oil light didn't go out

[whc03grady]

When you say it is above the mark now, does that mean your symptoms have been with this "above the mark" reading?

Yes.

Are you saying that it is above the mark even at only 3.5 quarts?

Yes.
Previous to the above-described oil light events I drained all the oil and took off the filter. I then put half a quart of new 20W-50 in a new filter, screwed it on, and put 3 quarts in the case. I went with a total of 3.5 qts because a quart is almost a liter and the Bentley says when replacing the filter to put in 3.5 L (Bentley, §9 page 10). So in reality, I put in 3.31 L, 0.19 L short of what the Bentley says.
Anywho, I did some other tune up stuff, like timing, and got the engine to a place I thought I could live with. Then I went inside to shower before we took it on a little run.
Before setting out I checked the oil--it's been at least half and hour since the car ran at this point--and it was as I describe with the diagram: well above the 'full' mark. So, the fact is I put in 0.19L less oil than the Bentley asks and ended up with a dipstick that says I'm like a quart overfull. Trusting my and BP's ability to determine what 3.5 qts are over the dipstick's ability to do so, I just drove it and experienced the things described above. The oil right now is about a centimeter above the full mark, just like when I first put the 3.5 qts in. Melissa drove it yesterday and reported no lights, but then again she just went on a couple errands around town and didn't get the car very warm (presumably).

Is this a nice normal dipstick, or has it been filed?

This is the only dipstick this car has had since at least 1991 and probably all the way back until it was built during the Yom Kippur War. It has been used in both its previous engines (1.8Ls) and in its present 2.0L engine. It is a plain Jane VW dipstick showing no evidence of having been filed. The 'low' mark is 48mm above the bottom end of the stick and the 'full' mark is 60mm above the bottom end.

A whole low-to-full mark length above the full mark is not OK. Drain it down. Let us know if the oil light behaves.

So what you're saying is, I'm 0.19L low on oil and should get rid of some more? I couldn't be more confused. Did dipsticks (or more to the point, dipstick markings) change through the years?

[Lanval]

Grady,

First, you don't have to go to a soulless car to avoid the carb issue; the vanagons are a great response to market, and my 85 (rear-engine, water-cooled) is a joy to drive, when it's running well. That part applies to new cars also. Plenty of new lemons come off the lot...

As for your issue; I'm wondering about the brand of oil filter; the air-cooled 2.0 in the early vanagons was exceptionally picky about which filters worked; a lousy filter can apparently cause the light to come on. So what brand is your filter?

Second, I'm with Colin. I'd drain it and fill it complete from the oil fill tube. I usually do not fill the filter at install; just a lip O' oil around the seal. If you are indeed overfilled at 3.5 quarts, something is definitely off; dipstick, drain, something. That ought to be ironed out. Does your dipstick still have the rubber plug at the top to keep the dipstick inserted? I've seen those disintegrate, giving false "full" oil readings because the dipstick will go in further than OEM, resulting in the dipstick reading "full" when in fact the oil was low.

Best,

Michael L

[Lanval]

Did dipsticks (or more to the point, dipstick markings) change through the years?

They did on some cars for sure. The Volvo 240 and 260 models did not use the same dipstick; no surprise, as they used different engines. What should be a surprise is that the early and late 260s also used different dipsticks, even though it was the same engine. I'm not sure how you verify your dipstick though... do they have a part number somewhere?

Best,

Michael L

[whc03grady]

Did dipsticks (or more to the point, dipstick markings) change through the years?

They did on some cars for sure. The Volvo 240 and 260 models did not use the same dipstick; no surprise, as they used different engines. What should be a surprise is that the early and late 260s also used different dipsticks, even though it was the same engine. I'm not sure how you verify your dipstick though... do they have a part number somewhere?

Best,

Michael L

(I meant did dipsticks change on late Bays between 1972 and '79.)

