Oil Goof

[Cyprs]

I believe it was a valid question, I am not the one picking on anyone to start with, I did not laugh at a valid post in this thread or any other, that I believe is picking on someone, that is drawing first blood. I am not fighting lost wrenches battle, what I am saying is I believe he made a valid point which I weighed after I did not see any revised chev policy along with others posts telling me better off to stick with the manual and chevy is adement on no 40 oil. When I post, if I dont have anything constructive in my assessment then I shut the f up, if someone is helping another member I dont ridicule them or laugh at their post.

I am not making my metal treatment a personal issue with you either, it is laughing responses that many in here practice that steer me from telling about a great product which could benifet many in my opinion. I refer to fact that I took an engine that was burning oil and brought it to this standard, a standard I did not want to take 3 steps back on in a possible bad oil choice.

I just finished draining and changing to the 0-30, I am glad I took advice such as LostWrench's. After I changed the oil, the oil pressure went down significantly when I took it for a drive, tells me the clearances must be extremely tight on these chev engines which may explain chevy's hard line on 40 weight oil, anything else I have or do drive in tolerating 40 oil is no problem. Secondly, the engine is much less restricted now at idle and has significant more power/response as it did previous prior on 0-30. The engine also did not sound healthy at 0C this morning either.

I carefully drained the oil, it will go into lawn equipt. I still am [censored] off at myself on this mental error and the fact I could have made this mistake on any other vehicle mentioned below in my signiture and I would have had absolute 0 issue or reason to post on 40 oil. I had to [censored] up on the one and only engine on my property that doesn't seem to agree with 40 weight, I thought possibly the 94 chev manual might be "old School" and revised and someone in here may have been in the know on that. I figured I might have gotten away with one, typical of my freaking luck again, I didn't. This thread served it's purpose, thanks to it I made the right decision, thanks all again,

Thanks everyone,
I believe I have it right,
Cyprs

 

[BrianWC]

Glad we could help. Hope there was no permanent damage. I apologize if smilies offend you. They aren't intended to.

 

[addyguy]

I'm not arguing with your experience, but I would have a VERY hard time calling any older-style GM OHV engine 'tight'...the 3.1 V-6 is a direct descendant of the 2.8 V-6 which first came out in 1979, which means it was developed in...1976? 1977? - which menas it probably borrowed heavily on GM OHV designs going back to the 50's...not exactly years known for 'precision' in manufacturing and design...

With all the piston slap/oil consumption issues these engines have, I would thing a 40-weight oil would be about perfect for these engines. I drive a 2002 OHV Cavalier; and I'm going to try a 40-weight to get rid of the horrible slap it has for the first 5 mins. of running....tight engine? Yeah, right.....

 

[Cyprs]

The Good Lord's ([censored] is sensored) honest truth Brian is I was going to cancel my Bitog membership today, my concience is bothering me in the way I over reacted and treated you.

My personality conflicts with an anomynous forum like this. I like to to think a thread like this is like a conversation around a coffee table or over a few beers person to person.

When I am in that person to person conversation at a table, if someone makes a joke of the subject spoken, or laughs it off in sarcasm, it is my nature to then say respectfully to the effect of: "Okay, you had your fun, obviously with your reaction you must have a perspective or reason, lets here your input on the subject." And what that does is puts that person or attidude to scrutiny of peers at the tableand makes that person put them selve on the line and accountable on their inmput as everyone else did prior in their input at their expense of accountablily. It evens the playing field and take away the loose term cheap shot and make accountability. I handled the situation wrong.

A forum like this is very difficult to get the full context of where someone comes from, in person I know when my buddies are ribbing me in fun, context is then easy and taken for what it is. Difficult in here and I react without knowing the context.

I did know the engine was not going to blow up in one OCI. I took into account all input on my decision to change it, what I was looking for was a long term chev service manager, chev engine rebuilder, mechanic who works on these etc. to give me a smoking gun that said to the effect of "I have worked/known these engine for years, I see nothing in the design in clearances or passages that 40 oil would hurt, chev over reacted on the hard line anti 40 oil stress 3 times in the manual."

It is not Bitog, any anomynous forum format conflicts with my personally, not compatible. I apologise.

Cyprs

 

[Cyprs]

Yeah, I bought this car for my son 2 years ago at about 160K, it had massive piston slap, start up noise, I learned from some chevy guys that this is normal. Now it has 203K.

Early I started using 0-30 HDEO XD3 which is a pretty heavy oil, it did not leak, but it burned 1 litre oil in 5K km OCI. I continued until I started my 0-30 HDEO with my metal treatment.

The piston slap noise is gone now, quiet, the entire engine runs quiet, this winter my son went 8.2K kms without a drop of oil burned. I feared chevy's absolute wild hair over 40W oil in this engine and I didn't want any risk to lose the gains I have made on this engine. With out the "smoking gun" assurance in this thread on 40W being okay in that engine, I dumped 15-40 and will recycle it lawn equip, I am not happy using waste oil in that, would have prefer to leave it in the 3.1

Prior to this metal treatment/HDEO mix, I figured heavier oil my quiet the engine down too, the chev manual scared me off then too.

