M1 AFE 0W-30 7,418 miles 2014 GMC Sierra 5.3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
417
Location
ND
Vehicle: 2014 GMC Sierra 1500 4x4
Engine: 5.3L V8 Ecotec3 (L83)
OCI mileage: 7,418 miles (153 hours)
OCI length: 3.5 months
OLM: 2%
Oil: Mobil 1 AFE 0W-30 (8 quarts)
Oil Filter: Fram Ultra XG10575
Make up oil: none
Driving conditions: 85/15 (Highway/City)

My thoughts: 2nd run with 0W-30 but first run with 100% 0W-30. Previous UOA was a mix of M1 0W-20 (2 quarts) and M1 0W-30 (6 quarts) as I had some 0W-20 to get rid of. Consumption was about the same as 0W-20 (about 1/2-3/4 a quart). Seemed to shear quite a bit (Mobil advertises 10.9 cSt). M1 EP 0W-20 went in as I got for a steal at Walmart. Probably just stick with 0W-20 for here out.

 
It's interesting that your olm reads 2% at 7.4k miles with 85% highway and a 8 quart sump.

Do you have a reason not to get TBN? That would be a nice set of UOAs with TBN.
 
How does Blackstone know that it would be safe to go longer on an OCI if there aren't any TBN/TAN readings?
 
Gonefishing,
I've been waiting on seeing this UOA from your 5.3 I have the same engine in my 2015 Silverado. Looks no different than the 0W20 M1. Still have less than average numbers so looking good. Ive always wanted to run the 30 in mine but now I see that it doesn't make "any" difference.

Thanks for the UOAs !

Keep runnin that L83 out to 300K !
 
Originally Posted By: double vanos
Probably just me but I find those iron and copper amounts disturbing.


How So?
 
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
It's interesting that your olm reads 2% at 7.4k miles with 85% highway and a 8 quart sump.

Do you have a reason not to get TBN? That would be a nice set of UOAs with TBN.


From what I can tell, the OLM seems to be reduced 1% for every 75 miles (so 7500 miles would be 0%). I have yet to see any 2014+ GM pickups getting any more then 7500 miles on their OLM. Must be the max GM wants the OLM to go.

I did have TBN tested once with M1 0W-20 (3rd OCI) and it was 3.8 Was just too cheap to get it tested every time.
 
Originally Posted By: double vanos
Probably just me but I find those iron and copper amounts disturbing.


I have told copper is from the oil cooler. Iron is inline with universal averages for this motor (23PPM).
 
Originally Posted By: Realtech214
Gonefishing,
I've been waiting on seeing this UOA from your 5.3 I have the same engine in my 2015 Silverado. Looks no different than the 0W20 M1. Still have less than average numbers so looking good. Ive always wanted to run the 30 in mine but now I see that it doesn't make "any" difference.

Thanks for the UOAs !

Keep runnin that L83 out to 300K !


Thank you. I think I might take this OCI out to 10k. I'm just about out of drivetrain warranty so I'm no longer concerned about that.
 
The OLM on my 2007 5.3 Tahoe will run out to about 8500 at 0%. I ran 0W-30 AFE this past winter and burned a bit over a quart which didn't please me. I'm currently running 10W-30HM to see if that improves consumption.
 
Originally Posted By: gonefishing
I did have TBN tested once with M1 0W-20 (3rd OCI) and it was 3.8 Was just too cheap to get it tested every time.


Get the Napa or Wix UOA kit instead. They come with TBN and are at least half the cost of Blackstones.
 
The GM Vortec engines (4.8L 5.3L 6.0L) seem to shed Fe more than some other brands. That does not make them bad; just different. I have a theory, but no proof. See at the bottom of this post ...

The Cu does not make sense to me. I don't think it's wear related, but if it's the oil cooler, then why has it not settled down by now? This phenomenon is seen often in Dmax UOAs when syns are first used that result in high reactions to the amines or esters. But once that introduction is over with, the Cu will settle down over a few UOAs, and typically goes down to single digits for avearges. But not here; the Cu is always in the twenty-ish range. Not sure why ... Here, the Cu isn't abnormal in terms of it's average; it's near the UA that Blackstone shows. Wherever it's coming from, it must be typical for these engines to do so.
I doubt that using a 0w-40 is going to greatly alter the wear rates, but it likely won't hurt, either. Probably will be a wash, but if you want to try it, go for it. My prediction is that it won't matter much, if any, at all.

The contaminants are low. Other characteristics are decent.
Nothing wrong here.

You're paying a lot for these lubes. If you're not going to extend the OCIs (and perhaps you'll not due to warranty coverage), then I'd recommend using a less expensive lube and save the money. Your engine probably won't notice the difference, but your wallet will.



