Did I kill my OM617 with oil?? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

vwnate1 · #1 07-17-2011, 04:28 PM

Is what it sounds like to me .

Before fooling with leaky O-Rings , I'd replace the obviously clogged intake screen as it should never be blkack inside .

This is why Mercedes specifies using the clear ones , so you can see the buildup of debris & crud before you give it a high speed run and suck more crud from the tank in and it clogs, reducing power and causing shaking @ idle

If you'd ruined the engine you'd know by now : it'd be smoking out the tailpipe to beat the band and also pissing oil out of every joint ~ your pix clearly show a clean & dry OM617 engine , thus it's not bad .

Relax and take it step by step , not changing parts & O-Rings willy - nilly .

Diesel 911 is your freind here .

leathermang · #2 07-17-2011, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHZR2

Highly obsolete anymore. Might make sense if ambient is constantly over 30, which could mean summer use... And the vehicle is in constant use.

I'd much rather get faster flow at startup via a better viscosity at "cold", I.e. not 100C conditions.

VII and basestock chemistry has come a long way in 30 years. Were starting to see 5 and 10w-30 oils in HD diesel use at standard conditions... Clearances and tolerances haven't changed that much.

No need to start an oil thread, but no need for people to start running out to get straight wt oils.

Even the different mb vidc charts show how oil chemistry changes midify selection ranges...

" Recommendations " are now influenced by the need to maximize corporate mpg stats... NOT for longevity.. they do not care... in fact will be pleased to have your MB wear out a little faster so you can buy another one from them...

JHZR2 · #3 07-18-2011, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leathermang

" Recommendations " are now influenced by the need to maximize corporate mpg stats... NOT for longevity.. they do not care... in fact will be pleased to have your MB wear out a little faster so you can buy another one from them...

Give me a break. Really?

Is that why trucking fleets run 15w-40 over SAE 40?

Fuel economy in those tests is ruled by the 100c oil viscosity. Guess what? A 5w-40, 15w-40 and SAE 40 are all the same viscosity at 100c.

It is far better to have adequate flow as fast as possible under any conditions.

And if you look at any UOA from any HDEO, youll see that it retains proper viscosity over a LONG time... It would be one thing if they weren't shear stable, but they are.

So what exactly do you think y ou're getting out of running a straight weight? 30 years ago there was bona fide benefit. Things have changed just a bit, and oils are more than a little but better now.

Yak · #4 07-17-2011, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leathermang

What I was pointing out was that in the summer you should be using STRAIGHT 40 wt... not a multi weight...
Right from the FSM...

I'm confused. Which official recommendation do I follow? Even in this Texas heatwave the temps got under +86 F ambient in the mornings, so you shouldn't be using straight 40W, unless it's Africa hot.

As long as it wasn't 10W-40, or SAE 10W. Those are Strengstens Verboten! Right from the FSM and the electronic owners manual, of course.

I don't think the viscosity of the oil is an issue here.

wildest · #5 07-18-2011, 12:58 AM

I've read, probably here, that there is a TSB from Mercedes stating that the oil level in the 123's should not be over the halfway mark on the low to full mark on the dipstick. I know that is not much without the link to verify, but I lost that link in a hard drive crash, so I'll try to find the info again. I run straight weight oil in the summer, but I let the oil temp get up before I do any hard running with it.

JHZR2 · #6 07-18-2011, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yak

I'm confused. Which official recommendation do I follow? Even in this Texas heatwave the temps got under +86 F ambient in the mornings, so you shouldn't be using straight 40W, unless it's Africa hot.

As long as it wasn't 10W-40, or SAE 10W. Those are Strengstens Verboten! Right from the FSM and the electronic owners manual, of course.

I don't think the viscosity of the oil is an issue here.

An older and newer version of the chart that is easier to see. The newer one is interesting, as it shows how he change in specs and standards broadens the range of specced oil.

In reality at temperature under load, were considerate of the HT/HS viscosity as a measure of protection. But to get that, we need to be aware of the basics.

The differences between different viscosity oils, conventional and syn, are large - even at the same labeled viscosity.

Let's start with the 'w' portion, like 0w- 5w- and 10w-

These correspond to the Low Temperature (°C) Cranking Viscosity, in units of maximum cP (centipoise), tested by the ASTM D5293 method. The specs are:

0w- => 6200 cP max at -35
5w- => 6600 cP max at -30
10w- => 7000 cP max at -25

And so on.

