GM recommends Mobil 1 15w50 for 2016 Corvette

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
The same engine in the Corvette is 5w30 with optional 15w50. Why not include the 1500 with the max trailer option?


I have no clue what they were thinking, unless they were applying the KISS principal.
 
Just from my own observations, I'd say (at least on the C6 with the LS2 and LS3 engines), the Vette runs higher oil temps than a typical passenger car or light duty pick up. Even when the outside temp is a relatively mild 75F, I see oil temps of 230F+ on the Interstate with cruise set at 70 mph.

And let's not forget that GM first went to Mobil 1 as the factory fill (and recommended service fill) in the C4 when the LT1 engine was introduced and their stated reason was so they would not have to fit an oil cooler. That's tantamount to an admission that the LT1 in the C4 needed an oil cooler unless a synthetic oil was used, presumably because a syn oil can take the higher oil temps. As far as I can tell, there is no external oil cooler used on the C5, C6, or C7 Vettes.
 
The owners manual recommends premium fuel, but not necessary. You know what people are like when they look at pump prices.
The 5.3L engine is 65 less HP, CR 11:1 vs 11.5:1, the same engine bearings, gearing, cooling system and GVW as the 6.2L.
Those few changes could make the difference between 0w20 and 5w30 the oil of choice in the bigger engine.
 
^^^That's an awful lot of conjecture. I'd be willing to bet the radiator and cooling system capacity is different, so is gearing, etc. The previous gen 4.8/5.3/6.0/6.2 shared a lot of internal parts though...
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^That's an awful lot of conjecture. I'd be willing to bet the radiator and cooling system capacity is different, so is gearing, etc. The previous gen 4.8/5.3/6.0/6.2 shared a lot of internal parts though...


I wonder if the bearing design is different, specifically designed with 20 grade oil in mind?
 
I'm comparing the 2017 GMC 1500 SLT 153" CC, with max trailer, 8 speed, 5.3L vs the 6.2L engine, not the 2103 & older 5.3L.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Shannow
OK, talking specifically...provide DATA...specifically...

not feelings, guesses, or bets (Casino Royale if you will)


Post up the main link where those graphs came from - I bet they have nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which you try to skirt by whipping out unrelated information.....


Yup, cherry-picking modus operandi...
 
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Just from my own observations, I'd say (at least on the C6 with the LS2 and LS3 engines), the Vette runs higher oil temps than a typical passenger car or light duty pick up. Even when the outside temp is a relatively mild 75F, I see oil temps of 230F+ on the Interstate with cruise set at 70 mph.

And let's not forget that GM first went to Mobil 1 as the factory fill (and recommended service fill) in the C4 when the LT1 engine was introduced and their stated reason was so they would not have to fit an oil cooler. That's tantamount to an admission that the LT1 in the C4 needed an oil cooler unless a synthetic oil was used, presumably because a syn oil can take the higher oil temps. As far as I can tell, there is no external oil cooler used on the C5, C6, or C7 Vettes.


My C5 Z06 doesn't have any extra oil cooling devices, but the Z06 does have a pretty good cooling system. The C5s have a digital coolant and oil temperature readout on the information center, and while cruising down the highway at 70 MPH on days around 75F I'd never see oil temperature over 210 F. Looking at a spreadsheet where I logged oil temp vs. engine RPM vs oil pressure, I never saw any oil temps over 220 F while holding the car at a steady 4000 or 5000 RPM for a couple of minutes to get steady readings.

Guys who tracked their C5 Z06 could see oil temperatures around 300F on hot days, and then decide to get an oil cooler (example below). His oil running at 280F in 90F weather seems a bit high to me ... maybe he's a real heavy footed driver on the streets. Could also mean his radiator needs cleaning, as the C5 was basically a vacuum cleaner how it picks up air going into the radiator along with lots of road debris, which eventually chokes down the air flow.



The 6th Gen Mustangs have a water-to-oil cooler block that the oil filter mounts to, and the "track package" has a larger radiator. The Mustang guys say on the track that the water-to-oil cooler doesn't help much because once the coolant temperatures increase due to laying down the HP at the track, the factory oil cooler loses some effectiveness (still better than nothing). Most guys who track their cars on a regular basis do cooling system mods and add a big oil cooler in order to keep oil temps reasonable during long runs on the track. Also transmission and differential cooling is needed in most cases. More HP going through the transmission and rear end for long periods of time also causes very high oil temperatures. Running cars hard on the track is a good torture test.

