Bad sparkplugs in '03 Cruiser

I have just had the second sparkplug changed in my '03 Cruiser within about 2 months. Different cylinders, non-turbo engine. Has anyone else had this problem? Are they using crappier plugs? I had no trouble at all with my '01 Cruiser for the 50K or so miles I had it. This one just passed 10K ! The dealer was good and fast about changing them , but I don't really want to go back every coupla months to get a new plug... They just told me that plugs are like light bulbs: sometimes you simply get a bad one.

****************************** Got wood? Check out my exotic hardwood pennywhistles at fair prices...
formatting link
Reply to
BREWERPAUL
Loading thread data ...

If it happens again ask to see the plug they removed.

within about 2

Reply to
Art Begun

Nomen Nescio wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@dizum.com:

What a crock of bullshit. Antiseize compound will not cause plugs to run cooler, or the lack of it, cause plugs to run red hot.

Reply to
tango

Not to mention that the plug threads will have oil on them when you remove the plugs, there's enough oil there to lubricate the threads when reinserting the plugs.

The ticket to spark plug thread destruction is cross-threading the replacement plugs, overtorquing them, or using an impact gun to remove and reinstall them.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

On aluminum heads you may install your plugs without anti-sieze if you like. It's a free country. But don't come crying and asking how to remove a broken off plug 60,000 miles from now when it's time for the next scheduled plug change (talking platinum plugs here). Sometimes they do not sieze in. Sometimes they do. You want to take the chance? That's your perogotive. I've had lots of "fun" removing plugs that have NEVER been crossthreaded, overtourqued, or removed - with or without an impact.Chrysler not so bad ad GM with the phosphated (black) plug shells, instead of cad plated or bright plated like Champs.

The metal content of the antisieze MAY have a slight effect on the heat range of the plug - making it run slightly cooler - but I would not count on it.

Reply to
clare

Reply to
mic canic

I never had problems with plugs seizing on my Kawasaki 650 and the alumimum head on that air-cooled engine ran hotter than any car engine. Nor have I had trouble with any other car aluminum engine with seized plugs.

Next time try removing them when the head is still hot, and using a long breaker bar, not a short socket handle. Reinstall when the head is cool. Also if they are being difficult breaking free, try tightening them slightly then loosening them. And of course, use no u-joints or any of that on the socket.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Then they were not pr>

Reply to
clare

And which of these manufacturers specify using anti-seize as part of the sparkplug installation procedure?

Second question; which of these manufacturers use anti-seize during initial assembly at their engine assembly plant.

Third question; which sparkplug manufacturers recommend using anti-seize during installation of their product in their technical literature?

Using anti-seize is a knee-jerk reaction to a previously botched installation, i.e., under torqued which allows combustion residue (carbon) to clog the threads, destroying them upon disassembly or over torqued which mechanically distorts the threads.

Reply to
Neil Nelson

Good questions.

Champion at least doesn't recommend the use of anti-sieze compound on their plugs since it "has already been applied to the plugs at the factory." That certainly endorses the use of an anti-sieze compound -- but only the one already applied.

Here is one reference:

formatting link
RB

Reply to
RWB

go to walmart and look at all the champion plugs in the clear blister pacs you will see not one has any antisize on it

"RWB

Reply to
mic canic

Actually, Toyota USED to recommend anti sieze on their plugs on the 2T and K, 2K, and 3K engines. And that was back when plug change intervals were 12000 miles. Also, I checked with a current mechanic (I'm "semi retired") and he HAS seen a problem with plug misfire due to antisieze - but way too much was used. I'll still use (a small amount of) antisieze on the plugs of my aluminum head engines. And for me it is not a knee jerk reaction to a botched installation. It's to avoid having to remove broken off plugs if/when they decide to sieze into the head. 3 liter Chrycos and 3.8 Ponchos are difficult enough to change plugs on when they come out easy. Aerostars too (even though they are cast heads)

Reply to
clare

As in the electrodes and/or tip insulator got fouled with conductive anti-seize? That's why the advice should be to use anti-seize, but use it very sparingly on spark plugs, paying particular attention to keep it totally away from the very end threads (I have a theory that the stuff can vaporize and leave a nice vapor deposited layer of metal on the tip insulator).

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Reply to
Bill Putney

"Used to," as in, now their plug change interval is 100,000 miles and they no longer recomend using anti-seize. Things have changed, there is no need to follow the old methods.

Yup, a pro would know better which leaves the DIYers, who often subscribe to 'More's Law' which states that "if more is good, too much is just right." Considering that for modern cars, a missfire is now a whole lot more catastrophic than an "oh shit, I gotta spend $2 on another sparkplug," it's best not to be slathering anything onto the sparkplugs.

Well, if it makes you feel good...

Gee, in 34 years, the only times I've seen a sparkplug actually break off, it was due to them having been left in too long time wise and the shell having rotted away. What is left afterwards usually threads out quite easily once the tension from the seat is removed. YMMV.

