We dont have a real OLM, it just counts down from 5k miles :-(
Amsoil (SSO) 0W/30, 10,660 Miles, 06 Scion tC
- Thread starter 06tC
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Correct I wasn't on the engineering team. But read the problems popping up with DI engines and how hard they are on oil. We have a recent Schaffers UOA in this section that showed the oil was spent long before it should have been. There are similar UOA reports with other oils in DI engines. True this doesn't apply to the OP we drifted a bit OT.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/schaeffer-7000-5w30-2010-equinox-4-cyl-di.146585/
As you stated he could go with the OLM and then get a UOA, at least he'd have data, assuming the lab report is accurate. He wouldn't know about sludge building up though.
Blindly following the OLM IMO is a mistake, especially in DI engines. Being overly cautious or obtaining data for DI engine owners is prudent. Oil is cheap, engines aren't. Searching this board about the problems with DI engines is a real eye opener. I think the oil companies and car companies are going to be making some changes, in the form of recommending shorter intervals with these engines and reprogramming the OLM for DI applications. I'd rather be ahead of the crowd, than cursing the car maker and the oil company, saying I should have changed my oil sooner.
Engineers make mistakes too, plenty. My OCI was a suggestion, nothing more. I bet following my suggestion until the engineers and the oil companies get their DI engine ducks in a row will yield a cleaner better running DI engine than following the OLM. For the record, JMO.
I agree. Why just decide to leave it in the hands of the auto manufacturer over technicality?
Correct I wasn't on the engineering team. But read the problems popping up with DI engines and how hard they are on oil. We have a recent Schaffers UOA in this section that showed the oil was spent long before it should have been. There are similar UOA reports with other oils in DI engines. True this doesn't apply to the OP we drifted a bit OT.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/schaeffer-7000-5w30-2010-equinox-4-cyl-di.146585/
As you stated he could go with the OLM and then get a UOA, at least he'd have data, assuming the lab report is accurate. He wouldn't know about sludge building up though.
Blindly following the OLM IMO is a mistake, especially in DI engines. Being overly cautious or obtaining data for DI engine owners is prudent. Oil is cheap, engines aren't. Searching this board about the problems with DI engines is a real eye opener. I think the oil companies and car companies are going to be making some changes, in the form of recommending shorter intervals with these engines and reprogramming the OLM for DI applications. I'd rather be ahead of the crowd, than cursing the car maker and the oil company, saying I should have changed my oil sooner.
Engineers make mistakes too, plenty. My OCI was a suggestion, nothing more. I bet following my suggestion until the engineers and the oil companies get their DI engine ducks in a row will yield a cleaner better running DI engine than following the OLM. For the record, JMO.
I agree. Why just decide to leave it in the hands of the auto manufacturer over technicality?
Thanks ltslimjim. Here is yet another example of a DI engine beating up the oil, and the OLM says it had 22% life remaining. https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/2011-lacrosse-csx-5880-5880.149145/
Yes it was the FF and the engine is still breaking in, but there are many here quick to say changing the FF early is a complete waste. I'm not from that camp and change FF early, but that's a whole different topic.
The point here is the oil was spent in under 6000 miles. Not to beat a dead horse the smart money is on DI engines killing oil, and re-thinking intervals or reprogramming the OLM would be a good idea. JMO
Yes it was the FF and the engine is still breaking in, but there are many here quick to say changing the FF early is a complete waste. I'm not from that camp and change FF early, but that's a whole different topic.
The point here is the oil was spent in under 6000 miles. Not to beat a dead horse the smart money is on DI engines killing oil, and re-thinking intervals or reprogramming the OLM would be a good idea. JMO
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Not to beat a dead horse the smart money is on DI engines killing oil, and re-thinking intervals or reprogramming the OLM would be a good idea. JMO
As I posted in another thread this is exactly what is happening for the earlier GM 3.6L DI engines (pre...2010?) ie very recenlty GM issued a TSB (one for which owners will be notified by mail) for a reprogramming of the ECM and one major consequence of this reprogramming will be a recalibration of the OLM which will result in (much) more frequent oil changes as the OLM will count down more quickly.
Not to beat a dead horse the smart money is on DI engines killing oil, and re-thinking intervals or reprogramming the OLM would be a good idea. JMO
As I posted in another thread this is exactly what is happening for the earlier GM 3.6L DI engines (pre...2010?) ie very recenlty GM issued a TSB (one for which owners will be notified by mail) for a reprogramming of the ECM and one major consequence of this reprogramming will be a recalibration of the OLM which will result in (much) more frequent oil changes as the OLM will count down more quickly.
