From reading various forums, it sounds like oil consumption is on the rise in relatively new cars (50-60,000 miles). Is this internet posting bias effect or real increase in oil consumption cases?
Oil consumption epidemic
- Thread starter friendly_jacek
- Start date
- Status
Not in the 4 2008 & 2009 (Honda and Toyota) vehicles I have that all have over 60k on them. One has over 160k and no consumption.
Last edited by a moderator:
My 2005 Corolla with 270k+ miles is actually using less than when it had 50-100k.
Last OCI I used less than 1/3 quart. For all high speed running it sees that is good.
In the newer vehicles I see they are all doing normal and nothing increasing about oil consumption.
Bill
Last OCI I used less than 1/3 quart. For all high speed running it sees that is good.
In the newer vehicles I see they are all doing normal and nothing increasing about oil consumption.
Bill
Kestas
Staff member
This was an issue a few decades back, when engine manufacturers went to low tension piston rings. This was in an effort to lower internal engine friction and boost gas mileage. Though tension was lowered on piston rings, I've actually seen cars do much better over the past few decades with regard to oil consumption. Since my 85 Omni, none of the cars in my fleet have ever needed oil top up between changes in the past 15 years.
Mine will burn a quart an OCI,
Then it will burn none,
Even on the same brands of oil.
I honestly think its a result of how hard I drive the car. Newer cars might run hotter, too, so who knows if a little extra burning is a result of design changes or not.
Edit: Or when my drain plug leaks from using the washer one too many times but that's different
Then it will burn none,
Even on the same brands of oil.
I honestly think its a result of how hard I drive the car. Newer cars might run hotter, too, so who knows if a little extra burning is a result of design changes or not.
Edit: Or when my drain plug leaks from using the washer one too many times but that's different
Last edited:
If the newer cars are burning oil early,that bodes badly for OBDII components....converters,02 sensors....these 96-up vehicles wont pass state inspections with stored trouble codes.GMs with the wonderful Dexcool gasket leaks will ruin 02 sensors and cats too.
I track race my Accord and it doesnt burn oil. The mini van is an 06 Sienna on PYB and that oil is an exact reflection of Purolators motto, "In pure, out pure" Wildly that oil never really gets dark in the 5k OCI
There is a very long, on-going thread at the Subaru Forester forum with people complaining of high oil consumption in brand new vehicles with the new FB engine.
I am trying to figure out if it is real, or internet amplification.
I am trying to figure out if it is real, or internet amplification.
The only vehicle I have ever owned that used oil in a non-towing application was our 2008 Accord with a 3.5L V6. 1 qt every 1k miles with 40k on the odometer. After some cleaning efforts with Kreen (fuel & crankcase additive) and a switch to 10w-30, it consumed about 1 qt. per 1500 miles.
Some people reported high oil consumption with GM 5.3L engines when active-fuel-management hit the scene, but I haven't experienced any with our 2010 Tahoe.
Some people reported high oil consumption with GM 5.3L engines when active-fuel-management hit the scene, but I haven't experienced any with our 2010 Tahoe.
Never had serios oil consumption in any ride I've had, and that is on 1985-up vehicles. Last vehicle in the family that had a problem was family's 1989 Tercel...it used a fair bit, but a lot of them did.
Current Tribute is right at about 1 quart 5-6k miles on 5W-20/30 dino....curious if that will go up with M1 0W-20. We'll see.
Current Tribute is right at about 1 quart 5-6k miles on 5W-20/30 dino....curious if that will go up with M1 0W-20. We'll see.
I would guess that one of the contributors is the low tension, narrow piston rings. Less friction they say. Ed
It does seem like there's a rise in consumption with the newer Asian vehicles using 0w20 and sometimes, 5w20.
buster was talking to Art's Auto (leading indy in Bay Area) and they mention seeing a lot of cars having low oil levels well before the recommended OCI.
buster was talking to Art's Auto (leading indy in Bay Area) and they mention seeing a lot of cars having low oil levels well before the recommended OCI.
I think that with thinner oils there is less margin for neglect. Couple this with 10k ocis and I think a lot of people will end up with engine trouble just around when the warranty runs out.
But only time will tell if that's the case.
But only time will tell if that's the case.
There's quite a few cars on the road that seem to have more trouble with oil consumption. The GM 3.5s were/are bad about using more oil than they should. Not all of them are too bad...but I can think of several off hand that used 1qt/1000 miles while under 50,000 miles. I remember one customer came in after a couple thousand miles pretty upset thinking that we didn't fill his new car full of oil. He was two quarts down and blamed us for it. We refilled and he came back in another 1000 miles for an oil change, 1 quart down. He then apologized because he had been watching his oil more closely this time around and realized we were filling his car up. I think it was an 07 Impala 3.5 and this was probably around 2009 when this incident happened. I can think of a couple Malibus and Monte Carlo with almost the exact same thing. Customers who were always on time with maintenance with fairly new cars.
