Consumer Reports sees oil vanish.........
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
I think oil consumption, when using a quality synthetic, is mainly a mechanical issue. For example, last year I ran Mobil 0W-20 AFE in both my Lexus GS400 and Dodge Grand Caravan with the 3.8 liter engine. The Lexus calls for a 30 weight and yet a year later and running a 20 weight and about 8,000 miles later I only added about 1/2 quart. The Caravan also did a yearly OCI but saw about 9,000 miles and it consumed close to two quarts of the exact same oil.
Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
Auto engineers have told me they see no correlation between today's lightweight "0W-" motor oils, designed to reduce friction and save gas, and excessive oil consumption. But in our admittedly anecdotal experience, both the prevalence of such lightweight oils and the propensity of more engines to consume oil seem to be moving in tandem. And our test cars that have had this problem have all used such lightweight synthetic oils.
*There are many causes of oil consumption.
This is a problem among those that don't check the oil level over the OCI. That is a problem.
I have stated this for years -- because I have experienced it with a Jeep Wrangler when using 5w20 oil burner . When I switched to 5w30 and 5w40 oils no oil consumption . Been using 5w40 for over two years no problems . Thin oil is not good for engines it is good for cafe requirements .
Quote:
Auto engineers have told me they see no correlation between today's lightweight "0W-" motor oils, designed to reduce friction and save gas, and excessive oil consumption. But in our admittedly anecdotal experience, both the prevalence of such lightweight oils and the propensity of more engines to consume oil seem to be moving in tandem. And our test cars that have had this problem have all used such lightweight synthetic oils.
*There are many causes of oil consumption.
This is a problem among those that don't check the oil level over the OCI. That is a problem.
I have stated this for years -- because I have experienced it with a Jeep Wrangler when using 5w20 oil burner . When I switched to 5w30 and 5w40 oils no oil consumption . Been using 5w40 for over two years no problems . Thin oil is not good for engines it is good for cafe requirements .
I'm guessing CATERHAM has not seen this thread yet??!
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
Perhaps these cars are not being broken in correctly? Especially those with an automatic.
Maybe so.
There are those who advocate hard break-in running.
No OM I've ever seen sanctions this approach.
We've always broken our new cars in gently.
None of them have ever consumed enough oil to require adds between changes.
I just drained the FF on our newest car at 8702 miles.
It takes 0W-20.
I drained out about the amount of oil recommended for a fill.
The car was run quite gently for its first K or two, and was never redlined until it had reached 3K.
The K24 is not as smooth nor as refined as previous Honda fours we've owned, but it will never need a timing belt change and it is a lot stronger than the 2.3 VTEC '99 Accord we still have.
It even has some low end torque, something not evident in any of the six previous Honda fours we've had.
It also tows around this much heavier car using about the same amount of fuel as does our '99.
Perhaps these cars are not being broken in correctly? Especially those with an automatic.
Maybe so.
There are those who advocate hard break-in running.
No OM I've ever seen sanctions this approach.
We've always broken our new cars in gently.
None of them have ever consumed enough oil to require adds between changes.
I just drained the FF on our newest car at 8702 miles.
It takes 0W-20.
I drained out about the amount of oil recommended for a fill.
The car was run quite gently for its first K or two, and was never redlined until it had reached 3K.
The K24 is not as smooth nor as refined as previous Honda fours we've owned, but it will never need a timing belt change and it is a lot stronger than the 2.3 VTEC '99 Accord we still have.
It even has some low end torque, something not evident in any of the six previous Honda fours we've had.
It also tows around this much heavier car using about the same amount of fuel as does our '99.
Does anyone think it fair to say that different hone finishes require more or less urgent break in, before the abradable layer is glazed away, and that different types of oil affect the length or time and forces required to adequately seat rings in a manner that results in minimal to no oil consumption? Once the ring "shaping" remains inadequate and ceased to progress, then certain types of can be consumed faster than others. Does that about sum up our collective hypotheses?
Example, I doubt CR is babying their test vehicles, especially the Porsche, but CR may have acquired them after a tepid break-in. Just throwing stuff out there
Example, I doubt CR is babying their test vehicles, especially the Porsche, but CR may have acquired them after a tepid break-in. Just throwing stuff out there
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
Perhaps these cars are not being broken in correctly? Especially those with an automatic.
Maybe so.
There are those who advocate hard break-in running.
No OM I've ever seen sanctions this approach.
Interesting as my car's owners manual specifically states that full throttle operation is essential to proper engine break in.
