Extended Drain Opinion

[Gebo]

Do any of you think one of the reasons we are seeing more engines using oil than they did 10-20 years ago is due to the fact car makers
have changed their OCV's guidelines from 3K to 5K to 7K to 10K.....?

My understanding is some engines are being made "looser" to help mpg requirements and this may have an effect. Please don't get all technical on me. You know what I am trying to say, right?

Second question, what is the mileage that you consider "extended" drain? Is it 10K, 15K, ?

I apologize if this has been asked in the last few months. I have been "sabbatical" and don't feel like searching.

 

[buster]

A lot of it is due to emission regulations = low tension rings.

Some companies appear to have done a better job designing better oil control rings - Mazda comes to mind.

 

[spasm3]

A lot of it is due to emission regulations = low tension rings.

Some companies appear to have done a better job designing better oil control rings - Mazda comes to mind.

Thats what made my saturns use oil. They were an early adopter of low tension rings.

I always thought of extended drains, as those that were longer than the manufacturer recommended. With MPFI, i think there were definitely situations that you could go 10k,, not as much with DI.

 

[Lubener]

Oil has been drastically improved from 20 years ago. Better and cleaner running engines with better computer controls as well.

 

[Donald]

Longer drains only make sense of you have a large oil sump and do UOA with TBN. Otherwise you can be gambling with an expensive engine.

Of course if you have an old beater then who cares.

 

[Hall]

My understanding is some engines are being made "looser"

No, it's the opposite - engines are being made "tighter"

 

[spasm3]

No, it's the opposite - engines are being made "tighter"

I'd like to see what specs are tighter or looser. Other than top piston ring lands being higher on the pistons, which started decades ago.

 

[Kira]

It'd be interesting to run a poll question.
"Extended oil change intervals-yay or nay?" You're allowed the one word response, yay or nay.
I say nay.

 

[Rand]

It'd be interesting to run a poll question.
"Extended oil change intervals-yay or nay?" You're allowed the one word response, yay or nay.
I say nay.

thats way too simplified.

is the car port injection, GDI?, turbo? , turbo gdi?
does it see 2miles one way to work 5 days a week?
etc.

There is no blanket one oil change interval fits all.

FWIW Jeep says my turbo gdi can go almost 10k with its oil life monitor
it has 135hp/liter is short tripped 5 days a week with a longer drive on weekends.
(I change it at 4-5k)

The elantra with port injection recommendation is around 5k or 6k.. uses half the gas, relatively low power density at 65hp/liter, and isnt gdi or turbo.
I change it around 0-10% which is 5-6k

I would consider extending the intervals to 10k for the elantra but it has warranty until 10yr/100k miles.. so I follow the Oil life monitor which is extremely conservative.

There is also some evidence that the 2.4 tigershark used in many FCA really doesnt do well with extended intervals.


So in the interest of agreement I'd definitely say NAY unless you have the right vehicle and driving.
Oil changes are cheap --my average with syn is $11-$13-- and engines are not.

Edit: The 2020 ram with hemi. It has perfect conditions of 19mile commute each way. gets the miles piled on at 18-20k/yr, port injection, N/A engine. 7qt sump.
The oil life monitor appears to be around 10k to 0% and I dont have any issues changing it low esp. since it doesnt even recommend syn oil.

First change was 3k, then 10k, I would have no issues going the full 10k even if technically that isnt an "extended" interval.

 

[demarpaint]

It'd be interesting to run a poll question.
"Extended oil change intervals-yay or nay?" You're allowed the one word response, yay or nay.
I say nay.

Nay.

 

[tig1]

For the last 43 years I have done 10K OCIs in various engines. None have never increased in oil consumption for the time I owned the vehicle. Some engines with 200-355K. Oil used has been M1 in various wts.

 

[JMJNet]

I'd like to see what specs are tighter or looser. Other than top piston ring lands being higher on the pistons, which started decades ago.