[whc03grady]

Grady,

First, you don't have to go to a soulless car to avoid the carb issue; the vanagons are a great response to market, and my 85 (rear-engine, water-cooled) is a joy to drive, when it's running well. That part applies to new cars also. Plenty of new lemons come off the lot...

As for your issue; I'm wondering about the brand of oil filter; the air-cooled 2.0 in the early vanagons was exceptionally picky about which filters worked; a lousy filter can apparently cause the light to come on. So what brand is your filter?

Second, I'm with Colin. I'd drain it and fill it complete from the oil fill tube. I usually do not fill the filter at install; just a lip O' oil around the seal. If you are indeed overfilled at 3.5 quarts, something is definitely off; dipstick, drain, something. That ought to be ironed out. Does your dipstick still have the rubber plug at the top to keep the dipstick inserted? I've seen those disintegrate, giving false "full" oil readings because the dipstick will go in further than OEM, resulting in the dipstick reading "full" when in fact the oil was low.

Best,

Michael L

It doesn't have a rubber plug, I can tell you that much. It looks more like cork or maybe felt? I'll inspect it when I get home.

[Amskeptic]

When you say it is above the mark now, does that mean your symptoms have been with this "above the mark" reading?

Yes.

Are you saying that it is above the mark even at only 3.5 quarts?

Yes.

OK, don't jump ahead of my line of questioning. Now that I know that you had a dipstick reading above the mark with these symptoms, we are on a possibly different page.

The owner's manual, which I trust far more than Bentley, says 3.7 quarts with oil filter. Enough oil pools in the engine that, regardless of how long you drain the oil, you will have variations in final readings.

Your oil light turning on, if it shows up with a guaranteed good oil level, and if your oil sender is a genuine VW-Audi or equivalent 2-6 psi sender, and your oil viscosity is 20-50 with no recent carburetor floods into the crankcase, may suggest a structural issue with the rebuild, i.e. oil clearances, pick-up tube for the pump has a leaking o-ring, pump itself is some clacky Melling aftermarket deal, or something equally esoteric.
Get all of your actionable variables out of the way!
Colin
(p.s. we have a thin little cork thingabob under the hat of the dipstick, not rubber)

[Lanval]

(p.s. we have a thin little cork thingabob under the hat of the dipstick, not rubber)

duly noted, though the material isn't, well, material; only that whatever lies under the cap remains in place.

Grady, from the Wikipedia site on the transporter using the type 4 engines - given the enlargement of the engine over time, it is reasonable to assume that the dipsticks are not the same, though that's not an absolute. I was just trying to note that you should assume variation over time is not only possible but likely, even within a single engine design. The 2.0L engine takes 3.7 quarts. The 1972 Type 2, however, which uses the 1.7L early type 4 engine, takes only 3.5 quarts. don't believe me? See for yourself; here's a link to the 1972 owners manual on The Samba:

http://www.thesamba.com/vw/archives/man ... 2II-72.jpg

I cannot believe that there isn't a change in the dipstick/measurement, given the changes in the engine oil capacity over the life of the type 4 engine (from 1.6L-2.0L).

Note that on page 29, the manual states that occasional flickering of the oil light after long high speed trip is acceptable, if it goes away upon acceleration:

http://www.thesamba.com/vw/archives/man ... 2II-29.jpg


Here's a list of the engines used in the Type 2 body, between 67-79:

1.6 L 35kW B4
1.6 L 37kW B4
1.7 L 46-49kW B4
1.8 L 50 kW B4
1.8 L 67 kW I4
2.0 L 52kW B4

And from the same site:

