Recent Topics
Cool train site for Canadians
by Papa Bear. 12/14/18 10:09 AM
Putting together a groups 3/4/5 synthetic list
by MrWideTires. 12/14/18 10:02 AM
VW Atlas V6 Oil
by motech. 12/14/18 09:32 AM
Great shakes, it's Yahtzee... or a Taurus
by redhat. 12/14/18 09:03 AM
MWI Micro Wave Ignition
by Danno. 12/14/18 08:52 AM
8k Miles on M1 EP 2017 Subaru 3.6
by BISCUT. 12/14/18 08:47 AM
Wrong ATF Fluid in my 07 Chevy Impala
by CM613. 12/14/18 08:39 AM
Hyundai motor oil
by pbm. 12/14/18 08:16 AM
Which Exhaust Manifold Should I Buy
by Miller88. 12/14/18 08:10 AM
Rotella T5 10w30 Ford 6.7L anyone?
by sw99. 12/14/18 07:49 AM
Advice on spark plugs for 90,000 mile Accord
by Chris B.. 12/13/18 11:24 PM
Elec star kit for predator engine...
by SmokeyBear. 12/13/18 11:07 PM
Mecredes Bosch vs Ngk sparks plug
by Rohan. 12/13/18 09:48 PM
Wife problem?
by penguin. 12/13/18 08:04 PM
2008 Chevy Malibu 3.6L V6
by lordcheeto. 12/13/18 07:36 PM
power company merged and I got the shaft
by motor_oil_madman. 12/13/18 07:19 PM
Space heater burnt smell
by BossMoss. 12/13/18 07:13 PM
Shell Helix Ultra Maserati 10W-60
by wemay. 12/13/18 06:53 PM
Newest Members
captobvious, pgrkcs, 4Doors4Life, 780Ari, kayumb
66677 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
99 registered members (64bawagon, aquariuscsm, anndel, Best F100, Bailes1992, 390pi, 12 invisible), 1,903 guests, and 41 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics295,058
Posts4,926,970
Members66,677
Most Online2,553
Oct 27th, 2018
Donate to BITOG
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
'16 Silverado 4.3 Ecotec - 6,802 miles #4589307
11/29/17 08:22 PM
11/29/17 08:22 PM
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,259
PV Az
AZjeff Offline OP
AZjeff  Offline OP
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,259
PV Az
Bought this truck 4/17 showing 2000 miles. This is a base 2wd double cab with carpet the only option on the sticker. Oil life was at 100% so I figured the dealer did the regular used car service deal. At 5000 miles I dumped that and put in 5 qts. PPP 5w-30 and 1 qt PPP 10w-30 and a NAPA Gold filter. Went to 12% on the OLM and refilled with same. Well satisfied with the truck so far, it does everything I need it for without a bunch of fluff. 21.1 mpg lifetime average including 1000 miles towing a 3000 lb camper into Colorado. Might run the OLM to 0% or 8000 as suggested and do another UOA.



86 Samurai 1.3 leftovers
14 RAV4 2.5 5W-20 PP
16 Silverado 1500 4.3, DI, AFM 5W-30 PP

The most important thing to do in your life is to not interfere with someone else's life. - Frank Zappa

Re: '16 Silverado 4.3 Ecotec - 6,802 miles [Re: AZjeff] #4589562
11/30/17 05:55 AM
11/30/17 05:55 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,626
Indianapolis, IN
dnewton3 Offline
dnewton3  Offline
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,626
Indianapolis, IN
Nothing but expected break-in here.

I'd recommend to not waste money on UOAs until you get at least 4 OCIs and about 20k miles on a rig. You're not going to learn anything from it, unless you need to learn that engines experience break in ...

You could say "Well - I'm building a history for the UOAs". OK - but that's silly. Why start now? This isn't "normal" wear. It's typical break-in; that's true. But it's not "normal" wear data. So all it's going to do, if you intend to run a long series of UOAs, is skew the running average unnaturally high, and create a stdev greater than what is wanted. It is, essentially, useless data.


Last edited by dnewton3; 11/30/17 05:59 AM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: '16 Silverado 4.3 Ecotec - 6,802 miles [Re: AZjeff] #4589722
11/30/17 10:29 AM
11/30/17 10:29 AM
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 92
Pocatello, Idaho
compratio10_5 Offline
compratio10_5  Offline
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 92
Pocatello, Idaho
Thanks for posting, Jeff.This report tells me some information that is worthwhile. 1) New engines continue to generate beak-in debris regardless of claims of better manufacturing, closer tolerances, better oil, etc. 2) Oil filters do not catch the majority of wear metals generated inside of the engine. 3)It does appear to be a good idea to change oil and filter early on new engines to remove this break-in debris, just as traditionally recommended. 4) There is no sign of fuel dilution or antifreeze leakage which is good to know on an engine of any age.


