Should new cars burn oil? C-R report

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gotta luv all the Subie fans & there consumption rates from new!!
shocked.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: supton
I agree, it is stupid that an oil level sensor is not standard. I guess an OEM would see it as an admission of guilt.


who would have to pay for a new engine if the oil level sensor failed to warn the driver?

Wife's Q5 actually displays an "Engine oil sensor malfunction" warning if the sensor fails. Heh.
 
IMO the CR report does a decent service to the car buying public. For most of us here, the report doesn't reveal much that's new except for some interesting statistical data. I don't always agree with the stances that CR takes, but it deserves kudos for this report.
 
I think CR are a bunch of [censored]'ers, but I do think new cars should not burn oil. Okay the low tension rings allow the vehicle to get a bit better mpg, so what? How much worse is the oil burning for the environment than the 1-2 mpg fuel consumption difference?

Old worn out engines should burn oil, not "new" ones.

My friend recently traded in his '98 oil burning Camry with 240k hard miles for a new car. Guess which one burns more oil? Nothing like adding oil and checking the fuel on a brand new vehicle you are making payments on. He took it to the dealer and they claimed the consumption is "within the allowable amount". I know even the new Chrysler vehicles state in the owner's manual what is an allowable rate of oil consumption.
crazy.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: supton
I agree, it is stupid that an oil level sensor is not standard. I guess an OEM would see it as an admission of guilt.


who would have to pay for a new engine if the oil level sensor failed to warn the driver?

Wife's Q5 actually displays an "Engine oil sensor malfunction" warning if the sensor fails. Heh.


against which failure modes? if the sensor reoprts the level wrong, this cannot be diagnosed by the ecu. Electrical failures (short or breaks in the wires, or lost communication in the network) can be detected.
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Again, using thinner oils, you exchange fuel burning, for more oil burning. That's not very smart, IMO. New car specs what? 0w20.

Look at that list again, you have it backwards. The engines that are reported as burning more oil are European, mostly specifying thicker oils. The thin-oil engines (US and Japan) aren't on the list for the most part.


I noticed that too. In fact, not one Honda or Toyota is on the list as shown.


Or Ford ...


thumbsup2.gif


especially given the Ecoboost (turbo) engine.

As I've stated before, I continue to be impressed with Ford's quality
 
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
against which failure modes? if the sensor reoprts the level wrong, this cannot be diagnosed by the ecu. Electrical failures (short or breaks in the wires, or lost communication in the network) can be detected.

I have no idea. I'm not exactly trusting it. I use the physical dipstick when I really want to know the oil level.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Completely false assertions about how forged pistons equal oil loss!


Completely? You don't think 2.5 vs 6 thousands is going to make any difference on oil consumption?

I guess I have to teach again. Search "oil consumption forged pistons".

The first time I rebuilt the vette, it consumed more oil than before the rebuild because of the forged pistons. Yea I probably could have had them run tighter side clearance, but then you run the risk of scuffed or seized pistons the first time you get the engine really hot.

My concern is all the public hoopla over oil consumption may be leading to an inferior product. A case where the consumer is driving things in the wrong direction.


You need a better machine shop. I have owned forged-piston engines that burn NO oil! My friend has one...it has very loud piston slap when cold...but uses less than a pint of oil in 5000 miles!


From my limited experience, the machine shop will tell you what rebuild kit you need. Could be .030,.040, etc. Never had a problem with a rebuilt engine using excessive oil. The problem also could have been the parts you used.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
against which failure modes? if the sensor reoprts the level wrong, this cannot be diagnosed by the ecu. Electrical failures (short or breaks in the wires, or lost communication in the network) can be detected.

I have no idea. I'm not exactly trusting it. I use the physical dipstick when I really want to know the oil level.

In all vehicles I used (that actually had a sensor) electric sensor matched dipstick level perfectly. It's very good aid especially for commercial users where lots of drivers never pull the dipstick for the whole OCI.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: turtlevette

Low tension stuff is just used in drag racing, not on passenger cars, so I dont think that's it.




Once again the book smarts are short on details. You missed this one bad. Please stop "teaching"...


Best write down the date and time. It won't happen much.



Right.

Daily isn't much?

