CR Reveals the "Thirsty Thirty" Oil Burners

Status
Not open for further replies.
Off Topic- I think you are right Toyota's fame was earned in the 1980's especially but it was deserved.

They have slipped a lot. That said they still build the most durable dependable and long lasting power-trains in the industry. Dollar for dollar no one matches their V8's especially for durability and low maintenance cost.

The domestic brands have really stepped up their game in the last 15 years all around. They have closed that gap. Toyota, Daimler, BMW have all slipped while the companies like GM, Ford, Kia have all improved.

I think just like UOA quality and durability is about long term trending of data not year to yea spikes and such!
 
Originally Posted By: JFK

I do not think GM makes a V8 or V6 that does not drink oil. My wife has owned nothing but GM vehicles and all of them have had high oil usage. Gentle on oil sure but always consume more then they should.I think she has owned every V6 GM makes at some point except the latest high content V6 not sure if that is the right term.



My 2005 Silverado with 5.3 V8 used very little. On the average 8k OCI using the OLM it would use between 0-1 quarts depending on brand. My 1984 Scottsdale with a 5.0 V8 also used basically no oil between oil changes (3k OCI's). So I can say from my two I have owned in the past, consumption was not an issue with two different generation GM V8 engines.

Given the history of CR bashing on GM over the years, the fact that they don't mention them when they certainly tells you it isn't a widespread issue.
 
I don't understand how an engine doesn't consume some. If you have the ring riding on an oil film and that film is exposed to combustion, how is the oil film not combusted. Its unbelieveable you guys have spent so much time here and still have not thought about that.

But don't let me stop you guys from bragging about how awesome your engine is.
 
Has anyone thought that some of these cars may not actually be burning oil due to bypass of the rings, but instead the PCV system is a 'thirsty' one. i.e. due to it's possible poor design, it allows excessive amounts of vaporised oil to escape via the PCV system where its just burnt?

For anyone worried about excessive burn, install an effective catch can and see if its just escaping via that system. If this is the case, theres an easy fix.
 
I have a 550i BMW...if you're burning oil with the N62 engine, it is time for new valve stem seals which is a common failure point on these engines if they have over 100,000 miles.

As for the N63, twin turbo V8...that thing has other problems aside from burning oil. I do know that the valve stem seals were the same between the two engines up until recently when BMW updated the seal to handle the higher heat generated by the twin turbo'ed mill. If the seals were going on the NA N62, imagine what the heat generated by two turbos in the engines Valley would do to those seals.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
On a car with a 10,000 mile change interval, a quart between changes is insignificant.

Also, CR posits:

Quote:
Consumer Reports believes that any engine that burns oil between changes should be repaired under the powertrain warranty. But automakers often shield themselves in the fine print of their owners’ manuals.


Which means they clearly lack any idea as to how an internal combustion engine operates. ALL engines burn oil. HOW MUCH is the issue.

Example from the article:

Quote:
Shelly Shugars, a training director from Tivoli, N.Y., bought a new 2012 Subaru Impreza Sport hatchback and had her first oil change done on schedule when it hit its first 3,000 miles. But since that oil change, she says she has been adding a quart of oil every 800 to 1,000 miles.


On a 3,000 mile interval, a quart between changes is significant. On a 7,500 or 10,000 mile interval, it isn't. I doubt it is a coincidence that the cars with the longest OCI length happen to also dominate the chart indicating % of vehicles needing at least a quart of oil added between changes.

And this statement from the article is also telling:

Quote:
Some consumers we followed up with told us they would not have bought their oil-burning cars had they known they would be checking their oil so often. A recent CR national survey of 542 American owners of a 2000 to 2016 model-year vehicle showed that 39 percent either never check their oil or only have it checked when taken in for service.


Given this statistic, if the car doesn't have a low oil level indicator, these people would never know their car was low on oil. Living in ignorant bliss that their car is not burning anything. Which begs the question how many of the cars not shown in the chart are simply absent because they lack an oil level sensor?