Cyprs

 

[BrianWC]

No worries. Forums are hard to read.

My personal experience is running 15W40 in plenty of small 4 bangers that spec 20-40 weight. Never had any issue. Even in winter. But my thoughts were along the same lines as addyguys. A GM engine of that lineage and vintage can't be a Swiss clock, no matter how well it's taken care off. But it's your car and you felt uncomfortable with that oil. You changed it. If I'd had the same feeling, I wouldn't have hesitated to do the same no matter WHO told me not to on here.

 

[Cyprs]

Okay, I should have done this immediately after realizing my 40W mistake.

I phoned the nearest biggest GM City Delearship service manager.

I asked him if there has been any change in GM policy against 40w oil in a 94 3.1. He said "No." He said to effect of "to his knowledge the only 40 w oil used in his GM service bays are
for diesels, we only use the weight specified on filler cap or service GM service manual, that is either 5-30 or 10-30 on chev gas engines."

I asked him why only 30 oil, He said to effect of " I believe because GM believes a 10-40 / 15-40 heavy oil would be too thick at start up and drive off thus would cause engine damage."

I asked him to effect "in your own experince/opinion, would you put a heavy 40W oil in your own chev engine?" He said to effect "NO, the only reason I could justify a thick 40 oil would be if the engine is so far gone that it burns extreme amounts of oil, at that point you dont have much to lose in a 40w oil." Like bandaid on a cut throat I guess is what he was saying, that was the context I took his response.

I asked him "what about a 0-40 syn oil?" He said that that was a good question, but one he would not address because GM has not endorsed or sent any addendum so I will not comment on that."

Basically, what I learned is chev still has a real serious wild hair over the use of 40w oil in their gas engines for what ever their reason, they are firm and ademat on NO 40W oil in their gassers, this is what my homework tells me. I did not find a smoking gun telling me 40W is okay in a chev engine after going directly to GM service.

I offer my homeword done today to anyone who wants to take it for what it is worth. I am satified with my results.
I have to believe GM must have valid justification in their hard line against 40w oil in their gasser. I will not hesitate using 40 weight in any other vehicle whose manual gives thumbs up to 40W over the temp of -18C or 0F. To my limited knowledge/experience, GM is the only company I am aware of who believes 40W oil will damage their engines..

Thanks,
Cyprs

 

[Cyprs]

I just read my above post and found myself answering my own post question/topic with my homework, glad to share it anyway.

Cyprs

 

[addyguy]

Wow. Thank you so much Cyprs, for sharing what you have learned. I guess if GM is sticking to that line so adamently, even on the question of a 14-year old engine, I should re-think my line of reasoning.

I'll admit I don't have a lot of experience in this area, as I have NEVER run anything other than a 5W/10W-30 oil in any vehicle I have ever owned. So I don't know what a 40-weight 'would do' at all.

As well, I have to admit I don't REALLY have an engine problem I need to adress, either. Sure, my engine has noticable piston slap on cold start-up, but it doesn't make noise once warmed up, and it only consumes about 1 quart per 6k miles....not bad consumption at all.

So I most likely wouldn't gain anything by running a 40-weight in my Cavalier, and would probably reduce my gas mileage, which seems rather foolish at a time of skyrocketing gas prices....

 

[OriginHacker21]

Thanks for the information you took to type out here cyprs. I was once seriously considering putting a 15w40 into my 2004 2.2L Ecotec. No longer. Very interesting read!

 

[ikeepmychevytoo]

Tight clearances... Older days parts were select-fit, now the production machinery is more precise to be faster and test-runs of engines are fewer and un-needed. And forget the select-fit. These are only because production numbers are higher. These production allowances does not imply the working clearances of the product.

To be more specific hopefully, eventhough cold clearances may not be appear anything out of ordinary, hot working clearance of piston to cylinder wall likely be tighter than an average engine, or at extremes clearance tightness is more critical. Aluminum expands more than the iron. Not much iron block and alu piston combination nowadays. Also please note that, eventhough mass produced, all these engines are not laboratory identicals. I once drained an oil the next day for idling so noisy. It was a 10w30, I still don't know the reason, probably the lifters was just not in tune with specific gravity of that oil. It'd cost actual science to tell why.

Tight clearance is not a quality assessment. Be it a '56 Studebaker or 2000+ 'vette 5w30 is the tight clearance itself.

 

[Cyprs]

thanks everyone,

I have not owned many GM products, but I do admire GM in going against mainstream of the majority in auto manufacturers. Most other auto companies tolerate 40 oil above -18C or 0F in their gassers. GM bravely and confidently sticks to their convictions faithfully for nearly a couple decades now rather than taking the easy way out in tolerating 40 oil as does the majority. I can only rationalize that GM seems confident in their knowledge base on oil 30 weight for their engines with their gutsy and consistant adement policy against 40w oil. That is admiral and take guts in my opinion. I learned respect for GM in my oil choice quest here along with other lessons too.

thanks,
Cyprs