Pennzoil Ultra 5W20 9,995mi 2011 Ford Mustang GT

[DragRace]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: Clevy
This is true however one of the guys in my crew bought a 2013 mustang last year. It was the first one delivered to a customer in the west. We promptly took it to the track and beat on it. We did 20 passes to break in the engine. Then we went to the small oval we have here in Saskatoon and drove that car to its limit and could NOT get it to go into limp mode. The oil system doesn't have a cooler stock but I can tell you from experience that we drove that car so hard we put a dent in the floor and we couldn't get the oil so hot that it neutered the engine.
So yes those safeguards are in place but it would take some serious ambient temps coupled with the most extreme hard driving imagineable to force it into limp mode.
We ran 20 consecutive laps,with only a few minutes in between to let the engine cool off so as far as I'm concerned we were hot lapping the car,and we couldn't get it to go into limp mode.
Ford engineering got the stock gt right for sure. I don't know what it takes to force it into limp mode but we couldn't do it.
And it had the factory 20 grade in the sump. We changed the oil after that weekend and it was black but we put 4000 really hard kms on it in 4 days. We were in it for 14 hours a day. He also needed new rear tires,which we put dot legal drag slicks.
Surprisingly enough when we cut open the oil filter there was no metal that we could see and the oil didn't smell like fuel. It was a quart low though.


It's been a while since I've looked at it, but there are OT tables in the Copperhead PCM and I believe they become progressively more aggressive as oil temperature climbs. We logged some quickly climbing oil temps with a Vortech 2012 5.0 during some 7500 rpm dyno pulls, IIRC.

I don't remember if the vortech unit was a sealed and lubed for life or is it fed oil from the sump.
I can certainly believe that on a dyno,running some decent boost the oil temps could climb very quickly. We were outside in the open air and his car was stock,basically right off the trailer and to the drag strip b
How do the new 5.0s like the snails. I prefer the twin screw type simply because I'm hooked on torque but I would love to feel a snail pulling one of those cars around.
Awesome!


Vortech's new superchargers are filled with synthetic fluid (internally lubricated)and include an integrated dipstick to keep an eye on the fluid.The older Vortechs,you had to punch a small hole in the front of the oil pan for the blowers lubrication(very simple painless process).I've got the older style of Vortech, and have had "0" issues as with most people who run Vortech's

 

[Clevy]

I bought a cobra take off m112 off eBay for 200 bucks. I thought I had scored and was going to install it on my old 2v. WRONG. To make that blower work on a 2v I would have had to buy this aluminum adapter plate from tork tech for 1500 bucks,then the supporting mods over and above.
I considered putting it on the 4v I have now but I've already got nitrous and I really like the alum block reducing front end weight and better handling. And the shaker is just so sexy.
So I figured I'd save it for when these 4v heads go on a 5.4 once I toast the 4.6.
That will be a tire shredding beast. But that's the next project,and I'm still not done this one yet.

 

[skyship]

Does it have a special warning light that flashes, "A little hot!" on the panel or does it just throw an amber check engine light as you limp to the dealer to ask for your money back or free engine mods.
I don't know why they don't give you a fault code reader and software with new complex cars, as even my old Volvo is a nightmare in terms of code reading due mostly to the software and associated computer requirements.

PS. Ah! it might just be the dealer wants to bill you for telling you it's too hot?

 

[Zako2]

Another fine UOA to show to 5W20 doubters.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: skyship
Does it have a special warning light that flashes, "A little hot!" on the panel or does it just throw an amber check engine light as you limp to the dealer to ask for your money back or free engine mods.
I don't know why they don't give you a fault code reader and software with new complex cars, as even my old Volvo is a nightmare in terms of code reading due mostly to the software and associated computer requirements.

PS. Ah! it might just be the dealer wants to bill you for telling you it's too hot?


:facepalm:

It has a digital screen that can you show engine oil temperature and likely indicates in some manner that the power output has been reduced due to elevated temperatures. The power comes back once the oil has cooled sufficiently.

 

[SlipperyPete]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Nice results, to be sure, Kona.

However, I'd point out that probably any qualified dino could have done that at 10k miles. You're running 2/3 of your miles on the highway; that is easy service. You don't pound this at a track. This car does not see severe service by any means.