So, what do those mean? They are the definitions of the highest the viscosity that an oil can be at some test temperature. Some really good oils can meet more than one, for example schaeffer's 15w40 diesel oil actually can test out to be a 10w-40, due to its performance at -25C, similarly, Amsoil 'acd' qualifies as a straight SAE30 weight oil, but its performance at low temperatures also qualifies it to to be a 10w-30 as well. Viscosity/temperature curves are not linear, relating to the coiling/uncoiling of the viscosity index improvers (polymers spoken about earlier) as well as the molecules of the oil basestock itself.

Now, the higher number:
These get a little bit trickier. Two 30 weight oils can span a fairly large range, and still qualify as a 30wt. In general:
Xw-20 is 6.6-9.9 cSt at 100C
Xw-30 is 10-13 cSt at 100C
Xw-40 is 13-16.5 cSt at 100C

And so on. The ranges are not identical.

So, you can have a very thin 30 weight, like Mobil 1, which is only 10 cSt, or a very heavy 30 weight oil, like the made in germany castrol syntec, which is about 12.1 cSt.

Now, there are also ratings. API, ILSAC and ACEA. What is interesting is the newer viscosity temperature chart, which broadened the range for 10w-30, for example, if it met the CCMC G5 spec. Why? Because that was actually the precursor to the euro (ACEA) oil specs. What is interesting is that this spec was the precursor to the A3/B3 spec, which is for higher stress conditions. You can have an A1/B1 spec oil in any viscosity you like, or an A3/B3 oil in the exact same viscosity. The difference? Robustness. The A3/B3 (CCMC G5) will have a higher high Temp/high shear viscosity, which means that under severe temperature and load conditions it will retain robustness and full protection, while also being lower viscosity to provide superior flow, thermal removal characteristics and economy.

The reason why I note this is in response to the confusion and commentary that it is all about economy, as if protection of the engine was automatically compromised. It isn't. MB doesn't want you using some crap multigrade. That is true. But when the oil with correct robustness in terms of viscosity under stress is applied, it becomes a non issue.

40wt was specified 30 years ago (and 10w-40 was not allowed) because oils were far less robust and less spec controlled. As these ratings came forth to judge the duty and use characteristic more clearly, the opportunity to use alternate, superior fluids was expanded because it started to be more foolproof and a spec could draw the right product without issue. When MB expanded the 10w-30 temp range, the only thing that happened was that a high HT/HS performance fluid was able to be specced by invoking the G5 part. All of a sudden you could have a superior foil in use, with a lower viscosity at operatic temps because you knew the quality and metrics of the oil being used. It wasn't just someone dumping 10w-30 havoline in there for fun.

So with the enhanced specifications have come easily recognizable highly robust oils that can do the same or better than a straight weigh oil, while offering superior starting properties when "cold", I.e. Not operating temp.

40wt is a hold ack to old tomes and is obsolete. It has it's place in industry, but auto use is not one of them anymore. There just is no benefit compared to 15w-40 oils which have proven to be robust and reliable under all conditions. While 40wt can be used, the question is why? It does sell better in the third world. Here in the US, there is no compelling benefit, and the FSms don't explicitly state what viscosity is truly "preferred".

A multigrade will give you year round performance, better flow at the start under all conditions, and given that there isn't a cost delta, a superior product that will protect better.

People can feel free to run 40vt when it suits them. It is on the chart. However there are real benefits to selecting the multigrade, and nothing states that anything will be better in any way with a straight oil. The flexibility of using the multi is just another perk.

vstech · #7 07-18-2011, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHZR2

An older and newer version of the chart that is easier to see. The newer one is interesting, as it shows how he change in specs and standards broadens the range of specced oil.

In reality at temperature under load, were considerate of the HT/HS viscosity as a measure of protection. But to get that, we need to be aware of the basics.

The differences between different viscosity oils, conventional and syn, are large - even at the same labeled viscosity.

Let's start with the 'w' portion, like 0w- 5w- and 10w-

These correspond to the Low Temperature (°C) Cranking Viscosity, in units of maximum cP (centipoise), tested by the ASTM D5293 method. The specs are:

0w- => 6200 cP max at -35
5w- => 6600 cP max at -30
10w- => 7000 cP max at -25

And so on.

