Man, I'd take this UOA over some synthetic 5w30s all day long.
Chevron 5w-30, 9417 miles, 2008 Impala 3.5
- Thread starter Tucson Five-O
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: zddp77
Who says you cant extend your drain with conv. oil , this proves you can. The new GF-5 spec. will make synthetic oil obsolete. The difference in synthetic and conv. will just be marketing.
Right, because GF-5 oils WILL BE synthetic. No kidding. To meet Dexos 1 you can only use Grp III and maybe some PAO. Conventional oils will be obsolete. I hope no one commits suicide over this.
Who says you cant extend your drain with conv. oil , this proves you can. The new GF-5 spec. will make synthetic oil obsolete. The difference in synthetic and conv. will just be marketing.
Right, because GF-5 oils WILL BE synthetic. No kidding. To meet Dexos 1 you can only use Grp III and maybe some PAO. Conventional oils will be obsolete. I hope no one commits suicide over this.
Originally Posted By: zddp77
Who says you cant extend your drain with conv. oil , this proves you can. The new GF-5 spec. will make synthetic oil obsolete. The difference in synthetic and conv. will just be marketing.
Sorry, but synt. oils are on the upswing and dino as we knew it, is on the downswing.
Who says you cant extend your drain with conv. oil , this proves you can. The new GF-5 spec. will make synthetic oil obsolete. The difference in synthetic and conv. will just be marketing.
Sorry, but synt. oils are on the upswing and dino as we knew it, is on the downswing.
Last edited:
Nice work, this short of long UOA is much more valuable then all the 4-6k ones.
Thanks everybody for the positive comments and the interesting discussion about what GF-5 will demand of the next generation of oils. Although Group II may still cut it, I believe either Group II+ or a Group II/III blend approach will be used. And GF-6, in what 5-6 years, will definitely signal the end of Group II's. Notice I didn't say Dino as the line between hydrocracked, severely hydrocracked and isosyn as Chevron likes to call it are a blur. It's all semantics as the end result is a robust oil that performs like nobodys business in a wide range of engines for ever increasing OCI's.
I guess I will make my Impala the unofficial BITOG test mule. I'll find out just how good PU is at extended drains, and maybe Mobil1 EP is, and maybe even dexos1 when it becomes available. And maybe GM will officially lengthen the OLM calibration even on older than 2011my like mine. Now that would be some official endorsement of their product regarding the desire to lengthen OCIs.
It's all good stuff and I enjoy the experimentation and results. Interacting with many of you on BITOG with many years of varied automotive experiences is invaluable to me and I'm sure others.
Take care,
Gary
I guess I will make my Impala the unofficial BITOG test mule. I'll find out just how good PU is at extended drains, and maybe Mobil1 EP is, and maybe even dexos1 when it becomes available. And maybe GM will officially lengthen the OLM calibration even on older than 2011my like mine. Now that would be some official endorsement of their product regarding the desire to lengthen OCIs.
It's all good stuff and I enjoy the experimentation and results. Interacting with many of you on BITOG with many years of varied automotive experiences is invaluable to me and I'm sure others.
Take care,
Gary
dnewton3
Staff member
I agree with many of the comments here.
First, a very impressive UOA. Clearly, the OLM program in his car is fairly accurate.
My own recent Fusion UOA shows dinos being capable of more mileage than some would even run their syntethics to.
If we could boil it down to a few simple comments, they would be that:
1) lubes are made better than ever
2) engines are made better than ever
3) "normal" driving is more common than some think, and "severe" is more uncommon than some want to admit
I'm not saying that synthetics are not the future; they likely are. But it's because the OEM OCIs will be extended. Since the OEM warranty will expire long before the engine ever would, I cannot fathom that "wear" is of great concern to the OEM. But market pressure and political pressure are going to push for far less use of oil.
My Fusion has a "dumb" OLM; it only counts down miles and does not factor in use parameters. My Chevy Dmax OLM is a useful tool, but I have to OCI once/year to satisfy warranty, because I never max out the OLM.
Some of us have seen the Ford document showing much greater OCIs for the future; likely only to be attained with synthetics. I have no issue with that whatsoever. I like synthetics, but I dislike the common under-utilization of them. I like dinos when used within their capabilities.
This UOA shows that the "normal" use and proper maintenance plan are working quite soundly for Five-0. If he can go 9.5k miles on dino with the OLM, I suspect he could blow that away with synthetic.
In the future, if GM chooses to spec fluids that force us into use of synthetics, it's quite probable that the OLMs will be "tuned" to the greater capabilities of those fluids. I suspect even a "dumb" OLM could simply be increased to account for the difference. It would be nice if one could have a in-vehicle toggle-switch option, so that the OLM could be selected to match the type fluid used. But then, someone would possibly select the wrong application, sending the warranty into a tail-spin. Like most products, they are designed with the "least common human denominator" in mind to protect people from their own inadequacies.
No that this matters much to Five-0; outstanding use of vehicle and fluid!
First, a very impressive UOA. Clearly, the OLM program in his car is fairly accurate.
My own recent Fusion UOA shows dinos being capable of more mileage than some would even run their syntethics to.
If we could boil it down to a few simple comments, they would be that:
1) lubes are made better than ever
2) engines are made better than ever
3) "normal" driving is more common than some think, and "severe" is more uncommon than some want to admit
I'm not saying that synthetics are not the future; they likely are. But it's because the OEM OCIs will be extended. Since the OEM warranty will expire long before the engine ever would, I cannot fathom that "wear" is of great concern to the OEM. But market pressure and political pressure are going to push for far less use of oil.
My Fusion has a "dumb" OLM; it only counts down miles and does not factor in use parameters. My Chevy Dmax OLM is a useful tool, but I have to OCI once/year to satisfy warranty, because I never max out the OLM.
Some of us have seen the Ford document showing much greater OCIs for the future; likely only to be attained with synthetics. I have no issue with that whatsoever. I like synthetics, but I dislike the common under-utilization of them. I like dinos when used within their capabilities.
This UOA shows that the "normal" use and proper maintenance plan are working quite soundly for Five-0. If he can go 9.5k miles on dino with the OLM, I suspect he could blow that away with synthetic.
In the future, if GM chooses to spec fluids that force us into use of synthetics, it's quite probable that the OLMs will be "tuned" to the greater capabilities of those fluids. I suspect even a "dumb" OLM could simply be increased to account for the difference. It would be nice if one could have a in-vehicle toggle-switch option, so that the OLM could be selected to match the type fluid used. But then, someone would possibly select the wrong application, sending the warranty into a tail-spin. Like most products, they are designed with the "least common human denominator" in mind to protect people from their own inadequacies.
No that this matters much to Five-0; outstanding use of vehicle and fluid!
Last edited:
That's a great report, most people out there would have changed their oil 2 or 3 times in that amount of mileage, your report was definitely worth the cost I would not change a thing if it were me.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Nice work, this short of long UOA is much more valuable then all the 4-6k ones.
This SORT of UOA is much more informative than most of the UOAs we often see of half the length.
Nice work, this short of long UOA is much more valuable then all the 4-6k ones.
This SORT of UOA is much more informative than most of the UOAs we often see of half the length.
- Status
Similar threads