Mustang Cooling on the Track [LINK]
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Just from my own observations, I'd say (at least on the C6 with the LS2 and LS3 engines), the Vette runs higher oil temps than a typical passenger car or light duty pick up. Even when the outside temp is a relatively mild 75F, I see oil temps of 230F+ on the Interstate with cruise set at 70 mph.

And let's not forget that GM first went to Mobil 1 as the factory fill (and recommended service fill) in the C4 when the LT1 engine was introduced and their stated reason was so they would not have to fit an oil cooler. That's tantamount to an admission that the LT1 in the C4 needed an oil cooler unless a synthetic oil was used, presumably because a syn oil can take the higher oil temps. As far as I can tell, there is no external oil cooler used on the C5, C6, or C7 Vettes.


My C5 Z06 doesn't have any extra oil cooling devices, but the Z06 does have a pretty good cooling system. The C5s have a digital coolant and oil temperature readout on the information center, and while cruising down the highway at 70 MPH on days around 75F I'd never see oil temperature over 210 F. Looking at a spreadsheet where I logged oil temp vs. engine RPM vs oil pressure, I never saw any oil temps over 220 F while holding the car at a steady 4000 or 5000 RPM for a couple of minutes to get steady readings.

Guys who tracked their C5 Z06 could see oil temperatures around 300F on hot days, and then decide to get an oil cooler (example below). His oil running at 280F in 90F weather seems a bit high to me ... maybe he's a real heavy footed driver on the streets. Could also mean his radiator needs cleaning, as the C5 was basically a vacuum cleaner how it picks up air going into the radiator along with lots of road debris, which eventually chokes down the air flow.



The 6th Gen Mustangs have a water to oil cooler block that the oil filter mounts to, and the "track package" has a larger radiator. The Mustang guys say on the track that the water-to-oil cooler doesn't help much because once the coolant temperatures increase due to laying down the HP at the track, the factory oil cooler loses some effectiveness (still better than nothing). Most guys who track their cars on a regular basis do cooling system mods and add a big oil cooler in order to keep oil temps reasonable during long runs on the track.

Mustang Cooling on the Track [LINK]

What kind of coolant temps are they seeing when the oil hits 280-300F? Thanks.
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Shannow
OK, talking specifically...provide DATA...specifically...

not feelings, guesses, or bets (Casino Royale if you will)


Post up the main link where those graphs came from - I bet they have nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which you try to skirt by whipping out unrelated information.....


Yup, cherry-picking modus operandi...


Ahhhh, another solid Nickedfresh contribution to a thread.

Charts in question were taken from a paper on warm-up strategies...i.e. intentionally getting heat into the oil, and comparing which strategy (RPM or load was more effective).

Not relevent and cherry picked ?

To a discussion on which adds more heat to the oil ?
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
What kind of coolant temps are they seeing when the oil hits 280-300F? Thanks.


With stock cooling systems, the track guys would see around 240~260F coolant temps on hot days. Of course, as discussed earlier, if the coolant system can't keep up to remove heat of combustion at high HP levels, then the oil will gain more heat and sump temperatures increase even more than they would just from RPM/friction only.

Most guys who track their cars will try to make cooling system mods first; lower thermostat (which doesn't really help once it's fully opened anyway), and more concentration of water in the coolant mix and/or water wetter type products to help increase the heat transfer to the coolant. Then maybe a higher capacity radiator to shed more heat, and then finally an engine oil cooler if needed. On top of all that, run a heavier full synthetic oil to ensure it can take the heat without thinning down to a dangerous level.
 
Agree, if you can't shed the heat, you are on a flogging to nowhere...

About 20 years ago there was a guy down here, Johhn Bennet, who was doing amazing things with cooling systems, and one of the biggies with track cars was to put in a stilling chamber to get the water vapour from the nucleate boiling back into liquid phase before trying to do anything with it at the radiator end...Took many engines from the brink back into thermal control.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Shannow
OK, talking specifically...provide DATA...specifically...

not feelings, guesses, or bets (Casino Royale if you will)


Post up the main link where those graphs came from - I bet they have nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which you try to skirt by whipping out unrelated information.....