Originally Posted By: 06tC
Vehicle:javascript:%20void(0)
Comments:
Silicon remains unchanged in this most recent sample from the engine in your Scion. Since wear is okay,silicon is probably from a harmless source such as a silicone sealer or spray. You may want to inspect the plumbing of your engine's air filtration system for leaks just to be safe. Maybe if you can get that silicon number down, wear will drop too. The viscosity fine for a 0W/30, and no fuel, moisture, or anti-freeze was found. The TBN was 2.1, showing plenty of active additive remaining in the oil. Try up to 12,000 miles next time.
I don't understand Blackstone's comments sometimes, someone please explain it to me.
Why the heck are they saying that the Silicon is completely Harmless and then follow that up by saying, if you get the Silicon number down, maybe wear will drop as well.
You JUST said it was harmless?!?!?!
Vehicle:javascript:%20void(0)
Comments:
Silicon remains unchanged in this most recent sample from the engine in your Scion. Since wear is okay,silicon is probably from a harmless source such as a silicone sealer or spray. You may want to inspect the plumbing of your engine's air filtration system for leaks just to be safe. Maybe if you can get that silicon number down, wear will drop too. The viscosity fine for a 0W/30, and no fuel, moisture, or anti-freeze was found. The TBN was 2.1, showing plenty of active additive remaining in the oil. Try up to 12,000 miles next time.
I don't understand Blackstone's comments sometimes, someone please explain it to me.
Why the heck are they saying that the Silicon is completely Harmless and then follow that up by saying, if you get the Silicon number down, maybe wear will drop as well.
You JUST said it was harmless?!?!?!
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Not to beat a dead horse the smart money is on DI engines killing oil, and re-thinking intervals or reprogramming the OLM would be a good idea. JMO
As I posted in another thread this is exactly what is happening for the earlier GM 3.6L DI engines (pre...2010?) ie very recenlty GM issued a TSB (one for which owners will be notified by mail) for a reprogramming of the ECM and one major consequence of this reprogramming will be a recalibration of the OLM which will result in (much) more frequent oil changes as the OLM will count down more quickly.
I guess I missed that, thanks! It looks like the engineers were wrong, and are correcting the error. Mistakes happen, admitting to them and taking the necessary measures to correct them is a good thing. Now it looks like 2010 and newer OLM might need some tweaking too. Still a shorter OCI is not getting to the root cause of the fuel dilution, that has to be ironed out too.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Not to beat a dead horse the smart money is on DI engines killing oil, and re-thinking intervals or reprogramming the OLM would be a good idea. JMO
As I posted in another thread this is exactly what is happening for the earlier GM 3.6L DI engines (pre...2010?) ie very recenlty GM issued a TSB (one for which owners will be notified by mail) for a reprogramming of the ECM and one major consequence of this reprogramming will be a recalibration of the OLM which will result in (much) more frequent oil changes as the OLM will count down more quickly.
I guess I missed that, thanks! It looks like the engineers were wrong, and are correcting the error. Mistakes happen, admitting to them and taking the necessary measures to correct them is a good thing. Now it looks like 2010 and newer OLM might need some tweaking too. Still a shorter OCI is not getting to the root cause of the fuel dilution, that has to be ironed out too.
Hahahaha. I find it EXTREMELY funny that unlike all other Manufacturers which spend plenty of R&D time perfecting the OLM system, GM just slaps on whatever numbers they thought looked good on paper and called it a day... until engines started showing up with oil related problems.
All other manufacturers are working towards EXTENDING OCI's while GM is back tracking and have to go back to the ol' 3k limit.
A classic display of a manufacturer designing a new engine and releasing it to the general public without enough R&D behind it.
All other manufacturers are working towards EXTENDING OCI's while GM is back tracking and have to go back to the ol' 3k limit.
A classic display of a manufacturer designing a new engine and releasing it to the general public without enough R&D behind it.
Originally Posted By: Artem
A classic display of a manufacturer designing a new engine and releasing it to the general public without enough R&D behind it.
It happens, and the end user does the testing, as we see with the DI engines.
A classic display of a manufacturer designing a new engine and releasing it to the general public without enough R&D behind it.
It happens, and the end user does the testing, as we see with the DI engines.