Today's engines and lubes are far more capable than folks believe.


Is this engine wearing nicely? Yes.

But so did my wife's 1995 Villager van on a 10k mile OCI, with dino Supertech and a normal Purolator Classic filter ....
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2827445&page=1
Note that I, too, got less than half the wear of "normal" numbers.

Admittedly these are not the same engines. But my point is that most all (not all, but most all) sump loads in a decent engine will see the wear rates drop, even out approaching 15k miles.

Your engine calls for WSS-M2C930-A; there are a lot of dino lubes (Mobil, Pennzoil, Castrol, Valvoline, etc) that meet that spec. And that sump is 8 quarts! That is huge on a "per liter" basis.

Your engine did fine. I don't know what you paid, but presuming a fair "retail" price, your wallet likely took a pounding though.


You go on and on about this because you managed to run ONE 10K OCI on Supertech without blowing up your motor. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and run a vehicle from new on 10K OCI's with Supertech and see how long the motor lasts. That would be much more in keeping with the standard to which you hold anyone else who draws a conclusion regarding anything on this website.


I am doing that right now, as a matter of fact. I'm actually considering not only another 10k mile OCI to back that former one up, but actually stretching it out to 15k miles. So, yes, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. Did you read my UOA and the details surrounding it? I clearly stated in it that I was going to try up to 15k miles. Your taunts are unfounded, sir. Here is what I said in that thread:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I'm seriously thinking about going to 15k miles on dino oil here. I'm not just out of break down the myths; I'm going to obliterate them out of the water!


My conclusions are based in facts and data. I see clear evidence that 10k miles is doable in this Mustang's OCIs for far less money with a qualified dino. The Ford spec WSS-M2C930-A is met by many dino fluids. They will do a great job up to 10k miles in this Mustang, and probably a lot further than folks realize.

I see the same evidence in my Villager; I practice what I preach.

Why not look at 2010_FX4's UOAs as well? He's running tests of dino versus PP right now. His results echo my statements; there is no tangible benefit to syns in "normal" applications in healthy equipment.

Seems that you don't like the UOA evidence; can't accept facts? Why not check out SAE article 2007-01-4133 by Ford as well?

And, please read my article on UOA normalcy; sticky at the top of this sub-forum. I clearly show proof from thousands of UOAs in macro-analysis, across a broad variety of engines, that wear rates continue to drop out to 15k miles, in healthy engines.

I most certainly put my money where my mouth is; I am doing an intended 15k miles OCI on our Villager and will be going to 15k miles in my Fusion soon. I am also running multiple-year OCIs with UOA in my Dmax truck and my Kubota tractor. I most certainly am holding myself to the same standard I suggest for others.


Your inference that using ST dino fluid will make a motor "blow up" is plain silly; what proof do you have to substantiate that implication?

In this UOA thread (Mustang) the PU did a good job, but that is more likely due to the OCI duration and the quality of the design and manufacture of the engine; it's not luck. There is a LOT of evidence that dino fluids could do as well (my UOA, 2010_FX4 UOAs, SAE studies, my "normalcy" article). Where's your proof that my unconventional thinking will result in assured destruction of the engine (against your statement of "blowing up" and seeing "how long the motor lasts")? Do you have many thousands of UOAs in your database? Have you purchased and read the SAE article? Do you have links to specific studies that show an engine destroyed by a dino fluid, where a syntheics would have conclusively assured it's continued lifecycle?

I stand by my statements with facts and data. I would be willing to review any concrete proof you have to substantiate your statements that a dino will result in blowing up an engine at "normal" OCI durations, or even past that.


I guess you missed the damage GM did to some brand new cars by running the OLM too long on conventional oil. Would a stretched timing chain show up in a UOA? Why are you even calling this process an experiment when you have obviously already made your conclusion? I hope you will stand good for any damage someone does to their car by following the advice of some-guy-on-the-internet, rather than the people who actually have something to lose if their product fails.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Zako2
Another fine UOA to show to 5W20 doubters.