People who understand how a piston ring actually works can see that combustion pressures are what force it out against the cylinder wall. Small throttle openings equal less pressure.
This is very platform specific, but MANY engines can derive actual benefits from a so-called 'hard' break in.
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
Perhaps these cars are not being broken in correctly? Especially those with an automatic.
Maybe so.
There are those who advocate hard break-in running.
No OM I've ever seen sanctions this approach.
Interesting as my car's owners manual specifically states that full throttle operation is essential to proper engine break in.
People who understand how a piston ring actually works can see that combustion pressures are what force it out against the cylinder wall. Small throttle openings equal less pressure.
This is very platform specific, but MANY engines can derive actual benefits from a so-called 'hard' break in.
Oil consumption on new cars is a relatively new phenomenon in Oz, the traditional time for engine work being a litre per 5,000km, and that was rare.
Holden played games with the 3.8, and people (stupidly) started emptying sumps between 10k km OCIs. They had to re-educate the public that "heavy" oil consumption was "normal", while increasing the sump size and modifying the dipstick so full was higher.
It's amazing that the OEMs state insane consumption as "normal", then push the adds out of oil to protect the cat with this "normal" level of oil passing through them...strangely not for 40s for the most part of history.
Holden played games with the 3.8, and people (stupidly) started emptying sumps between 10k km OCIs. They had to re-educate the public that "heavy" oil consumption was "normal", while increasing the sump size and modifying the dipstick so full was higher.
It's amazing that the OEMs state insane consumption as "normal", then push the adds out of oil to protect the cat with this "normal" level of oil passing through them...strangely not for 40s for the most part of history.
Quote:
This is very platform specific, but MANY engines can derive actual benefits from a so-called 'hard' break in.
I think so too. Some engines it simply doesn't make a difference. My 04 Ram with the 5.7 said something about breaking-in the engine by WOT.
Oil consumption has multiple causes.
This is very platform specific, but MANY engines can derive actual benefits from a so-called 'hard' break in.
I think so too. Some engines it simply doesn't make a difference. My 04 Ram with the 5.7 said something about breaking-in the engine by WOT.
Oil consumption has multiple causes.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Interesting as my car's owners manual specifically states that full throttle operation is essential to proper engine break in.
The Chrysler? Really??
Niiiice
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's amazing that the OEMs state insane consumption as "normal", then push the adds out of oil to protect the cat with this "normal" level of oil passing through them...strangely not for 40s for the most part of history.
100%! The OEMs' logic is just too brilliant isn't it?
Interesting as my car's owners manual specifically states that full throttle operation is essential to proper engine break in.
The Chrysler? Really??
Niiiice
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's amazing that the OEMs state insane consumption as "normal", then push the adds out of oil to protect the cat with this "normal" level of oil passing through them...strangely not for 40s for the most part of history.
100%! The OEMs' logic is just too brilliant isn't it?
I've always been told that the most critical aspect of breaking in rings and seating valves was to VARY the RPMs as much as possible the first couple of thousand miles of use. Never heard of WOT being a factor.
The big beneficiary of the 3 month/3000 mile change interval was the subsequent buyer of the car. The glory days of used car shopping are fading away fast.
A lot of people never check their oil. Armed with OLM's claiming all's well till 10,000 and suddenly you've got a public running vehicles low on oil that never would have run them low before.
What's better for your engine - 5 quarts of SG rated dino or 2 1/2 quarts of SN rated Mobil 1?
A lot of people never check their oil. Armed with OLM's claiming all's well till 10,000 and suddenly you've got a public running vehicles low on oil that never would have run them low before.
What's better for your engine - 5 quarts of SG rated dino or 2 1/2 quarts of SN rated Mobil 1?
I bought my first new car in 1967 and have bought around 15 new Fords, MoPars, GMs and Toyotas since. Most were driven well over 100,000 miles. None ever used oil and all were broken-in the way the owner's manuals specified. This included: vary your speed, frequent speed changes and fairly heavy acceleration, keep the RPMs down and do this for 500 to 1000 miles. (It's easier to do this with a manual transmission as the A/Ts keep wanting to downshift. At around 1000 miles, I'd change the oil and filter, then take a long trip, generally down a high-speed interstate, like I-10 between Kerrville and El Paso, where the speed limit is 80 MPH for well over 200 miles, driving at a steady 80. I felt the vehicle was then fairly well broken-in. How has this approach worked?
