GM OLM dead wrong

[FastSUV]

Originally Posted By: 360kid
Originally Posted By: AlanRebod

Which is entirely unscientific. You have provided no evidence that the oil was actually "spent".


I didn't realize I was in court. I have no need to provide evidence to anyone. If I look at oil and it's blacker than sin, smells burnt, and it hasn't been changed in 7,000 miles and it's conventional oil. Yeah, I'm going to change it. If you wouldn't, then that's you. And if you wouldn't change it, then I thank god you're not in charge of the maintenance on my vehicles. I think some people would agree with me there.


That is wiser than science... "use the force Look...let go" LOL

I agree with you & I can see your point even if some of the others can't.

 

[FastSUV]

Originally Posted By: css9450
Originally Posted By: FastSUV
I do appreciate the input guys; despite the controversy; hopefully some of you that take the time to re-read the post will understand where I coming from. I CHECK MY OIL & HERS. But nobdy should be going 9k on dino if it is enough time to burn off a significant amount of oil. I read me manual but most people don't...you all know that.



Just get that other guy to come over and smell it, and you'll be good to go.


LOL...do you keep your hangers exactly 1-inch appart in your closet???

 

[FastSUV]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Junior
Originally Posted By: 360kid
Originally Posted By: AlanRebod

Which is entirely unscientific. You have provided no evidence that the oil was actually "spent".


I didn't realize I was in court. I have no need to provide evidence to anyone. If I look at oil and it's blacker than sin, smells burnt, and it hasn't been changed in 7,000 miles and it's conventional oil. Yeah, I'm going to change it. If you wouldn't, then that's you. And if you wouldn't change it, then I thank god you're not in charge of the maintenance on my vehicles. I think some people would agree with me there.


You have to expect a lot of push back when you post a subject with a title such as yours. By all means, change the oil whenever you want. But, throughout the entire 4 pages I have yet to see any evidence that the OLM is wrong. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of UOA that seem to indicate the OLM works just fine. I do not believe using an old past a certain number of miles is going to cause consumption to dramatically increase. What is wrong with adding a quart at 5000 miles and going on with life? And finally, color is not a indication of oil life. A hard working diesel engine will turn the oil black in a few hours after a change.

On a personal application, I had a UOA at 11,000 miles that indicated the oil had been in use too long. That sample didn't look smell or feel any different than a sample that had been run 7500 miles. At no point in that long interval did that engine start using oil. And it still does not today even after pushing a change interval too long. What it did do is tell me that with my type of duty cycle I need to keep my intervals between 7500 and about 9000 miles. Which I have done.


Junior has it right. Look at the UOA posted here with DINO oil and an OLM. Like I said, they are pretty accurate at calculating when conventional oil is 100% used up.



I have no doubt that in some cases dino can last a long time...but that is not the issue...the issue is that when the OLM recommends 9k on dino and you have an average person who doesn't check their oil (shouldn't have to on a newer car), then they are running the risk of running way low on oil due to such a long OCI due to GM & their stupid OLM.

AND BY THE WAY, JUNIOR, you are chastising the wrong person...360kid is not the OP LOL

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: FastSUV
and you have an average person who doesn't check their oil (shouldn't have to on a newer car),

Where is this coming from? Periodic oil level checks is and has always been a part of basic vehicle maintenance, just like checking tire pressure. The fact that some people don't do it doesn't make it right. Your vehicle came with an owner's manual and you are expected to follow it if you want the manufacturer to honor the warranty.

Whether the car is newer or not has nothing to do with it. Actually, brand new engines, as they are breaking-in, can consume more oil than normal.

If you don't want to check your oil level, then buy a car that has an oil level sensor. But even then, I wouldn't just blindly rely on it.

 

[360kid]

If you want to trust the OLM then that is your choice. Myself along with many other people would never want to go 7,000 or even 9,000 miles on conventional oil. On that point of trusting the OLM, we can agree to disagree. Some people trust it, others don't.

I think many of you have been bowing down to your false god too long... Blackstone.

 

[FastSUV]

Originally Posted By: 360kid
If you want to trust the OLM then that is your choice. Myself along with many other people would never want to go 7,000 or even 9,000 miles on conventional oil. On that point of trusting the OLM, we can agree to disagree. Some people trust it, others don't.

I think many of you have been bowing down to your false god too long... Blackstone.


LOL...and even with that you & I agree that UOA are valid, but my issue is NOT UOA, rather it is that to recommend an OCI that is long enough to have to add several qts of fresh oil between changes is stupid.