I somewhat wonder (and have no basis as proof, but merely am curious) if the MDS (multi displacement system, or whatever GM call is for cylinder deactivation) plays into the wear numbers? As I understand the GM system, it alters the oil pressure path to the lifters, which essentially makes a "spring" out of the dead cylinders. It's always the same cylinders, too, as I understand; it does not vary them. For example, perhaps 4 of the 8 are dropped out, and it will always be the same 4 that use this feature. So given that he's 85% highway, he's likely in the "eco" mode (for better economy) a large amount of the time. Does this create a condition where the altered operation causes higher cylinder wear? After all, what happens (as I understand it) is that both valves are stopped from operating on those selected cylinders. So the trapped air acts as a "spring" inside the cylinder, where the loss of energy due to compression is rebounded back upon the "down" strokes. So is the cylinder getting wiped with less oil, a bit more than the others? Does the lack of combustion cause the rings to lose their seal, and the oil essentially escapes? Or, is the cam lobe/lifter/rocker relationship somehow effected in that oil pressure drop in deactivating the valve train for those cylinders? Again - I don't know this for sure, but I'm curious and just throwing out a possible cause? It's just a swag at this point, on my part. Now as I also understand, the 4.8L engine does not use this technology; it's small enough that perhaps in a truck, the power loss is considered too much and so they just run on all 8 all the time? I don't have enough data, but it would be interesting to see if the 4.8L engines shed slightly less Fe than the 5.3 and 6.0, which do use the MDS.

Ford does not use this multi-cylinder drop-out feature in their n/a engines, and they consistently show lower wear rates, overall. So maybe I'm onto something here?

Again, that does not mean the GM wear is "bad", just different. Would be nice to know WHY it's different. I am not picking on the GM; just trying to find a root cause to explain the phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The GM Vortec engines (4.8L 5.3L 6.0L) seem to shed Fe more than some other brands. That does not make them bad; just different. I have a theory, but no proof. See at the bottom of this post ...

The Cu does not make sense to me. I don't think it's wear related, but if it's the oil cooler, then why has it not settled down by now? This phenomenon is seen often in Dmax UOAs when syns are first used that result in high reactions to the amines or esters. But once that introduction is over with, the Cu will settle down over a few UOAs, and typically goes down to single digits for avearges. But not here; the Cu is always in the twenty-ish range. Not sure why ... Here, the Cu isn't abnormal in terms of it's average; it's near the UA that Blackstone shows. Wherever it's coming from, it must be typical for these engines to do so.
I doubt that using a 0w-40 is going to greatly alter the wear rates, but it likely won't hurt, either. Probably will be a wash, but if you want to try it, go for it. My prediction is that it won't matter much, if any, at all.

The contaminants are low. Other characteristics are decent.
Nothing wrong here.

You're paying a lot for these lubes. If you're not going to extend the OCIs (and perhaps you'll not due to warranty coverage), then I'd recommend using a less expensive lube and save the money. Your engine probably won't notice the difference, but your wallet will.



I somewhat wonder (and have no basis as proof, but merely am curious) if the MDS (multi displacement system, or whatever GM call is for cylinder deactivation) plays into the wear numbers? As I understand the GM system, it alters the oil pressure path to the lifters, which essentially makes a "spring" out of the dead cylinders. It's always the same cylinders, too, as I understand; it does not vary them. For example, perhaps 4 of the 8 are dropped out, and it will always be the same 4 that use this feature. So given that he's 85% highway, he's likely in the "eco" mode (for better economy) a large amount of the time. Does this create a condition where the altered operation causes higher cylinder wear? After all, what happens (as I understand it) is that both valves are stopped from operating on those selected cylinders. So the trapped air acts as a "spring" inside the cylinder, where the loss of energy due to compression is rebounded back upon the "down" strokes. So is the cylinder getting wiped with less oil, a bit more than the others? Does the lack of combustion cause the rings to lose their seal, and the oil essentially escapes? Or, is the cam lobe/lifter/rocker relationship somehow effected in that oil pressure drop in deactivating the valve train for those cylinders? Again - I don't know this for sure, but I'm curious and just throwing out a possible cause? It's just a swag at this point, on my part. Now as I also understand, the 4.8L engine does not use this technology; it's small enough that perhaps in a truck, the power loss is considered too much and so they just run on all 8 all the time? I don't have enough data, but it would be interesting to see if the 4.8L engines shed slightly less Fe than the 5.3 and 6.0, which do use the MDS.

Ford does not use this multi-cylinder drop-out feature in their n/a engines, and they consistently show lower wear rates, overall. So maybe I'm onto something here?

Again, that does not mean the GM wear is "bad", just different. Would be nice to know WHY it's different. I am not picking on the GM; just trying to find a root cause to explain the phenomenon.


