[uthan]

OK guys, here's a PCV related question with a pic.

I did the #6 update a couple of weeks ago. Tonight I cut open the old hose. This picture shows the top (right where it plugged into the valve cover).

Here is what it looked like:

Now, before I panicked I remembered that car's PO had sludge at 37k, it was cleaned out, and has had full syn every 5k since. And this hose is from the original PCV system, i.e., it wasn't changed when the sludge was cleaned.

The bottom end of this hose is clean, as was the hose from the old oil trap to the sump.

I have an oil pressure gauge on order that I'll be installing over the weekend.

The question is, is this worth worrying about? Should I remove the valve cover and clean it? I do have some timing chain noise on start up and I wonder if there isn't a plugged port or something in there (if that's a thing).

Thanks guys for any advice!

 

[jjthegreat]

Tough to tell with the photos, but at the end of the day, was it plugged solid or just restricted?

 

[uthan]

Just restricted

Tough to tell with the photos, but at the end of the day, was it plugged solid or just restricted?

Doesn't look like it was plugged solid. This gunk was coating the inside of the hose but not fully blocking it.

The car has 83k, so it has only been about 50k since the sludge was cleaned out by the PO's indy.

 

[qwikredline]

Hard to beleive that the sludge removal was done and the PCV update wasnt done, thats a big mistake in my view. I have some experience with PCV issues.

Now that you have done the upgrade I would urge you to redo the sump removal, and also check the rocker cover and the timing chain and guides.

Cleaned out is goodm but the root cause of sludge was condensation and coking due to inadequate PCV oil blow control. So the #6 upgrade was critical, you did that and it should have been at the time well past. Good for you, you have done the most important part, now redo the engine housekeeping. my .02 c.

 

[JohnLear]

Mine looked like that too, plus the hose was very soft / squishy, possibly collapsing when vacuum was applied. Think of it like a chimney, even when it's not actually blocked, that crap on the walls significantly diminishes the working cross section of the tube / hose (more so the smaller the tube or hose), as well as creating an aerodynamic drag along the entire tube or hose length, both of which decrease how much gas can flow through it.

How less well does a chimney flue work when the walls are caked in carbon build up? Quite a lot worse, mostly as a result of flow drag on the walls, even before we consider that X thickness of build up will physically obstruct a chimney (large OD) a lot less than X thickness build up in the PCV tubes or hoses (much smaller OD).

I haven't upgraded to No 6, but I've internally cleaned all the tubes, hoses and the oil trap, and replaced the upper hose with a larger diameter clear plastic hose (this new hose being made from some hydrocarbon resistant material with woven reinforcing threads in the plastic).

I've also re-routed the new hose to eliminate all those tight bends (which are antithetical to good flow). It now passes in a gentle curve to the side and back of the inlet manifold down to the trap. I've also enlarged the smaller hole in the oil trap, enlarged the hole in the small hose adaptor at the cam cover (the small hose sharing an adaptor with the main upper hose, and running from cam cover to throttle body).

So far there are no signs of build up (or even oil) in the new hose (easy to see with it being transparent), and blow-by gasses from the filler cap are much reduced compared to how it was prior to cleaning, hole size increases and tube change, i.e. crankcase pressure and gas evacuation at least appears to be substantially improved.

Regards,
John.

 

[qwikredline]

John after all that work you did perhaps you should consider an oil seperator. Thats what we use, a Mann Hummell one is very well made. The PCV systems generally have orifices carefully selected to maintain engine vacuum even under boost which is a challenge. Based on Saab and Toyota experience and NHTSA requirements at the time, both these companies had to make good on coking. The #6 revision was I expect in answer to those issues.

The DI gasoline engines have a huge issue with valve coking on the inlet side. SAAB deal is very different, but relates to the same root cause: PCV oil control. The rectification is similar however.
http://www.cobaltss.net/forums/2-0l-lnf-performance-tech-153/lnf-valve-gunk-282355/

In China where gasoline quality is evidently hugely variable, I have seen posts from folks who put both water and oil seperators in their cars.

