2012 Honda Accord V6 M1 0w20 5,000 miles

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Schmoe
Seen nothing on the lock-n-stitch inserts.


Well now you have
smile.gif


Quote:
I know they would not allow helicoils...that's what they called them...in the early 01 and 02.


They still say no to helicoils because there's nothing to hold them in. They'll often back out with the plugs, and there isn't much for them to dig into and so they often blow-out too. They aren't a good repair for this issue.

Quote:
Back then, and plently of other Ford brethren had this same problem early on, they only told the owners full head replacement, about that time, timesert came out.


Yup, I remember that too. The timesert and the lock-n-stitch have a few traits in common.

Quote:
I remember there was a guy on the internet that would set up a date and time that would basically travel all over the US putting these in. He'd fly out to various cities and do a bunch, then fly to another city, etc. etc. That was around mid 2000's or so. There were so many complaints that Uncle Sam got involved and that's about where I dropped off from following.


Yeah, I remember seeing posts about that on the fordtrucks forum, LOL
smile.gif


Quote:
One thing I have summized is a lot of owners claim to hear a ticking sound prior to the plugs blowing out.


Yes, that's exactly what happens. It sounds like an exhaust leak. I thought it was my cracked manifold. It wasn't.

Quote:
I've been lucky with my truck, no blown plugs or tell tale ticking...but got to me honest, everytime I crank it up or drive on a long trip, I'm crossing my fingers. You say number 8 blew out....most have been number 4, furtherest back on passenger side and with Expedition, been some information that condensation drips right on top of that plug on that particular model by the way it was designed and that helped the plug start backing out.


Sorry, it was #4, I had a Chevy firing order moment there for a second, LOL! last plug on the passenger side underneath the rear heat and A/C lines. It is also the worst plug to change on the engine, which I think may be a contributing factor, as it is very difficult to get the torque wrench or any wrench in there really. And you have a million feet of extensions, LOL!
grin.gif
 
Is there something to look for in a UOA to see when sludge is gradually building up in an engine and there's no coolant leak or fuel dilution tagged in the report?
 
Maybe; maybe not. Here are some things that would likely be unique:
- engine family
- specific condition of failure (coked rings, sludge in valvetrain, etc)
- specific lube used
- external contributors (driving style, duration of engine run time, etc ...)

You can look at insolubles or ox and nitration (lab dependent) but those are not an assurance. Each lube will have a different starting point for ox and nitration, so you'd have to know the VOA data as well as macro UOA data.

In the examples of the SL2 engines, the coking of the piston rings was localized, and the rest of the engine seemed fine. So the insolubles were not grossly out of range; there was no marker in "sludge" as we could recognize it. There was, as I already mentioned, a marker discovered in the oil consumption in macro UOA data. But there was nothing in micro UOA data to alert of the onset. The value of UOAs here was in other people's UOAs, not the individual UOA of one engine. The mass market response showed CLEAR delineation of oil consumption at certain exposure durations. In the SL2 engine, you'd be better off using conventional lubes and changing oil frequently, because it can be PROVEN where the onset starts (4k miles). Because there was not enough data for synthetic lubes, the OCI duration was a total swag in regard to PU. Why guess at a synthetic OCI when you can know the exact OCI for conventional oil, with proof beyond any shadow of doubt?

Additionally, not only does one need to know WHAT happens, but WHY it happens. Which conditions contribute to the onset of the problem? What conditions don't contribute? So, it seems the 3.5L engine here is prone to sludge? Fine, but when? What sets it up? Does it only happen to vehicles that experience long sustained drives where the heads get too hot? Does it happen only when short-hop driving occurs when oil never gets up to temp, but pools in the wrong place? Etc, etc ... Does this happen to every single 3.5L Honda engine out there? I doubt it! Rather, there are likely some contributing conditions that are unique, and must be paired up with other inputs (lube selection, OCI duration, environmental issues, etc). Under the right conditions, some engines may have a propensity to sludge, but not all.