Interesting. Disabling the cylinder deactivation for a couple of OCI's would be very informative. IIRC there is some kind of dongle that can be plugged into the OBD-II port that does just that, and works as long as it is plugged in, leaving no trace when it is removed. If that's the case it would certainly be something I would try, and might confirm your theory.
 
Originally Posted By: gonefishing
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
It's interesting that your olm reads 2% at 7.4k miles with 85% highway and a 8 quart sump.

Do you have a reason not to get TBN? That would be a nice set of UOAs with TBN.


From what I can tell, the OLM seems to be reduced 1% for every 75 miles (so 7500 miles would be 0%). I have yet to see any 2014+ GM pickups getting any more then 7500 miles on their OLM. Must be the max GM wants the OLM to go.


I posted my UOA for my 2016 Silverado 5.3L a couple of weeks ago. Changed the oil right at 9000 miles, still showed 7% remaining on the OLM, despite lots of short tripping and mostly city miles.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The GM Vortec engines (4.8L 5.3L 6.0L) seem to shed Fe more than some other brands. That does not make them bad; just different. I have a theory, but no proof. See at the bottom of this post ...

The Cu does not make sense to me. I don't think it's wear related, but if it's the oil cooler, then why has it not settled down by now? This phenomenon is seen often in Dmax UOAs when syns are first used that result in high reactions to the amines or esters. But once that introduction is over with, the Cu will settle down over a few UOAs, and typically goes down to single digits for avearges. But not here; the Cu is always in the twenty-ish range. Not sure why ... Here, the Cu isn't abnormal in terms of it's average; it's near the UA that Blackstone shows. Wherever it's coming from, it must be typical for these engines to do so.
I doubt that using a 0w-40 is going to greatly alter the wear rates, but it likely won't hurt, either. Probably will be a wash, but if you want to try it, go for it. My prediction is that it won't matter much, if any, at all.

The contaminants are low. Other characteristics are decent.
Nothing wrong here.

You're paying a lot for these lubes. If you're not going to extend the OCIs (and perhaps you'll not due to warranty coverage), then I'd recommend using a less expensive lube and save the money. Your engine probably won't notice the difference, but your wallet will.



I somewhat wonder (and have no basis as proof, but merely am curious) if the MDS (multi displacement system, or whatever GM call is for cylinder deactivation) plays into the wear numbers? As I understand the GM system, it alters the oil pressure path to the lifters, which essentially makes a "spring" out of the dead cylinders. It's always the same cylinders, too, as I understand; it does not vary them. For example, perhaps 4 of the 8 are dropped out, and it will always be the same 4 that use this feature. So given that he's 85% highway, he's likely in the "eco" mode (for better economy) a large amount of the time. Does this create a condition where the altered operation causes higher cylinder wear? After all, what happens (as I understand it) is that both valves are stopped from operating on those selected cylinders. So the trapped air acts as a "spring" inside the cylinder, where the loss of energy due to compression is rebounded back upon the "down" strokes. So is the cylinder getting wiped with less oil, a bit more than the others? Does the lack of combustion cause the rings to lose their seal, and the oil essentially escapes? Or, is the cam lobe/lifter/rocker relationship somehow effected in that oil pressure drop in deactivating the valve train for those cylinders? Again - I don't know this for sure, but I'm curious and just throwing out a possible cause? It's just a swag at this point, on my part. Now as I also understand, the 4.8L engine does not use this technology; it's small enough that perhaps in a truck, the power loss is considered too much and so they just run on all 8 all the time? I don't have enough data, but it would be interesting to see if the 4.8L engines shed slightly less Fe than the 5.3 and 6.0, which do use the MDS.

Ford does not use this multi-cylinder drop-out feature in their n/a engines, and they consistently show lower wear rates, overall. So maybe I'm onto something here?

Again, that does not mean the GM wear is "bad", just different. Would be nice to know WHY it's different. I am not picking on the GM; just trying to find a root cause to explain the phenomenon.


Interesting. Disabling the cylinder deactivation for a couple of OCI's would be very informative. IIRC there is some kind of dongle that can be plugged into the OBD-II port that does just that, and works as long as it is plugged in, leaving no trace when it is removed. If that's the case it would certainly be something I would try, and might confirm your theory.



I have no idea how it can be defeated. It's part of the ECM protocol.
Here's a copy/paste from the web that has a pretty good description of the function:

To provide maximum fuel economy under light load driving conditions, the engine control module (ECM) will command the cylinder deactivation system ON to deactivate engine cylinders 1 and 7 on the left bank, and cylinders 4 and 6 on the right bank, switching to a V4 mode. The engine will operate on 8 cylinders, or V8 mode, during engine starting, engine idling, and medium to heavy throttle applications.