Sad to see so many SAABS with this issue.
this is the install on my other car bottom left of picture; the seperator is inserted in the rocker return line and then exits to the inlet tube in the stock location, post maf /pre tb so it retains metered air etc. The drain back is to a modified dipstick tube with a check valve so no emptying of the catch can is needed. This is a supercharged Redline of course with the SAAB ecotec LSJ evolution.

and this is the install on a high hp ZZP upgraded Turbo ecotec in a Cobalt.


this is oil in the inlet of a stock Sky Turbo


and this is the seperator install on a Sky Turbo. fixes the issue of oil in the inlet.

In 2000 to 2003 the SAAB issue was inadequate venting in the PCV and no seperation as I understand it. The LSJ rocker covers have biscuit oil sepertors in a mezanine set into the cover on the 2.0. The 2.3 early covers I have had here, there are no seperators and a pretty simple curved pipe to inhibit oil getting into the vent tube in the PCV circuit.

 

[uthan]

Agreed

Hard to beleive that the sludge removal was done and the PCV update wasnt done, thats a big mistake in my view. I have some experience with PCV issues.

Now that you have done the upgrade I would urge you to redo the sump removal, and also check the rocker cover and the timing chain and guides.

Cleaned out is good but the root cause of sludge was condensation and coking due to inadequate PCV oil blow control. So the #6 upgrade was critical, you did that and it should have been at the time well past. Good for you, you have done the most important part, now redo the engine housekeeping. my .02 c.

Thanks qwikredline, I see from your other post you have a ton of experience with this! Really nice looking set up in your other car (from what I can recognize). It's getting onto winter in northern MN so getting under the car to drop the sump on my own is looking pretty tough. But maybe the rocker cover now and the sump in the spring when I'm a little more motivated and it's warm enough to work in the garage without remodeling.

John and qwik, just to make sure I understand: oil vapor would flow/blow OUT from that nipple on the valve cover and down to the oil trap, where it then runs back into the sump? So all that gunk is basically the heated vapors condensing in the hose on their way out the valve cover? And, I suppose, the fact that it's all up there at the top of the hose and the bottom end is clean means that most of the gunk stayed up there (although I understand it's impossible to know without pulling it off and checking).

I used to have a 1984 Toyota 4 cyl pickup. It was high enough that it didn't need jack stands to remove anything under the engine. I miss that truck sometimes. Rode like a horsecart, was drafty as hell, blew a head gasket - but man it was easy to work on!

Thanks guys!

 

[JohnLear]

My understanding is that the oil trap is supposed to act as a separator. Just how effective I don't know, but I doubt it's that great because there is no material inside on which oil vapour can readily collect into droplets and then drain back to the sump, it's more or less just a hollow space. As such the vapour can only collect on the walls, where you really want much greater surface area on which this can occur. This would usually be created by filling the void with something like a coarse stainless steel 'wool'.

My whole PVC system was pretty nasty inside, from the cam cover outlet to trap, to the rubber hose passing from the trap to the induction tube. Oddly, the metal induction tube itself was fairly clean. I cleaned all the hoses by forcing rags through them with a steel rod, and the trap using lots of degreaser and a high pressure water blaster.

I have plans to make a better oil separator, but I have bigger problems with the Saab at the moment, and it's all on the backburner in any case due to financial 'issues' (recently registered two other cars, and just gave all my remaining liquid cash to the tax man...).

My understanding (i.e. I recall reading it somewhere or other) is that enlarging the smaller of the two holes in the oil trap, and the orifice in the small hose spigot (i.e. at the cam cover outlet, the other end of the hose ending at the TB) are both modifications that at some stage or other have been modifications recommended by Saab.

Strangely, on my car the orifice in the small hose cam cover spigot was totally blocked, seemingly with plastic. It appeared as if the hole wasn't fully formed in the moulding process. At first I thought it was just gunked with carbon, and I tried to just push it through with a bit of wire, but it took a deal of force to do it, and when it cleared made a 'click' noise that sounded like plastic breaking...

Regards,
John.