Even my mom's Malibu uses more oil than I feel it should. I change it every 5-6k miles with Napa Synthetic and it uses couple quarts or so. Strangely enough, 5-30 it uses nearly 4 quarts, but with 10-30 it uses about 2. I bought a bunch of 5 and 10 30 back with I had a 01 Monte Carlo and my 96 Grand Prix, so I had a bunch of 10-30 I put in just because it was there and it was summer. Thats when we noticed decrease in consumption...I've stuck with 10-30 ever since and it's stayed at 2 quarts.
Now my 96 uses about a quart every 6k miles...it's at 220k miles now. Something seems pretty backwards about this picture. All of these cars I'm talking about have not been neglected.
Even my mom's Malibu uses more oil than I feel it should. I change it every 5-6k miles with Napa Synthetic and it uses couple quarts or so. Strangely enough, 5-30 it uses nearly 4 quarts, but with 10-30 it uses about 2. I bought a bunch of 5 and 10 30 back with I had a 01 Monte Carlo and my 96 Grand Prix, so I had a bunch of 10-30 I put in just because it was there and it was summer. Thats when we noticed decrease in consumption...I've stuck with 10-30 ever since and it's stayed at 2 quarts.
Now my 96 uses about a quart every 6k miles...it's at 220k miles now. Something seems pretty backwards about this picture. All of these cars I'm talking about have not been neglected.
My cars are both about 10 years old, but fairly low miles and use no oil between oil changes. But I am careful about oil changes, only use high grade synthetics (currently Pennzoil Ultra) and the cars were broken in easily. I think excessively long oci's are causing lots of engine and consumption problems today.
Could it be that the manufacturers easy break in procedure doesn't seat the low tension rings well enough,causing blow by. Perhaps a more spirited break in would seat the rings better,negating the oil consumption issue.
Just a thought
Just a thought
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Could it be that the manufacturers easy break in procedure doesn't seat the low tension rings well enough,causing blow by. Perhaps a more spirited break in would seat the rings better,negating the oil consumption issue.
Just a thought
I have done some nissan engine full rebuilds and always do several full throttle runs from about 3k up to 5k rpms to set the rings in. I feel like the extra pressure pushing the rings against the cylinder walls helps the rings seat more evenly. Then I could be crazy. I never had any oil consumption problems with those engines and they were high boost engines too.
Could it be that the manufacturers easy break in procedure doesn't seat the low tension rings well enough,causing blow by. Perhaps a more spirited break in would seat the rings better,negating the oil consumption issue.
Just a thought
I have done some nissan engine full rebuilds and always do several full throttle runs from about 3k up to 5k rpms to set the rings in. I feel like the extra pressure pushing the rings against the cylinder walls helps the rings seat more evenly. Then I could be crazy. I never had any oil consumption problems with those engines and they were high boost engines too.
I think there's some reporting bias going on. All the cars I've owned have burned some oil (some worse, some better). My wife's have tended to burn less, but some. The cars see lots of engine braking and up/downhill driving though. My '07 Civic burned enough that it bothered me. My current car burns through about a quart per 5k mile OCI which I think is about perfect b/c it allows for a little refreshing of the oil sump over the OCI.
For all I've worried about it, many of my friends -- even ones who are not clueless about cars -- never even bother checking. I think there are probably a lot of people whose cars burn oil and the owners never even know.
For all I've worried about it, many of my friends -- even ones who are not clueless about cars -- never even bother checking. I think there are probably a lot of people whose cars burn oil and the owners never even know.
Originally Posted By: SubyRoo
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Could it be that the manufacturers easy break in procedure doesn't seat the low tension rings well enough,causing blow by. Perhaps a more spirited break in would seat the rings better,negating the oil consumption issue.
Just a thought
I have done some nissan engine full rebuilds and always do several full throttle runs from about 3k up to 5k rpms to set the rings in. I feel like the extra pressure pushing the rings against the cylinder walls helps the rings seat more evenly. Then I could be crazy. I never had any oil consumption problems with
those engines and they were high boost engines too.
I would tend to agree with you. I broke my built 106 Harley engine in on the highway with some spirited acceleration and decel.
They compression tested it after break in at 195,10000 miles later I'm at 197 in both cylinders with no measurable oil use.
I think a spirited break in does seat the rings better. Some engines may not require it though.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Could it be that the manufacturers easy break in procedure doesn't seat the low tension rings well enough,causing blow by. Perhaps a more spirited break in would seat the rings better,negating the oil consumption issue.
Just a thought
I have done some nissan engine full rebuilds and always do several full throttle runs from about 3k up to 5k rpms to set the rings in. I feel like the extra pressure pushing the rings against the cylinder walls helps the rings seat more evenly. Then I could be crazy. I never had any oil consumption problems with
those engines and they were high boost engines too.
I would tend to agree with you. I broke my built 106 Harley engine in on the highway with some spirited acceleration and decel.
They compression tested it after break in at 195,10000 miles later I'm at 197 in both cylinders with no measurable oil use.
I think a spirited break in does seat the rings better. Some engines may not require it though.
Holy cow, 1qt per 1k is out of specification. You could possibly file a Lemon Law report here. How long did you leave the Factory Fill in? Should have left it to about 40% OLM. Changing it before then may have caused the issue your having.
- Status
Similar threads