Further, do we know with certainty that it's never happened in an engine that uses syns? Or, has that data not yet come to light? ANY LUBE can be used too long. So it's not a question of IF it would happen to a syn, but WHEN might it happen to a syn. It's the same question as to when it may happen to a dino lube, but perhaps with a different answer. As of now, I've seen not one person step forward with the "Ah-HA!" indicator proving beyond any doubt that they KNOW how to indentify it. You cannot avoid something you cannot predict, and you cannot predict something you cannot identify. Get it?

In this UOA, I see nothing out of the ordinary. But it's a snapshot and we all recognize that. I have not researched the data for the 3.5L for a marker, but this UOA seems completely in line with UAs. Meaning, the syn did nothing out of the ordinary at 5k miles. While entirely possible that syn is the right choice at 5k miles, there is no data to substantiate it, that I have yet to see. Which is why I have repeatedly asked the OP what markers he has discovered, if any at all, indicating he can correctly identify the onset of the condition he's trying to avoid. And, is that marker identifiable in micro UOA data, or macro UOA data, if at all?

The UOA here shows everything is fine. Or is it? Do we KNOW that the marker exists in the UOA data? If not, then how can one praise a lube and OCI as the correct choice if the indicator isn't even present? And, if the marker does not exist in the UOA micro data, then why pay for the UOA? Until someone discovers a marker that correctly identifies the onset, we can't make accurate, reliable predictions of OCI duration; it's all a swag until then.

Kind of my entire point, which seems to be lost on just about everyone ...
 
Last edited:
About all of my Honda's called for 0-20....just couldn't do it...used and still use 5W-20...but then again I "normally" don't have to worry about low start up temperatures.
 
can someone elaborate on what Honda engines/Yrs are having this issue mentioned above.
Also- VCM = ?

Just curious since owners bow to their Hondas and Toyotas.
 
Variable Cylinder Management

I believe pre 2013 Accords V6 could run on 6, 4 or 3 cylinders depending on load.
2013 and newer run on 6 or 3 cylinders.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong on the number of cylinders.
 
Originally Posted By: Chris B.
Originally Posted By: Zaedock
Nice report, but why would you run Mobil 1 to only 5K? Any conventional could do the same thing.


The Honda V6 VCM is known to be very hard on oil and following the MM is considered to be bad advice. Plus 5k is a safe OCI for this engine easy to remember and oil is very cheap!


Not at all true...but you have to do what you feel good about.
 
The engine is hard on oil under certain conditions. Those conditions are well documented up to and including a class action lawsuit.
 
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
The engine is hard on oil under certain conditions. Those conditions are well documented up to and including a class action lawsuit.


I added the bold, as this is a very telling non-admission style admission from Honda USA. Yes, the settlement has not been made final yet, but it eventually will and we will all have extended warranties for these oil consumption issues.
 
dnewton3 -

I know what point you are trying to make, which I agree with. But you also throw ROI into your argument, and that is where my thoughts deviate from yours.

What type of ROI can a single individual expect in this situation? Let's say that I decide to pony up the cash to do a full blown study on my new Odyssey exploring the maximum OCI for HGMO 0W-20. I'm just ballparking, but could it possibly cost me somewhere in the $5k range if I take it out to 150k miles, which I think is the generally accepted engineered life on a vehicle drivetrain?

Now, let's say that the maximum OCI was determined to be 7.5k miles per my study. That's just over 13 OCs vs 20 if I just arbitraily chose to go with 5k intervals. My local dealer charges $50 for the OC, so the difference would be $350 over the 150k mile study. Even if my study cost me $500, the ROI is still in the negative.

Even if there were only a few forum documented cases of VCM harming an engine at MM intervals, and even if then there was no class action lawsuit, I still see it as at least prudent to protect my $40k van by spending an additional $200 over its life (because I buy oils at reduced prices and do the work myself) to greatly reduce the likelyhood of my particular vehicle experiencing any problems.

It's not always about the science behind the principle, but very often it's the actual cash outlays in real life that determine the pallatable interval. And this is coming from an accountant that's also infatuated with the science behind the testing and sampling process. If money was no object to me, I wouldn't hesitate to be the guinea pig to put this to the test as I would have so much fun doing it.
 
