ZDP depletion and GM oil life monitor
- Thread starter bbobynski
- Start date
- Status
This is true and I agree with you wholeheartedly...but....you are reading more into the post and my comment than was intended and taking it out of context in the process. You are also putting words in my mouth by "extending" my logic for me. Please refrain from doing this as you do not understand my logic apparently at all.
The original poster indicated he was buying a Corvette and mentioned nothing about modifying it or changing anything. He wanted to know what oil to use. For a production engine, in 99.9 percent of the operating conditions that are out there, the factory recommended oil is the correct thing to use....hence my post.
If you decide to modify the engine/car then other factors come into play and other lubricants/parts are certainly applicable. Those are handled on a one-on-one basis.
I still stand by my post. The factory engines as installed are rigorously tested on dyno and in cars including extensive track testing for performance cars like the Corvette. The factory recommended lubricants are correct. They have been tested and validated. If you chose to use some other recommendation or other product YOU are doing the testing and validation. If you are comfortable with that , fine, but understand that it is your responsibility, not the factory, to test and accept the results...good or bad.
I would be the first one to argue the point that every device on a car is a compromise of some sort. Cars are designed to be manufactured and sold for a wide variety of purposes and in a wide variety of climates and geographical locations and to a very wide group of consumers. The equipment is the best compromise for all round use and utility. The cars must pass emission, fuel economy, pass by noise, NHTSA requirements.....etc...etc.... The list is unbelieveably long. Enthusiates may chose to ignore one or more of those requirements and change parts and functions and designs. That is up to them. Nothing "wrong" was implied in my statement with doing this not does it make anyone's selection of oil, tires, wheels, whatever "wrong"....but if it is different from the OEM selection then they need to step up and realize that it is their responsibility.
The OEM recommendations for the unit as delivered are the best and correct for what the vehicle was intended for and certified for. Period. Follow them for best results.
She'll believe it. I thought what you said was true but wasn't sure on the early models. Thanks for the info.
Bitog has been good therapy and your also helping BBob, but now my Buick is on 5,000 mi. for the oci and I'm sweating bullets.
Fuel economy will always pressure you toward the 5W30 for starters unless there is some compelling reason to do otherwise.
Past experience, time in the program to revalidate a lube system...i.e..going to a 5W20 or 0W20 or something might require a larger capacity oil pump to maintain adequate pressure which would take more time to develop, possibly not package in the engine and might just eat up any power/friction that was gained with the thinner oil.
Whether the engine will be a high performance engine always fits into the equation as to the utter importance of fuel economy and timing. Market availability of the thinner grades is also a question and if you cannot prove to the EPA that the customer is going to use the oil spec'd then they will not let you test with it and take advantage of the fuel economy gain.
Some features of the engine (like cam phasers for VVT...???...) might require specific oil grades/weights for the correct hydraulic performance of the phasers.
Bearing clearance growth in an all aluminum engine with overhead cams can make the ultrathin oils a bit troublesome for oil pressure, also...
Lots of things to consider upfront so there is no hard and fast rule. Probably timing and knowing what already works make the most difference. No one wants to muddle thru a lube problem half way thru a development program when you are doing 100 other, unrelated things.
Do you have any info on how GM tested Mobil 1 in the Corvette? I read somwhere that they ran the car around a track and very high speed until the gas tank was low. They then tore down the engine and mearured wear. Also, what are your thoughts on oil analysis and engine wear? Is that something GM does when evaluating an oil?
I do agree with you in that many engines today don't need high levels of anti-wear additives. Another area where BITOG UOA's show this. Toyota must really be doing something right.
Tell that to the relatives of people who fried in the back seat of Pintos.
Uhh...would those be the ones parked in the fast lane of the expressway for 20 minutes before they were rear ended at 70mph....???.... Poor example, pal.
bbobynski, I rather not get into that subject with you. It's a rather dumb ongoing debate we have with Ugly3.
But in my defense, it is in most Business Ethics texts as an example of Cost-Benefit analysis.
http://www.engineering.com/content/ContentDisplay?contentId=41009014
I bet most people here would rather have you talk more about engine developement. You work anywhere near the Milford proving grounds?