"In the Type 2, the Type 4 engine was an option for the 1972 model year onward. This engine was standard in models destined for the US and Canada. Only with the Type 4 engine did an automatic transmission become available for the first time in the 1973 model year. Both engines displaced 1.7 L, DIN-rated at 49 kW (67 PS; 66 bhp) with the manual transmission and 46 kW (63 PS; 62 bhp) with the automatic. The Type 4 engine was enlarged to 1.8 L and 50 kW (68 PS; 67 bhp) DIN for the 1974 model year and again to 2.0 L and 52 kW (71 PS; 70 bhp) DIN for the 1976 model year. The 1978 2.0 L now featured hydraulic valve lifters, eliminating the need to periodically adjust the valve clearances as on earlier models. The 1975 and later U.S. model years received Bosch L-Jetronic electronic fuel injection as standard equipment; 1978 was the first year for electronic ignition, utilizing a hall effect sensor and digital controller, eliminating maintenance-requiring contact-breaker points. As with all Transporter engines, the focus in development was not on power, but on low-end torque. The Type 4 engines were considerably more robust and durable than the Type 1 engines, particularly in Transporter service."

Finally, as a side note: Colin, note that the owners manual calls for 78mph (!) as the factory allowed cruising speed... Wow.

Here's the link to that page:

http://www.thesamba.com/vw/archives/man ... 2II-85.jpg

Good luck, Grady ~ these types of problems can be frustrating, but you'll know your engine better for it. And yes, you can keep it running. I also tried the rebuilt engine path, and found that Colin was cheaper and more effective. My vanagon is my daily driver, and also my rolling office, relaxation/nap hideaway. No better feeling than heading out to the parking lot at the college on a sunny afternoon, popping the top, turning on the stereo, pulling a cold drink out of the fridge, and sacking out in the top bunk for an hour before my next class. None. Colin has taught me much, and will teach me more, and who knows? He may even learn a thing from me, if he's willing to listen. Keep the van; learn the way of the wrench. You have the internet, and the collective minds of both the IAC and the Samba. Fear not; these were engines designed to be worked on by everyday people. They are truly the only car ever that was the people's car... it's there in the name.

Michael L

[dtrumbo]

It is a plain Jane VW dipstick showing no evidence of having been filed. The 'low' mark is 48mm above the bottom end of the stick and the 'full' mark is 60mm above the bottom end.

If it helps sort wheat from chaff, I have two GE 2.0 Type 4 engines and both have dipsticks with the same dimensions as yours. I'll echo Lanval's query, what brand of oil filter are you using?

[whc03grady]

It is a plain Jane VW dipstick showing no evidence of having been filed. The 'low' mark is 48mm above the bottom end of the stick and the 'full' mark is 60mm above the bottom end.

If it helps sort wheat from chaff, I have two GE 2.0 Type 4 engines and both have dipsticks with the same dimensions as yours. I'll echo Lanval's query, what brand of oil filter are you using?

Your oil light turning on, if it shows up with a guaranteed good oil level, and if your oil sender is a genuine VW-Audi or equivalent 2-6 psi sender, and your oil viscosity is 20-50 with no recent carburetor floods into the crankcase, may suggest a structural issue with the rebuild, i.e. oil clearances, pick-up tube for the pump has a leaking o-ring, pump itself is some clacky Melling aftermarket deal, or something equally esoteric.
Get all of your actionable variables out of the way!

It's 20-50 fer sher, the oil doesn't smell gassy (so no recent floods into the case, right?), the pump is a Type I of unknown brand.
Get all my actionable variables out of the way!? I'd need a time machine!

What brand of oil filter are you using?

A Mahle that I could blow and suck air through (tried before I put it in)--this means it doesn't have an anti-drawback valve, if I'm understanding things correctly. I have one of the vaunted Napa 1521s ready to go, a different thread having reminded me about this anti-drawback issue a few days after I'd put the Mahle in.

[dtrumbo]

I have one of the vaunted Napa 1521s ready to go, a different thread having reminded me about this anti-drawback issue a few days after I'd put the Mahle in.

Just to help remove some variables, I always use the NAPA Gold 1521 (Wix 51521). I always fill the filter with oil which takes a long time as you have to let the air bubbles escape as you fill it. I figure out how much oil it took to fill the filter and then I add to the crankcase however much oil it takes to total 7.4 US pints (3.7 quarts). This always gets me exactly to the full mark on the dipstick.

