Is this to avoid warranty costs?
Why are "Normal" Oil Consumption Limits so High?
- Thread starter LaszloToth
- Start date
- Status
I firmly believe so. GM started this along time ago and every manufacture jumped on it. However; I remember that When the OLDS Rocket engine came out, that a few years later, GM did an oil consumption study on the Olds V8 engine. They found that oil consumption of 0.X oz of oil vs the amount of fuel consumed was considered normal. Olds engineers changed the dipstick marking to reflect their findings which was 1 quart per 3,000 miles. This was a normal oil usage. This was back in the 50s when neighter oil nor maching methods were as good as today.
I guess that would be the reason, but maybe there's some justification: car companies can't control how their products are "broken-in", and a bad break-in can result in high oil consumption. Of course, faulty parts and assembly can result in high oil consumption, too...
All manufacturers seem to be about the same in this regard, so it isn't a case of one being lots more restrictive than others.
All manufacturers seem to be about the same in this regard, so it isn't a case of one being lots more restrictive than others.
Dunno but a friend recently was telling me his Subaru was using a qt of oil in 1200 miles. I said I thought when it used a qt in 1500 miles, they should have to do something about it. He said the dealer told him Subaru is now 1200 miles. Don't know if true, but he says that was what he was told. And I thought 1500 (what came to mind for Subaru) was bad enough.
i have 3 vehicles and none show any sign of oil level dropping during on OC interval. 1 vehicle strictly in town stop & go, 1 95+% in town stop & go, and those 2 get conventional 3k or yearly OC (whichever comes 1st). Then 1 vehicle mostly highway, over 95% highway I'd say and it gets longer OC intervals on PP.
Even the past few vehicles i didn't have to add oil during intervals. They didn't get below 1/2 between add-full, at the worst.
Years ago, of course I had a few that need checked and oil added often because of tired motors and leaks, but that's been some years ago.
i have 3 vehicles and none show any sign of oil level dropping during on OC interval. 1 vehicle strictly in town stop & go, 1 95+% in town stop & go, and those 2 get conventional 3k or yearly OC (whichever comes 1st). Then 1 vehicle mostly highway, over 95% highway I'd say and it gets longer OC intervals on PP.
Even the past few vehicles i didn't have to add oil during intervals. They didn't get below 1/2 between add-full, at the worst.
Years ago, of course I had a few that need checked and oil added often because of tired motors and leaks, but that's been some years ago.
My toyota OM indicates something to the effect that all engines consume some amount of oil. It even goes into explaining that fuel dilution in cold climates where the car is not driven to full temp may make it appear the car is not consuming oil, and then when the car is driven a long distance, the oil may precipitously drop due to fuel burn off.
My toyota didn't really start consuming measurable amounts until about 170K miles. Now I think it is 1 qt/1000-1500 miles.
Girl @ work's Jetta burned about 1 qt / 700 miles with about 60K miles on it.
My toyota didn't really start consuming measurable amounts until about 170K miles. Now I think it is 1 qt/1000-1500 miles.
Girl @ work's Jetta burned about 1 qt / 700 miles with about 60K miles on it.
Last edited:
always remember Lemon law is on your side
OMG !!! Might as well make it a two stroke. 50:1 ratio works out to about 1 quart every 4 fill-ups in a Jetta.
Girl @ work's Jetta burned about 1 qt / 700 miles with about 60K miles on it.[/quote]
Girl @ work's Jetta burned about 1 qt / 700 miles with about 60K miles on it.[/quote]
Last edited:
IMHO, specifying up to 1 qt or so per 1000 miles as normal, there is basically no warranty on oil control rings whatsoever. Some people do crazy things with their cars maintenance wise and car makers don't want to deal with that being warranty repairs.
Some engines consume based on faulty design. I own a Toyota Rav4 with the 2AZ-FE engine that is notorious for consumption. It is now at 80,000 miles and The level dropped on the dipstick about 1/4quart in 5000 miles. This is the first time it has dropped at all so I would guess it is starting it's consumption phase. It is an issue with the piston rings or oil return holes? something like that. I have been using synthetic oil for the entire 80k but it will still probably consume anyway. Toyota put out a TSB and the fix is replacing the pistons & rings. Toyota will only do that on engines that consume over 1 quart every 1000 miles or some nonsense like that (5 quarts in 5000 miles on a 4 quart sump?)
In any case, the engine runs like a dream so I would never even consider cracking it open before 200k and maybe not even then. By the time it hits 200k it will be 12 years old.
So if it starts consuming a lot I will just switch it to cheap dino.
In any case, the engine runs like a dream so I would never even consider cracking it open before 200k and maybe not even then. By the time it hits 200k it will be 12 years old.
