2013 Mazda 3 SkyActiv, M1 AFE 0w-20, 12,832 miles

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Boo. I was switching to M1 0W20 to reduce consumption but it sounds like it is as bad as PP 0W20 in the skyactiv 2.0.

So far the only oil that didn't have measurable consumption was the Castrol OE 0W20 from the dealer. I really don't want to go back to castrol

The OP said one qt was used in a 13K OCI. Do yo really consider that a problem?


For me, yes. When another oil is at 0, then 1 qt/10k miles is too much. I'd like to keep the car as long as possible and burning any more oil than necessary doesn't help.

 

[cptbarkey]

keep up running it dry, curious to how predictable the results will be.

 

[brandini]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Boo. I was switching to M1 0W20 to reduce consumption but it sounds like it is as bad as PP 0W20 in the skyactiv 2.0.

So far the only oil that didn't have measurable consumption was the Castrol OE 0W20 from the dealer. I really don't want to go back to castrol

The OP said one qt was used in a 13K OCI. Do yo really consider that a problem?


For me, yes. When another oil is at 0, then 1 qt/10k miles is too much. I'd like to keep the car as long as possible and burning any more oil than necessary doesn't help.

Going by consumption alone won't get you a great snapshot of what's going on in the engine, either. It just means between the two, it's better than the other in that one aspect.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: brandini


Going by consumption alone won't get you a great snapshot of what's going on in the engine, either. It just means between the two, it's better than the other in that one aspect.


What are you talking about? Burning oil is harder on the cats. Burning less oil helps extend their life. Consumption doesn't tell you anything about engine health unless you can track it down to PCV or something.

 

[brandini]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: brandini


Going by consumption alone won't get you a great snapshot of what's going on in the engine, either. It just means between the two, it's better than the other in that one aspect.


What are you talking about? Burning oil is harder on the cats. Burning less oil helps extend their life. Consumption doesn't tell you anything about engine health unless you can track it down to PCV or something.

Exactly my point, you're going for maximum cat life and without a UOA it's possible you're actually getting increased engine wear from the oil that's burning less. There's no way to know without a UOA. Between the two (oils), you're reducing it to one aspect.

In a situation with all else being equal, I'd agree with you.