It's not what you don't know that hurts, it's what you think you know that ain't so. Will Rogers
Re: '16 Silverado 4.3 Ecotec - 6,802 miles [Re: AZjeff] #4589755
11/30/17 11:05 AM
11/30/17 11:05 AM
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 278
Minnesota
JoelB Offline
JoelB  Offline
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 278
Minnesota
This UOA only tells us what wasn't caught, so you have no idea what was caught. Meaning you could never conclude that a majority of the wear metals haven't been caught.


Mine: 2018 Chevy spark (White) 1.4 Non-turbo
Mobil 1 0w20 AFE
ACDelco UPF64R

Wife's: 2018 Chevy spark (Blue) 1.4 Non-turbo
Mobil 1 0w20 AFE
ACDelco UPF64R
Re: '16 Silverado 4.3 Ecotec - 6,802 miles [Re: AZjeff] #4589760
11/30/17 11:13 AM
11/30/17 11:13 AM
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 683
South Carolina
eyeofthetiger Offline
eyeofthetiger  Offline
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 683
South Carolina
Nice. My 4.3 only gets 11 MPG, mostly empty.


2017 Ford Fiesta 1.0T - Valvoline SynPower 5W-20, Motorcraft FL910S
1988 GMC K1500 4.3/700R4 - Supertech 15W-40, Fram TG3980
1986 Ford Ranger 2.0 - uhh
Re: '16 Silverado 4.3 Ecotec - 6,802 miles [Re: compratio10_5] #4589823
11/30/17 12:23 PM
11/30/17 12:23 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,626
Indianapolis, IN
dnewton3 Offline
dnewton3  Offline
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,626
Indianapolis, IN
I will counter, fundamentally ...

Originally Posted By: compratio10_5

1) New engines continue to generate beak-in debris regardless of claims of better manufacturing, closer tolerances, better oil, etc.
I don't know anyone who's ever said, despite the improvements, that break-in does not happen. All UOAs I've ever seen of virgin/near-new equipment show this trend. It's universal. This isn't proof of anything other than the obvious that no one ever stated otherwise. When you say "regardless of claims", I just don't know anyone who's ever claimed that the better manufacturing, oils, etc make for less break-in. Never ever heard that. Most will agree that the improvements in design, manufacturing and lubes make for more efficient, reliable engines. But not less break-in. That's something I think you're stretching for here.


2) Oil filters do not catch the majority of wear metals generated inside of the engine.
That is a unqualified statement. You have no idea what it caught. Mainly because there's no PC data to go along with this UOA.
Also, UOAs only view a portion of the total wear metals.
FF filters do a great job of what they are supposed to do, but they are NOT designed to catch all metals, so it's always expected to see some wear data escalation in newer equipment. FF filters (efficient ones) do a great job of catching wear particles, even during break-in. The do a lousy job of catching small stuff, all at times. So this UOA does not prove anything past what common sense already implies. There is a lot of small particles at break-in; we see them in the UOA. We have no idea how many big partciles are associated with break-in, because practically no one does a PC at break-in. Even if they did, it would be credited to "break-in"; no surprise there!


3)It does appear to be a good idea to change oil and filter early on new engines to remove this break-in debris, just as traditionally recommended.
How so? What is the appearance you refer to? To really make this conclusion valid, you'd have to see credible data of a control group that does NOT change the oil often, versus one that did. The observation you make is not really "wrong" but it's certainly anecdotal. Also, frequent OCIs will appear to have lower wear simply because of two phenomenon; one is accumulation of metals, the other is the generation of metals. IOW - if one did do frequent OCIs during break-in, is there any proof that this improves break-in wear rates, or cycle time? Not that I'm aware of. Break-in seems to be independent of the OCI duration; it will shed what it sheds, to seat itself in.

4) There is no sign of fuel dilution or antifreeze leakage which is good to know on an engine of any age.
This engine is not DI that I know of, and not known to have dilution issues. So it only confirmed what is already suspected; not unlike high wear metals. If there were issues (fuel or coolant), it's highly likely the OP would take the info to the dealer, and the dealer would promptly say "If it's running OK, we're not tearing into it because there's no warranty claim to charge against". Happens to BITOgers every once in a while. They discover what they consider to be an "issue", but anything under warranty is going to be scrutinized heavily as long as there's no outward sign of an problem. Does it run OK? Then drive it. That's what the dealer will say. So even if there were high fuel or coolant, they'd likely wait until a problem actually manifested before they would be able to make a warranty charge to the OEM.
My point? whether or not you see fuel or coolant in a premature UOA really has no conclusion to offer. Why? Because it's highly unlikely the dealer would do anything about it anyway. Want proof? Look at all the DI Ecoboost complaints, and yet no dealer goes into an engine under warranty based on a UOA. I agree that knowing about coolant and fuel is good when YOUR MONEY is on the line. But when it's the OEM paying, they are going to defer that claim until there's some tangible proof of a real problem; not some suspected issue that does not manifest into a seized engine, warped head, etc. Got high fuel? The dealer is going to tell you to continue to drive it. Got a smidge of coolant in the oil? Drive it. Got Si that's high? Drive it. When it starts making a really bad noise, or grinds to a halt, we'll open the engine up under warranty. Read it here many times over the years. UOAs don't make any dealer go into an engine under warranty. And so the knowledge at this early state of equipment life is useless at that point in time. If the coolant bottle was going empty every 1k miles, it would be super obvious and you'd not need a UOA in the first place. If the coolant leak is subtle, no dealer will tear into an engine for that under warranty. Same goes for fuel dilution; if the oil level rises 2" on the dipstick, and reeks of fuel, you don't need a UOA to tell you there's a problem. If the dilution is minor (5% or less), no dealer is going to do a darn thing to that engine under warrany.
So the information in a pre-mature UOA is useless in this regard!