But in my defense, it is in most Business Ethics texts as an example of Cost-Benefit analysis.
http://www.engineering.com/content/ContentDisplay?contentId=41009014
I bet most people here would rather have you talk more about engine developement. You work anywhere near the Milford proving grounds?
Yep, they sure "fixed it regardless".
Bbob... Excellent thread. Its great hearing from someone who knows what they are talking about. I will now have much more faith in the OLM in my 02' Buick. Regarding some of the other points made in this thread I do think that 'bean counters' sometimes overule engineers. For example my fathers 93' Grand Am came with a 3.3 (which I believe was a downsized Buick 3.8). The following year this engine was not offered and the
Chevy based 3.1 became standard. This is an inferior engine but I assume it was cheaper so that's what management offered. I agree with you that Dexcool is an excellent product although it is less forgiving of air introduction when the level becomes low. As far as the intake gasket issue on the 3.1 and 3.4 engines it is sad that it was allowed to go uncorrected for 7 or 8 years. I'm sure it has hurt GM sales. I would be hesitant to buy a Malibu with the 'new' 3.5 because I don't know if they corrected the problem
My Buick Century has over 50k totally trouble free miles and it is very efficient but I always have the i/t gasket issue in the back of my mind.
What are your thoughts on this problem?
At any rate Bbob..it is great having you on board BITOG and don't let the critical posters keep you from staying. Thanks
Chevy based 3.1 became standard. This is an inferior engine but I assume it was cheaper so that's what management offered. I agree with you that Dexcool is an excellent product although it is less forgiving of air introduction when the level becomes low. As far as the intake gasket issue on the 3.1 and 3.4 engines it is sad that it was allowed to go uncorrected for 7 or 8 years. I'm sure it has hurt GM sales. I would be hesitant to buy a Malibu with the 'new' 3.5 because I don't know if they corrected the problem
My Buick Century has over 50k totally trouble free miles and it is very efficient but I always have the i/t gasket issue in the back of my mind.
What are your thoughts on this problem?
At any rate Bbob..it is great having you on board BITOG and don't let the critical posters keep you from staying. Thanks
.....another thing that seems to be a 'bean counter' victory over engineering logic is GM's (and I assume the other domestic makers) decision not to install a Automatic Transmission drain plug. While GM trannies are excellent (among the best in the world) I curse when I drain the tranny fluid. How much would it have cost to provide a drainplug ala most imports?
Being a bean counter, I'm really getting my feelings hurt. Thank goodness, I don't work in the automotive industry.
Remember, the beancounters also process your paychecks.
Remember, the beancounters also process your paychecks.
That's capitalism. Allocation of resources as efficiently as possible, no more, no less. GM needs to stay in business. Making unreliable cars won't keep them in business, but neither will overly expensive ones. Outright disregard for citizen welfare is another thing however...
And as a beancounter myself, I might also say there were a lot more jokes about Engineering students than Accounting students when I was at Uni
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
(semi-dark comedy tongue planted in cheek)
Like the grim reaper, and the tax collector, you do no more than your appointed task.
Sorry ..it's you.
Most imports, from what I have heard, and seen, have a very coarse mesh-screen filter. It is not very likely to get clogged, so it is likely considered as not being very important to service it when changing the fluid, so a drain plug is provided.
Most domestic transmissons use a much finer filter that is more likely to get clogged. They are probably concerned that if they provide a drain plug, people will just drain the fluid and not service the filter. I have heard of GM automatics (in particular) developing problems that were cured when the neglected filter was replaced.
The Ford CD4E transmission used in the Escape has a filter that isn't even serviceable without a complete overhaul. A drain plug is provided. I've not seen the filter used in the CD4E but it would not surprise me if it's basically a mesh screen as used in most import transmissions.
So I believe that the lack of drain plug all boils down to them wanting the filter changed when the fluid is changed.
You got that right!quote:
Originally posted by Gary Allan:
(semi-dark comedy tongue planted in cheek)
Like the grim reaper, and the tax collector, you do no more than your appointed task.(visions of Kelly's heros "Someone had to take the blame. They chose him")
Sorry ..it's you.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