Yes they need to normalize the data. As you say, the German vehicles likely have 10k+ mile intervals while other vehicles have potentially smaller intervals.

And it would be good to know how they gathered the information.

But with regards to your Subaru quote, she did say 1 quart every 800-1000 miles not per 3000 mile oil change interval.

And I think we have to agree that BMW and Audi saying a quart every 600 miles is reasonable is crazy!
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

Given this statistic, if the car doesn't have a low oil level indicator, these people would never know their car was low on oil. Living in ignorant bliss that their car is not burning anything. Which begs the question how many of the cars not shown in the chart are simply absent because they lack an oil level sensor?


While I do not agree with your limits and mileages for oil consumption I heartily agree that CR has likely published more garbage data. If a high percentage of motorists never check anything what can we say about this? Only that we know very little...
 
Holden had the V-6 available in Oz for ages, then upgraded it to the low tension ring design L36.
http://australiancar.reviews/holden_L36.php

Australians had never before experienced an engine that could empty the sump between services (1qt/3,000 miles had a rebuild being scheduled), and broke more than a few engines.

Holden first put a shorter dipstick in, to give another litre of consumption during the service interval, and then changed the sump.
 
Originally Posted By: JFK
My understanding is that Toyota has a few now and they are not on the list.

I do not think GM makes a V8 or V6 that does not drink oil. My wife has owned nothing but GM vehicles and all of them have had high oil usage. Gentle on oil sure but always consume more then they should.I think she has owned every V6 GM makes at some point except the latest high content V6 not sure if that is the right term.

So with Toyota's rather recent I4 oil consumption issues and GM's V6 and V8 consumption issues seems odd to me that neither of them are on the list???

So these other players on the list must either have out of sight issues or their is sever bias in CR's self reporting.


I've owned 5 GM V8's since 1999, including 3 5.3's and 2 6.0's, and NONE of them used any oil at all, even on extended OCI's approaching 9k miles.

In fact, I've not had a single oil user among all the vehicles I've owned until....My current 08 Jeep Wrangler 3.8. This is an oil eater to the tune of up to 1 quart every 1k miles. Strangely, it isn't consistent. I just did a 600 mile stint where it didn't use any at all. Hmmm.

Anyway, I'm shocked the Jeep/Chrysler 3.8 isn't on here. Most people I know with this engine deal with the high consumption. Only one guy I know hasn't had it in his two Jeeps, but his current 2010 only has 25k on it. Mine didn't start using oil until 40k.

OVerall, it appears oil consumption may actually be more normal than we all thought? Also, I don't buy the thin oil hypothesis. I ran M1 0w40 in my Jeep and hit had only a slightly positive effect, hit or miss.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow


Holden first put a shorter dipstick in, to give another litre of consumption during the service interval.


Oh the horror. Didn't you say that will froth up all the oil? Yes I remember having a long argument with you about that.
 
Originally Posted By: Benito


But with regards to your Subaru quote, she did say 1 quart every 800-1000 miles not per 3000 mile oil change interval.

And I think we have to agree that BMW and Audi saying a quart every 600 miles is reasonable is crazy!


I should probably have clarified that bit, as the Subaru was noted as having a factory OCI length of 3,000 miles (which was what I was referencing), whilst her car had higher consumption, even if it burned a quart per the manufacturer's OCI, we are still talking a quart in 3,000 miles vs the OCI length of the German marques.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

Given this statistic, if the car doesn't have a low oil level indicator, these people would never know their car was low on oil. Living in ignorant bliss that their car is not burning anything. Which begs the question how many of the cars not shown in the chart are simply absent because they lack an oil level sensor?


While I do not agree with your limits and mileages for oil consumption I heartily agree that CR has likely published more garbage data. If a high percentage of motorists never check anything what can we say about this? Only that we know very little...


Curious as to what parts you don't agree with Steve, I'd love to discuss
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

Given this statistic, if the car doesn't have a low oil level indicator, these people would never know their car was low on oil. Living in ignorant bliss that their car is not burning anything. Which begs the question how many of the cars not shown in the chart are simply absent because they lack an oil level sensor?


