I have a 2000 Dodge Durango with a 5.2L Magnum engine. At 42,000 miles, on March 29, 2005, it started leaking anti-freeze coolant. The dealer indicated that 3 of the 10 freeze (core) plug were leaking due to corrosion. Then, at 64,000 miles, on August 24, 2006, it happened again but this time only 2 of the 10 freeze (core) plug were leaking due to corrosion. Is this a defect?
I am having a hard time understanding how could this leak so easily and so quickly. Is this a design problem with the SUV Truck? Thanks for your responses.
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 05:12:18 GMT, aarcuda69062 wrote:
I agree too that it is a maintainance issue. When you get freeze plugs leaking, it is usually a sign of improper antifreeze mixture that is letting corrosion take place. When a few leak the others are not far behind. There is a few thing you can do to mitagate it thought in future. Run more than 50/50 antifreeze for one because 50/50 is not enough somethime for good protection (I alway use at leat 60/40 and usually 70/30). I have a 52 year old tractor that I run about 80/20 or more in because I do not want to have to worry about corrosion in it as parts are rare. I have not changed the coolant since I got is over
20 years ago when I put 80/20 of better in it fresh and it is still clean as day I did it and tractor sees about about 30 to 50 hrs of usage a year even today. It never over heat on the even the hottest days bush hogging (I do though) When I top it off once a year I always use pure antifreeze too There will be those that aurgue the higher antifreeze levels are not best but this is simply no true and it will cool fine and protect even better. Antifreeze is densor and has a higher abilty to abosurb heat to. It does take less energy to boil gycol and convert it to steam than water and hence where the some say water cools better but in a liquid state is takes more energy to raise a gallon of glycol one degree than it does water and therefore more "energy" to cool it since it stores more heat. You could also use a lower pressure cap to lessen strin on plugs and minimize leaks when they occur. I have been using 7 to 9 PSI caps for over 20 years and I never have any heating issue even when traveling through the great plains in 100 degree plus heat with 70/30 mixtures as higher levels of gycol also raises boil point too negating the need for higher prssure for boil over prtection. In theory if you ran pure antifreeze you would not even need a pressure cap as it boils around 340 degrees though in a pure state is freezee around 10. (ethylene glycol which is coomon anti freeze) As a foot note if you use propylene glycol (non toxic anti freeze as marketed) it has it highest boil point and lowest freeze point in its pure state with no water added and is used is severe artic cooling requirements.
I have been following this thread (and many others!) and can no longer remain silent while such wholesale BS is propagated through this newsgroup. I would caution the OP to dismiss the Snomans reply in its entirety since it is absolute hogwash!
It is highly likely that it is indeed a maintenance issue, but NOT due to the incorrect antifreeze mixture. The factory recommended 50-50 mixture is the IDEAL ratio and should be adhered to in spite of anecdotal "evidence" posted below. More than likely, the freeze plug failure is due to corrosion from infrequent cooling system service. Your owner's manual recommends an initial antifreeze change at 3 years or 45,000 miles and every two years or
24,000 miles thereafter. Antifreeze does two things... keeps the engine from freezing in winter and also contains corrosion inhibitors and silicates to promote internal engine health. Over time, the antifreeze properties remain relatively constant but the anti-corrosion compounds break down and are no longer effective which leads to cooling syetm failure thus the need for periodic coolant service.
Now, onto the BS.
When a few leak the others are not far
Unless you live in the extreme north, NEVER run more than a 50-50 mixture of antifreeze and water. A 50-50 mixture of coolant will give you ALL the corrosion inhibitors you need to keep your cooling system at peak efficiency if it is maintained properly. A 50-50 mixture will provide freeze protection down to -34 degrees F which is adequate for most of the US and Canada. If your climate requires, you can go to a MAXIMUM of 70-30 antifreeze and water, but this is rarely needed and offers NO benefit other than additional freeze protection.