If that was the optimal choice then why not make cars that intentionally burn oil and have a 20k OCI whereas the owner must add a qt every 1000k so the oil ALWAYS stayes fresh LOL

I respect the opinions of these guys but they are missing my point. I DO CHECK MY OIL...for Pete's sake I am a memeber of BITOG. But a single mother with 2 kids doesn't buy a new car and follow the OLM only to have her engine run dry before the OLM says it is time for an oil change. She (and millions like her)want to drive the car and change the oil when needed. Even my Dad never checked the oil between OCI unless we were going out of town on a trip.

I (& ALL OF YOU) check my oil on a regular basis but a person should be able to buy a new car and drive it until the interval is up and then have it changed without having to worry about it being grossly low on oil. As I mentioenbd above, people who have to check oil every fill-up are those with 300k '79 Chevy pickups using 20w50 LOL.

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: FastSUV
Originally Posted By: 360kid
If you want to trust the OLM then that is your choice. Myself along with many other people would never want to go 7,000 or even 9,000 miles on conventional oil. On that point of trusting the OLM, we can agree to disagree. Some people trust it, others don't.

I think many of you have been bowing down to your false god too long... Blackstone.


LOL...and even with that you & I agree that UOA are valid, but my issue is NOT UOA, rather it is that to recommend an OCI that is long enough to have to add several qts of fresh oil between changes is stupid.

If that was the optimal choice then why not make cars that intentionally burn oil and have a 20k OCI whereas the owner must add a qt every 1000k so the oil ALWAYS stayes fresh LOL

I respect the opinions of these guys but they are missing my point. I DO CHECK MY OIL...for Pete's sake I am a memeber of BITOG. But a single mother with 2 kids doesn't buy a new car and follow the OLM only to have her engine run dry before the OLM says it is time for an oil change. She (and millions like her)want to drive the car and change the oil when needed. Even my Dad never checked the oil between OCI unless we were going out of town on a trip.

I (& ALL OF YOU) check my oil on a regular basis but a person should be able to buy a new car and drive it until the interval is up and then have it changed without having to worry about it being grossly low on oil. As I mentioenbd above, people who have to check oil every fill-up are those with 300k '79 Chevy pickups using 20w50 LOL.


I definately see your point. You should check the oil between intervals but it makes sense that you shouldn't be so low that you're in danger or running out in between either, especially for the average driver.

I've gotten so used to my car burning no oil that I've been guilty of going an entire OCI without checking. Kind of scary when I finally remember. I remember the days of having to add oil daily. This car has spoiled me and I think most people expect a new car to not consume any signifigant oil. It's not unreasonable.

 

[PF52]

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
You should check the oil between intervals but it makes sense that you shouldn't be so low that you're in danger or running out in between either, especially for the average driver.



Quoted for emphasis. Who cares if the oil change interval (as per the manual OR the OLM) is 3000, 6000 or 9000 miles; its not going to release the carbuyer from the responsibility of checking the oil from time to time.

The original poster needs to check out some of the fanboy forums such as vwvortex.com and read of the people who report a quart of oil consumption in 500 miles. So what should VW do, recommend a 500-mile change interval? After all, 550 miles may be too many for those who refuse to pull the dipstick every so often.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: FastSUV
She (and millions like her)want to drive the car and change the oil when needed.

What she wants to do and what she is expected to do are two different things. I know that cars are treated like appliances in the US. People just want to pour gas in them and don't do anything else. And the more they pay for that new car, the more they expect not to have to do anything. Unfortunately, that's just not how it works. Cars still need to be taken care of and looked after.

Not surprisingly owner neglect is what kills a lot of cars. Then again, if a car is just an appliance, we just go out and buy another one if the current one becomes too costly to repair. After all, car manufacturers don't want you to drive the same car forever anyway.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: css9450
So what should VW do,

Well, maybe design an engine that doesn't consume so much oil to begin with, rather than telling the customer that it's "normal"?

 

[BuickGN]

It's kind of funny, I got a company car so I could keep the miles down on the TL. It was used by another employee for 60K. First thing I did before driving was check all fluid levels so I couldn't get blamed for anything. I noted the OLM at 0 and the sticker on the windshield calling for an oil change 12,000 miles earlier. Oil was black and barely touched the dipstick. I was told to drive it and not worry. A month later I couldn't take it anymore and dumped a gallon of Amsoil ACD in it that I had laying around. I was mad at myself for giving in.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
It's kind of funny, I got a company car so I could keep the miles down on the TL. It was used by another employee for 60K. First thing I did before driving was check all fluid levels so I couldn't get blamed for anything. I noted the OLM at 0 and the sticker on the windshield calling for an oil change 12,000 miles earlier. Oil was black and barely touched the dipstick. I was told to drive it and not worry. A month later I couldn't take it anymore and dumped a gallon of Amsoil ACD in it that I had laying around. I was mad at myself for giving in.


