GEN 2 Cranking with full throttle following oil change

[EricM]

Just because you drain the oil in the pan, and filter, does not mean there is no oil on surfaces like the pistons. They are still "lubricated" plenty to deal with a 1-2 second interruption of oil flow at start up.

When you change your oil, it is maybe 1-2 seconds on start up for the oil system to become pressurized. you can actually hear it happen. It sounds worse then it is.

It's the main and rod bearings that matter. Having oil "on them" doesn't count. They need a pressurized oil film to float the crank prevent the combustion stroke from hammering the crank/rods into their shells. There is no logical reason to not prime the oiling system prior to startup.

 

[EricM]

And make damn sure that the thing is in Park or Neutral.

It will not crank unless it's in park or neutral.

I know some of you have this fear that it will start and immediately bounce off the rev limiter, but it won't happen. I've done it dozens of times on Fords ranging from a model year 2000 to a 2019 without issue. Flooring it shuts off the injectors and it will not start.

 

[Ruger]

It will not crank unless it's in park or neutral.

I know some of you have this fear that it will start and immediately bounce off the rev limiter, but it won't happen. I've done it dozens of times on Fords ranging from a model year 2000 to a 2019 without issue. Flooring it shuts off the injectors and it will not start.

True. But then there was that rash of Audis that had that inconvenient tendency to slip into gear and drive themselves through the garage wall.

 

[EricM]

True. But then there was that rash of Audis that had that inconvenient tendency to slip into gear and drive themselves through the garage wall.

First it'd have to actually start, which it won't- then it'd have to also "slip" into gear, which you know, doesn't really happen.

The whole Audi thing was BS IIRC. The owners were hitting the wrong pedal, but refused to admit fault as that would also mean admitting they were old and getting confused as to how to drive. CBS news saw an opportunity for ratings and blew it up. Just like they did with the GM trucks catching fire. Which, of course, they were later exposed as knowingly faking the "proof" footage. At least that's how I remember it.

Dan Rather was feeding us fake news before we knew it was a thing.

 

[Muchmore]

CBS news saw an opportunity for ratings and blew it up. Just like they did with the GM trucks catching fire. Which, of course, they were later exposed as knowingly faking the "proof" footage. At least that's how I remember it. Dan Rather was feeding us fake news before we knew it was a thing.

When you get a chance you should read up on the GM truck and cavalier/sunfire ignition thing. GM engineers made a decision to put gas tanks on the outside of the frame in between the bedsides. So anytime there was a T-bone accident gas tanks ruptured and some caught fire. The stink about it and the ignition problems was the GM knew it was a problem and they knew people were going to get seriously hurt and they weighed the cost of recall .vs lawsuits and chose to go with hurting people and just paying damages. Same thing with those ignition cylinders that would partially turn the ignition off preventing an airbag deployment.

In both cases, GM weighed the cost of recall and repair against hurting human beings and paying damages. They chose to hurt people and pay damages would be cheaper. Lots of internal documents showed the cost analysis. The ignition cylinder debacle was the same way AND GM was so dysfunctional before the bankruptcy that when they did recall the cars for l=ignition switches, they accidentally put the same switches back in some 150,000 cars. Which meant they were recalled again for the same thing!

Really not trying to start a fight but those were the good ole' days.....who would even believe it now. Oh wait, Volkswagen made diesel spoofing devices just a few years ago.....

https://www.autosafety.org/history-gm-side-saddle-gas-tank-defect/

"The Big Three auto makers all considered relocating the tank outside the passenger compartment in the early 1970’s. Chrysler engineers specifically rejected placing the tank outside the frame because of safety concerns saying, “A frame mounted fuel tank mounted anywhere outside the frame rails would be in a very questionable area due to the new Federal Standards requiring 15 MPH side impacts for all vehicles. . . . Any side impact would automatically encroach on this area and the probability of tank leakage would be extremely high.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/gm-recall/gm-chose-not-implement-fix-ignition-problem-n51731

"Engineers at General Motors found a way to stop ignition switches from shutting off nine years ago, but made a “business decision” not to order the partial fix to a problem that has now been linked to a dozen deaths, NBC News has learned."