And the OP has run a 10000 mile interval yet blackstone's universal averages show his engine is wearing at half in comparison.
Every time I see something like this I believe in the 20 grades of today a little bit more and I have a bit more faith in extending the intervals.
The 5.0 is fantastic. I was a chev guy my whole life. Before my first mustang that I totalled(long story) I had a 99 firebird. 6 speed tranny,car was amazing,but I sold it because I knew it was only a matter of time before I crashed it and killed myself. I bought a 92 cobra with the money I got from the sale of my firebird and still had money to spare.
Anyways fords gas engines are the tops in the industry in my view. They are on the cutting edge,using new tech,and succeeding with it in real world conditions.
I am still a chev lover but I'm more into their old muscle,today's fords are the new muscle in the industry.
Jmo

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
I guess you missed the damage GM did to some brand new cars by running the OLM too long on conventional oil. Would a stretched timing chain show up in a UOA? Why are you even calling this process an experiment when you have obviously already made your conclusion? I hope you will stand good for any damage someone does to their car by following the advice of some-guy-on-the-internet, rather than the people who actually have something to lose if their product fails.


What OCI "stretched timing chain" problem are you speaking of in a GM vehicle?

And generally, timing chains don't stretch; technically, they wear. So I'd expect excessive wear would show up in a UOA.

- The question is this: would the metals from excessive timing chain wear be enough to alter the UOA range/trend patterns? IOW, would the wear be high enough to sit outside the normal sigma deviation of wear variation, so that we could detect it? Only each unique UOA would tell us that.

- The more important underlying question is this: are you inferring that one of these supposed damage-prone GM engines can actually avoid timing chain "stretch" with frequent OCIs, as opposed to having assured destruction with longer OCIs? Are you seriously making the statement that timing chain "stretch" can be averted with OCI duration? I find your premise that a shorter OCI would avoid timing chain destruction unbelieveable. In fact, I find it preposterous. I ask that you back up that pretense with data, please; let's see your evidence that timing chain "stretch" can be avoided by OCI frequency.

What I preach (for a lack of better term) is getting the value out of the products one chooses to use. I abhor waste. Does not matter if it's dino or syn; waste is waste. And the topic of "cheap insurance" is really just an underlying code for the practice of those who are either too lazy or afraid to reach into new territory; it is a crutch for folks that want to "play" with the big dogs, but cannot seem to find the way off the porch. They will pay for synthetics, and UOAs, but then never get outside the OEM OCI.

As a generalization, there is CLEAR, UNDENIABLE evidnece that longer OCIs are perfectly safe, even for dino fluids. That is true for healthy engines. But if you have a known sludger or one prone to coolant leaks, etc, then I would never suggest such greatly extended OCIs. If you have a piece of equipment that is KNOWN to have a hard limit for some pre-exisiting condition, they by all means DO NOT exceed the safe operating limit. But that is my point entirely; you have to KNOW your equipment. Use ALL available means of tracking equipment health. Use UOAs, fluids levels, visual inspections, etc. I encourage folks to know their equipment family lineage. I encourage folks to use all these tools where practical. I encourage folks to use that data to make sound, rational decisions. I encourage folks to use their fluids (regardless of their choice of brand/grade/base stock) up to a safe limit. So, yes, I stand by that mantra.

Allow me a specific example: the Saturn SL2 engine, a known sludger that I became aware of after tp/turk brought it to my attention. If you OCI at 2k mile intervals, you'd be safe. But you'd also be under-utilizing your fluid. I have over 500 UOAs for this engine family. The data clearly shows that 3k mile intervals are also safe; the oil consumption stays well in control at that "longer" OCI limit. If you push it to 4k miles, you're in the danger zone, and if you push it to 5k miles, you're assured ring coking resulting in massive oil consumption. So you have to use the tools (engine family history and oil level representing consumption) to make clear rational decisions. In this example, an "extended" OCI is in the eyes of the beholder. If 2k miles is your "normal", then 3k miles is "extended" by 50%! You can get 50% more for your money, and yet still stay well within a safe operating range for your OCI. You can avoid waste, and yet still get "more" for your money. That is using data and resource information to one's benefit. In fact, you can still use my methods, my tools, and get "more" for your money. That is the beauty of my system; it can maximize ANY ROI, if you apply it correctly.




This UOA for this Mustang shows that the lube used here did nothing special and was statistically "normal" in performance. This engine family (the Coy 5.0L is relatively new) is showing to be a fine wearing piece of equipment, regardless of what's in the crankcase. That was true of it's predecessor, the 4.6L mod-motor.