 

[qwikredline]

I think the learning that was going on late 90's as they developed these cars (generally about 3 to 5 years out from my production) in the powertrain they were learning all sorts of things. My sense of it was three things: 1. a desire by SAAB to be green and lots of influence from the Swedish government to be so. extended drain intervals for oil, large capacity sumps ( 6.5 litre 2.0) and small capacity sumps ( 4.0 litre 2.3) all showing constant re think and swaying in the breeze to political reaction.
2.
The desire for fuel economy and leaning a/f more and more, using knock sensors etc, and ambivalence to octane requirements ( My 2.3 07 says 91 in the book, does not "require 93 octane" anywhere but on the fuel door says "93 octane".) The leaning out process and knock retard causes the piston rings to have a heck of a job so as a result crank case pressure builds up with blow by. This theoretically is then sent up from the block through the head, along oil biscuit seperators in the rocker cover "mezzanine" ( LSJ 2,0) which SAAB DID NOT HAVE in 2001 and then out a little catch chamber in the rocker cover ( SAAB has this on older 2.3) and then out to the inlet tube post maf. There is also on 2.0 engines a check valved port that vents the crank case to the inlet manifold off boost ( on boost it closes). I have not taken a 2.3 apart to see if it has.

3. The duty cycles that GM does, in long term proving ground durability testing (and I doubt SAAB were any different) tends NOT to do short run cycles. (THis is the killer 1 or 2 km start/ run/ stop for 8 hours while working then 1 or 2 km start/run/stop go home cycle)

4. BITD Toyota and SAAB had to scramble on this. The PCV upgrade #6 looks mighty fine to me.
5. I know OP its a PITA to jack the car up pull the pan and check it. But its worth the motor to do it. Thats my strongest recommendation. Just do it. Block the oil pick up is very expensive.
6. New DI engines suffer a lot from inlet valve coking a different situation but similar its PCV related . thats the current issue.

 

[qwikredline]

just as an FYI here are two rocker covers. The top one ( mezzanine cover removed) is an LSJ the seperators are damaged from overheating by an idiot powdercoating the cover. caused engine failure) The LSJ 2.0 is a supercharged engine most similar to the 2.0 SAAB motors. The lower one is an LNF 2.0 thats the next generation to LSJ a turbo SAAB based motor, but with direct injection and more sophisticated PCV system that theoretically is always drawing vacuum even under boost.


The LNF has a seperate fresh air inlet with a check valve to to the engine crankcase. The SAAB and the LSJ engines used the same line to vent and to allow fresh air into the crank case.


here is the description I use for the LNF PCV system
PCV FUNCTION
The pcv orifice sizes (there is more than one ) are chosen to keep the crankcase pressure negative by a small amount under all operating conditions.

Under light load, the turbo inlet venturi effect is just enough to cause a depression and pull air through the crankcase from the fresh clean air duct tube. The check valve becomes an “orifice” to control depression.

Under high load where the piston blow-by becomes significant, the fresh passage is stopped with a check valve. This is to prevent back flow. The venturi effect of the turbocharger inlet is sufficient to pull in 100% of the piston blow by, plus pull the crankcase pressure 2 to 3 kPa . negative as calibrated in balance with the fresh air check valve.

Crankcase pressure should be reasonably uniform. Draining the separated oil back into the crankcase in a similar manner to the turbo oil drain was required. We took care to make a return to avoid crank oil whip and place the drain back oil in a relatively undisturbed location. This was not easy, as we are only talking a few kPa delta to keep flows going in the right direction.

COKING
Where it starts to fall apart , is when the gradual build up of coked oil on the inlet valves starts to inhibit proper engine operation, and it becomes a circle jerk; the more build up the more oil gets kicked through the pcv, the more oil, the more build up etc.

Also if there is an aftermarket tune,(few are very good in my opinion) and there is a lot more fuel, timing and combustion pressure being thrown at the motor, it is possible that the piston rings and ring lands and skirts will wear really fast and then blowby (pressure in the crankcase) becomes so great the pcv system just cant deal with it. Thats where a standalone filtered oil seperator with drain back provision is invaluable.