(I alway use at leat 60/40 and
This is sheer idiocy. Why would you abuse your equipment when using the proper coolant ratio and periodic changes are so easy? Just because it has worked for you means that you are lucky, it doesn't mean that you are correct. You cannot determine through visual inspection the amount or effectiveness of the corrosion inhibitors remaining in the coolant. A hydrometer will only show freeze protection.
There will be those that aurgue the higher
This is simply not true in spite of your belief that it is.
Antifreeze is densor and has a
This is pure BS! Therrmodyamics 101. The ability of a material to conduct heat is called thermal conductivity. It is usually expressed as W/m K. The thermal conductivity of water is .67 and the thermal conductivity of ethylene glycol (antifreeze) is .25, thus water is significantly better at transferring heat.
The ability of a material to "store" heat is called its specific heat. It is usually expressed as kJ/kgK. The specific heat of water is 4.184 and the specific heat of ethylene glycol is 2.38, thus again, water is much better at storing heat than antifreeze.
Only one other liquid comes to mind that is better as a coolant than plain water and that is mercury.
You could also use a
At last, a correct statement, but this approach is a band-aid at best.
I have been using 7 to 9 PSI caps for over 20 years and I
You have not had a problem because of your cleverness, you have just relied on dumb luck
In theory if you ran pure antifreeze you
However, you run a significant risk in engine overheating because the pure ethylene glycol cannot carry the heat away from the engine fast enough, nor can proper heat transfer occur through the radiator due to the physical properties mentioned above. This is simply bad advice!
The bottom line is this. Do NOT take what Snoman says as gospel. I have seen on too many occasions that his advice is flat-out wrong. I don't know where he gets his information, but it is NOT from knowledgeable professionals. I have remained silent up to this point, but I can no longer sit quietly while such mis-information is spread in this group.
Snoman, your participation in this group is welcome however, please take the time to verify that the info your provide is correct and is based upon sound engineering principles and recognized industry practices. To do less does the readers of your posts a great disservice.
I hope this clairifies the information in this post.
Mike DaimlerChrysler Serviec Manager Member Society of Automotive Engineers
Mike's signature says it all. Notwithstanding *good* shadetree mechanics (I use the term with affection), one does not become a service manager and a member of ASE without knowledge. Kudos to Mike, Tom (and many others) who offer their decades of experience and wealth of knowledge! Bryan
Mike, I wholeheartedly second your post. You saved me a bunch of typing. I don't know where ole Snowy comes up with this stuff, to somebody that doesn't know better it sounds good but it just misses the mark.
I am very appreciative of all your time and responses, but the logic about the maintenance does not make sense.
As stated above, it was not 2 years yet between the two leak occurrences (March 2005 to August 2006 = 17 months).
It also has not been 24,000 miles yet between the 2 leak occurrences (42,000 miles and 64,000 miles = 22,000 miles).
Even if I brought the SUV in to the dealer earlier to replace the coolant, the corrosion already took place prior to the maintenance cycles. Both leak problems occurred before each of the recommended maintenance cycles. If I had the opportunity, I would have brought the truck in for maintenance, but it leaked first prior to both maintenance cycles.
I can give you guys more background on this if needed. I am interested in keeping my Durango a long time so I am looking for a long term solution.
I am very appreciative of all your time and responses, but the logic about the maintenance does not make sense.
As stated above, it was not 2 years yet between the two leak occurrences (March 2005 to August 2006 = 17 months).
It also has not been 24,000 miles yet between the 2 leak occurrences (42,000 miles and 64,000 miles = 22,000 miles).
Even if I brought the SUV in to the dealer earlier to replace the coolant, the corrosion already took place prior to the maintenance cycles. Both leak problems occurred before each of the recommended maintenance cycles. If I had the opportunity, I would have brought the truck in for maintenance, but it leaked first prior to both maintenance cycles.
I can give you guys more background on this if needed. I am interested in keeping my Durango a long time so I am looking for a long term solution.
I am very appreciative of all your time and responses, but the logic about the maintenance does not make sense.
As stated above, it was not 2 years yet between the two leak occurrences (March 2005 to August 2006 = 17 months).