Yup, cherry-picking modus operandi...


Ahhhh, another solid Nickedfresh contribution to a thread.

Charts in question were taken from a paper on warm-up strategies...i.e. intentionally getting heat into the oil, and comparing which strategy (RPM or load was more effective).

Not relevent and cherry picked ?

To a discussion on which adds more heat to the oil ?



Right, bud. Where's the link?

Whose paper? Was it peer reviewed?

As opposed to your pseudoscience posts that have caused a number of posters to quit this place...
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Right, bud. Where's the link?

Whose paper? Was it peer reviewed?

As opposed to your pseudoscience posts that have caused a number of posters to quit this place...


http://papers.sae.org/902089/

SAE are typically better sources than a hand full of posits, and advertising puff pieces if I correctly guess who you are referring to as having left.
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Shannow

Charts in question were taken from a paper on warm-up strategies...i.e. intentionally getting heat into the oil, and comparing which strategy (RPM or load was more effective).


Right, bud. Where's the link?

Whose paper? Was it peer reviewed?

As opposed to your pseudoscience posts that have caused a number of posters to quit this place...


Come on, that's not fair, Shannow does some of the best science and engineering posts here. None that I have seen deserve the title pseudoscience. The quality of his posts has kept me coming back to this place.

I can't speak for Shannow, but I grab lots of graphs and tables from the web, like J300 tables, that I then refer to. Unfortunately I can't always point to the source, as it wasn't important at the time (and I was being a bit lazy). However if somebody says my J300 table is out of date, and provides (or points to) a better one, then I'm happy to be corrected.

Anyway, this is an interesting and lively discussion on heat source and flow in a high performance engine. If it can be kept friendly, there is a lot of good stuff here, from many different angles. I for one had no idea that RPM builds oil thickness until Shannow posted that graph a few pages back. It makes sense to me, and it supports my view that my old low revving thumper motorcycles needed thicker oil (that and being air-cooled). But I now realized I transferred this world view to my high revving 4-cylinder motorcycles without realizing that it wasn't quite the same, and maybe my oil was a little too thick for that application. No harm done to the bike, but it's nice to learn new things, even if it's a little challenging.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Right, bud. Where's the link?

Whose paper? Was it peer reviewed?

As opposed to your pseudoscience posts that have caused a number of posters to quit this place...


http://papers.sae.org/902089/

SAE are typically better sources than a hand full of posits, and advertising puff pieces if I correctly guess who you are referring to as having left.


I agree that SAE is a better source. Just hope you aren't inferring that I leave advert puff pieces, never have...
 
Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Shannow

Charts in question were taken from a paper on warm-up strategies...i.e. intentionally getting heat into the oil, and comparing which strategy (RPM or load was more effective).


Right, bud. Where's the link?

Whose paper? Was it peer reviewed?

As opposed to your pseudoscience posts that have caused a number of posters to quit this place...


Come on, that's not fair, Shannow does some of the best science and engineering posts here. None that I have seen deserve the title pseudoscience. The quality of his posts has kept me coming back to this place.

I can't speak for Shannow, but I grab lots of graphs and tables from the web, like J300 tables, that I then refer to. Unfortunately I can't always point to the source, as it wasn't important at the time (and I was being a bit lazy). However if somebody says my J300 table is out of date, and provides (or points to) a better one, then I'm happy to be corrected.

Anyway, this is an interesting and lively discussion on heat source and flow in a high performance engine. If it can be kept friendly, there is a lot of good stuff here, from many different angles. I for one had no idea that RPM builds oil thickness until Shannow posted that graph a few pages back. It makes sense to me, and it supports my view that my old low revving thumper motorcycles needed thicker oil (that and being air-cooled). But I now realized I transferred this world view to my high revving 4-cylinder motorcycles without realizing that it wasn't quite the same, and maybe my oil was a little too thick for that application. No harm done to the bike, but it's nice to learn new things, even if it's a little challenging.



Maybe I was a bit strong on the psuedoscience thing, but I think there is also a danger in posting dated research as gospel or the end all be all...
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Just hope you aren't inferring that I leave advert puff pieces, never have...


Nope, certainly did not
10.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top