When commanded ON, the ECM will determine what cylinder is firing, and begin deactivation on the next closest deactivated cylinder in firing order sequence. The Gen IV engine has a firing order of 1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3. If cylinder number 1 is on its combustion event when cylinder deactivation is commanded ON, the next cylinder in the firing order sequence that can be deactivated is cylinder number 7. If cylinder number 5 is on its combustion event when cylinder deactivation is commanded ON, then the next cylinder in the firing order sequence that can be deactivated is cylinder number 4.

Cylinder deactivation is accomplished by not allowing the intake and exhaust valves to open on the selected cylinders by using special valve lifters. The deactivation lifters contain spring loaded locking pins that connect the internal pin housing of the lifter to the outer housing. The pin housing contains the lifter plunger and pushrod seat which interfaces with the pushrod. The outer housing contacts the camshaft lobe through a roller. During V8 mode, the locking pins are pushed outward by spring force, locking the pin housing and outer housing together causing the lifter to function as a normal lifter. When V4 mode is commanded ON, the locking pins are pushed inward with engine oil pressure directed from the valve lifter oil manifold (VLOM) assembly solenoids. When the lifter pin housing is unlocked from the outer housing, the internal pin housing will remain stationary, while the outer housing will move with the profile of the camshaft lobe, which results in the valve remaining closed. One VLOM solenoid controls both the intake and exhaust valves for each deactivating cylinder. There are 2 distinct oil passages going to each cylinder deactivation lifter bore, one for the hydraulic lash-adjusting feature of the lifter, and one for controlling the locking pins used for cylinder deactivation.

Although both intake and exhaust valve lifters are controlled by the same solenoid in the VLOM, the intake and exhaust valves do not become deactivated at the same time. Cylinder deactivation is timed so that the cylinder is on an intake event. During an intake event, the intake cam lobe is pushing the valve lifter upwards to open the intake valve against the force of the valve spring. The force exerted by the valve spring is acting on the side of the lifter locking pins, preventing them from moving until the intake valve has closed. When the intake valve lifter reaches the base circle of the camshaft lobe, the valve spring force is reduced, allowing the locking pins to move, deactivating the intake valve. However, when cylinder deactivation is commanded ON, the exhaust valve for the deactivated cylinder is in the closed position, allowing the locking pins on the valve lifter to move immediately, and deactivate the exhaust valve.

By deactivating the exhaust valve first, this allows the capture of a burnt air/fuel charge or exhaust gas charge in the combustion chamber. The capture of exhaust gases in the combustion chamber will contribute to a reduction in oil consumption, noise and vibration levels, and exhaust emissions when operating in V4 mode. During the transition from V8 to V4 mode, the fuel injectors will be turned OFF on the deactivated cylinders. The ignition system secondary voltage or spark is still present across the spark plug electrodes on the deactivated cylinders. If all enabling conditions are met and maintained for cylinder deactivation operation, the ECM calibrations will limit cylinder deactivation to a cycle time of 10 minutes in V4 mode, and then return to V8 mode for 1 minute.

Switching between V8 and V4 mode is accomplished in less than 250 milliseconds, making the transitions seamless and transparent to the vehicle operator. The 250 milliseconds includes the time for the ECM to sequence the transitions, the response time for the VLOM solenoids to energize, and the time for the valve lifters to deactivate, all within 2 revolutions of the engine crankshaft.

The cylinder deactivation system consists of the following components:
• The VLOM assembly
• Eight special valve lifters, 2 per deactivating cylinder
• The engine oil pressure regulator valve for cylinder deactivation operation
• Gen IV cylinder deactivation engine block
• The ECM

Valve Lifter Oil Manifold (VLOM) Assembly
The cylinder deactivation system uses an electro-hydraulic actuator device called the valve lifter oil manifold (VLOM) assembly. The VLOM is bolted to the top of the engine valley, below the intake manifold assembly. The VLOM consists of 4 electrically operated Normally Closed Solenoids. Each solenoid controls the application of engine oil pressure to the intake and exhaust valve lifters on the cylinders selected to deactivate. Engine oil pressure is routed to the VLOM assembly from a passage on the rear of the cylinder block.
 
Last edited:
Something I forgot to mention about this OCI is I did disable V4 mode. I purchased a DiabloSport inTune and used that to modify my PCM parameters. I shut off the DOD (Displacement on Demand) or V4 operation. I did this right at the beginning on this list OCI. I never felt it gave me that much boost in economy. I have been keeping track of my MPG through my 2nd tripometer (reset it after an oil change). I started keeping track of this number around 41,000 miles. They are 17.1, 17.6, 17.6, 16.1, 17.4, 17.4, 17.3, and 18.1 (no V4).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top