It also has not been 24,000 miles yet between the 2 leak occurrences (42,000 miles and 64,000 miles = 22,000 miles).
Even if I brought the SUV in to the dealer earlier to replace the coolant, the corrosion already took place prior to the maintenance cycles. Both leak problems occurred before each of the recommended maintenance cycles. If I had the opportunity, I would have brought the truck in for maintenance, but it leaked first prior to both maintenance cycles.
I can give you guys more background on this if needed. I am interested in keeping my Durango a long time so I am looking for a long term solution.
You bought the truck (or someone did - maybe you bought it used) in 2000. The first leak occurred in 2005. Was there any cooling system maintenance performed between 2000 and 2005?
Hello Tom: I bought it in Oct 2002 on the dealer's lot. It had less than 15K miles on it. Yes the 1st leak occurred in Mar 2005 at 42K.
because it was only 3 1/2 years and at 42K miles. I do not know for sure about the coolant from 2000 to 2002 when the dealer had the truck on the lot. Maybe I should have asked. But, if the dealer never changed it either, then the coolant would have been in the truck for over 5 years!!! Oh my! But, still, why did it happen again a second time right now at 64,000 mi on Aug 29 2006? I hope this make sense.
Yep. Not good for any coolant (IMO), but especially not the green stuff...
Because the damage was done already. Even if the new coolant stopped the corrosion on that core plug, the heat/cool cycles on an already-corroded plug will eventually wear it out.
If I were you, I'd replace all the core plugs, but first I'd do a THOROUGH cooling system flush (I suspect that when the first plug was changed, they simply dropped the coolant and replenished it). This will help to clean out all the crud that I'm sure is floating around the coolant passages. As far as replacing the rest of the plugs, if two failed - you can expect more.
It's a hard lesson to learn, but this is why people stress regular coolant flush/changes.... even on the supposed 5-year, 100,000 mile coolant. While the new coolant does hold up longer, I'm not willing to believe it lasts that long. I just flushed mine ('03 CTD) at 60K, and the flush water came out nice and clean the first time - but still, piece of mind is worth a couple of dollars in coolant, and some time.
I too have an '03 CTD and even though it has the 5 year/100K HOAT coolant I will be changing mine shortly too at 60K miles. In frequent cooling system service can be expensive to repair and as you surmised, I suspect there was still a lot of residual corrosion in the OP's cooling system which caused the 2nd failure so soon.
I probably see two or three vehicles a week with premature cooling system failures and sadly, this problem can be easily and cheaply avoided.
Thank you all! I now have a good picture on what occurred: It's not just the mileage...it's the time as well that's equally important.
Even though my truck was at 42K miles it was also 5 years old without a coolant flush. If the dealer never changed the coolant when I bought it in Oct 2002 with 15K miles and I never did a coolant flush until the core plugs failed in Mar 2005 at 42K miles, then it was way overdue by the TIME factor. I will take it to get flushed more often (maybe every
6 months) to be sure the cooling system is clean. Now, I worry about my radiator. -JS
THis is the problem stero types. Detriot uses 50/50 still because over millions of vechicle you save tens of millions of dollars a year for profit. THere was a time that detriot said 40/60 was best too. The problem is aggrevated by the mixed metal contect in engine blocks that increase galvanic reactivity and water is very reactive too. The less of it the better. THe BS is is where people blindly folow detriot that wants you to by another car in 3 or 5 years or take it in for servicing. The last thing they want to do is build one that really lasts and reduces demand for their products. I keep some vehicle a very long time and I could send you pictures of overflow tanks and radiator that are as clean as they day they were built 17 or more years ago from using 70/30 but you would say that they were doctored or that I used a new or cleaned ones so knock yourself out. Also by your BS people living in northen states are screwd because 50/50 will not cut it and even 60/40 will not either in a few areas and I for one have lived once where 40 below and colder was common in winter and
50/50 whould hae been worthless. You want to was your money you can but do not dismiss something as BS because you do not understand the physics behind it. Detriot loves lambs to can be easily lead to slaughter.
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.