You have to ask the manufacturer to answer that question. Assuming they are willing.
At least, they have a better capability to manufacture the tighter spec.

 

[Hall]

I'd like to see what specs are tighter or looser.

I say this based on modern tooling simply being that much more precise (by default). Decades ago, yes, you could machine parts just as "tight" but it took more expensive equipment and tooling and skilled operators. Today, the equipment can do it. Tighter tolerances can also contribute to higher reliability. It can also allow .... thinner oils.

 

[mahanddeem]

I'll change my oil at 3k miles or lower, and yes I'm using synthetic oils. And always will.

 

[mahanddeem]

Longer drains only make sense of you have a large oil sump and do UOA with TBN. Otherwise you can be gambling with an expensive engine.

Of course if you have an old beater then who cares.

I definitely agree with you. But what's defined as "large oil sump"?

 

[Duffyjr]

Extended drains could be causing oil usage in vehicles with some mileage on them but haven't some mentioned here new cars using oil, how would you explain that? I asked this question a few years ago why newer vehicles are using oil when manufacturing is suppose to be so much better than it was 20 years ago and I think the consensus was low tension rings.

 

[spasm3]

You have to ask the manufacturer to answer that question. Assuming they are willing.
At least, they have a better capability to manufacture the tighter spec.

I say this based on modern tooling simply being that much more precise (by default). Decades ago, yes, you could machine parts just as "tight" but it took more expensive equipment and tooling and skilled operators. Today, the equipment can do it. Tighter tolerances can also contribute to higher reliability. It can also allow .... thinner oils.

Ahh so tolerances, not clearances. Main bearing and rod bearing clearances are not smaller, or tighter. Piston ring gaps still have to exist, even in gapless rings.
The idea that engine clearances are tighter is just not so. The clearances are engineered for the thermal expansion of the metal. The main bearing clearances of a similar sized journal are not different than 30 years ago.

Piston to wall clearance can vary but its due to the piston material, not the oil. Cast pistons vs forged vs hyperutectic.

I built an olds 403 with Keith Black hyperutectic pistons 30 years ago, small piston to cylinder clearance as those pistons did not enlarge as much with heat, still used 15w 40 and 10w 30 oils.

 

[Donald]

I definitely agree with you. But what's defined as "large oil sump"?

Diesel engine. 12 Qts

 

[tasch72]

Do any of you think one of the reasons we are seeing more engines using oil than they did 10-20 years ago is due to the fact car makers
have changed their OCV's guidelines from 3K to 5K to 7K to 10K.....?

My understanding is some engines are being made "looser" to help mpg requirements and this may have an effect. Please don't get all technical on me. You know what I am trying to say, right?

Second question, what is the mileage that you consider "extended" drain? Is it 10K, 15K, ?

I apologize if this has been asked in the last few months. I have been "sabbatical" and don't feel like searching.

I think we're seeing more oil consumption due to a larger adoption of DI engines (especially those that are turbocharged) coupled with less than perfect PCV systems without catch cans.

Routing your crankcase pressure into your intake tract without removing the oil out of that system is probably a considerable portion of the issue of increased oil consumption and GDI intake valves getting gunked up.

 

[Kawiguy454]

One of my early technical jobs was component repair of electronic tolerance/guageing fixtures used in the Chrysler plants in Detroit. I think when we say an engine is tight today it refers to the design tolerances being met on all the components within a completed engine. The statistical controls they used were OK for that time but i know a LOT of parts went into engines that would be scrap today. With that in mind you need to understand that a modern "Tight" engine allows for much thinner oils to be used and function with no issues. The problems with extended oil drains and thinner oils is you have much less cushion when just one part falls out of tolerance. This can cause oil pressure drops across other in tolerance load surfaces that can also begin to wear at faster rate. If long OC intervals is a goal the suggestion of testing is a good one. if you dont want to test then going to thicker grade will better tolerate a "Loose" component condition and its associated lower/loss of oil pressure.