So, what do those mean? They are the definitions of the highest the viscosity that an oil can be at some test temperature. Some really good oils can meet more than one, for example schaeffer's 15w40 diesel oil actually can test out to be a 10w-40, due to its performance at -25C, similarly, Amsoil 'acd' qualifies as a straight SAE30 weight oil, but its performance at low temperatures also qualifies it to to be a 10w-30 as well. Viscosity/temperature curves are not linear, relating to the coiling/uncoiling of the viscosity index improvers (polymers spoken about earlier) as well as the molecules of the oil basestock itself.

Now, the higher number:
These get a little bit trickier. Two 30 weight oils can span a fairly large range, and still qualify as a 30wt. In general:
Xw-20 is 6.6-9.9 cSt at 100C
Xw-30 is 10-13 cSt at 100C
Xw-40 is 13-16.5 cSt at 100C

And so on. The ranges are not identical.

So, you can have a very thin 30 weight, like Mobil 1, which is only 10 cSt, or a very heavy 30 weight oil, like the made in germany castrol syntec, which is about 12.1 cSt.

Now, there are also ratings. API, ILSAC and ACEA. What is interesting is the newer viscosity temperature chart, which broadened the range for 10w-30, for example, if it met the CCMC G5 spec. Why? Because that was actually the precursor to the euro (ACEA) oil specs. What is interesting is that this spec was the precursor to the A3/B3 spec, which is for higher stress conditions. You can have an A1/B1 spec oil in any viscosity you like, or an A3/B3 oil in the exact same viscosity. The difference? Robustness. The A3/B3 (CCMC G5) will have a higher high Temp/high shear viscosity, which means that under severe temperature and load conditions it will retain robustness and full protection, while also being lower viscosity to provide superior flow, thermal removal characteristics and economy.

The reason why I note this is in response to the confusion and commentary that it is all about economy, as if protection of the engine was automatically compromised. It isn't. MB doesn't want you using some crap multigrade. That is true. But when the oil with correct robustness in terms of viscosity under stress is applied, it becomes a non issue.

40wt was specified 30 years ago (and 10w-40 was not allowed) because oils were far less robust and less spec controlled. As these ratings came forth to judge the duty and use characteristic more clearly, the opportunity to use alternate, superior fluids was expanded because it started to be more foolproof and a spec could draw the right product without issue. When MB expanded the 10w-30 temp range, the only thing that happened was that a high HT/HS performance fluid was able to be specced by invoking the G5 part. All of a sudden you could have a superior foil in use, with a lower viscosity at operatic temps because you knew the quality and metrics of the oil being used. It wasn't just someone dumping 10w-30 havoline in there for fun.

So with the enhanced specifications have come easily recognizable highly robust oils that can do the same or better than a straight weigh oil, while offering superior starting properties when "cold", I.e. Not operating temp.

40wt is a hold ack to old tomes and is obsolete. It has it's place in industry, but auto use is not one of them anymore. There just is no benefit compared to 15w-40 oils which have proven to be robust and reliable under all conditions. While 40wt can be used, the question is why? It does sell better in the third world. Here in the US, there is no compelling benefit, and the FSms don't explicitly state what viscosity is truly "preferred".

A multigrade will give you year round performance, better flow at the start under all conditions, and given that there isn't a cost delta, a superior product that will protect better.

People can feel free to run 40vt when it suits them. It is on the chart. However there are real benefits to selecting the multigrade, and nothing states that anything will be better in any way with a straight oil. The flexibility of using the multi is just another perk.

take serious note of the last line of the oil recommendation image...
"in temps above 30C use straight weight 40 oil EXCEPT FOR 617 TURBO DIESEL..."
to me, this means the diesel should ALWAYS use multigrade oil

jt20 · #8 07-17-2011, 01:48 PM

It would be a strange event if something 'dislodged', especially considering you "tightened the crap out of them" ; )

...but the valve seats will wear just a little bit especially if they were tight. Most of this is due to deposits on the seats that are very soft in comparison to the valves. Once you get that thing going at highway speeds.... they beat the crap out of those deposits or any uneven wear and the valves get tight again.