I don't disagree with all that you have pointed out. ROI has to be of merit in the over all plan. I get that. But just using a product (any product) as a swag is just that and nothing more. How does the OP know, for sure, that 5k miles isn't too far, even for M1? How does anyone protect an investment, if zero markers are defined and met? You either know, or guess; there is no in-between.

What I contend is that data is out there, if you seek it. From what I've seen, macro data is much more useful that micro data in cases like this. One may not need pay for a UOA, but gather data from others and look for markers.

The other thing that often bugs me, and I call out with regularity, is when folks praise something, but cannot offer any clarification as to why they do so, other than to mimic marketing hype and internet mythology.

So the OP likes his M1; fine by me. But don't claim it's doing a great job, when you cannot define what that means relative to the concern you have. If it's sludge you fear, how does this UOA show it's being kept at bay? If M1 is doing such a great job, then show me the marker that convinces one of that fact. Don't brag on a UOA, or a fluid, and then not be able to articulately describe WHY you believe it to be so. Don't claim to use a product to avoid a problem, and then not be able to define how you track the onset and monitor it.

That's all I ask for; if you make a claim (whomever "you" may be in any given thread) be prepared to back it up with facts. Otherwise, just admit it's an opinion only, based upon emotion, and move on.

If someone said to me "Dave - I cannot prove it; I just like it; it makes me happy to satisfy an emotion ...", how can I argue with that?
 
But what I think the purpose of the UOA from the OP was to say nothing more than "Yep, it looked to do the job at the OCI I chose" and nothing more. Meaning that everything looked normal on the report for the OCI. Next time maybe he extends it out a little further and see what it does to the numbers...or keep it the same and see if the numbers stay the same...or never run another report since he see's his metals trending down.
 
Originally Posted By: Autodarken
Originally Posted By: Chris B.
Originally Posted By: Zaedock
Nice report, but why would you run Mobil 1 to only 5K? Any conventional could do the same thing.


The Honda V6 VCM is known to be very hard on oil and following the MM is considered to be bad advice. Plus 5k is a safe OCI for this engine easy to remember and oil is very cheap!


Not at all true...but you have to do what you feel good about.


Really? Guess you don't spend much time on here or other car forums. VCM problems and this engine being hard on oil is well documented.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I don't disagree with all that you have pointed out. ROI has to be of merit in the over all plan. I get that. But just using a product (any product) as a swag is just that and nothing more. How does the OP know, for sure, that 5k miles isn't too far, even for M1? How does anyone protect an investment, if zero markers are defined and met? You either know, or guess; there is no in-between.

What I contend is that data is out there, if you seek it. From what I've seen, macro data is much more useful that micro data in cases like this. One may not need pay for a UOA, but gather data from others and look for markers.

The other thing that often bugs me, and I call out with regularity, is when folks praise something, but cannot offer any clarification as to why they do so, other than to mimic marketing hype and internet mythology.

So the OP likes his M1; fine by me. But don't claim it's doing a great job, when you cannot define what that means relative to the concern you have. If it's sludge you fear, how does this UOA show it's being kept at bay? If M1 is doing such a great job, then show me the marker that convinces one of that fact. Don't brag on a UOA, or a fluid, and then not be able to articulately describe WHY you believe it to be so. Don't claim to use a product to avoid a problem, and then not be able to define how you track the onset and monitor it.

That's all I ask for; if you make a claim (whomever "you" may be in any given thread) be prepared to back it up with facts. Otherwise, just admit it's an opinion only, based upon emotion, and move on.

If someone said to me "Dave - I cannot prove it; I just like it; it makes me happy to satisfy an emotion ...", how can I argue with that?