He paid for the syn, he paid for the UOA. The data (both his personal UOA and the history of this engine now a few years old) is showing he got "normal" results from his premium product, and could safely go further.


We'll have to agree to disagree; you stick to ol' skool mythology and I'll stick to facts and data. We'll both sleep well at night.

 

[fpracha]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I most certainly put my money where my mouth is; I am doing an intended 15k miles OCI on our Villager and will be going to 15k miles in my Fusion soon. I am also running multiple-year OCIs with UOA in my Dmax truck and my Kubota tractor. I most certainly am holding myself to the same standard I suggest for others.


Hello Dave,
Please inform if you are changing Oil Filter at 8k or 10k mile interval, in this 15k mile stretch attempt ?
And what is the sump size and any top-up oil added in between or not ?
THANKS!

 

[dnewton3]

Both oil and filter are intended to head towards the 15k mile mark.

 

[HTSS_TR]

The cartridge oil filter in E430 is on top of the engine, very easy to remove the filter holder to check the condition. I re-use the filter on 12-13k miles OCI after checking the filter condition, since the engine had only synthetic oil the engine is fairly clean and there isn't much to clog the filter. When I re-use the oil filter i remove the filter holder once in a while to check and so far after 18-19k miles the filter's still looking good.

In a clean engine, a good filter can easily lasted 20-25k miles with non-severe driving condition.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Nice results, to be sure, Kona.

However, I'd point out that probably any qualified dino could have done that at 10k miles. You're running 2/3 of your miles on the highway; that is easy service. You don't pound this at a track. This car does not see severe service by any means.

Today's engines and lubes are far more capable than folks believe.


Is this engine wearing nicely? Yes.

But so did my wife's 1995 Villager van on a 10k mile OCI, with dino Supertech and a normal Purolator Classic filter ....
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2827445&page=1
Note that I, too, got less than half the wear of "normal" numbers.

Admittedly these are not the same engines. But my point is that most all (not all, but most all) sump loads in a decent engine will see the wear rates drop, even out approaching 15k miles.

Your engine calls for WSS-M2C930-A; there are a lot of dino lubes (Mobil, Pennzoil, Castrol, Valvoline, etc) that meet that spec. And that sump is 8 quarts! That is huge on a "per liter" basis.

Your engine did fine. I don't know what you paid, but presuming a fair "retail" price, your wallet likely took a pounding though.


You go on and on about this because you managed to run ONE 10K OCI on Supertech without blowing up your motor. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and run a vehicle from new on 10K OCI's with Supertech and see how long the motor lasts. That would be much more in keeping with the standard to which you hold anyone else who draws a conclusion regarding anything on this website.


I am doing that right now, as a matter of fact. I'm actually considering not only another 10k mile OCI to back that former one up, but actually stretching it out to 15k miles. So, yes, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. Did you read my UOA and the details surrounding it? I clearly stated in it that I was going to try up to 15k miles. Your taunts are unfounded, sir. Here is what I said in that thread:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I'm seriously thinking about going to 15k miles on dino oil here. I'm not just out of break down the myths; I'm going to obliterate them out of the water!


My conclusions are based in facts and data. I see clear evidence that 10k miles is doable in this Mustang's OCIs for far less money with a qualified dino. The Ford spec WSS-M2C930-A is met by many dino fluids. They will do a great job up to 10k miles in this Mustang, and probably a lot further than folks realize.

I see the same evidence in my Villager; I practice what I preach.

Why not look at 2010_FX4's UOAs as well? He's running tests of dino versus PP right now. His results echo my statements; there is no tangible benefit to syns in "normal" applications in healthy equipment.

Seems that you don't like the UOA evidence; can't accept facts? Why not check out SAE article 2007-01-4133 by Ford as well?

And, please read my article on UOA normalcy; sticky at the top of this sub-forum. I clearly show proof from thousands of UOAs in macro-analysis, across a broad variety of engines, that wear rates continue to drop out to 15k miles, in healthy engines.

I most certainly put my money where my mouth is; I am doing an intended 15k miles OCI on our Villager and will be going to 15k miles in my Fusion soon. I am also running multiple-year OCIs with UOA in my Dmax truck and my Kubota tractor. I most certainly am holding myself to the same standard I suggest for others.