-this effect would not be incredibly noticeable if all the exhaust valves were evenly tight before adjustment. Much more noticeable if one or two of them seemed really tight in comparison to the others.

-the fact that you mentioned about the stumbling corresponding to braking says something else.

Perhaps the stumbling occurred not because you pressed the brake pedal, but because you let off the 'go' pedal very quickly. Try this: Get back up to speed, then let off the 'go' pedal abruptly. If it stumbles, you may have air getting into the fuel.

If that is the case, replace the o-rings on the main fuel filter bolt.

Sine · #9 07-17-2011, 01:58 PM

kerry - problem found! The clear lines look ok, but there's a set of wires that plug into the top of the manifold, just above the clear line. Those wires run (as far as I can tell) to the vacuum amplifier. It seems I'm guilty of another oversight; these wires are pinched slightly on the rear corner of the valve cover gasket. No oil leaking from that area, but the wires are definitely wedged in there.

jt20 - Thanks; I will give those valves a look over. And the stumbling is exactly what you described; it occurs when I lift off the gas pedal. I will go ahead and replace those o-rings.

sokoloff · #10 07-17-2011, 06:17 PM

And as a point of reference, oil level between the full and add marks is perfectly fine. There was no need to mess with that in the first place. Do not continuously top off your oil or you will continuously top off your oil. Let it find its sweet spot and leave it be until it gets down near the add mark.

sixto · #11 07-17-2011, 02:37 PM

A sidebar if folks don't mind - what vacuum issue or pinched wires can cause a 617 to idle poorly? Does an 85 have ELR?

My suspects would include a leaky old style primer pump, the rack damper and a faulty key switch. I guess a faulty key switch is a vacuum issue.

Sixto
87 300D

kerry · #12 07-17-2011, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixto

A sidebar if folks don't mind - what vacuum issue or pinched wires can cause a 617 to idle poorly? Does an 85 have ELR?

My suspects would include a leaky old style primer pump, the rack damper and a faulty key switch. I guess a faulty key switch is a vacuum issue.

Sixto
87 300D

I was wondering the same thing. That's why I was arguing for a hole in the intake manifold--ie disconnected boost control line.
85 has a rack position sensor but it doesn't effect idle.
I have no idea what pinching those wires would do to how the engine runs. I can't imagine a connection.
Wouldn't it be likely that whatever the problem is, it's connected to the valve adjustment process somehow?

Orv · #13 07-17-2011, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sine

Pit-stop 1: Stopped at Autozone and checked my oil level, which was about halfway between the full and low marks. Went in to get some Delo to top it off. I was careful not to put too much in, checking the oil level as I went.

This is unrelated to your problem, but I would not be too aggressive about topping off the oil in these engines. Both of the ones I've owned have used more oil when near the full mark than when near the add mark; I end up adding far less oil between changes if I wait until it gets down to 'add' before putting in more. Generally what I see is fairly rapid oil consumption until halfway between add and full, then slower after that.

Sine · #14 07-18-2011, 02:26 PM

Wow JHZR2, thanks for the write-up. I was already in the camp of "oil technology from 30 years ago can't really be compared" before I read it, but it's interesting to see the reasoning.

Quick update; I did a full inspection of my valve work this morning, and except for correcting a gap on the second intake valve, everything was perfect and well-tightened. It's still idling rougher than after the first valve adjustment and seems to be a bit down on power, but I can at least say the engine is in good health.

VWNate1, I think you're right on the money with the clogged fuel filter diagnosis. That seems to fit with everything I'm getting right now - reduced power and slightly shaky idle. I also forgot to mention that on my last stop before the highway the other day, I filled up the tank with diesel. Maybe that contributed to the dislodging of some sludge.

I'm planning to replace that prefilter and see how she runs

EDIT: Just looked over the plastic overboost lines; thie insides toward the manifold are black with soot. Planning to clean the banjo bolts and lines; that should make a difference

patbob · #15 07-19-2011, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sine

I also forgot to mention that on my last stop before the highway the other day, I filled up the tank with diesel. Maybe that contributed to the dislodging of some sludge.

No chance that could be significant at all

. You probably just got some bad fuel or fuel laden with crud. Or maybe there was some water in it that got strained out by the primary filter.

Go get a gallon of fresh D#2 from a different station and plumb the fuel intake/return into it. Drive it around on that a bit and see if the problem goes away.