Reply to
Neil Nelson

No, the plug did not get fouled, but the plug fired intermittently. Only seen to happen on waste spark systems (GM 3800 Series 2) and it appeared the excess antisieze caused a poor ground (tapered seat plug, and the goop squeezed up around the seat) It may have been co-incidence as the problem was solved by replacing the plug with a new plug, and NOT removing the antisieze from the internal threads. In other words, the new plug still had anti-sieze on the threads. May have just been a crappy plug. Got blamed on too much anti-sieze. No proof.

That's why the advice should be to use anti-seize, but use

Reply to
clare

Also a whole lot easier to detect- as OBD2 tells you when a misfire occurs - and which plug.

Well, your experience and mine differ - other than the length. Got my mechanic's licence in 71 - so allowing 2 years apprenticeship it's been 34.5 years. I've seen quite a few that were so badly seized it took a significant amount of force to break the plug off instead of loose. I've had them so badly siezed even repeated heating and soaking would not get them loose, and heating the remaining threaded portion did not get them loose enough to take out with a straight flute Snap-on stud remover. (easy out). This has happened with both 14 and 18mm gasket seat plugs, and with tapered seat plugs, both the big old Ford style and the smaller GM style.

I'll agree it USUALLY happened on engines where the plugs were left in too long - but in the majority of the cases I've run into, the shell was still strong enough to remove a non-seized thread.

Reply to
clare

Well, that *was* the theory. Care to explain to us how one might view misfire data on a late model Ford product without the availability of a NGS or other mode capable scan tool, something the typical DIYer and many shops don't have in their diagnostic arsenal?

The whole notion of using anti-seize on sparkplugs that are threaded into aluminum heads ignores one simple fact; Aluminum tends to be weaker than cast iron in the same application. Anti-seize doesn't make the aluminum stronger, in fact, it can and does skew torque readings, so, knowing that, how else other than improper initial installation can plug threads become damaged creating the situation you describe as the need for anti-seize? It can't.

So, a non seized thread benifits from the anti-seize how?

Like I said, it's all knee jerk and it makes the guilt ridden feel better. if it were necessary or even advised, it would be posted in every Champion, NGK, Auburn, Nippon-Denso, AC, Autolite, catalog to the point that they'd be twice as thick as they are now.

Reply to
Neil Nelson

So which way does the anti-seize skew the torque, and by how much? Although I've often wondered about that myself, I've never seen any information on that. I've always assumed (perhaps incorrectly?) that the lubing (oily carrier) and friction properties (metal particles) of anti-seize pretty much balance each other out for a couple of reasons: (1) It would make sense for it to be intentionally formulated that way so that torque values do not have to be compensated, and (2) If it were a problem (i.e., if the torque vs. clamping forces were affected drastically in either direction), there would be advisories and warnings about that phenomenon. I have never seen such a warning in general industry, aerospace, or military applications. I can't help but think that if the skewing were at all significant, we in the engineering and service world would be hearing about it constantly.

Less anxiety when it is discovered that huge torque does not break the bond that has formed? Over time, it will not seize, whereas without the anti-seize, it would be more likely to seize - hence the name anti-seize. 8^) Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Reply to
Bill Putney

So, in the context of installing sparkplugs, you're asking why a different installation torque specification isn't called out when the use of anti-seize isn't even recommended by either the vehicle OEM or the sparkplug OEM?

I can't speak for the aerospace industry nor the military.

I wouldn't automatically assume that any metal particles in the anti-seize formula actually increase the torque requirements, offsetting the reduced torque requirement that may be imparted by the oil carrier.

I don't see the warnings you describe on a roll of teflon pipe sealing tape, yet I've seen plenty of carburetor throttle bodies destroyed by well meaning DIYers attempting their own carb overhaul when they re-install a brake booster fitting into the throttle body and the resulting lack of tightening feel results in over tightening, splitting the throttle body apart.

What I do know is that I've had many aluminum headed vehicles in my care from the time they were new to well past 200,000 miles, numerous sparkplug changes and not once has there ever been a problem with seized threads because of [my] not having used anti-seize when new plugs were installed. But then, I don't tend to buy my torque wrenches at places like Harbor Freight or Sears, I don't use them as a breaker bar or a hammer, and they do go in for calibration once a year.

For an answer to your question WRT whether fastners installed with anti-seize should have a lower, higher or the same torque specification applied, I'd suggest asking the question in rec.crafts.metalworking.

Reply to
Neil Nelson

You did raise an interesting question... Less than two minutes on Google gets you plenty of information. According to the Loctite PDF available

formatting link
the answer to your questions/statements are;1) Lower torque needed.2) You'd need to apply the formulas they specify for each type (they have 13 different types of anti-seize) available.3) You couldn't have looked very hard.(anti-seize+torque plugged into google)4) Never assume, yes your assumption was incorrect. 5) The advisories are out there (PDF), you do however have to go in search of them (not difficult).6) Now I'm worried about industry, aerospace and military if yours is the norm. (even a dumb country mechanic knows where to apply caution)

7) Looks like it very well may be significant, otherwise, why would Loctite (and numerous other anti-seize manufacturers) go to the bother of developing the "K" factor formulas?
Reply to
Neil Nelson

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.