And turtle you are a liar. You haven't rebuilt any engine ever. Not in some junk 80s corvette,chevette,nothing.
You are good for a laugh.
Your posts should be in the humour section,because at best that's what they are.
A joke.
But please carry on. I think you are the funniest boy here.
A joke
And a funny one at that. I hope you never get suspended. You are better than ght
The funniest part is you believe yourself
Or is that the saddest.......
 
Originally Posted By: chrisri
In all vehicles I used (that actually had a sensor) electric sensor matched dipstick level perfectly.

Right, except when it's broken.
 
Ok, I have read every post in this thread. I can't believe how many things have been overlooked by everyone
33.gif
. All these posts are about rings/pistons. Nobody has mentioned outlying factors. PCV issues come to mind. There are actually many things that could cause oil consumption. While my SS was not involved in this CR report ('08), it is a great example. AFM (Active Fuel Management a.k.a. Cylinder Deactivation) caused my SS to burn a full quart every 750 miles (while using a synthetic I might add). GM said this was/is "acceptable."
29.gif
After extensive research, I had AFM disabled. Voila! No more consumption. Not a drop. But average joe would have thought it was rings....

While the CR report is vague, as usual, it does mean that there is some sort of issue. Period. Yes, some of these issues could be pistons/rings. But don't assume. My car would have made the oil burner list. Now, I wouldn't trade it for the world
19.gif
.
 
You are right, there really are a lot of issues to consumption. That's the weakness of this list. OCIs, viscosities, sump size, and expected driving patterns of the vehicles on the list are all over the place.

Oh, and don't say "not a drop" because somewhere here takes that completely literally and gets worked up over that.
 
Originally Posted By: tony1679
Ok, I have read every post in this thread. I can't believe how many things have been overlooked by everyone
33.gif
. All these posts are about rings/pistons. Nobody has mentioned outlying factors. PCV issues come to mind. There are actually many things that could cause oil consumption. While my SS was not involved in this CR report ('08), it is a great example. AFM (Active Fuel Management a.k.a. Cylinder Deactivation) caused my SS to burn a full quart every 750 miles (while using a synthetic I might add). GM said this was/is "acceptable."
29.gif
After extensive research, I had AFM disabled. Voila! No more consumption. Not a drop. But average joe would have thought it was rings....

While the CR report is vague, as usual, it does mean that there is some sort of issue. Period. Yes, some of these issues could be pistons/rings. But don't assume. My car would have made the oil burner list. Now, I wouldn't trade it for the world
19.gif
.


Some engines are known for bad rings and or cylinders like Honda VCM II engines the Gen I had terrible PCV issues and it wasn’t just the valve but the valve cover but no ring issues. No one mentioned the overlooked anything, we know these things, the other issues are just too numerous and engine specific to get into.

There are so many factors that its impossible to give every example. There are some engines with bad rings no doubt about it.
 
Originally Posted By: tony1679
While the CR report is vague, as usual, it does mean that there is some sort of issue.

I don't think anyone is disputing this. Yes, there could be a number of reasons for oil consumption, but identifying them was not part of CR's survey.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
I don't think anyone is disputing this. Yes, there could be a number of reasons for oil consumption, but identifying them was not part of CR's survey.

ran out of time to edit...

An average car owner completing the survey has no idea why exactly his/her car is consuming oil, or they may think they know and may be wrong. They are not car mechanics. So it's understandable that CR did not go into that level of detail.
 
Originally Posted By: tony1679
Ok, I have read every post in this thread. I can't believe how many things have been overlooked by everyone
33.gif
. All these posts are about rings/pistons. Nobody has mentioned outlying factors. PCV issues come to mind. There are actually many things that could cause oil consumption. While my SS was not involved in this CR report ('08), it is a great example. AFM (Active Fuel Management a.k.a. Cylinder Deactivation) caused my SS to burn a full quart every 750 miles (while using a synthetic I might add). GM said this was/is "acceptable."
29.gif
After extensive research, I had AFM disabled. Voila! No more consumption. Not a drop. But average joe would have thought it was rings....

While the CR report is vague, as usual, it does mean that there is some sort of issue. Period. Yes, some of these issues could be pistons/rings. But don't assume. My car would have made the oil burner list. Now, I wouldn't trade it for the world
19.gif
.


You're overlooking the fact you had to alter the computer tuning to make your vehicle run acceptably. I think the average consumer, someone like my parents or wife, wouldn't find that requirement acceptable. Nor would they find the requirement to perform "extensive research" reasonable. The average Joe would have said "this car uses oil".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top