I don’t recall any dipsticks that didn’t extend out the tube into the oil which was below the tube. Small block Chevrolet dipstick tubes were pressed into the block with a stop ring which stopped the tube from extending into the pan. The Ford tubes that threaded into the pan extended an inch or so but the FULL mark was exposed in the pan. I do recall a few engines with dipstick tubes purposely extending several inches into the pan to keep the dipstick from interfering with the crankshaft throws but what they were in slips my mind and dipsticks extended below them into the oil. If the tube was in the oil, oil would be thrown up and force the dipstick out.
Well stated Rod. I actually realized later that in most engines the tube doesn’t extend into the oil, only the stick does, but hadn’t yet corrected my post.
I don’t recall any healthy engines wherein sufficient pressure built up in the oil to force the dipstick out of the tube. I have, however, heard of it happening on old engines with a gumped up PCV valve. If the PCV system is working properly and the engine doesn’t have severe blowby, excess pressure in the crankcase should dissipate up the oil return paths and through the PCV valve.
There’s also a typo in my post. I wrote that
"The only problem a missing dip stick can cause is oil to get pushed out the stick if there’s sufficient blowby"
I meant to say that it could get pushed out the TUBE, not the stick. I planned to correct that one too.
But, oh well, life goes on. Overall I stand by my post. And I still think it’d be better not to clog the forum with years-old posts. I form my responses under the understanding that an OP is asking for help. And I try to give sufficient time to help posters understand my suggestions. If the person that asked the question disappeared years ago, than I’m blowing in the wind.
On the other hand, if someone has a question about an old post, or would like an explanation (even if it’s to disagree with me), I’m happy to help. I only ask that they just be forthwith about the question and not format it as if we’re still responding to the original question trying to help the original poster.
So, it’s not constructive to question a false statement??
1 Like
Not the way you did it. You didn’t “correct” anything at all. Or add anything at all.
I thought it was an odd statement, why would you want people to believe that the dipstick tube extended below the oil level? If it did removing the dipstick on a running engine would result in oil splattered on your office shirt due to the oscillating pressures in the crankcase.
It was an odd statement, admittedly. I doubt of it would result in spattered oil, but there’s no reason for the tube to extend into the oil except perhaps in an engine wherein the dipstick needs to be routed around the crankshaft. A horizontally opposed engine perhaps?
Anyway, I’m not going to lose any sleep over had made the statement. It was a misstatement, nothing more. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. 
Wow Rudy…It took you 2 years to come up with a response. Little slow are we?
4 Likes