While I do not agree with your limits and mileages for oil consumption I heartily agree that CR has likely published more garbage data. If a high percentage of motorists never check anything what can we say about this? Only that we know very little...




Curious as to what parts you don't agree with Steve, I'd love to discuss
smile.gif



Always my pleasure! I grew up in the days when my big block Chevelle was allowed to use up to one quart per 500 miles and considered normal. Curiously, it only burned a bit with certain brands, and never more than a quart in 3k which was my OCI.

I have had several nice street cars with big engines, most done in my carport and a couple done in my family's machine shop. All were done with forged pistons and normal clearances, never had an oil consumption issue in any of them until they were broken.

Nowadays I attribute most of this oil consumption issue to easy break in, especially with higher performance engines. Get on them early and often in the upper gears and they seem to really respond well with long engine life and good performance/low oil consumption IME.

With virtually everything from GM having an oil level sensor as part of the OLM system I think many cars have the oil level covered. We would probably agree that the vast majority of folks simply fill the gas tank and go to work without a care. Plus I think CR is for raising puppies anyway as they routinely accept unverified info as part of their surveys. Not my idea of a car rag...
 
Thanks for the clarification
thumbsup2.gif


I agree that it is normal for a high performance engine to consume some oil but I don't believe that a Camry/Focus/Fusion/Cobalt....etc should be using 1 quart every 3K and would consider that excessive, particularly given the market those cars are targeted at. Same for Bimmers, VW's and Benzes where a quart in 7K would be no big deal for a regular model, but higher than that would be acceptable (and expected under certain driving conditions) for an AMG or M car.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Shannow


Holden first put a shorter dipstick in, to give another litre of consumption during the service interval.


Oh the horror. Didn't you say that will froth up all the oil? Yes I remember having a long argument with you about that.


You left off
Originally Posted By: Shannow
and then changed the sump.


If they thought overfilling was the fix, they wouldn't have gone to a different design sump...designing new patterns and castings in the middle of a production run isn't cheap if the dipstick could have been seen as a real fix.
$_35.JPG


Particularly since they seem to have intentionally keep the oil and spinny things apart.
 
Do not most (or all?) Toyotas now have a 10k mile OCI? Our Camry does, and I thought they mostly or all did. My Honda pickup has whatever OCI the monitor calls for, which typically puts me at or over 7,500 miles.

My point here is that saying that the Euros use a 10k mile OCI and that makes them appear more on this list does not meet the initial test of me looking in my owner's manuals. :)

Bad jokes aside, VAG and BMW products have appeared to me to use more oil (too much, IMO) than the best of the Japanese or American marques for quite a while. The VAGs, at least, are also not as reliable and are more expensive to maintain and repair than said alternate marques. Whether one likes or agrees with the specifics of CR's data analysis here, I would expect the trends they identify to hold up to alternate analysis. Including Subies being high-use engines, which I say as a former owner of several, and having liked them.

Also, I cannot agree with the nonsensical and conflicting claims here in this thread about how consumers don't check their oil between changes, yet using more than a quart between changes is insignificant. Since car manufacturers make a big deal of low or even zero maintenance, and if consumers (remember the name of the magazine, which is its target audience) frequently fail to check oil between scheduled changes, then it is very important for an automaker's engines to go a full oil change without burning or otherwise evacuating all its oil.
 
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl


Also, I cannot agree with the nonsensical and conflicting claims here in this thread about how consumers don't check their oil between changes, yet using more than a quart between changes is insignificant. Since car manufacturers make a big deal of low or even zero maintenance, and if consumers (remember the name of the magazine, which is its target audience) frequently fail to check oil between scheduled changes, then it is very important for an automaker's engines to go a full oil change without burning or otherwise evacuating all its oil.


I believe the issue with this is that we need to define reasonable consumption, which I believe I've already tried. I don't think a litre in 10,000 miles is even close to excessive, nor is a litre in 7,500 miles. A litre in 3,000 miles on a non-performance car is however, IMHO.

