Larger sumps on modern engines?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
4,394
Location
Kentucky
I was helping our mechanic at work change the oil one one of our newest trucks, a 2016 GMC Sierra 1500 w/ the 5.3L V8. When the oil/filter arrived from O'Reilly, I thought whoever ordered it made a mistake or intended for the oil to be used on two vehicles. 9 quarts of Castrol Syntec 0w-20 and Wix filter, part number I've never come across before (Fram cross reference is a PH105xx). A new oil filter for the 5.3L, best as I can tell.

I'll be darned if the thing didn't take all 9 quarts to bring the level to full. Curious, I looked in the owners manual of our new (2016) F-350 work truck that has a 6.2L V8. It takes 7 quarts, if I remember correctly.

I always thought the sump capacity trend was going to be a decrease in volume, not increasing. My Nissan Frontier V6 I used to own had a 4qt. sump and was supercharged. It always had great UOA results. The largest truck engines we have in our fleet (not counting diesels) use 6 quarts or less- this includes Ford 6.8L V10's and Chevy 454's.

Anyone know what the potential benefit is to running such a large sump? Especially a 5.3L V8 in a light duty 2wd half ton, a 9 quart capacity seems over the top. There must be a reason why GM increase their own costs (larger oil pan, more oil at the factory), as well as maintenance costs (which all brands are working to decrease.) I just don't see them doing that unless there is some tangible benefit. Perhaps the new emissions controls / VVT / high pressure fuel system increases oil temp? More power = more heat?

Interested to see what you guys think on this topic.
 
Originally Posted By: 92saturnsl2
Anyone know what the potential benefit is to running such a large sump?


Yes, the oil doesn't have to work as hard when there's more of it.
 
I definitely agree-- same reason why I run larger filters on my vehicles when able.

However, oil capacity has held fairly steady (~6 quart for large V8, ~4-5 quart for moderate size I4-V6 engine) for decades. Sure, there are exceptions, but I'm talking about mass-market vehicles. Oil formations have improved dramatically, as have engine operating conditions (preciseness of fuel air/mixture, pollutants, etc.) To see a manufacturer increase sump capacity by nearly 50%-- that raised an eyebrow.

Does the newest incarnation of the 5.3L have DI? I wonder if DI (like diesels) produces soot that the oil has to control? I just can't accept the idea that the manufacturer is giving us another 3 quarts to put in (they too, sharing in the expense) just so we can run our trucks another 100k miles, when engines already outlast the chassis it's in (in most cases.)
 
One possible consideration is engineering bigger sumps to stretch OCI's to make said vehicle "lower maintenance". In addition to spreading out thermal load, etc.
 
My Wrangler has a 6 quart sump while my BMW I6 engines hold 7 quarts. More is better up to a point.
 
1986 Ford 5.0 sump: 5 quarts

2013 Ford 5.0 Coyote: 7.7 quarts


It might also be that now, in the age of overhead cams, more oil is required to lubricate....with pushrods there was less of an area where oil was needed to be.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Kuato
1986 Ford 5.0 sump: 5 quarts

2013 Ford 5.0 Coyote: 7.7 quarts


Honest question here, what grade oil did the '86 and 2013 V8 take ?
Also what would have been the standard power output and the typical OCI ?
 
Im all for a little more oil capacity. It allows the oil to not be as "stressed". More oil doing less work is better than less oil doing more work. The girlfriends Jetta 1.8 holds 5.5-6 quarts. Thats a pretty decent amount of oil for a small displacement 4 cylinder. It does have a turbo, direct injection, timing chain, and spec'd 10K OCI though which obviously play a part in the larger sump.
 
Hi all,

New FWD cars though have smaller oil sumps with many holding 4 quarts or less! "Packaging" issue for reg sized cars and sloping front hoods!
 
Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: Kuato
1986 Ford 5.0 sump: 5 quarts

2013 Ford 5.0 Coyote: 7.7 quarts


Honest question here, what grade oil did the '86 and 2013 V8 take ?
Also what would have been the standard power output and the typical OCI ?

5/10w-30. 150 HP in F-150/ Bronco, 175HP in Mustang GT. 2013 5.0- 375HP in F-150.
 
Originally Posted By: SR5
Honest question here, what grade oil did the '86 and 2013 V8 take ?
Also what would have been the standard power output and the typical OCI ?


It would have taken SF or some older grade (you can look it up for that year,) likely a 10w30 or 10w-40 recommendation. Power output would have been 170hp or so, but with the decent torque of a V8. Sure, not high-RPM screamers, but they put up okay power at low-mid RPM for what they had to work with (low compression and first gen. emissions controls.)

But what you have to take into account is how poor the oil was back then versus now. Also, engines are a LOT cleaner nowadays. A 1986 5.0 would have had one of the earliest forms of MPFI (99% sure they skipped TBI,) which are probably not the cleanest or most efficient burning engines on the planet. Lots of fuel dilution w/ short trips, I think the oil had to work its butt off compared to today's clean-running engines. 3k change interval for the 1986 (I'm guessing), no idea what the modern OCI for a Ford/Chevy truck is.. 5-10k?
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Oil sump size is supposed to be engineered to make sure there's sufficient capacity for contamination holding during the intended oil change intervals.


So what changed between earlier model 5.3L engines and this newest revision that prompted them to add 3 quarts sump capacity?
 
Originally Posted By: Alex_V
One possible consideration is engineering bigger sumps to stretch OCI's to make said vehicle "lower maintenance". In addition to spreading out thermal load, etc.


Yes to the former, no to the latter.

As per multiple discussions, the heat exchange areas are pretty independent of how much oil is in the system.

But where volume helps is in the number of times the oil gets to places like the ring belt, where it spend 10s of seconds at a time, and as Joe_90Guy pointed out is like a mini refinery at work, introducing oil to temperatures, oxidants, and combustion byproducts.

Double the oil volume, and halve the time that the average oil molecule has spent there...extend the OCI accordingly.
 
To me, it seems like we've always had a wide range of sump sizes.

Take the oil capacity over engine displacement (which equals number of quarts per liter) and some of the older econboxes had pretty large sumps IMO.
 
I have noticed that engines with a tendency to use a little oil, like some of the variable displacement engines have a larger sump since no one checks oil anymore, gives them some safety margin.

Rod
 
Originally Posted By: 92saturnsl2
I definitely agree-- same reason why I run larger filters on my vehicles when able.

However, oil capacity has held fairly steady (~6 quart for large V8, ~4-5 quart for moderate size I4-V6 engine) for decades. Sure, there are exceptions, but I'm talking about mass-market vehicles. Oil formations have improved dramatically, as have engine operating conditions (preciseness of fuel air/mixture, pollutants, etc.) To see a manufacturer increase sump capacity by nearly 50%-- that raised an eyebrow.

Does the newest incarnation of the 5.3L have DI? I wonder if DI (like diesels) produces soot that the oil has to control? I just can't accept the idea that the manufacturer is giving us another 3 quarts to put in (they too, sharing in the expense) just so we can run our trucks another 100k miles, when engines already outlast the chassis it's in (in most cases.)
6.5 quarts for the Toyota 3.5 V6.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom