install. Very different from how his channel started.

 

[SadRobot]

He also does not do any work on the Jeep himself - he takes them to shops or have people come over to work on them. He also panders to all the brands.

His content is become more and more "soft" and "empty". No in depth look at any mode or install. Very different from how his channel started.

Can't fault him for that really. If I could just go wheeling all the time on someone else's dime I'm not going to say no to that.

 

[Jeep Junkie]

Can't fault him for that really. If I could just go wheeling all the time on someone else's dime I'm not going to say no to that.

Plus his vehicles must be tax write off

 

[Jeep Junkie]

Trail Recon's wife is really cute and fluffy

Sponsored