Most folks around this site have ZERO idea of what can and cannot be gleaned from a UOA, or a series of UOAs.

UOAs on new/nearly-new equipment really offer no information that is actionable. It confirms what is already known; stuff has to break-in.


The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: '16 Silverado 4.3 Ecotec - 6,802 miles [Re: AZjeff] #4589835
11/30/17 12:33 PM
11/30/17 12:33 PM
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,259
PV Az
AZjeff Offline OP
AZjeff  Offline OP
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,259
PV Az
This could be the 2nd OC from factory fill or it could be the 1st. Bought the truck from a large Phoenix dealership and they all have standard procedures with trade-ins that normally include an oil change. So it could have had the FF changed out at 2K then I changed at 5K. Or not. The oil looked clean and the OLM was at 100% but who knows? Was happy to not see excess fuel dilution with the dreaded DI engine.

And thanks for the good advice dnewton3, I'll skip this OC then sample the next one. And yes it's a GDI, Ecotec3 family.

And I got this UOA mainly to see where the TBN was in relation to the OLM was and to look at the fuel number. I think I can run the OLM out to 0% but I'm certainly no expert.


86 Samurai 1.3 leftovers
14 RAV4 2.5 5W-20 PP
16 Silverado 1500 4.3, DI, AFM 5W-30 PP

The most important thing to do in your life is to not interfere with someone else's life. - Frank Zappa

Re: '16 Silverado 4.3 Ecotec - 6,802 miles [Re: compratio10_5] #4589853
11/30/17 12:48 PM
11/30/17 12:48 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,314
Upper Midwest
kschachn Online content
kschachn  Online Content
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,314
Upper Midwest
Originally Posted By: compratio10_5
Thanks for posting, Jeff.This report tells me some information that is worthwhile. 1) New engines continue to generate beak-in debris regardless of claims of better manufacturing, closer tolerances, better oil, etc. 2) Oil filters do not catch the majority of wear metals generated inside of the engine. 3)It does appear to be a good idea to change oil and filter early on new engines to remove this break-in debris, just as traditionally recommended. 4) There is no sign of fuel dilution or antifreeze leakage which is good to know on an engine of any age.

Where is the appearance coming from? The wear metals that show up on a typical analysis are not the ones causing damage. In fact, you really have no idea how much damage-causing metallic debris are in the oil based on a UOA since those particles are not detectable by the analysis. People on here often look at a UOA and see high metal numbers and subsequently conclude that the oil must be changed immediately due to those high values. But those metallic particles that register on the analysis are not the ones causing damage.

I've pointed out on here that one could prepare a motor oil sample with extremely high iron numbers that would be completely harmless to an engine. Conversely one could also prepare a sample that would test with very low numbers but would destroy an engine in short order. High wear metals in a sample can be the result of damage or wear but they aren't the cause. When I performed oil analysis in college for our automotive engineering and fluid power departments, we did two analysis, one with an acid digestion and one without. This was able to give you at least a crude indication of how many damaging particles existed in the sample.

This is lifted from a Machinery Lubrication article. Note the upper limit of particle size detectable by emission spectrography and where it falls on their threat graph:



1994 BMW 530i, 238K
1996 Honda Accord, 266K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 407K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 280K
Re: '16 Silverado 4.3 Ecotec - 6,802 miles [Re: AZjeff] #4590190
11/30/17 05:55 PM
11/30/17 05:55 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,626
Indianapolis, IN
dnewton3 Offline
dnewton3  Offline
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,626
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
... And yes it's a GDI, Ecotec3 family.


Good to know; I was completely unaware they had turned to GDI in this latest generation. I stand corrected. Thanks!

Doesn't change my advice though. Just too darned early to be taking a UOA; the data is completely expected to be totally above normal. Do a few more OCIs, and then you can start a long term trend analysis!

Sounds like a nice little truck. Sometimes I think folks overlook the simpler, economical trucks.

Last edited by dnewton3; 11/30/17 05:57 PM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™