GM 2.4L ECOTEC Gen II, 569 UOA samples

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
223
Location
Iowa City
I have a spreadsheet of 569 BSL oil samples, for the GM ECOTEC Gen II engine from 2006-2017 . I was not able to add the spreadsheet. I have revised the data and added averages, std devs, min, max, iron wear rates and comparisons between GDI and non-GDI versions of this engine for standard OCI, and fuel dilution.

Let me know your comments, questions, or any additions you would think might be meaningful. I originally shared this on the Chevy Equinox Forum which contains the full spreadsheet.

I am not convinced by labs and OEMs indicating that fuel dilution above 3% is normal for GDI engines.. It maybe typical, but not what I would consider normal.

https://www.equinoxforum.net/31-eng...cotec-oil-analysis-file-568-samples.html




Summary Page 1.jpg


Summary Page 2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing that. It is hard to read. It looks like higher fuel content is correlated with higher iron wear rate. A plot of iron wear rate vs fuel percentage would be interesting to see. Same for other wear metals.
 
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
LOL well that's an improvement you still can't read.



Rather than just laughing, how would you post a screen shot or an Excel file on this forum.
 
Originally Posted by IndyFan
How can something typical not be normal? Just curious.


When Polaris Labs puts out a tech bulletin saying upwards of 7% fuel dilution is normal for a GDI engine, and my local GM dealer will not even discuss the issue or provide any incite.

When a GDI system sprays fuel directly on the backside of of the cylinder, washing the oil from the cylinder wall, leaking past the rings, and contaminating the sump.

When GM extends warranty coverage to 7.5 years and 120K miles for oil consumption and damage to rings and pistons for many of these GDI Ecotec engines.
 
Originally Posted by Talent_Keyhole
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
LOL well that's an improvement you still can't read.



Rather than just laughing, how would you post a screen shot or an Excel file on this forum.


Taking a screenshot is NOT hard at all. MAD_Hatter helped me take one and re size it
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted by Talent_Keyhole
Originally Posted by IndyFan
How can something typical not be normal? Just curious.


When Polaris Labs puts out a tech bulletin saying upwards of 7% fuel dilution is normal for a GDI engine, and my local GM dealer will not even discuss the issue or provide any incite.

When a GDI system sprays fuel directly on the backside of of the cylinder, washing the oil from the cylinder wall, leaking past the rings, and contaminating the sump.

When GM extends warranty coverage to 7.5 years and 120K miles for oil consumption and damage to rings and pistons for many of these GDI Ecotec engines.


I think there is confusion in the use of the words here, between their formal and informal meanings. When you say "normal" in a sense of statistical analysis, it would indicate that the data defines something being inside the bounds of the 6-sigma (std devs). But the word "normal" to most folks just means typical, commonplace, everyday, expected, etc. I would argue that the statistical "normality" of the dilution and resulting wear is demonstrated by the data, itself. These 2.4L engine which have GDI are acting totally "normally"; they do what they do. It's just that you (understandably) find the results undesirable; eg - not acceptable. Further, there can be a big difference between a normal condition and acceptable. Example ... It's normal for an adolescent to be tempted to smoke marijuana, but it's not acceptable. (at least in my house).

So my point is that the data is telling you that the 2.4L GDI dilution of fuel is normal, and the wear results it causes are normal. They're just not desirable.
 
Originally Posted by 53' Stude
Originally Posted by Talent_Keyhole
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
LOL well that's an improvement you still can't read.



Rather than just laughing, how would you post a screen shot or an Excel file on this forum.


Taking a screenshot is NOT hard at all. MAD_Hatter helped me take one and re size it
smile.gif



The original .PNG file on my computer is 1920x1080. Then I upload it. When I open the image in the post and save it, the size is 768x432, and much smaller in file size. Let me know what I am doing wrong.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Originally Posted by Talent_Keyhole
Originally Posted by IndyFan
How can something typical not be normal? Just curious.


When Polaris Labs puts out a tech bulletin saying upwards of 7% fuel dilution is normal for a GDI engine, and my local GM dealer will not even discuss the issue or provide any incite.

When a GDI system sprays fuel directly on the backside of of the cylinder, washing the oil from the cylinder wall, leaking past the rings, and contaminating the sump.

When GM extends warranty coverage to 7.5 years and 120K miles for oil consumption and damage to rings and pistons for many of these GDI Ecotec engines.


I think there is confusion in the use of the words here, between their formal and informal meanings. When you say "normal" in a sense of statistical analysis, it would indicate that the data defines something being inside the bounds of the 6-sigma (std devs). But the word "normal" to most folks just means typical, commonplace, everyday, expected, etc. I would argue that the statistical "normality" of the dilution and resulting wear is demonstrated by the data, itself. These 2.4L engine which have GDI are acting totally "normally"; they do what they do. It's just that you (understandably) find the results undesirable; eg - not acceptable. Further, there can be a big difference between a normal condition and acceptable. Example ... It's normal for an adolescent to be tempted to smoke marijuana, but it's not acceptable. (at least in my house).

So my point is that the data is telling you that the 2.4L GDI dilution of fuel is normal, and the wear results it causes are normal. They're just not desirable.



My use of the word normal is with respect to what any reasonable consumer and vehicle owner would expect from a manufacturer who's stated goal is to produce a durable, reliable product that is designed, and tested to the highest standards with the knowledge and experience available. GM promoted GDI for the its improved emission standards, performance and efficiency, but failed to disclose the known problems with GDI system, fuel dilution which causes viscosity loss, increased wear, and pre-mature failure of a number of major components. This occurs at above normal averages, even when all preventative maintenance and recommendations are followed. Is this typical , some would say yes. Is it normal and expected, some would say, including myself, no. Some countries have enacted legislation to support consumer's expectation that vehicles are designed and produced with a reasonable expectation of durability.

In other cultures, the temptation of banded substances is rare and not normal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top