 

[Ruger]

Oh yeah, and didn't Ford Pintos blow up when rear-ended?

"On June 9, 1978, days before the NHTSA was to issue Ford a formal recall order, Ford recalled 1.5 million Ford Pintos and Mercury Bobcats, the largest recall in automotive history at the time."

Why, yes they did!

 

[EricM]

When you get a chance you should read up on the GM truck and cavalier/sunfire ignition thing. GM engineers made a decision to put gas tanks on the outside of the frame in between the bedsides. So anytime there was a T-bone accident gas tanks ruptured and some caught fire. The stink about it and the ignition problems was the GM knew it was a problem and they knew people were going to get seriously hurt and they weighed the cost of recall .vs lawsuits and chose to go with hurting people and just paying damages. Same thing with those ignition cylinders that would partially turn the ignition off preventing an airbag deployment.

In both cases, GM weighed the cost of recall and repair against hurting human beings and paying damages. They chose to hurt people and pay damages would be cheaper. Lots of internal documents showed the cost analysis. The ignition cylinder debacle was the same way AND GM was so dysfunctional before the bankruptcy that when they did recall the cars for l=ignition switches, they accidentally put the same switches back in some 150,000 cars. Which meant they were recalled again for the same thing!

Really not trying to start a fight but those were the good ole' days.....who would even believe it now. Oh wait, Volkswagen made diesel spoofing devices just a few years ago.....

https://www.autosafety.org/history-gm-side-saddle-gas-tank-defect/

"The Big Three auto makers all considered relocating the tank outside the passenger compartment in the early 1970’s. Chrysler engineers specifically rejected placing the tank outside the frame because of safety concerns saying, “A frame mounted fuel tank mounted anywhere outside the frame rails would be in a very questionable area due to the new Federal Standards requiring 15 MPH side impacts for all vehicles. . . . Any side impact would automatically encroach on this area and the probability of tank leakage would be extremely high.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/gm-recall/gm-chose-not-implement-fix-ignition-problem-n51731

"Engineers at General Motors found a way to stop ignition switches from shutting off nine years ago, but made a “business decision” not to order the partial fix to a problem that has now been linked to a dozen deaths, NBC News has learned."

I know what happened. I also know the CBS faked their tests that showed them catching fire.

All car companies are going to make that financial decision on vehicles that are problematic in wrecks. Do you think they should drop 2 billion dollars to re-design and modify every truck they made because 1 person died? 2 people? 20 people? 50 people? What's the number? I don't think it's 1, but what is it? You have to discuss that and determine what that number is if you are a car company.

You make it sound so horrible "they chose to hurt people etc". There is a number where it does not make sense to redesign the vehicles, but to instead just pay out for losses. Don't forget, they are building something that someone will likely die in every single day in an infinite number of different scenarios. If they tried to fix every single one of those scenarios retroactively they would be out of business.

Same goes for the Pinto. Ford was not alone in that design. Damn near everyone put the tank in back at the time, and fires were common as hell in all the 70s and older cars during rear-end collisions. Remember the flip down plate to fill up the tank? Ford just caught the flak since they got ahold of their memos discussing it. All the 79-04 Mustangs have the tanks in that spot, every Crown Vic ever made (which were also "exposed" for this design) etc. Those and dozens more from every manufacturer that made a car during the time period.

As for the whole ignition switch thing- Jesus, how about, I don't know, maybe not turning off your ignition while you drive? Nobody can take personal responsibility for anything nowadays.

 

[Muchmore]

Hey man good take, I certainly don't fault someone for having a different opinion. Pintos were certainly susceptible to burning no doubt. As far as General Motors goes, they didn't need to recall anything I guess because they went out of business all on their own in the 2008-2009 collapse.