The oldest of our 4 vehicles is a 17 year old V6 Camry with 292,000 miles. I use 5W-40 synthetic and change oil and filter at 5000 to 8000 miles and it uses about a half-pint between changes. The engine and A/T are both original. I have not semi-retired this car and still drive all those West Texas and New Mexico/Colorado long trips in it at the top legal speeds...sometimes a tad bit above the limit.
I also use the oil viscosity that I deem proper for the temperature and the vehicle; ie...the Australia recommendations seem more realistic for the dusty, desert Southwestern USA where my family's vehicles operate than do the "esteemed" EPA regulations that Ford, Honda and recently Toyota seem to want to get us to use. I realize many folks use and like the 0 & 5W-20 oils and BITOG has given ample proof that their cars and pickups give good, long life with those viscosities, but they're just too thin for me. I like the smoothness, quietness and longevity that 5W-30 and 5W-40 (vehicle dependent) gives me.
The oldest of our 4 vehicles is a 17 year old V6 Camry with 292,000 miles. I use 5W-40 synthetic and change oil and filter at 5000 to 8000 miles and it uses about a half-pint between changes. The engine and A/T are both original. I have not semi-retired this car and still drive all those West Texas and New Mexico/Colorado long trips in it at the top legal speeds...sometimes a tad bit above the limit.
I also use the oil viscosity that I deem proper for the temperature and the vehicle; ie...the Australia recommendations seem more realistic for the dusty, desert Southwestern USA where my family's vehicles operate than do the "esteemed" EPA regulations that Ford, Honda and recently Toyota seem to want to get us to use. I realize many folks use and like the 0 & 5W-20 oils and BITOG has given ample proof that their cars and pickups give good, long life with those viscosities, but they're just too thin for me. I like the smoothness, quietness and longevity that 5W-30 and 5W-40 (vehicle dependent) gives me.
count me in on the gentle break in side--WOT break in is for 2 cycle engines
I have seen ChryCo owner's manuals which state brief WOT hastens break in------------------cars spewing blue spoke out the pipe are rare these days----next time you see one, I'll bet my last dollar it is a Chryco product
coincidence?
I have seen ChryCo owner's manuals which state brief WOT hastens break in------------------cars spewing blue spoke out the pipe are rare these days----next time you see one, I'll bet my last dollar it is a Chryco product
coincidence?
Most users are just clueless, I was getting the oil changed at my mechanic on my RDX & a guy drives in with his 2001 Honda Civic to get the oil changed as the Oil light came on, quote "last night". When the mechanic opened the drain plug, NOT a drop of oil drained out, it was totally empty. The owned did not had a clue as to when he changed the oil last time & he has owned the car for about 3.5 years.
Best part is, when the owner was told that the coolant is low & needs topping up, he took out a bottle of Castrol Dex/Mercon ATF from the trunk & asked the mechanic to top off the coolant as the coolant was red in color in the radiator & the fluid in the bottle was also red & that bottle came with the car when he purchased it.
So I don't know, as far as my personal experience, I have had several vehicles, purchased brand new & used, that I have owned since mid 80's mostly Japanese but never had any oil consumption issues. I will actually be a little freaked out if any of my cars were burning a liter every 1000km.
Best part is, when the owner was told that the coolant is low & needs topping up, he took out a bottle of Castrol Dex/Mercon ATF from the trunk & asked the mechanic to top off the coolant as the coolant was red in color in the radiator & the fluid in the bottle was also red & that bottle came with the car when he purchased it.
So I don't know, as far as my personal experience, I have had several vehicles, purchased brand new & used, that I have owned since mid 80's mostly Japanese but never had any oil consumption issues. I will actually be a little freaked out if any of my cars were burning a liter every 1000km.
Last edited:
My suzuki had 160k when I bought it...and it had sludge on the dipstick.
A bunch of oil changes later and it Burns a little on startup and I add a quart every 1000 miles or so.
Keep in mind this is a tiny suv made for the third world toting 600lbs around plus bigger tires and running 3-6500 rpm on average.
The fact that it runs and hauls the tires as well as it does at 195k miles, is dead nuts reliable, and gets 23-25mpg is more meaningful to me than adding a little oil.
Had a guy in a newer Jeep with the joke of a 3.8l make a crack the other day because I had my Hood up at the pump and was checking oil. Something To the effect of "If you had a Jeep you wouldn't need to check the oil." After I added a little oil, closed the Hood and noted that I filled up for 25$ I pointed out... if he had a 20 year old zuke he wouldn't have to take out a loan to fill the tank and would be done already. I could have pointed out that the 3.8 will begin to use more oil than fuel later in its life, but I didn't feel like razzing a friend even more.