Whimp!!!

{and where's that old raspberry smiley we used to have when you need it?}

With "drive it and don't worry" properly documented, you could (and should) have gone on for the "BITOG Science Experiment of the Century" award.

Oh well, we'll never know now. . .

 

[ADFD1]

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
It's kind of funny, I got a company car so I could keep the miles down on the TL. It was used by another employee for 60K. First thing I did before driving was check all fluid levels so I couldn't get blamed for anything. I noted the OLM at 0 and the sticker on the windshield calling for an oil change 12,000 miles earlier. Oil was black and barely touched the dipstick. I was told to drive it and not worry. A month later I couldn't take it anymore and dumped a gallon of Amsoil ACD in it that I had laying around. I was mad at myself for giving in.


LOL! It depends on who my boss was at the given time. Some of them I probably would have taken care of the oil as you did. Others I would have gladly driven the car waiting and hoping for the engine to seize up, as long as I was told to keep driving it as you were told.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
It's kind of funny, I got a company car so I could keep the miles down on the TL. It was used by another employee for 60K. First thing I did before driving was check all fluid levels so I couldn't get blamed for anything. I noted the OLM at 0 and the sticker on the windshield calling for an oil change 12,000 miles earlier. Oil was black and barely touched the dipstick. I was told to drive it and not worry. A month later I couldn't take it anymore and dumped a gallon of Amsoil ACD in it that I had laying around. I was mad at myself for giving in.


You know why I check my oil in my company truck? When it is surplused I have the option to buy it(at a very reasonable price). Probably a good contributing factor to our overall fleet reliability. Pride of ownership.

 

[ADFD1]

That's smart company policy and a good reason to take care of the truck.

AD

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: FastSUV
Originally Posted By: 360kid
If you want to trust the OLM then that is your choice. Myself along with many other people would never want to go 7,000 or even 9,000 miles on conventional oil. On that point of trusting the OLM, we can agree to disagree. Some people trust it, others don't.

I think many of you have been bowing down to your false god too long... Blackstone.


LOL...and even with that you & I agree that UOA are valid, but my issue is NOT UOA, rather it is that to recommend an OCI that is long enough to have to add several qts of fresh oil between changes is stupid.

. . .


Fast:

Your error is in linking oil consumption with OCI. And it most definitely IS an error. Here's why: First, spend some time perusing our UOA section. Of course, UOA has its limits -- no question on that point, but from the hundreds of pages, you can clearly see that modern engines, using modern oil (even modern low end dino oils), can easily and safely exceed the OCIs called for by the GM OLM (and all the old wive's tales).

Second, the fact that some engines (even examples of engines that usually don't do this) consume oil IS NOT RELATED to how well the oil is holding up. Your attempt to link these two factors is, with all respect, simply not logical. Of course, we all want a car that does not mysteriously burn or otherwise lose oil. But whether or not the oil that remains is still good is simply not related to whether or not the engine is burning or leaking. Of course, there may be minor factors to consider (like the fact that an engine with bad rings that's burning excess oil may be excessively contaminating the remaining oil). But for the most part, linking the quality of the remaining oil to the burn rate is simply incorrect.

We all draw a different hand of cards. If you get unlucky, and get a leaker or a burner, well, that's your luck. Set out to get it fixed. If anything, having such a car might weigh in favor of longer OCIs, vice shorter ones, as you'll be frequently adding fresh oil to the remaining stuff. The OLM, however, is obviously a well designed system, and should not be dismissed out of hand, or even blames for other evils. I had a "full" OLM car long before my BITOG days (a 98 Regal GS, the supercharged one), and its feedback always seemed to make sense.

The other thing I'd like to add is that I don't buy this malarky about being able to "outsniff" the OLM. I've had oils that looked nasty, and UOA demonstrated that they had plenty of life left in them. And here, I've seen good-looking oils that were plainly exhausted per UOA.

This "it smelled and looked burnt" thing simply doesn't cut it. Any owner is free to change early based upon his or her own fears and prejudices, but such decisions should not be offered as objective, when quite clearly, they are anything but.

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
It's kind of funny, I got a company car so I could keep the miles down on the TL. It was used by another employee for 60K. First thing I did before driving was check all fluid levels so I couldn't get blamed for anything. I noted the OLM at 0 and the sticker on the windshield calling for an oil change 12,000 miles earlier. Oil was black and barely touched the dipstick. I was told to drive it and not worry. A month later I couldn't take it anymore and dumped a gallon of Amsoil ACD in it that I had laying around. I was mad at myself for giving in.


Whimp!!!

{and where's that old raspberry smiley we used to have when you need it?}

With "drive it and don't worry" properly documented, you could (and should) have gone on for the "BITOG Science Experiment of the Century" award.

Oh well, we'll never know now. . .


It would've been a nice experiment on the company's dime. But you know how this stuff works. Once the engine failed, my e-mail documentation of the boss saying to just run it could be used against me too since I was aware of the problem. Besides, it took a year and a huge fight to finally get a company car and I just got the entire front of the TL repainted from all of the freeway damage of the cheap paint.

 

[ekpolk]

Gee, you could at least have sucked out a sample of the blackened slime and UOA-ed before you benevolently saved that car's life -- at your expense.

Not that I was ever prepared to check the "banned" box on the "member profile" screen (one of those double secret places only Admins get to go...

), but I do have to credit you with some begrudging extra respect (even for a syrup worshiper) given your willingness to try to save that poor engine on your own dime. . .

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Your error is in linking oil consumption with OCI. And it most definitely IS an error.

I don't think he's linking it. He's acknowledging that oil consumption happens regardless of OCI, but his point is that on a typical car, you wouldn't be dangerously below "min" level within 3K miles. And if you get your oil changed every 3K, then you don't care about this level of consumption - you get fresh oil to the "max" at that point anyway. So technically, you could get away with not checking your oil level (I still don't condone it, personally).

But now, if your OCI becomes 8-10K, and you still don't check the level in between, it becomes an issue, because during that time the engine may have consumed 1.5 quarts (as opposed to 0.5 quarts during 3K OCI). If you only have a 4qt sump, that means you're missing almost 40% of your oil.

 

[Junior]

Originally Posted By: FastSUV
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Junior
Originally Posted By: 360kid
Originally Posted By: AlanRebod

Which is entirely unscientific. You have provided no evidence that the oil was actually "spent".


I didn't realize I was in court. I have no need to provide evidence to anyone. If I look at oil and it's blacker than sin, smells burnt, and it hasn't been changed in 7,000 miles and it's conventional oil. Yeah, I'm going to change it. If you wouldn't, then that's you. And if you wouldn't change it, then I thank god you're not in charge of the maintenance on my vehicles. I think some people would agree with me there.


You have to expect a lot of push back when you post a subject with a title such as yours. By all means, change the oil whenever you want. But, throughout the entire 4 pages I have yet to see any evidence that the OLM is wrong. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of UOA that seem to indicate the OLM works just fine. I do not believe using an old past a certain number of miles is going to cause consumption to dramatically increase. What is wrong with adding a quart at 5000 miles and going on with life? And finally, color is not a indication of oil life. A hard working diesel engine will turn the oil black in a few hours after a change.

On a personal application, I had a UOA at 11,000 miles that indicated the oil had been in use too long. That sample didn't look smell or feel any different than a sample that had been run 7500 miles. At no point in that long interval did that engine start using oil. And it still does not today even after pushing a change interval too long. What it did do is tell me that with my type of duty cycle I need to keep my intervals between 7500 and about 9000 miles. Which I have done.


Junior has it right. Look at the UOA posted here with DINO oil and an OLM. Like I said, they are pretty accurate at calculating when conventional oil is 100% used up.



I have no doubt that in some cases dino can last a long time...but that is not the issue...the issue is that when the OLM recommends 9k on dino and you have an average person who doesn't check their oil (shouldn't have to on a newer car), then they are running the risk of running way low on oil due to such a long OCI due to GM & their stupid OLM.

AND BY THE WAY, JUNIOR, you are chastising the wrong person...360kid is not the OP LOL


Oops, I quoted the wrong guy.

Your argument is illogical. It makes no sense to purchase something like a car and then be too lazy to spend the five minutes per week it takes to check the oil, coolant, transmission, power steering, brakes and tire pressure. Every operator manual I have ever read explains how to do those things at approximately a 6th grade level. For those who are too lazy to do that (or are unable) at least have someone do it for you.

While I agree that it would be nice if every engine ever made didn't use oil, I disagree that this expectation excludes an owner from basic vehicle checks to ensure proper vehicle function and personal safety. (not to mention the safety of other drivers when neglected vehicles break down on the road) A quart every 5000 miles is far from excessive consumption.

I get tired of everyone trying to blame someone else for their problems rather than taking responsibility for their actions. If you choose to not check the oil and it runs low causing engine damage you are on your own.