The other issue is the presence of an oil level sensor. The Euro marques have them and tell you when you are a quart/litre down. My Expedition does NOT have one, neither does my dad's Town Car, I don't believe the Charger does either. If we accept the fact that a significantly percentage of consumers are too lazy to check their oil then I think we must also consider that of that percentage, only the ones whose vehicles are telling them when they need oil are actually getting oil added or being jotted down as needing oil.

While it is noble to envision the embracement of consumer ignorance and laziness as facts of life and that the manufacturers must adapt in accordance I don't believe it is realistic for that adaptation to be the elimination of oil consumption, as that is simply not possible. Rather some sensible limits on oil consumption and mandatory oil level sensors are really all that are needed here. Oil is no more difficult to add than washer fluid so the reality is that the hood is going to be opened between OCI's anyways.
 
I also do not embrace nor ennoble ignorance. The automakers do. They then turn around and tell the ignorance they're pandering to that it's not their problem if they sold one thing and delivered another.

Is a quart in 300 miles too much for a 'performance' engine? Absolutely, no matter what excuses you give. How about a quart in 500? A quart in 750? If it's a car sold for the track, and used at the track, perhaps not. For anything marketed as a street car, it's absolutely excessive, and more egregiously so if the vehicles in question are expressly marketed as long-drain, low-or-no-maintenance vehicles. Nevertheless that only exacerbates the problem. It remains a problem for a road car sold in North America today to use that much oil, no matter the maintenance salesmanship and no matter the level of ignorance promoted by the manufacturers.

As for Subaru, well, they just have no excuse at all.
 
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
I also do not embrace nor ennoble ignorance. The automakers do.


That wasn't a personal reference, that's why I used the term "envision", as the auto makers seem to be half-committed to the effort at the moment and have not truly seemed to embrace the fact that a large percentage of their user base are in fact viewing their product as an appliance, one that is maintained by somebody else other than the person operating it.

Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
They then turn around and tell the ignorance they're pandering to that it's not their problem if they sold one thing and delivered another.


Yes, they market maintenance intervals that often laud the vehicle and/or its systems as being close to "maintenance free" while spelling out in the fine print in the manual that fluids still need to be checked regularly. At least with something like an oil level monitor it is the system notifying the user (and hopefully setting a flag) that there is something that needs to be checked, even if they just drive it up to the dealer to have the oil added.

Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Is a quart in 300 miles too much for a 'performance' engine? Absolutely, no matter what excuses you give.


That was Steve's posit that certain engines of the performance variety consume that much oil.

Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
How about a quart in 500? A quart in 750? If it's a car sold for the track, and used at the track, perhaps not. For anything marketed as a street car, it's absolutely excessive, and more egregiously so if the vehicles in question are expressly marketed as long-drain, low-or-no-maintenance vehicles. Nevertheless that only exacerbates the problem. It remains a problem for a road car sold in North America today to use that much oil, no matter the maintenance salesmanship and no matter the level of ignorance promoted by the manufacturers.

As for Subaru, well, they just have no excuse at all.


I believe for an engine fitted to an M car, Porsche, AMG...etc something that will, but virtue of its design burn more oil, and particularly by being flogged that a level like a quart in 3K is perhaps acceptable. My own M-car consumes about 1L/8000Km, or about a quart every 5,000 miles. I do not consider that excessive.

Also, I do not believe that many of these vehicles are marketed as long-drain, low-or-no-maintenance products. They also tend to chew through tires, some through brakes...etc. They have a known cost of entry in terms of maintenance. That said, something like a Mustang GT, which is really targeted at the "masses", the same with the Camaro, should be in the earlier category with the assumed owner ignorance. The same goes for a 550i or any non-M bimmer and the regular Mercedes cars. Cars like the ZR1, GT500....etc, they go into the same category as the AMG and M cars.

As I said in my previous post, the issue is that we need to determine some sensible limits on consumption and oil level indicators need to be mandatory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top