Jus wondering which would be best for my 02 5.3 136,xxx miles. I don't race it everywhere but I don't drive like a grandpa either. I want the best performance and longest engine life. It doesn't have cats so no worry's with the zinc/phos. Content it has had m1 hm 5w30 in it since 78,xxx jus wondering if that is my best choice. Thanks for the help
m1 hm or rotella t6 for 5.3 vortec
- Thread starter chevytherealdeal
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
Yeah, I see no real need to go to a 40wt oil in that engine. What is the application that there are no catalysts? HM is fine if you think there is some benefit.
Depending upon how you use it and what your OCI is, if you wanted to stout it up a bit, adding some ACEA A3 M1 HM 10w-30 could be an option...
Depending upon how you use it and what your OCI is, if you wanted to stout it up a bit, adding some ACEA A3 M1 HM 10w-30 could be an option...
Its in my 1500,pick up what about start up wear? Would one be better than the other?
My '00 Silverado 1500 2WD 5.3 just turned 250k yesterday, and I've been using PYB10w30 most of the year with PYB5w30 during winter. My oil pan has a slight weeping that makes my consumption about 1/4 qt per 5500 mile OCI. Burns no oil otherwise, but does have piston slap that was common for those years. The 10w30 seems to help quiet it some.
I found getting on it once in a while helps keep it quieter on cold starts too
I found getting on it once in a while helps keep it quieter on cold starts too
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: chevytherealdeal
Its in my 1500,pick up what about start up wear? Would one be better than the other?
hmmm, so youre running an illegal emissions setup? On a fairly lightly used vehicle? I figured when you said no emissions, it implied some special-use HD vehicle.
5w-30 will be better at startup, and unless youre seeing real usage, Id stick with what youre running.
Its in my 1500,pick up what about start up wear? Would one be better than the other?
hmmm, so youre running an illegal emissions setup? On a fairly lightly used vehicle? I figured when you said no emissions, it implied some special-use HD vehicle.
5w-30 will be better at startup, and unless youre seeing real usage, Id stick with what youre running.
Ohio is strict with emissions at least in the larger more populated areas. I'm surprised you're getting away with that.
Too bad they are not stricter. I for one do not believe in removing emissions equipment, even on my "hot" cars.
What if everyone did? I think it was Car and Driver IIRC who said that one buggered up car can emit as much junk as thousands of new proper running vehicles...
What if everyone did? I think it was Car and Driver IIRC who said that one buggered up car can emit as much junk as thousands of new proper running vehicles...
Last edited:
I've removed or hollowed catalytic converters from every vehicle I have ever owned, and still passed NY emissions with some of them, just as a gag.
I don't need an expensive, restrictive, heat bomb under my car that may one day turn into a failure part and cause a major problem.
Don't even get me started on that garbage DPF "technology". That came out of my truck before I had owned it for 8 hours, and was offered a replacement at a cool $2,199. Also out was the EGR system that injects solid crystalline matter into the engine's intake and cylinders.
If everybody removed their cats, it would probably be the same as if everyone made short trips, where cats haven't gotten warm enough to function, or are well out of their efficiency range.
But I always help out them environment in more significant ways. All of my vehicles are 100% post consumer content, and cause no new ecological damage to the environment through new construction. Try saying the same thing about all of those shiny new hybrids sitting on the dealer lot that each caused as much strip mining as multiple conventional cars for those environmentally "friendly" batteries.
I don't need an expensive, restrictive, heat bomb under my car that may one day turn into a failure part and cause a major problem.
Don't even get me started on that garbage DPF "technology". That came out of my truck before I had owned it for 8 hours, and was offered a replacement at a cool $2,199. Also out was the EGR system that injects solid crystalline matter into the engine's intake and cylinders.
If everybody removed their cats, it would probably be the same as if everyone made short trips, where cats haven't gotten warm enough to function, or are well out of their efficiency range.
But I always help out them environment in more significant ways. All of my vehicles are 100% post consumer content, and cause no new ecological damage to the environment through new construction. Try saying the same thing about all of those shiny new hybrids sitting on the dealer lot that each caused as much strip mining as multiple conventional cars for those environmentally "friendly" batteries.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Too bad they are not stricter. I for one do not believe in removing emissions equipment, even on my "hot" cars.