No one thing will fix this issue entirely: driving cycles, fuel quality and octane, low ash engine oil are all important additional actors to consider.

 

[qwikredline]

Uthan I was thinking. Find a way to drop the pan.
what i was thinking was this.
my second car a 1959 Morris Oxford blew up ( no pcv, simple windage pipe to atmosphere BITD) from sludge in the oil pan; blocked the pickup.

while the PCV was part of the root cause of the SAAB issues, the condensation and crap carbon is carried around in the oil. The head is alloy, on the 2.3 the block is iron, the 2.0 alloy. The head is probably one of the hottest parts of the engine, the oil circulates carrying all the crap and crunge with it as it designed to, then drops down after doing its job pressurising the crankshaft, getting sheared in the rockers etc, to the coolest part of the engine , the bottom of the oil pan, and there it all condenses. ugh. In minnesota, parked while you warm up, oil pan sitting in a snow bank. Crazy thoughts. it takes at least 25-30 minutes of good running at highway speeds to get the oil up to temperature.
So Uthan, I strongly urge you to rent a warm garage, pay an indie but whatever, drop and clean the pan; its clear that the damage potential is great, but also if there was no PCV upgrade, condensation has been developing way more than you think.

my .02 c.

 

[JohnLear]

The desire for fuel economy and leaning a/f more and more, using knock sensors etc, and ambivalence to octane requirements ( My 2.3 07 says 91 in the book, does not "require 93 octane" anywhere but on the fuel door says "93 octane".)

My MY99 owners manual 'recommends' 95 octane, but 'allows' 91. Obviously the DIC's knock sensing capability permits this, but the resultant retarding of the ignition timing is surely going to cause a power and economy loss, so using 91 is probably a false economy (unless perhaps 91 is adequately knock resistant at light load and resulting effective lower compression).

There is also on 2.0 engines a check valved port that vents the crank case to the inlet manifold off boost ( on boost it closes). I have not taken a 2.3 apart to see if it has.

My 99 car (2.3) has a small check valve in the rubber vacuum line (cam cover spigot to TB), no sign of any other valve or port in the manifold (that might be associated with high vacuum scavenging).

4. BITD Toyota and SAAB had to scramble on this. The PCV upgrade #6 looks mighty fine to me.

I know a number of Toyotas suffered severe sludging problems and blocked ventilation systems. We had a Cressida that leaked like a sieve until I discovered complete blockage of the breathing tubes. This engine ran significantly better once the PCV system was cleared out.

I have my doubts about the No6 'fix'. Looking at schematics it doesn't seem obvious to me exactly how it improves scavenging. I'm not saying it doesn't, but if so then I'm missing something. Normally I'd just assume that Saab knew what it was doing and accept it, but considering the previous five Saab advised 'fixes' that didn't work, call it a 'loss of faith'...

I do note that the post 04 PCV system appears to have an additional crankcase vent (on the block). This makes sense to me, I can see why an additional avenue for gasses to escape from the crankcase would be a good thing.

Even better perhaps (but not for emissions...) might be an additional vent to atmosphere (i.e. a filtered vent with dedicated catch tank). This could ease pressure release during high blow-by operating conditions (out through the additional vent), and during low blow-by / TB higher vacuum conditions allow additional gas (fresh air) to be drawn into the crankcase ('backward' via the added vent) to help 'flush' the crankcase of contaminated gasses. It might be possible to create such an additional vent in the cam cover...

5. I know OP its a PITA to jack the car up pull the pan and check it. But its worth the motor to do it. Thats my strongest recommendation. Just do it. Block the oil pick up is very expensive.

Very agreed.

6. New DI engines suffer a lot from inlet valve coking a different situation but similar its PCV related . thats the current issue.

My understanding is that this is largely due to the back of the inlet valves not being exposed to a 'cleansing' spray from the upstream injectors, so a significant amount of any oil that gets onto the valves (I've tended think most likely coming through the valve guides) doesn't get washed off, resulting in baked on deposits. I'd be interested in how the PCV system might be involved? Is it due to oil vapour being drawn in upstream of the valves?