I've read (where's Hippie when you need him?) where certain types of filters without the anti-drainback valves can give you fits. Hopefully this is the case and it's just that easy. Otherwise, Colin's suggestion of investigating the other actionable variables is in order.

[Amskeptic]

I was just trying to note that you should assume variation over time is not only possible but likely, even within a single engine design.
The 2.0L engine takes 3.7 quarts.
The 1.7L takes only 3.5 quarts. don't believe me? See for yourself;

I don't (believe you). I did (see for myself). Now go to the link and read it again.
3.5 litres is 3.70 quarts.

The Road Warrior had the 1.7, and I had about 120 oil changes with it.
I am up to 10 oil changes with the 2.0 BobD . . .
Colin

[Lanval]

I was just trying to note that you should assume variation over time is not only possible but likely, even within a single engine design.
The 2.0L engine takes 3.7 quarts.
The 1.7L takes only 3.5 quarts. don't believe me? See for yourself;

I don't (believe you). I did (see for myself). Now go to the link and read it again.
3.5 litres is 3.70 quarts.

The Road Warrior had the 1.7, and I had about 120 oil changes with it.
I am up to 10 oil changes with the 2.0 BobD . . .
Colin

Fukcing Europeans and their anomalous measuring systems.... Unfortunately I misread that, but I'm still right, essentially. According to the asknumbers.com website: 6.125 US Fluid Pints = 3.062500 US Fluid Quarts. That's less than even I had specified!

on the other hand, according to metric-conversions.org: 3.5 L = 3.69840 qt(US Liq)

The imperial pints measure matches essentially the US pints measurement; 3.5L = Answer: 3.5 L = 6.15913 pt (UK)

So the manual itself seems uncertain, but two of the three measures are giving numbers below your 3.7 quart measurement. Guess we'll have to go with your experience, since I'll assume the Germans knew liters better than either of the other two measures.

Edit: more research shows that from 73 onwards, they specify in US/Imp. quarts in the manuals, suggesting that the above numbers were an error. Meh.

Grady, I'd suggest you swap the filter first; work with known good elements, and then eliminate variables as Colin has suggested.

Best,


Michael L

[SlowLane]

Fukcing Europeans and their anomalous measuring systems....

Not to put too fine a point on it Michael, but when it comes to measurement systems, it's the fukcing (sic) Americans who are the anomalous ones. Not merely content to have a different sized pint, quart and gallon than the rest of the world, they had to devise two differently-sized pint, quart and gallon measures. One for liquid and one for dry measure. How fukced-up is that?

Oh, and it's a source of some amusement (to those who are amused by such things), that each of those measures defined in super-sized America is smaller than its European counterpart. I'm surprised that the Texans (for whom everything must be embiggened) didn't throw a cow-patty fit over that.

[Lanval]

Fukcing Europeans and their anomalous measuring systems....

Not to put too fine a point on it Michael, but when it comes to measurement systems, it's the fukcing (sic) Americans who are the anomalous ones.

I was being sarcastic; the only countries that don't use the metric system are Liberia, Myanmar (I still call 'em Burma ~ screw political correctness) and the US. That's some fine company right there.

I was surprised to discover the error in the manual, tho. naruhodo...

ML

[Amskeptic]

Fukcing Europeans and their anomalous measuring systems....

Not to put too fine a point on it Michael, but when it comes to measurement systems, it's the fukcing (sic) Americans who are the anomalous ones.

I was being sarcastic; the only countries that don't use the metric system are Liberia, Myanmar (I still call 'em Burma ~ screw political correctness) and the US. That's some fine company right there.

I was surprised to discover the error in the manual, tho. naruhodo...

ML

I think our student science/math test scores are nearing Burma's now, too.
Colin