So if it starts consuming a lot I will just switch it to cheap dino.
I had a new 1974 Z-28. It used 1qt Pennzoil 10W40 every 400 to 500 miles when new. The rep knew his stuff, he said chrome rings take longer to break in. He gave me a case of Penn 10W40. At 10K it leveled out at 1qt per 1500 miles. According to GM if a V8 engine burned one drop of oil every other power stroke it would use 1qt per 400 miles.
My parents 2008 wrangler got to the point that it was burning a quart in 600 miles.
If you want to see your oil consumption go down, and maybe even become so low that you do not have to add any, for the entire oil change, try a fill of GC the next time you change the oil and filter.
Our 2001 Impala went from 1 qt. per 1K to no oil added for 8K over 24 months of driving, when I switched to to GC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, years ago when engines were first assembled by robots (I think it was at the Cadillac engine plant) the oil consumption was unacceptability high. It turned out that when humans assembled the engine they put the piston rings on without exactly aligning the gaps in each ring. However when the robots put the rings on the pistons the gaps of the rings on each piston were aligned so the oil could flow easier from gap to gap, causing much more oil to get past the piston rings. The recall fix was to have the dealer mechanics remove all the pistons and rotate the piston rings so they were not lined up.
Our 2001 Impala went from 1 qt. per 1K to no oil added for 8K over 24 months of driving, when I switched to to GC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, years ago when engines were first assembled by robots (I think it was at the Cadillac engine plant) the oil consumption was unacceptability high. It turned out that when humans assembled the engine they put the piston rings on without exactly aligning the gaps in each ring. However when the robots put the rings on the pistons the gaps of the rings on each piston were aligned so the oil could flow easier from gap to gap, causing much more oil to get past the piston rings. The recall fix was to have the dealer mechanics remove all the pistons and rotate the piston rings so they were not lined up.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JimPghPA
If you want to see your oil consumption go down, and maybe even become so low that you do not have to add any, for the entire oil change, try a fill of GC the next time you change the oil and filter.
Our 2001 Impala went from 1 qt. per 1K to no oil added for 8K over 24 months of driving, when I switched to to GC.
My engine is supposed to get 5w20. Isn't the GC too thick?
If you want to see your oil consumption go down, and maybe even become so low that you do not have to add any, for the entire oil change, try a fill of GC the next time you change the oil and filter.
Our 2001 Impala went from 1 qt. per 1K to no oil added for 8K over 24 months of driving, when I switched to to GC.
My engine is supposed to get 5w20. Isn't the GC too thick?
Hi,
LaszloToth - Both Mercedes-Benz and Porsche had maximum oil use numbers several decades ago. This was about 1ltr/1.5k kms, it was set IMO for Warranty reasons
LaszloToth - Both Mercedes-Benz and Porsche had maximum oil use numbers several decades ago. This was about 1ltr/1.5k kms, it was set IMO for Warranty reasons
Originally Posted By: bvance554
My 2009 Subaru Forester has burned about a quart of oil every 1200 miles. Now with 148,000 miles it had suddenly stopped over the last 10k. Can't figure it out. I haven't changed a thing. Maybe its finally broken in? Lol
Might want to check for coolant in the oil, or fuel dilution. It might still be burning oil but those other fluids might be entering into the oil making it appear as if your level is not going down.
One other possibility is that the PCV valve somehow became unstuck after being stuck for many miles.
My 2009 Subaru Forester has burned about a quart of oil every 1200 miles. Now with 148,000 miles it had suddenly stopped over the last 10k. Can't figure it out. I haven't changed a thing. Maybe its finally broken in? Lol
Might want to check for coolant in the oil, or fuel dilution. It might still be burning oil but those other fluids might be entering into the oil making it appear as if your level is not going down.
One other possibility is that the PCV valve somehow became unstuck after being stuck for many miles.
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: bvance554
My 2009 Subaru Forester has burned about a quart of oil every 1200 miles. Now with 148,000 miles it had suddenly stopped over the last 10k. Can't figure it out. I haven't changed a thing. Maybe its finally broken in? Lol
Might want to check for coolant in the oil, or fuel dilution. It might still be burning oil but those other fluids might be entering into the oil making it appear as if your level is not going down.
One other possibility is that the PCV valve somehow became unstuck after being stuck for many miles.
I did check for coolant and fuel, and the stuck pvc that became unstuck was what i was thinking as well.