What if everyone did? I think it was Car and Driver IIRC who said that one buggered up car can emit as much junk as thousands of new proper running vehicles...
I don't think setting a car on fire with a full fuel tank is going to cause THOUSANDS of more emissions than a properly working modern vehicle. Bit of an exaggeration maybe.
Too bad they are not stricter. I for one do not believe in removing emissions equipment, even on my "hot" cars.
What if everyone did? I think it was Car and Driver IIRC who said that one buggered up car can emit as much junk as thousands of new proper running vehicles...
I don't think setting a car on fire with a full fuel tank is going to cause THOUSANDS of more emissions than a properly working modern vehicle. Bit of an exaggeration maybe.
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Too bad they are not stricter. I for one do not believe in removing emissions equipment, even on my "hot" cars.
What if everyone did? I think it was Car and Driver IIRC who said that one buggered up car can emit as much junk as thousands of new proper running vehicles...
I don't think setting a car on fire with a full fuel tank is going to cause THOUSANDS of more emissions than a properly working modern vehicle. Bit of an exaggeration maybe.
The actual numbers can be as high as 8 thousand. No exaggeration as in some urban areas new cars actually emit cleaner air than they ingested to run!
Just expect LOOOONG lines and big fees at your local inspection station. That's whats coming in addition to dirtier air, thanks to the few who imagine they are somehow smarter than the rest of us. I would rather not be subjected to the hassle, but folks like YOU are bringing it to all...
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Too bad they are not stricter. I for one do not believe in removing emissions equipment, even on my "hot" cars.
What if everyone did? I think it was Car and Driver IIRC who said that one buggered up car can emit as much junk as thousands of new proper running vehicles...
I don't think setting a car on fire with a full fuel tank is going to cause THOUSANDS of more emissions than a properly working modern vehicle. Bit of an exaggeration maybe.
The actual numbers can be as high as 8 thousand. No exaggeration as in some urban areas new cars actually emit cleaner air than they ingested to run!
Just expect LOOOONG lines and big fees at your local inspection station. That's whats coming in addition to dirtier air, thanks to the few who imagine they are somehow smarter than the rest of us. I would rather not be subjected to the hassle, but folks like YOU are bringing it to all...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: chevytherealdeal
Jus wondering which would be best for my 02 5.3 136,xxx miles. I don't race it everywhere but I don't drive like a grandpa either. I want the best performance and longest engine life. It doesn't have cats so no worry's with the zinc/phos. Content it has had m1 hm 5w30 in it since 78,xxx jus wondering if that is my best choice. Thanks for the help
M1 HM 5w30 is pretty hard to beat. It worked very well in my Camaro @ 148k miles.
No need for a 40-weight in that engine.
Jus wondering which would be best for my 02 5.3 136,xxx miles. I don't race it everywhere but I don't drive like a grandpa either. I want the best performance and longest engine life. It doesn't have cats so no worry's with the zinc/phos. Content it has had m1 hm 5w30 in it since 78,xxx jus wondering if that is my best choice. Thanks for the help
M1 HM 5w30 is pretty hard to beat. It worked very well in my Camaro @ 148k miles.
No need for a 40-weight in that engine.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Too bad they are not stricter. I for one do not believe in removing emissions equipment, even on my "hot" cars.
What if everyone did? I think it was Car and Driver IIRC who said that one buggered up car can emit as much junk as thousands of new proper running vehicles...
I don't think setting a car on fire with a full fuel tank is going to cause THOUSANDS of more emissions than a properly working modern vehicle. Bit of an exaggeration maybe.
The actual numbers can be as high as 8 thousand. No exaggeration as in some urban areas new cars actually emit cleaner air than they ingested to run!
Just expect LOOOONG lines and big fees at your local inspection station. That's whats coming in addition to dirtier air, thanks to the few who imagine they are somehow smarter than the rest of us. I would rather not be subjected to the hassle, but folks like YOU are bringing it to all...
I'm sorry, but did you seriously just suggest that there is a combustion engine out there whose exhaust is BREATHABLE?