I couldn't agree more with personal responsibility. If your car is turning off while driving, take some CRAP off your key ring. If your car takes off all on its own, take the floormat out, on and on and on.....

I fault both car companies for knowing before the product ever reached the market they were fire hazzards.

 

[zemuron99]

Cranking without actually firing the engine puts no load on the rod bearings. The whole point of priming the system is to protect the rod bearings when it starts. Priming the oil system by cranking the engine without ignition allows the oil pump to immediately put oil pressure to the bearings when it is started, and prevents them from being hammered by the pistons for about 2 seconds while the oil filter (and the passage downstream of it that also drained when you pulled the filter) is filling.
You may not believe it matters, but I can clearly hear the difference in my garage when I fire them up after an oil change. If I don't prime it, the engine always makes slight ticking/tapping noise for a few seconds. It never does that when primed or during any other startup that isn't immediately after an oil change. Is that going to destroy the engine? Probably not. Is the ticking/tapping coming from metal hitting metal? Yes. I have the option to spend an extra 5-10 seconds to avoid that metal to metal contact, so I do it.

Bottom line is it's pretty stupid not to prime it when you consider the tiny amount of effort it takes to do it. All you have to do is push a gas pedal to the floor and crank the engine for 5 to 10 seconds. It's not like when are breaking out an Accusump to prime it.

According to the poll, the consensus by a large majority is that this is not only unnecessary, but BS. I doubt that there is problem with not doing it, but I also don’t think there is any harm in it. If priming the system could reduce some incremental wear on rod bearings or other parts, I say, “why not?”

I see that I'm in a pretty significant minority (8% so far) that do this (Crank after oil change) until I see the oil pressure gauge come up. Since it's run by a simple open/closed switch, I know the entire system is pressurized at that point. Usually takes two cycles-one full cycle (the starter auto-stops after about 8 seconds) followed by 2-3 seconds the second time. Like EricM, I can definitely hear the difference (I messed up one time and forgot to press the accelerator). Had pretty notable ticking and a definite 2-3 second delay until the oil gauge came to life. I'll also do the pre-pressurize starting if I've left it sit more than two days, which frequently happens, just to ensure the cam phasers are fully filled/primed. I like the idea of fully priming/pressurizing it with minimal load on all the moving parts. Those with the opinion that it's not only unnecessary but BS are welcome to their opinions, I won't try to convince them otherwise, it's their truck and their money do to with as they prefer. For me, if it may help in even the slightest degree it's worth the minimal time investment. Also, given that these engines are designed to work with the auto stop/start, the wear on the starter motor/flex plate is inconsequential (I've programmed mine thru FORScan to disable auto stop/start). I do agree that modern oils, esp syn-blends or full synthetics do provide greater residual surface protection than older dino-oils would. But, there's still the delay between getting from the sump pan, through the empty filter and to the moving parts to consider.

Ultimately it just comes down to personal preference. If I really had my way, all v-configured engines would have an oil fill cap on BOTH sides, so I could fill 50-50 on each side. But I'm probably wayyyyyyy over thinking that one...Ha!

 

[Skubik]

Old thread but what the hell just wanted to say that I tried holding the pedal down after an oil change and i liked that it hesitated to start for a few seconds priming the oil system before I released the pedal and truck actually firing up.
I have a Livernois built head and Supercharger (not that it matters) but I like the idea of getting oil up and going before the truck starts. Another reason why is because my truck starts and immediately goes to 2k rpm sometimes over and again the idea of priming the oil system at cold starts or after oil changes sounds nice lol
I don't daily my truck (2013 @45k miles) so I may go a week or two sometimes without pulling her out of the shop and I'll be doing this procedure after letting it sit at first cold start up moving forward. Thanks all for the input and learned a hell of a lot about pintos in the process