Originally Posted By: bvance554
My 2009 Subaru Forester has burned about a quart of oil every 1200 miles. Now with 148,000 miles it had suddenly stopped over the last 10k. Can't figure it out. I haven't changed a thing. Maybe its finally broken in? Lol
Might want to check for coolant in the oil, or fuel dilution. It might still be burning oil but those other fluids might be entering into the oil making it appear as if your level is not going down.
One other possibility is that the PCV valve somehow became unstuck after being stuck for many miles.
I did check for coolant and fuel, and the stuck pvc that became unstuck was what i was thinking as well.
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
IMHO, specifying up to 1 qt or so per 1000 miles as normal, there is basically no warranty on oil control rings whatsoever. Some people do crazy things with their cars maintenance wise and car makers don't want to deal with that being warranty repairs.
That's what's so sad...then they reduce the additive levels so that "normal" oil consumption doesn't affect the catalysts of those poorly assembled/engineered engines...
If they didn't burn the oil, additives could remain
IMHO, specifying up to 1 qt or so per 1000 miles as normal, there is basically no warranty on oil control rings whatsoever. Some people do crazy things with their cars maintenance wise and car makers don't want to deal with that being warranty repairs.
That's what's so sad...then they reduce the additive levels so that "normal" oil consumption doesn't affect the catalysts of those poorly assembled/engineered engines...
If they didn't burn the oil, additives could remain
Originally Posted By: JimPghPA
BTW, years ago when engines were first assembled by robots (I think it was at the Cadillac engine plant) the oil consumption was unacceptability high. It turned out that when humans assembled the engine they put the piston rings on without exactly aligning the gaps in each ring. However when the robots put the rings on the pistons the gaps of the rings on each piston were aligned so the oil could flow easier from gap to gap, causing much more oil to get past the piston rings. The recall fix was to have the dealer mechanics remove all the pistons and rotate the piston rings so they were not lined up.
That was one of the first things I was taught about installing rings, never align the gaps, and make sure the rings are installed with the proper side facing up. Rings installed upside down was a problem with Mexican built 3.8L engines used in Jeeps and some other Chrysler products. It was the cause for high oil consumption in a lot of those engines.
BTW, years ago when engines were first assembled by robots (I think it was at the Cadillac engine plant) the oil consumption was unacceptability high. It turned out that when humans assembled the engine they put the piston rings on without exactly aligning the gaps in each ring. However when the robots put the rings on the pistons the gaps of the rings on each piston were aligned so the oil could flow easier from gap to gap, causing much more oil to get past the piston rings. The recall fix was to have the dealer mechanics remove all the pistons and rotate the piston rings so they were not lined up.
That was one of the first things I was taught about installing rings, never align the gaps, and make sure the rings are installed with the proper side facing up. Rings installed upside down was a problem with Mexican built 3.8L engines used in Jeeps and some other Chrysler products. It was the cause for high oil consumption in a lot of those engines.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: JimPghPA
BTW, years ago when engines were first assembled by robots (I think it was at the Cadillac engine plant) the oil consumption was unacceptability high. It turned out that when humans assembled the engine they put the piston rings on without exactly aligning the gaps in each ring. However when the robots put the rings on the pistons the gaps of the rings on each piston were aligned so the oil could flow easier from gap to gap, causing much more oil to get past the piston rings. The recall fix was to have the dealer mechanics remove all the pistons and rotate the piston rings so they were not lined up.
That was one of the first things I was taught about installing rings, never align the gaps, and make sure the rings are installed with the proper side facing up.
Same here.
Modern day "acceptable oil consumption" ratings are ridiculous. 1 qt p/1000 is NOT acceptable. 1 qt p/3000 I could live with but 1 p/1000 is just the car mfg's protecting themselves against less than stellar engine assembly.
If I built a motor and it used 1 p/1000 I would owe someone a rebuild.
Originally Posted By: JimPghPA
BTW, years ago when engines were first assembled by robots (I think it was at the Cadillac engine plant) the oil consumption was unacceptability high. It turned out that when humans assembled the engine they put the piston rings on without exactly aligning the gaps in each ring. However when the robots put the rings on the pistons the gaps of the rings on each piston were aligned so the oil could flow easier from gap to gap, causing much more oil to get past the piston rings. The recall fix was to have the dealer mechanics remove all the pistons and rotate the piston rings so they were not lined up.
That was one of the first things I was taught about installing rings, never align the gaps, and make sure the rings are installed with the proper side facing up.
Same here.
Modern day "acceptable oil consumption" ratings are ridiculous. 1 qt p/1000 is NOT acceptable. 1 qt p/3000 I could live with but 1 p/1000 is just the car mfg's protecting themselves against less than stellar engine assembly.
If I built a motor and it used 1 p/1000 I would owe someone a rebuild.
- Status
Similar threads