This would have to be the situation, given that nobody in any urban area is walking around in pressurized encounter suits. So if the exhaust is cleaner than the air the car is ingesting, than the exhaust must be breathable.
Must not be checking for these 2 little gases called carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide when they come to that conclusion.
Which emissions exactly are they saying is being produced at 8,000 times normal levels? Of the 5 gases tested under 5-gas emissions testing, one of them is oxygen, tested as a reference point against the other emissions levels, and there's definitely no way to multiply that by 8,000 going into an engine and coming out the other side. So which of the remaining 4 gases are being produced at 8,000 times normal?
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Too bad they are not stricter. I for one do not believe in removing emissions equipment, even on my "hot" cars.
What if everyone did? I think it was Car and Driver IIRC who said that one buggered up car can emit as much junk as thousands of new proper running vehicles...
I don't think setting a car on fire with a full fuel tank is going to cause THOUSANDS of more emissions than a properly working modern vehicle. Bit of an exaggeration maybe.
The actual numbers can be as high as 8 thousand. No exaggeration as in some urban areas new cars actually emit cleaner air than they ingested to run!
Just expect LOOOONG lines and big fees at your local inspection station. That's whats coming in addition to dirtier air, thanks to the few who imagine they are somehow smarter than the rest of us. I would rather not be subjected to the hassle, but folks like YOU are bringing it to all...
I'm sorry, but did you seriously just suggest that there is a combustion engine out there whose exhaust is BREATHABLE?
This would have to be the situation, given that nobody in any urban area is walking around in pressurized encounter suits. So if the exhaust is cleaner than the air the car is ingesting, than the exhaust must be breathable.
Must not be checking for these 2 little gases called carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide when they come to that conclusion.
Which emissions exactly are they saying is being produced at 8,000 times normal levels? Of the 5 gases tested under 5-gas emissions testing, one of them is oxygen, tested as a reference point against the other emissions levels, and there's definitely no way to multiply that by 8,000 going into an engine and coming out the other side. So which of the remaining 4 gases are being produced at 8,000 times normal?
In the commercial diesel sector, it is pretty much agreed that the current crop of emission equipped diesels emit such lower exhaust particulates and NOx that it would take 98 of them to equal the same emissions as a typical pre-EGR equipped diesel. Who really knows for sure. Too many variables. Those claims are based on controlled lab settings.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Too bad they are not stricter. I for one do not believe in removing emissions equipment, even on my "hot" cars.
What if everyone did? I think it was Car and Driver IIRC who said that one buggered up car can emit as much junk as thousands of new proper running vehicles...
STRICTER !
right, thats what we need big brother even deeper under my hood, so we can produce even more expensive vehicles that you cant work on or afford parts for that break more frequently.....
We have just now figured out how to produce the power from engines that we lost in the 70's during the first invasion of tree hugger's !
I do not remove emissions equip from vehicles but I sure as [censored] do not want any added either...cars are the least of our worries !
Too bad they are not stricter. I for one do not believe in removing emissions equipment, even on my "hot" cars.
What if everyone did? I think it was Car and Driver IIRC who said that one buggered up car can emit as much junk as thousands of new proper running vehicles...
STRICTER !
right, thats what we need big brother even deeper under my hood, so we can produce even more expensive vehicles that you cant work on or afford parts for that break more frequently.....
We have just now figured out how to produce the power from engines that we lost in the 70's during the first invasion of tree hugger's !
I do not remove emissions equip from vehicles but I sure as [censored] do not want any added either...cars are the least of our worries !
Originally Posted By: wsar10
We have just now figured out how to produce the power from engines that we lost in the 70's during the first invasion of tree hugger's !
Emissions technology will evolve over time, as will regulation of such technology. There will be more stuff, and different stuff, as time passes, and that's not going to change.
We have just now figured out how to produce the power from engines that we lost in the 70's during the first invasion of tree hugger's !
Emissions technology will evolve over time, as will regulation of such technology. There will be more stuff, and different stuff, as time passes, and that's not going to change.
I would not run an HDEO in a 5.3L chevy motor.. I had one with over 130k on it, ran Amsoil XL 5w-30 in it since it had 45k on it.. ran like a top, never an issue.
I like the sound of Maxlife red bottle 5W30.
- Status