Regards,
John.

 

[finding41]

You should see the stuff I found in my oil pan! It looked like coffee grinds.
Guess what it was... Carbon or soot!
I didn't find it anywhere else. But who knows it could have been sitting in the pools of black oil under the cams when I pulled my head...

I almost forgot about the shiny stuff too. (I gave up trying to figure out what that was. My best guess was rad stop leak stuff...?)

 

[qwikredline]

My MY99 owners manual 'recommends' 95 octane, but 'allows' 91. Obviously the DIC's knock sensing capability permits this, but the resultant retarding of the ignition timing is surely going to cause a power and economy loss, so using 91 is probably a false economy (unless perhaps 91 is adequately knock resistant at light load and resulting effective lower compression). AGREED

My 99 car (2.3) has a small check valve in the rubber vacuum line (cam cover spigot to TB), no sign of any other valve or port in the manifold (that might be associated with high vacuum scavenging).
ok

I know a number of Toyotas suffered severe sludging problems and blocked ventilation systems. We had a Cressida that leaked like a sieve until I discovered complete blockage of the breathing tubes. This engine ran significantly better once the PCV system was cleared out.
YUP
I have my doubts about the No6 'fix'. Looking at schematics it doesn't seem obvious to me exactly how it improves scavenging. I'm not saying it doesn't, but if so then I'm missing something. Normally I'd just assume that Saab knew what it was doing and accept it, but considering the previous five Saab advised 'fixes' that didn't work, call it a 'loss of faith'... AGREED

I do note that the post 04 PCV system appears to have an additional crankcase vent (on the block). This makes sense to me, I can see why an additional avenue for gasses to escape from the crankcase would be a good thing.

Even better perhaps (but not for emissions...) might be an additional vent to atmosphere (i.e. a filtered vent with dedicated catch tank). This could ease pressure release during high blow-by operating conditions (out through the additional vent), and during low blow-by / TB higher vacuum conditions allow additional gas (fresh air) to be drawn into the crankcase ('backward' via the added vent) to help 'flush' the crankcase of contaminated gasses. It might be possible to create such an additional vent in the cam cover...


Very agreed.



My understanding is that this is largely due to the back of the inlet valves not being exposed to a 'cleansing' spray from the upstream injectors, so a significant amount of any oil that gets onto the valves (I've tended think most likely coming through the valve guides) doesn't get washed off, resulting in baked on deposits. I'd be interested in how the PCV system might be involved? Is it due to oil vapour being drawn in upstream of the valves? yes. not the guides.

Regards,
John.

yes. two things. venting to atmosphere junks the whole deal the engine needs a vacuum in the crank case in fact, a pump would and does help. Vacuum is critical and the pcv circulates back post maf so its always metered air. BITD In our normally aspirated race engines we would fool with better dry sump pumps and do all we could to get about 4 hg of vacuum. Ring packages better piston to wall hone etc.

I would prefer a Mann Hummel seperator in a SAAB if I was to redo it. My 07 aint broken so I dont want to fix it. yet

The DI engine deal is sort of what you describe. The coking is aggravated by different factors, but bottom line it i s oil put back into the inlet post maf and even post tb , and gets onto the valves. The LNF engine when the rocker cover vent is tilted 5 degrees drains oil directly into the turbo impeller. The position of the pcv hose in a machined pocket right at the impeller is to generate vacuum. It sucks the oil out of the cover and damn straight, delivers it nicely to the inlet valves
Drive cycle, ( low revs high throttle openings ) really make the problem worse. Detonation from poor gas quality, same thing. The rings actually flutter. As the oil comsumption gets worse, sometimes the engine detonates on its own oil. Low ash engine oil is a benefit. More frequent oil changes as well. Gas quality and octane is huge.

So the poor DI motor has a hard time. The poor SAAB also. If I had a 00 to 03 I would put a Mann Hummell seperator in it in a heart beat.

