GM to reprogram OLM's to reduce wear!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting.

Do we have any BITOGers here with the cars mentioned in this article? 2010-2012 Chevrolet Equinox, GMC Terrain and Buick LaCrosse and Regal models with 2.4-liter LAF and LEA four-cylinder engines.

If we do, what kind of OCI was the OLM suggesting for you, ie. how many miles could you go before it dropped to 15%? And how big is the oil sump on these engines? Does it require Dexos1?
 
A computer cannot replace common sense. Glad to see this as a step in the right direction.
 
More proof that the 5000 miles OCI is optimal. When a giant like GM makes this kind of change after touting their OLM it is based on mathematical analysis.
 
Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
A computer cannot replace common sense. Glad to see this as a step in the right direction.


Yes and why I'm glad I ignore mine, and will continue to do so.

27.gif
 
Originally Posted By: DevilsRule
These engines use direct injection.



Bingo. There's the money winner right there. Most older GM engines were absolutely fine on the OLM with the prescribed oil. Obviously GM underestimated the negative effect that the direct injection technology would have on oil life and resulting component wear. At least they're limiting the damage at this point.
 
I agree 100% and once they started realizing it was costing them money they acted. This trying to make it seem less money for up keep is marketing insanity.
cool.gif

Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
A computer cannot replace common sense. Glad to see this as a step in the right direction.
 
Originally Posted By: Doog
More proof that the 5000 miles OCI is optimal. When a giant like GM makes this kind of change after touting their OLM it is based on mathematical analysis.

Current GM OLM is based on a complex algorithm, and even the updated one still will be. It'll just be more conservative, but it won't just blindly say to change it every 5000 miles, or at least that's not what the article said.

5000 miles may not always be optimal either.
 
Originally Posted By: typ901
I thought GM released the Dexos 1 standard to compensate for DI engines? Am I mistaken?

I'm not sure there is anything in Dexos1 that would combat DI issues.
 
Originally Posted By: DevilsRule
These engines use direct injection.

OK, but so is the 1.4 turbo in cars like Chevy Cruze, yet Cruze isn't part of this service action.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Doog
More proof that the 5000 miles OCI is optimal. When a giant like GM makes this kind of change after touting their OLM it is based on mathematical analysis.

Current GM OLM is based on a complex algorithm, and even the updated one still will be. It'll just be more conservative, but it won't just blindly say to change it every 5000 miles, or at least that's not what the article said.

5000 miles may not always be optimal either.



Exactly. The GM OLM can trigger an oil change a lot sooner than 5000 miles if its needed. In my good old 2001 Venture that I still use for towing trailers, my mother used to use it daily to drive a couple of miles to work and back 4 times a day. The OLM often triggered an oil change around 3500-4000 miles depending on temp. When I use it more on the highway, it gives me a lot more room between changes (6500-7000 miles even with towing and some short trip city runs).
 
This is a specific issue with the DI motors, we all know about them. It would seem that timing chains may not be the best thing since sliced bread for all those belt haters! I despise balance shafts as that's like taking one med and then needing another for side effects!

Kudos to the General for acting instead of just trying to ignore it.

BTW, our oldest fleet truck is being sold with just short of half a MILLION miles with each and every oil change done exactly as per the OLM since purchased new in 2004!

That GM OLM sure stinks. Imagine how long that van would have lasted if I'd just changed the oil every weekend!
 
Originally Posted By: Doog
More proof that the 5000 miles OCI is optimal. When a giant like GM makes this kind of change after touting their OLM it is based on mathematical analysis.


In no way does the linked article support that patently false claim. Did you read it?

It may be optimal in your opinion but the facts (and common sense) do not support that in any way.
 
in my search for a new car, DI was the one thing I avoided like the plague. Glad I did.

Thanks BITOC
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: walk23
in my search for a new car, DI was the one thing I avoided like the plague. Glad I did.


Before long, all of the cars are going to be DI
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top