Your inference that using ST dino fluid will make a motor "blow up" is plain silly; what proof do you have to substantiate that implication?

In this UOA thread (Mustang) the PU did a good job, but that is more likely due to the OCI duration and the quality of the design and manufacture of the engine; it's not luck. There is a LOT of evidence that dino fluids could do as well (my UOA, 2010_FX4 UOAs, SAE studies, my "normalcy" article). Where's your proof that my unconventional thinking will result in assured destruction of the engine (against your statement of "blowing up" and seeing "how long the motor lasts")? Do you have many thousands of UOAs in your database? Have you purchased and read the SAE article? Do you have links to specific studies that show an engine destroyed by a dino fluid, where a syntheics would have conclusively assured it's continued lifecycle?

I stand by my statements with facts and data. I would be willing to review any concrete proof you have to substantiate your statements that a dino will result in blowing up an engine at "normal" OCI durations, or even past that.


I guess you missed the damage GM did to some brand new cars by running the OLM too long on conventional oil. Would a stretched timing chain show up in a UOA? Why are you even calling this process an experiment when you have obviously already made your conclusion? I hope you will stand good for any damage someone does to their car by following the advice of some-guy-on-the-internet, rather than the people who actually have something to lose if their product fails.


Please explain to me how oil can affect the timing chain and it stretching please.

 

[SlipperyPete]

Quote:
GM CUSTOMER CARE AND AFTERSALES

DCS2552

URGENT - DISTRIBUTE IMMEDIATELY



Date: February 9, 2010

Subject: 10287 - Customer Satisfaction Program
Premature Timing Chain Wear - Reprogram ECM

Models: 2007 GMC Acadia, Saturn OUTLOOK
2007-09 Cadillac CTS, SRX, STS
2009 Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia,
Saturn OUTLOOK
Equipped with a HFV6 Engine

To: All GM Dealers

Attention: General Manager, Service Manager, Parts Manager,
Used Vehicle Sales Manager, and Warranty Administrator

General Motors is announcing Customer Satisfaction Program 10287 today. The total number of U.S. vehicles involved is approximately 383,000. Please see the attached bulletin for details.

Due to the availability of the required calibration, this program will be administered in phases. The first phase will include the Cadillac vehicles. You will be notified when the calibration and VINs are being released for the remainder of the vehicles.

Customer Letter Mailing

The customer letter mailing will begin on February 15, 2011, for Cadillac customers.

Global Connect (GWM)

The "Investigate Vehicle History" (GMVIS 2) link on the Global Warranty Management (GWM) application within GlobalConnect will be updated February 9, 2011, with Cadillac VINs.

Campaign Initiation Detail Report (CIDR)

The CIDR will be available February 11, 2011, for the Cadillac vehicles.


END OF MESSAGE

GM CUSTOMER CARE AND AFTERSALES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message Attachment(s):
10287 bulletin.pdf Acrobat PDF (77.17KB) 10287


CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM
SUBJECT: Premature Timing Chain Wear – Reprogram Engine Control Module
MODELS: 2009 Buick Enclave
2007-2009 Cadillac CTS, SRX, STS
2009 Chevrolet Traverse
2007 GMC Acadia
2009 GMC Acadia
2007 Saturn OUTLOOK
2009 Saturn OUTLOOK
Equipped with HFV6 Engine

Due to the availability of the required calibration, this program is being administered in
phases. This first phase will include the Cadillac vehicles only. You will receive a dealer
message when the calibration and VINs are being released for the remainder of the
vehicles.

THIS PROGRAM IS IN EFFECT UNTIL FEBRUARY 28, 2013.

CONDITION
On certain 2007 model year GMC Acadia; Saturn OUTLOOK; 2007-2009 model year Cadillac
CTS, SRX, STS; 2009 model year Buick Enclave; Chevrolet Traverse; GMC Acadia; and Saturn
OUTLOOK vehicles equipped with a HFV6 engine, under certain driving conditions, and with
extended oil change intervals, the timing chain could wear prematurely and cause the
illumination of the Service Engine Soon light.

CORRECTION
Dealers are to reprogram the engine control module, including the engine oil life monitor.