I may even do that to my SAAB if it shows it needs it. I may pull the rocker cover, at 148,000 km I am wondering about the timing chain tensioner etc. I granny drive this wntrbtr2 most of the time but you know...I cant leave it alone. If I find a lot of condensation and sludge build up, then a Mann Hummell seperator is going in toot sweet.

its well made/ it has a two stage filter /it has a drain back provision. It surely is a decent piece, and it is light weight.

Now in NSW you have a pretty decent climate I would guess. Not great humidity and not the salt laden crummy winters we can get here in Canaduh. I went to school in WA , Aus is a great country.

 

[JohnLear]

but with direct injection and more sophisticated PCV system that theoretically is always drawing vacuum even under boost..

How is that possible? Surely to create vacuum during low vacuum conditions a pump would be required, i.e. an 'active' crankcase ventilation system...?

The LNF has a seperate fresh air inlet with a check valve to to the engine crankcase. The SAAB and the LSJ engines used the same line to vent and to allow fresh air into the crank case..

This is more or less what I want to try (on the proper Saab engine) using an additional vent (to assist blow-by gas 'flushing' at light load, and ease of venting at higher load).

A one way valve between the added vent and an added dedicated catch tank would prevent crankcase emissions being vented to atmosphere (the only reason I can think of to want to do this, also making the tank redundant, only an induction filter being needed), but then it would only function during high TB vacuum.

Without the one way check valve much larger quantities of BB gasses could be vented, but not legally. The catch tank would be a necessity, but might not require a return line to sump if the quantity of oil caught wasn't great (periodic draining of the tank possibly being all that is required?).

The pcv orifice sizes (there is more than one ) are chosen to keep the crankcase pressure negative by a small amount under all operating conditions. .

This may be the case for engines in good condition and expected normal amounts of blow-by gasses, but will it remain the case for worn engines with greater blow-by? I suspect not, wont the blow-by quantity at some point be likely to overwhelm the efficacy of this...?

Under high load where the piston blow-by becomes significant, the fresh passage is stopped with a check valve. This is to prevent back flow. The venturi effect of the turbocharger inlet is sufficient to pull in 100% of the piston blow by, plus pull the crankcase pressure 2 to 3 kPa . negative as calibrated in balance with the fresh air check valve.

Crankcase pressure should be reasonably uniform. .

Again, even with worn rings and higher than 'normal' BB gas quantity?

Regards,
John.

 

[qwikredline]

How is that possible? Surely to create vacuum during low vacuum conditions a pump would be required, i.e. an 'active' crankcase ventilation system...?

This is more or less what I want to try (on the proper Saab engine) using an additional vent (to assist blow-by gas 'flushing' at light load, and ease of venting at higher load).

A one way valve between the added vent and an added dedicated catch tank would prevent crankcase emissions being vented to atmosphere (the only reason I can think of to want to do this, also making the tank redundant, only an induction filter being needed), but then it would only function during high TB vacuum.

Without the one way check valve much larger quantities of BB gasses could be vented, but not legally. The catch tank would be a necessity, but might not require a return line to sump if the quantity of oil caught wasn't great (periodic draining of the tank possibly being all that is required?).

This may be the case for engines in good condition and expected normal amounts of blow-by gasses, but will it remain the case for worn engines with greater blow-by? I suspect not, wont the blow-by quantity at some point be likely to overwhelm the efficacy of this...?

Again, even with worn rings and higher than 'normal' BB gas quantity?

Regards,
John.

the mann hummell i use has a check valve in the top and the drain back which i run to the dipstick tube via a fabricated connection runs a check valve also. The stock GM LNF in good condition pulls vacuum enough that we get a turkey call if the seperator is plumbed so the check valve closes the wrong way. BUT tuned or worn engines it goes to hell and no way is there vacuum under boost. Thats why I had to add a check valve on the drain back as under track use the oil came back up the dipstick tube vent. So half my customers have good vacuum and the other half do not.lol

The theory and practice of the current emmisions and pcv systems assumes a well maintained properly operated car within legal speeds and limits. Not an enthusiastically caned and beaten occasional track car, roll street racer and generally flogged btr.

did i tell you about the 5.0 late model Mustang I punished from a stop light in my combi?