Originally Posted By: Artem
Originally Posted By: 06tC
Vehicle:javascript:%20void(0)
Comments:
Silicon remains unchanged in this most recent sample from the engine in your Scion. Since wear is okay,silicon is probably from a harmless source such as a silicone sealer or spray. You may want to inspect the plumbing of your engine's air filtration system for leaks just to be safe. Maybe if you can get that silicon number down, wear will drop too. The viscosity fine for a 0W/30, and no fuel, moisture, or anti-freeze was found. The TBN was 2.1, showing plenty of active additive remaining in the oil. Try up to 12,000 miles next time.
I don't understand Blackstone's comments sometimes, someone please explain it to me.
Why the heck are they saying that the Silicon is completely Harmless and then follow that up by saying, if you get the Silicon number down, maybe wear will drop as well.
You JUST said it was harmless?!?!?!
They said it was "probably" from sealers but to check the intake plumbing just in case. In the case that the plumbing was not tight, perhaps then Si and wear would drop.
It seemed straightforward to me.
Originally Posted By: 06tC
Vehicle:javascript:%20void(0)
Comments:
Silicon remains unchanged in this most recent sample from the engine in your Scion. Since wear is okay,silicon is probably from a harmless source such as a silicone sealer or spray. You may want to inspect the plumbing of your engine's air filtration system for leaks just to be safe. Maybe if you can get that silicon number down, wear will drop too. The viscosity fine for a 0W/30, and no fuel, moisture, or anti-freeze was found. The TBN was 2.1, showing plenty of active additive remaining in the oil. Try up to 12,000 miles next time.
I don't understand Blackstone's comments sometimes, someone please explain it to me.
Why the heck are they saying that the Silicon is completely Harmless and then follow that up by saying, if you get the Silicon number down, maybe wear will drop as well.
You JUST said it was harmless?!?!?!
They said it was "probably" from sealers but to check the intake plumbing just in case. In the case that the plumbing was not tight, perhaps then Si and wear would drop.
It seemed straightforward to me.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Let me put it this way, IMO [all the oil companies] most likely will be re-thinking OCI's for these engines. If it were my vehicle I would settle at maybe 3500 miles with a good synthetic like M1, PP, PU, Edge, Amsoil XL, etc, until there is more data. I would not want to be testing any oil or engine, at my expense. It appears there are issues with these engines. JMO
DI Engines are causing problems for the oil companies and I agree with demarpaint, just search the boards, its all there in black and white. Following an oil companies extended drain interval for these engines is a MISTAKE not worth taking on oil company hype. While demarpaint made suggestions ( clearly stating his " OPINION ") off the top of his head, I would feel more comfortable following them than an OLM or oil company HYPE, search and you'll see.
Let me put it this way, IMO [all the oil companies] most likely will be re-thinking OCI's for these engines. If it were my vehicle I would settle at maybe 3500 miles with a good synthetic like M1, PP, PU, Edge, Amsoil XL, etc, until there is more data. I would not want to be testing any oil or engine, at my expense. It appears there are issues with these engines. JMO
DI Engines are causing problems for the oil companies and I agree with demarpaint, just search the boards, its all there in black and white. Following an oil companies extended drain interval for these engines is a MISTAKE not worth taking on oil company hype. While demarpaint made suggestions ( clearly stating his " OPINION ") off the top of his head, I would feel more comfortable following them than an OLM or oil company HYPE, search and you'll see.
I'm still waiting on DI engines to start blowing up as a result of the OEM recommended OCI. Hahaha.
I was under the impression that as technology progressed, things like DI engine were a good thing and a step forwards from the regular Intake manifold injection but i guess not
its a shame. I wonder what the future holds.
I was under the impression that as technology progressed, things like DI engine were a good thing and a step forwards from the regular Intake manifold injection but i guess not
its a shame. I wonder what the future holds.
The future holds .... bicycles...
Great UOAs. Looks like 11k is your limit. So, stick with the 10k OCIs.
I know you want the extra mousepower, but I'd still with a normal air filter.
Iron is high but because the Si is too, can't blame the oil.
Room for a bigger filter, M1-102?
Great UOAs. Looks like 11k is your limit. So, stick with the 10k OCIs.
I know you want the extra mousepower, but I'd still with a normal air filter.
Iron is high but because the Si is too, can't blame the oil.
Room for a bigger filter, M1-102?
Not sure, will check to see if the M-102 filter will fit.
- Status
Similar threads