Like I said before and it is a fact that these engines don't do well on conventional oil going by the MM because it takes 7,000 miles at a minimum for the MM to hit 15%. The oil sludges by then and starts the build up. This is not my opinion and is well documented. My UOA shows steady wear trending down and low insolubles. I have a scope and can see pretty deep through the fill hole and it is spotless in this engine with no sign of sludge or oil problems. So yes, M1 is doing a good job and this is fact not some made up "emotion" to make me feel better.
Now any full syn will work at 5,000 miles. There are reports(lots of them) where folks are having problem even with full syn going by the MM. Not one report that I can find where owners had problems using a 5,000 mile OCI. Some where between 5k and 7k is where this engine starts to have problems based on what owners are reporting.
This is not made up feel good [censored] like you are claiming. It is real world findings and the best evidence we have on what is best for these VCM engines. Sorry this is not in the form you want but is doesn't change the above facts and it is what it is.
 
Originally Posted By: Chris B.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I don't disagree with all that you have pointed out. ROI has to be of merit in the over all plan. I get that. But just using a product (any product) as a swag is just that and nothing more. How does the OP know, for sure, that 5k miles isn't too far, even for M1? How does anyone protect an investment, if zero markers are defined and met? You either know, or guess; there is no in-between.

What I contend is that data is out there, if you seek it. From what I've seen, macro data is much more useful that micro data in cases like this. One may not need pay for a UOA, but gather data from others and look for markers.

The other thing that often bugs me, and I call out with regularity, is when folks praise something, but cannot offer any clarification as to why they do so, other than to mimic marketing hype and internet mythology.

So the OP likes his M1; fine by me. But don't claim it's doing a great job, when you cannot define what that means relative to the concern you have. If it's sludge you fear, how does this UOA show it's being kept at bay? If M1 is doing such a great job, then show me the marker that convinces one of that fact. Don't brag on a UOA, or a fluid, and then not be able to articulately describe WHY you believe it to be so. Don't claim to use a product to avoid a problem, and then not be able to define how you track the onset and monitor it.

That's all I ask for; if you make a claim (whomever "you" may be in any given thread) be prepared to back it up with facts. Otherwise, just admit it's an opinion only, based upon emotion, and move on.

If someone said to me "Dave - I cannot prove it; I just like it; it makes me happy to satisfy an emotion ...", how can I argue with that?


Like I said before and it is a fact that these engines don't do well on conventional oil going by the MM because it takes 7,000 miles at a minimum for the MM to hit 15%. The oil sludges by then and starts the build up. This is not my opinion and is well documented. My UOA shows steady wear trending down and low insolubles. I have a scope and can see pretty deep through the fill hole and it is spotless in this engine with no sign of sludge or oil problems. So yes, M1 is doing a good job and this is fact not some made up "emotion" to make me feel better.
Now any full syn will work at 5,000 miles. There are reports(lots of them) where folks are having problem even with full syn going by the MM. Not one report that I can find where owners had problems using a 5,000 mile OCI. Some where between 5k and 7k is where this engine starts to have problems based on what owners are reporting.
This is not made up feel good [censored] like you are claiming. It is real world findings and the best evidence we have on what is best for these VCM engines. Sorry this is not in the form you want but is doesn't change the above facts and it is what it is.


01.gif
Well said Chris!
 
Originally Posted By: MikeySoft
Variable Cylinder Management

I believe pre 2013 Accords V6 could run on 6, 4 or 3 cylinders depending on load.
2013 and newer run on 6 or 3 cylinders.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong on the number of cylinders.


The older 3.5 iVTEC ones ran on 6 or 3 thats what causes the sludge/deposit/varnish issues.
The 08 IIRC and later had ring problems.

This is from an 05 with verified 7500 mi OCI with synthetic.

SAM_0102.jpg


Front head (looking directly at engine from the front) the one that does all the work when VCM is active.

SAM_0120.jpg


The rear head with the VCM mechanism, it doesn't get as hot but varnish sticks everything.

SAM_0063.jpg


The valve that operates the VCM, oil pressure controlled and stuck with varnish.

