ACDelco dexos1 5w30; 734/837 mi; '11 Caddy 3.0L DI

[Nick R]

The fuel dilution will almost definitely NOT be a problem. I don't understand they so much panic over it. If the wear numbers reflected increased wear, maybe. But they do not. We have the same 3.0L In our Equinox, and the OLM is programmed to not go further than about 5,500 on the oil. The oil doesn't smell like it contains an awful lot of gasoline.

Yes, these DI engines do tend to have slightly higher fuel dilution, compared to a non-DI engine, but that is no reason to buy a new one before the warranty is up, imo.

 

[Colt45ws]

I doubt a pan heater is going to affect fuel dilute in any meaningful way. The normal oil temps that an engine is running at does not evaporate all the compounds present in gasoline. So, a pan heater is not going to do too much.

 

[doyall]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
The fuel dilution will almost definitely NOT be a problem. ...


Then why do all of the labs and the learned technical writers say it *is* a problem? They don't even hold back and say it *may* be a problem. Did GM engineer this engine using physics/chemistry only they have knowledge of?

Originally Posted By: Nick R
.. I don't understand they so much panic over it. ...


I wouldn't call it panic. I'll go as far as overly cautious. Given how expensive new cars are, I think it is prudent to want to prevent malady as opposed to deal with it when it happens.

Originally Posted By: Nick R
... The oil doesn't smell like it contains an awful lot of gasoline. ...


Then you must drive it more than 30+ minutes most every time it is cold-cranked.

Originally Posted By: Nick R
... that is no reason to buy a new one before the warranty is up, imo.


If one doesn't want to risk having the engine wear out prematurely after the warranty runs out, seems like a valid option.

 

[doyall]

Originally Posted By: Colt45ws
I doubt a pan heater is going to affect fuel dilute in any meaningful way. ...


Would it not help bring the oil up to temp quicker, thereby hastening evaporation of fuel?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
The fuel dilution will almost definitely NOT be a problem. I don't understand they so much panic over it. If the wear numbers reflected increased wear, maybe. But they do not. We have the same 3.0L In our Equinox, and the OLM is programmed to not go further than about 5,500 on the oil. The oil doesn't smell like it contains an awful lot of gasoline.

Yes, these DI engines do tend to have slightly higher fuel dilution, compared to a non-DI engine, but that is no reason to buy a new one before the warranty is up, imo.


You are assuming two things here:

1. That the numbers in a UOA accurately reflect the amount of "wear" taking place. You already know where many of us stand on that....

2. That the effects of fuel in the oil are somehow magically negated in this application. I'm wondering what data you have on-hand that the rest of us don't have access to that supports this?

 

[Nick R]

I've never really heard of any engine failures due to fuel dilution- not saying it doesn't happen, but it strikes me that if this was really a big problem, the auto companies (GM, Ford, and others) would have something out on it. GM already did, they decreased the maximum OCI on those V6 engines to about 5,000 miles. If UOAs are useless to determining anything, why are we even worried about it? Why not try to have a little more faith in the engineers who actually design these things.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
I've never really heard of any engine failures due to fuel dilution- not saying it doesn't happen, but it strikes me that if this was really a big problem, the auto companies (GM, Ford, and others) would have something out on it. GM already did, they decreased the maximum OCI on those V6 engines to about 5,000 miles. If UOAs are useless to determining anything, why are we even worried about it? Why not try to have a little more faith in the engineers who actually design these things.


1. UOA's are hardly useless. In many instances regarding DI applications they have told us that there is a significant amount of fuel in the oil. YOU, not the UOA are stating that it isn't important. My comment regarding their use was specifically regarding "wear metals". But then you already knew that.

2. These are the same engineers who designed the intake gaskets that failed. Why should "faith" give them a free pass? The public are their beta testers. That is why the OLM had to be revised. If the engineers were infallible like you are implying, the OLM would have been calibrated correctly from the get go.

3. GDI is a relatively new technology, and certainly a new one for GM. We have no long-term reliability information, we now have revised oil change intervals that are MUCH shorter, that in itself indicates that the fuel dilution IS a problem. If it wasn't, if it was just "peechy keen" like you say, they would have left the extended intervals in place.

You are confusing the concern about fuel dilution in direct injection applications with some sort of veiled attack at GM and so subsequently are getting all defensive and ignoring the facts and issues about the technology so that you can defend the auto manufacturer.

Take a moment, disconnect and see the potential issues with the technology for what they are.

What was the last direct injected vehicle you owned? Exactly. Does that not answer your first point?

 

[tsduke]

doyall - Did you ever get to talk to a GM rep on this?

 

[doyall]

Originally Posted By: tsduke
doyall - Did you ever get to talk to a GM rep on this?


Have made two separate requests to the dealership service manager for a discussion with a GM rep with no success yet. I haven't given up. I still have other options to make contact I would prefer not to use but ultimately may have to.