Pennzoil Ultra 5W-30 4,584 2009 Traverse + 4 UOA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: rbarrios
I told her what the 3.6 DI is doing to oil.....
Are Caddy owners seeing the same thing with the shearing and higher iron counts in those 3.6's?


Take a look in the UOA section. Good luck finding very many/any? of the 3.6 DI engine from a Caddy.

It appears that Caddy owners don't do UOAs.
 
Originally Posted By: beast3300
What does the OLM say with only 4500 miles on these very good synthetics?

I'm curious is GM has done any long term testing with this fuel dilution. I am not an expert at reading the tests, but all of these oils ended up around a 20wt right?


for the most recent analysis- with the Pennzoil- the OLM indicated 62% as per the owner.
 
I love to see the UOA of an Amsoil 5w30 run in this engine. With its low novack, I wonder if it wouldn't hold up better. I am currently running it in my 3.6 DI GM motor in the Camaro. Maybe after this run I should finally pony up for a UOA!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: rbarrios
I told her what the 3.6 DI is doing to oil.....
Are Caddy owners seeing the same thing with the shearing and higher iron counts in those 3.6's?


Take a look in the UOA section. Good luck finding very many/any? of the 3.6 DI engine from a Caddy.

It appears that Caddy owners don't do UOAs.


This is precisely what sparked the whole Synth vs Dino for FF for Caddy owners versus Camaro. It's all about the price-point and optics.

If you own a Caddy, chances are you're not the type to spend your time wrenching. You likely can afford to have someone do the OC for you or simply let the Caddy dealership handle that stuff.

I'd doubt they're that much into their maintenance, much less doing UOA and reveling in the minutia.
 
Originally Posted By: Jehartley
I love to see the UOA of an Amsoil 5w30 run in this engine. With its low novack, I wonder if it wouldn't hold up better. I am currently running it in my 3.6 DI GM motor in the Camaro. Maybe after this run I should finally pony up for a UOA!


You'd have some interested bystanders! I for one would like to see it.
 
Originally Posted By: Jehartley
I love to see the UOA of an Amsoil 5w30 run in this engine. With its low novack, I wonder if it wouldn't hold up better.


Even better or just as interesting would be Redline 5W30; a Noack # of 6 and HTHS of 3.8
shocked2.gif
.
 
All wear numbers trended down from new, copper had trend down, iron started to trend down then spiked up while using the mobil but nothing to cause concern and came dramatically back down with the ultra....Looks like a very good series of UOA's aside from shearing slightly out of grade and iron spike....I know folks scoff at mobil 1 and iron but it seems to happen quite a bit...However, it may be something with the chemistry of Mobil 1 where after a few runs iron levels may return to normal after several runs with it...But nevertheless, looks like a perfectly fine series of uoa's to me and exactly what you would expect from a new engine...
But from this UOA, the Ultra looked like it did a very good job during its time in use...Looks like you've found what the OCI needs to be for these oils in this particular engine say 5,000 or so...
 
I had a similar experience with Penzoil Ultra. The wear firgures were good. The oil was at the bottom of the viscosity range after 5K miles. The engine just shears the oil badly.
 
In my on going quest to learn UOA's I'd agree with those that said to ditch the M1. The Ultra is doing better in this engine. As a side note GM should go back to the drawing board, because in the long run I don't think these engines are going to hold up well. Time will tell.
27.gif
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
In my on going quest to learn UOA's I'd agree with those that said to ditch the M1. The Ultra is doing better in this engine. As a side note GM should go back to the drawing board, because in the long run I don't think these engines are going to hold up well. Time will tell.
27.gif



If you are basing that on UOAs that may be a mistake. For the most part UOA metal counts have nothing to do with engine life. GM engines often show higher metals than other engines, but as we know they have very good engine life. Just a thought.
 
All I really see is high iron and that can come from cylinder wash out of the oil due to the direct injection. That cylinder wash out is what causes fuel dilution in these direct injection engines and the higher than normal iron numbers. If the oil is getting washed away from the rings and cylinder walls then that means there is more scuffing going on.
 
I based my comments on the UOA. Don't get me wrong I'm not much of a UOA believer either. But aside from tearing down an engine there isn't much else to go on. Having said that I'd take the oil that shows the least wear metals if I were spending the money and tracking UOA reports. I gave up on being loyal to brands about 2 years ago, when the brand I was loyal to treated me like a second rate customer. Then after doing some homework it was easy to discover there are better oils for the same money or less.

JMO, I won't try and sway anyone, only because I can't be swayed. If I feel there is something better than what I'm using in my price range I check it out, if I like it I try it. So far I like PP and Edge since making the change.
 
Originally Posted By: ZZman
These engines are rough on the oil. Shears it up.

But wear looks good compared to the M1 UOA's.

I would have to go with Ultra.


That's my opinion also. I saw a UOA on this engine using GC 0W30. The GC stood up to the shearing better than any I've seen. I don't believe it is certified to the specs that GM requires is the only problem. I am running Pennzoil Ultra in my vehicle, also a GM 3.6 DI, as we speak. Outside of the shearing, it has done very well.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom