Help me pick an oil.....SS Camaro

[C Willi 01SS]

2001 Berger SS Camaro. 1300 miles total on engine. 6 speed LS1 with phase II heads/cam package (435hp). This car is garaged and only driven occasionally to shows and cruising. I'm using a K&N oil filter and Chevron 10W30 oil based on (the oils spec sheet)and all the good things I've read on this board in the last several months about Chevron oil. My plan was to run dino oil until 2000 miles then switch to Schaeffers 10W30. What do you guys think? I won't skimp on this bad boy!!

 

[Soma07]

Sounds good to me. Nice car BTW Jason 93 TA, M6

 

[Patman]

I think you made the right choice! In the hot summer you might want to give Schaeffer 15w40 a try instead of the 10w30 though, especially if you're gonna rev that LS1 up to close to 7000rpm.

 

[Neil Womack]

I too have just ordered Schaeffers for my F-150, Saturn and John Deere. #700 15w-40 for the JD and F-150. #703 10w-30 for the Saturn.

 

[C Willi 01SS]

Thanks Soma07! Patman-She may not see 7000 rpm....at least it hasn't yet anyway. I'd feel a little under-insured with a $1.08 oil in its veins, even though Chevron is good I want to give her the best oil. Changing oil is not a problem either, even at 1.5 inches lower I can get it up on rhino ramps easily. Would it be a good idea to introduce a change to Mobil 1 so the moly could start to plate up?, then go with Schaeffers (more moly) at the next change?, just a thought. The car will most likely go to Year One's Bristol Bash in a few weeks and could possibly have a 1/4 mile run or two to stretch its legs! Thanks for all the great info you guys on this site provide....I'm hooked.

 

[Ryan00TJ]

Nice Car!! I've had my 02 SS SLP 345HP car since July and it never seems to not impress me everytime I drive it! Dynoed at 1,500 miles stock 315RWHP and 326RWTQ. GM is really underrating the LS1 at 345 flywheel HP when my flywheel numbers were 385 and 400. I'm using M1 SS 10W-30 and a M1 206 filter. Most 02 SS's came with Mobil 1 from the factory so feel safe to switch over to synthetic anytime. Schaeffer's seems to be a great oil and u cannot beat the price if you order $250 worth. That's what i'll be using the SS and Jeep next change.

 

[Intelman34]

With the cam package, I would use nothing but 10w30 Redline in there.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by C Willi 01SS: Thanks Soma07! Patman-She may not see 7000 rpm....at least it hasn't yet anyway. I'd feel a little under-insured with a $1.08 oil in its veins, even though Chevron is good I want to give her the best oil. Changing oil is not a problem either, even at 1.5 inches lower I can get it up on rhino ramps easily. Would it be a good idea to introduce a change to Mobil 1 so the moly could start to plate up?, then go with Schaeffers (more moly) at the next change?, just a thought. The car will most likely go to Year One's Bristol Bash in a few weeks and could possibly have a 1/4 mile run or two to stretch its legs! Thanks for all the great info you guys on this site provide....I'm hooked.

---

Mobil 1 and Schaeffer may use slightly different forms of moly, so you don't need to change to Mobil 1 first and then Schaeffer. Like Intelman suggested, Redline is also a good choice, but it will be more costly than Schaeffer. I would love to see someone do a couple of intervals with each of these oils to compare the results. They are both awesome oils.

 

[msparks]

quote:

---

Originally posted by C Willi 01SS: 2001 Berger SS Camaro. 1300 miles total on engine. 6 speed LS1 with phase II heads/cam package (435hp). This car is garaged and only driven occasionally to shows and cruising. I'm using a K&N oil filter and Chevron 10W30 oil based on (the oils spec sheet)and all the good things I've read on this board in the last several months about Chevron oil. My plan was to run dino oil until 2000 miles then switch to Schaeffers 10W30. What do you guys think? I won't skimp on this bad boy!!

---

If you do a lot of hard drving, I would have an oil temp gauge installed. Then you could better pick a oil brand/grade. Initial recommendation for amsoil would be Series 2000 0w30, then Regular 10w30. If your oil temps stay much above 220, I would recommend a xw40 or even 50.

 

[C Willi 01SS]

Guys- Redline wouldn't be a problem at $7 per qt., but they recommend 3000 miles minimum before switching.... right? Thanks-

 

[Bror Jace]

C Willi, yes, that's the break-in period Red Line recommends before using their oil. So, you could stick with Chevron or something else for another 1,000 miles before switching over, no problem. Good luck with that Heavy Chevy! --- Bror Jace

 

[sprintman]

Seat them rings well before changing to syn, 3,000 miles minimum. Federal Police here put M1 in the whole BMW police bike fleet at 2000kms. Went through oil after like water, and had to rebuild every engine.

 

[C Willi 01SS]

sprintman- 3000 miles before synthetic seems to be the way to go. That being said, is Chevron Supreme 10W30 the best I can give it? Thanks for the reply's

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sprintman: Seat them rings well before changing to syn, 3,000 miles minimum. Federal Police here put M1 in the whole BMW police bike fleet at 2000kms. Went through oil after like water, and had to rebuild every engine.

---

All LS1 Corvettes run Mobil 1 synthetic right from the factory though, as well as most of the 2002 f-body LS1s too. [ October 09, 2002, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: Patman ]

 

[sprintman]

Patman Yeah and every 2nd LS1 here uses M1 like water. They are rebuilding them like crazy. The new piston/ring kits help but. Definitely not one of GM's best engines IMHO. The 300HP 10.25:1 1970 SBC I had in my Monaro was real nice though. The new 420HP 5.4 Ford Falcon will do me thanks!

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sprintman: Patman Yeah and every 2nd LS1 here uses M1 like water. They are rebuilding them like crazy. The new piston/ring kits help but. Definitely not one of GM's best engines IMHO.

---

True, the LS1s are burning a lot of oil, but it's not because of the synthetics, it's a two part problem. One is the PCV setup, in a lot of cases this is drawing the oil into the intake. And rings are also a problem too. Before the LS1 came along, GM put synthetic oil in the LT1, and it never had an oil burning problem. I don't think synthetic oils are causing engines not to break in properly, it's not as if synthetics are super slippery oils that can keep an engine from breaking in.

 

[sprintman]

Ring flutter is the culprit and low tension oil rings. For GM to have to completely redesign pistons and rings shows the initial testing was not thorough. They usually do a better job than that. Still Ford here dropped the V8 entirely many yrs back when they were easily no #1 in Oz. GM couldn't get the smile of their faces. GM still no #1 here some 2 decades later even though Ford have V8's again.

 

[C Willi 01SS]

Many ASA (which were strictly LS1's) race engine builders bought oil consumption lemon law LS1's from GM, fixed the consumption issue, and put them into ASA race cars. One of the best ASA engine programs is right here in Georgia (Garry Grimes), he said 100% of his lemon law rebuilt LS1's suffered from rings that would rotate and line up, thus causing oil consumption. He has some great deals on some of these motors, some built to race, some ready for street!

 

[dragboat]

A repost about the LS1: Not related to lower end knock of the LS1 but some reasons for oil burning and piston slap The LS1 uses a 3.66620 stroke and a 3.8796 bore with a 6.100 rod that makes for a very aceptable 1.6841 rod ratio. But it came at a cost. They stacked the piston rings and reduced the tension of the rings over a LT1 by 30 percent. Why the reduction in ring tension? I am clueless.Did they not test these motors prior to putting them in between the fenders of a car?Certainly they did but supect it was a money/time issue. Just my opinion. When they moved that ring set up 1.5 mm they knew they were going to have some piston rock with the use of the slipper skirt style piston generally known for poor oil control.The piston weighs 434 grams which is pretty light for a street motor,it came at a cost though. They have also used a thinner ring set than the normal 5/64 used on the small Chevy and others. I cannot find out the actual width of the ring but think it to be probably a 1/16 top and second ring which is usually reserved for race motors. That there and the combinations of the 30 percent less spring tension plus a little piston rock is going to burn some oil.I have found the static compression of these engines but do not know the nominal compression which might help in knowing why they reduced the ring tension The piston speed is not a factor on the LS1 motor. At 6000 RPM it is moving a mere 3662 feet per second. The fix? Spread the rings back to normal and use the KB method of running the oil control ring through the piston pin hole with a pin in the piston to stop rotation plus a different skirt for less rock, clearanced for the rod and to get the ring tension back up to the norm and a more streetable width for oil control.A 5/64 ring with proper tension will not flutter at 6500 rpm if all else is correct. Other ways to fix would to be to use a shorter rod and custom piston except that would decrease the dwell time at or near TDC and effect computer/injector timing,,too much to tackle imo for a warranty fix given emmissions It is not exactly a "shaker motor". The rod ratio proves that but if rounded off a bit it is 3.700 stroke-3.900 bore which is getting close to being a square 345.69 ci motor as opposed to the 350 Chevy which is 3.480 stroke-4.00 bore and used a 5.700 long rod which is a stroked 327 motor. They were relying on relative good cylinder head flow to off set this and gearing to offset the affects of that long rod and the power band a rod of that length in a motor of this size is usually operated in. In my opinion they would have been much better off to use a 5.700 Powdered Metal rod and a bit larger bore with a better piston design. I understand GM has offered a "fix" for this in a new piston and or ring set. Can someone tell me what this consists of? Hopefully it did not include the new style tapered face ring? These are just some thoughts I have without digging into it all too much as I doubt I will ever own one of these motors so no more digging for info and of course,opinions will as usual, vary Is this a terrible engine? I don't think so but in my opinion they could have bettered it.) When I said I am clueless on the ring tension I meant they should have known what would happen imo ,,I understand now the "fix" does not incorporate any type of ring pinning to stop rotation. Every early small Chevy I have tore down with high miles and burning oil had the rings aligned on 4 or so of the 8 pistons. Something to think about when trying a cleaner to fix a consumption problem When you see a 383 using oil, much the same is happening and alot of them do use oil [ October 10, 2002, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: dragboat ]

 

[MolaKule]

"The fix? Spread the rings back to normal and use the KB method of running the oil control ring through the piston pin hole with a pin in the piston to stop rotation plus a different skirt for less rock, clearanced for the rod and to get the ring tension back up to the norm and a more streetable width for oil control.A 5/64 ring with proper tension will not flutter at 6500 rpm if all else is correct." Dragboat, Your responce raised some questions: 1. Doesn't that mean turning the piston on a lathe to modify the width (and maybe depth) of the ring grooves? 2. What about ring and grrove depth or the "inside-to-outside" dimensions. Are the rings and groves more shallow in this design as well? 3. Where would this pin (to stop ring rotation around the circumference) be located? Like at 270 degree separation?