SAM_0068.jpg


The oil filter pad which has a direct feed to the VCM

SAM_0077.jpg


Oil pan
 
So would Dave rather have you use dino, take it to 10k, get some uoa's to prove the oil is shot,
then have you use m1 to 10k. when it show signs of sludging he will say, well now you know,
because oil that looks like dried tar isn't necessarily bad, what's the standard deviation of xyz wear element? if you dont know the exact numbers for each element.....blah blah blah

I'll admit that "massive waste“ statement had me laughing harder than I have in weeks

What do you say when cleaning out your oil drain pan? oh beep this is massive waste I should get a uoa on this,maybe 50 to establish trends of how much dust gets blown into the pan between oil changes,

serious question though Dave.. if all that matters is wear do you get UOA's on your lawn mower, snowblower, etc,

What if someone puts m1 in their push mower ... without UOA... gasp! massive waste!
I personally put leftovers in my mower of whatever drops are leftover from random oil changes. do I have a uoa? no. this is of course unacceptable to you I'm sure but really with this rambling post I want one honest answer....

Why do you have to be so rude and condescending to Chris for simply posting some background info and UOA info about his car? Judging by your other posts which are typically very similar... You THRIVE on this sort of bull. Making people feel like idiots for doing something that they believe is the best thing for their car...? So when you succeed in shutting everyone up, when will you be able to post your seething massive waste garbage?

Chris thanks for posting this about your car, it was informative for me and I'm sure for many here, obviously Dave knows everything , since that's the case Mb he should just stick to writing articles on normalcy?
 
Wow....those pictures are horrid.....I got a V6 on the accord...glad it's not VCM...however....probably gearing up to buy another one next year and this subject will surely be on my mind. Will it make me chose something other than a Honda? No, but I'll probably change my 12K OCI and change it out sooner. GREAT INFORMATION...sure looks like in those pictures that the oil got fried.
 
Thats the point they stop running on all cylinders. The day before that engine was running fine on all 6, it fell into eco mode and wouldn't come out of it.
My question is how would a UOA indicate this?

This is how it looked after cleaning, it runs great and staying clean on 5K synthetic OCI.

SAM_0106.jpg


SAM_0133.jpg


SAM_0176.jpg


SAM_0173.jpg


SAM_0076.jpg
 
So, ChrisB, you say wear is trending down. Fine. The engine looks good inside. Fine. Are you indicating that these tools (UOAs and physical observations) cannot be applied to conventional lubes?

Further, I must presume by now you have zero idea of what markers may indicate the onset of the issue; you have repeatedly sidestepped any affirmation of such.

Here's where it matters; it's in the ROI math.

If syn can take you to 5k miles, and dino could take you to the same condition at 4k miles, it's simply cheaper to OCI more often with dino than syn. Granted, those are values that are SWAG'd, but that does not seem to bother you anyway.

You have no idea how to quanitify the OCI; you repeatedly insist on some arbitrary value being good for syn, but have no idea whatsoever what value may be good for dino. You say that wear metals and observations are proof that 5k miles is OK for syn; can you not apply that same system to dino and gander at the results?

Naw - you're a dead set syn junkie. I should know; I was one once upon a time, too. But then I learned how to anayze and interpret, and leave hype and rhetoric in the past.

Now, I am NOT saying that syns are a bad choice here. I'm saying you have no idea how to judge the relative performance of one lube to another, and intead apply your logic in a one-sided formula.

Either the UOA can predict the onset, or it cannot. If it can, you should be able to use that tool to find the limit for any type lube. Then, apply cost analysis to see which is cheaper to assure that level of desired protection. If the UOA cannot prove out the onset condition, they you're grasping at theortical straws.

But instead, you insist on a one-way calcuation, where syn is presumed a winner not because you can prove it, but because you want it.

I am not denying that the engine family may have an issue. I'll accept that as a "known". What I don't see any evidence of is that you have any ability to accurately predict an OCI for ANY lube; you've not shown anything but a guess. And you won't even apply that same courtesy of a guess to an alternative.

Your UOA shows that the syn did nothing statistically significant. No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, that's a fact you cannot change. Your use of the UOA is that of a toy, not a tool; not unlike a LARGE contingent of other BITOGers.

Not a problem; I wish you the best. Have a good weekend.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top