VEHICLES INVOLVED
Involved are certain 2007 model year GMC Acadia; Saturn OUTLOOK; 2007-2009 model year
Cadillac CTS, SRX, STS; 2009 model year Buick Enclave; Chevrolet Traverse; GMC Acadia;
and Saturn OUTLOOK vehicles equipped with a HFV6 engine
Important: Dealers are to confirm vehicle eligibility prior to beginning repairs by using the
Required Field Actions section in the Global Warranty system.
For dealers with involved vehicles, a listing with involved vehicles containing the complete
vehicle identification number, customer name, and address information has been prepared and
will be provided to US and Canadian dealers through the GM GlobalConnect Recall Reports, or
sent directly to export dealers. Dealers will not have a report available if they have no involved
vehicles currently assigned.

The listing may contain customer names and addresses obtained from Motor Vehicle
Registration Records. The use of such motor vehicle registration data for any purpose other
than follow-up necessary to complete this program is a violation of law in several
states/provinces/countries. Accordingly, you are urged to limit the use of this report to the
follow-up necessary to complete this program.


Dear General Motors Customer:
This notice is sent to inform you that General Motors is conducting a Customer Satisfaction
Program that affects 2007 model year GMC Acadia; Saturn OUTLOOK; 2007-2009 model year
Cadillac CTS, SRX, STS; 2009 model year Buick Enclave; Chevrolet Traverse; GMC Acadia;
and Saturn OUTLOOK vehicles equipped with a V6 engine.

Your vehicle was designed and built to meet GM's high standards for quality and reliability.
However, we have determined that under certain driving conditions, and with extended oil
change intervals, the timing chain could wear prematurely and cause the illumination of the
Service Engine Soon light. Timing chain wear can be affected by the age of the engine oil and
driving conditions.

What We Will Do:
To ensure that your vehicle will not experience this condition, your GM
dealer will change the calibration of the engine control module, including the engine oil life
monitor, which in most cases will recommend more frequent oil changes. This calibration
change will be performed for you at no charge until February 28, 2013.

What You Should Do:
To limit any possible inconvenience, we recommend that you contact
your dealer as soon as possible to schedule an appointment for this repair.


You can also google "gm timing chain stretch" for much, much more reading on the topic.

Any reason this wouldn't happen with any vehicle that went too long on the OCI?

 

[OVERKILL]

That says WEAR not STRETCH........

 

[SlipperyPete]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
That says WEAR not STRETCH........

GM said wear; most of the complaints on the web said stretch. Whatever. The damage was done by too long OCI's and remedied by shortening them.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
That says WEAR not STRETCH........

GM said wear; most of the complaints on the web said stretch. Whatever. The damage was done by too long OCI's and remedied by shortening them.


According to our member GMBoy, it doesn't resolve the issue. His CTS, with the revised OLM, has now thrown the CEL for the chain fault.

 

[SlipperyPete]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
That says WEAR not STRETCH........

GM said wear; most of the complaints on the web said stretch. Whatever. The damage was done by too long OCI's and remedied by shortening them.


According to our member GMBoy, it doesn't resolve the issue. His CTS, with the revised OLM, has now thrown the CEL for the chain fault.


I guess he should tell GM then. The uproar over the issue died down a couple of years ago on the GM forums. The problem was either taken care of, or everybody just shut up about it of their own accord.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
That says WEAR not STRETCH........

GM said wear; most of the complaints on the web said stretch. Whatever. The damage was done by too long OCI's and remedied by shortening them.


According to our member GMBoy, it doesn't resolve the issue. His CTS, with the revised OLM, has now thrown the CEL for the chain fault.


I guess he should tell GM then. The uproar over the issue died down a couple of years ago on the GM forums. The problem was either taken care of, or everybody just shut up about it of their own accord.


Apparently it only effected the first few years of production and then the parts were revised.

He works for GM.

 

[LeakySeals]

As a chain wears each link can loosen up allowing it go gain some length. What the tensioner manages. But the metal didn't actually "stretch" right?

 

[yonyon]

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
As a chain wears each link can loosen up allowing it go gain some length. What the tensioner manages. But the metal didn't actually "stretch" right?


Of course not. You know very well what "chain stretch" is. Finish your brussels sprouts.