My next car will be a gs or ls460l... and as a Toyota v8 it will burn half to a full quart per OCI.. perfectly acceptable as the only flaw if you ask me.
A bunch of oil changes later and it Burns a little on startup and I add a quart every 1000 miles or so.
Keep in mind this is a tiny suv made for the third world toting 600lbs around plus bigger tires and running 3-6500 rpm on average.
The fact that it runs and hauls the tires as well as it does at 195k miles, is dead nuts reliable, and gets 23-25mpg is more meaningful to me than adding a little oil.
Had a guy in a newer Jeep with the joke of a 3.8l make a crack the other day because I had my Hood up at the pump and was checking oil. Something To the effect of "If you had a Jeep you wouldn't need to check the oil." After I added a little oil, closed the Hood and noted that I filled up for 25$ I pointed out... if he had a 20 year old zuke he wouldn't have to take out a loan to fill the tank and would be done already. I could have pointed out that the 3.8 will begin to use more oil than fuel later in its life, but I didn't feel like razzing a friend even more.
My next car will be a gs or ls460l... and as a Toyota v8 it will burn half to a full quart per OCI.. perfectly acceptable as the only flaw if you ask me.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
Perhaps these cars are not being broken in correctly? Especially those with an automatic.
Maybe so.
There are those who advocate hard break-in running.
No OM I've ever seen sanctions this approach.
Interesting as my car's owners manual specifically states that full throttle operation is essential to proper engine break in.
People who understand how a piston ring actually works can see that combustion pressures are what force it out against the cylinder wall. Small throttle openings equal less pressure.
This is very platform specific, but MANY engines can derive actual benefits from a so-called 'hard' break in.
At Cummins, the break-in procedure for production engines was to get the engines up to full power within 20 minutes of first start. Our cylinder kit guru said that if full power didn't occur within that time, the liners would glaze, and the rings wouldn't break-in, with high blowby and oil consumption being the result.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
Perhaps these cars are not being broken in correctly? Especially those with an automatic.
Maybe so.
There are those who advocate hard break-in running.
No OM I've ever seen sanctions this approach.
Interesting as my car's owners manual specifically states that full throttle operation is essential to proper engine break in.
People who understand how a piston ring actually works can see that combustion pressures are what force it out against the cylinder wall. Small throttle openings equal less pressure.
This is very platform specific, but MANY engines can derive actual benefits from a so-called 'hard' break in.
At Cummins, the break-in procedure for production engines was to get the engines up to full power within 20 minutes of first start. Our cylinder kit guru said that if full power didn't occur within that time, the liners would glaze, and the rings wouldn't break-in, with high blowby and oil consumption being the result.
My MK4 Jetta is notorious for oil consumption. This is due to inverted piston rings from the factory. One qt per 1k miles was supposed to be acceptable. I accepted that so I check my oil every 500 miles.
I do have blowby from the oil fill cap dancing up and down when open. But, the engine is strong and the 2.slow seems to like 70mph at 3,200 rpm flat or uphill. I do have a 5 speed though so gearing helps.
The least amount of oil consumption for this engine was from WPP Supertech 10W-40 as in 0 qt per 1k miles. PYB of same grade went through a qt per 1k miles, and Mag1 5W-40 is going a qt also. Since I've been topping up with M1 0W-40, it has gone down half a qt. Next OCI will be just M1 to see if it further reduces it.
I think also that lower rpm operations could actually result in more oil consumption than higher rpm. This may be due to the piston rings not getting enough pressure at low rpms for it to expand and reduce blowby. Just a test, put you palm over the oil fill cap - don't cover it - and see how much blowby there is at low rpm vs high.
I do have blowby from the oil fill cap dancing up and down when open. But, the engine is strong and the 2.slow seems to like 70mph at 3,200 rpm flat or uphill. I do have a 5 speed though so gearing helps.
The least amount of oil consumption for this engine was from WPP Supertech 10W-40 as in 0 qt per 1k miles. PYB of same grade went through a qt per 1k miles, and Mag1 5W-40 is going a qt also. Since I've been topping up with M1 0W-40, it has gone down half a qt. Next OCI will be just M1 to see if it further reduces it.
I think also that lower rpm operations could actually result in more oil consumption than higher rpm. This may be due to the piston rings not getting enough pressure at low rpms for it to expand and reduce blowby. Just a test, put you palm over the oil fill cap - don't cover it - and see how much blowby there is at low rpm vs high.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