 

[JohnLear]

yes. two things. venting to atmosphere junks the whole deal the engine needs a vacuum in the crank case in fact, a pump would and does help. Vacuum is critical and the pcv circulates back post maf so its always metered air. BITD In our normally aspirated race engines we would fool with better dry sump pumps and do all we could to get about 4 hg of vacuum. Ring packages better piston to wall hone etc.

OK, in ideal conditions, but with an older engine with increased blow-by quantities, doesn't it become problematic to maintain the required hg when the system is set up for less blow-by than might actually exist?

I can easily imagine a somewhat worn engine generating positive crankcase pressures in varying degrees pretty much 100% of the time. Surely in such a (I would think common) case it would be preferable to ease venting constrictions in order to maximise pressure escape, even if this might mean the crankcase never sees a below atmospheric pressure, but also never sees such a high above atmospheric pressure?

The poor SAAB also. If I had a 00 to 03 I would put a Mann Hummell seperator in it in a heart beat.

I may even do that to my SAAB if it shows it needs it. I may pull the rocker cover, at 148,000 km I am wondering about the timing chain tensioner etc.

Our MY99 has a similar km. Just cleaning PCV system (and the mods described) has mad it work (apparently) much better than when we got it (substantially less apparent pressure escaping from open oil filler). I also have a back of the head concern re timing chain, a bit noisier than I would like it to be.

As I said, I do intend to fit a decent separator at some stage. If I can't afford a good one, then I'll make it myself...

Now in NSW you have a pretty decent climate I would guess. Not great humidity and not the salt laden crummy winters we can get here in Canaduh. I went to school in WA , Aus is a great country.

East coast NSW can get quite humid, not so lately though, very dry and un-seasonally hot, hence some rather disastrous and early season bushfires... No salted roads though.

Canada is also a lovely country. When I was vey young I lived in Guelf for a time. A bit chilly, even with my Scottish genetic heritage......

Regards,
John.

 

[uthan]

Point taken

Uthan I was thinking. Find a way to drop the pan.
what i was thinking was this.
my second car a 1959 Morris Oxford blew up ( no pcv, simple windage pipe to atmosphere BITD) from sludge in the oil pan; blocked the pickup.

while the PCV was part of the root cause of the SAAB issues, the condensation and crap carbon is carried around in the oil. The head is alloy, on the 2.3 the block is iron, the 2.0 alloy. The head is probably one of the hottest parts of the engine, the oil circulates carrying all the crap and crunge with it as it designed to, then drops down after doing its job pressurising the crankshaft, getting sheared in the rockers etc, to the coolest part of the engine , the bottom of the oil pan, and there it all condenses. ugh. In minnesota, parked while you warm up, oil pan sitting in a snow bank. Crazy thoughts. it takes at least 25-30 minutes of good running at highway speeds to get the oil up to temperature.
So Uthan, I strongly urge you to rent a warm garage, pay an indie but whatever, drop and clean the pan; its clear that the damage potential is great, but also if there was no PCV upgrade, condensation has been developing way more than you think.

my .02 c.

Thanks qwik, I agree with you. My daily commute is right at that 25 min mark - I always get the engine up to temp on the gauge but I know sometimes it's not getting the oil hot enough. I'd like to see the pan for myself to know the situation, too, sooner rather than later.

 

[uthan]

A follow up question, then

So what was the difference between the MY 2004 and the MY 2003 engines that made the 2003s susceptible and the 2004s seemingly immune to sludge? They're both B235 engines, so was it just the PCV system? Or something else?

Making mental preparations to drop the pan over the next couple of weeks...

 

[qwikredline]

So what was the difference between the MY 2004 and the MY 2003 engines that made the 2003s susceptible and the 2004s seemingly immune to sludge? They're both B235 engines, so was it just the PCV system? Or something else?

Making mental preparations to drop the pan over the next couple of weeks...

I am far from expert in these SAAB matters but I think that upgrade #6 to the PCV was standard from 2004 on up... or something like that. Good news on the pan you wont regret it if the motor is still okay before you drop it lol