PP 5w-30, Chevy Camaro LS3, 3800 miles

[Geoff]

I took this sample about mid way through draining the oil (capacity 8 qts) on a hot engine. Miles are approximate but should be +-200 miles of actual. OLM at 53% remaining.

Edit: using ZL1 air filter with supposedly higher flow. Looks like no issues with filtration and it has been dusty due to construction. Typical Austin summer with 100-105 deg commutes home. Car driven in a spirited way but not redlined often.

BlackStone COMMENTS:
Universal averages for the GM LS-3 show typical wear after about 4,600 miles on the oil. Youdidn't run this sample quite that long, but wear metals still matched up nicely. We usually find higher metalsand silicon from wear in materials with engines this new, but it looks like most of that stuff has washed outby now. Silicon and insolubles were low, showing the air and oil filters are doing a good job keeping dirt andoxidized solids out of the engine. No harmful contamination was found in this sample of 5W/30. Great firstreport! Check back to build wear trends.

ELEMENTS IN PARTS PER MILLION
MI/HR on Oil 3,800
MI/HR on Unit 13,626
Sample Date 09/28/13
Make Up Oil Added 0 qts
this/unit total/avgs
ALUMINUM 5 5 8
CHROMIUM 1 1 2
IRON 20 20 35
COPPER 76 76 95
LEAD 2 2 6
TIN 3 3 1
MOLYBDENUM 64 64 106
NICKEL 0 0 1
MANGANESE 2 2 3
SILVER 0 0 0
TITANIUM 0 0 0
POTASSIUM 2 2 2
BORON 3 3 67
SILICON 8 8 14
SODIUM 3 3 10
CALCIUM 2724 2724 2204
MAGNESIUM 14 14 277
PHOSPHORUS 762 762 746
ZINC 985 985 879
BARIUM 0 0 0

PROPERTIES
SUS Viscosity @ 210°F 58.5 55-63
cSt Viscosity @ 100°C 9.80 8.8-11.3
Flashpoint in °F 425 >365
Fuel % Antifreeze % 0.0 0.0
Water % 0.0 Insolubles % 0.2

 

[Merkava_4]

Why so much iron and copper? I thought these synthetic oils were supposed
to lubricate real well. And with an 8 quart sump too -- that's terrible.

 

[NMBurb02]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Why so much iron and copper? I thought these synthetic oils were supposed
to lubricate real well. And with an 8 quart sump too -- that's terrible.

They're inline with the universal averages, seeing as the OP's sample has about 20% fewer miles than the average.

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: NMBurb02

They're inline with the universal averages, seeing as the OP's sample has about 20% fewer miles than the average.


I was expecting it to be better than the universal averages being that it's
a premium synthetic. If it was my car, I'd be looking for a different oil.

 

[901Memphis]

It's still breaking in

 

[dnewton3]

The vehicle only has 13k miles on it; it's break-in noise.

GM engines tend to shed more metals especially at the front end of the lifespan; high break-in metals. I'm not picking on GM engines; it's just a trend a see in copious amounts of UOA data. The Cu especially seems to be a GM trend at times.

I'd not worry about it. They are trending downward, as desired.

I would recommend a few more shorter dino oil OCIs to flush and normalize the wear, then you can start playing with longer OCIs and UOAs. There is no sense in paying for syns for such short and expected data.

 

[cchase]

Eh, I'm not sure if you can call it "break-in", these engines shed big Cu and Fe numbers well into their lifetimes. Still not a big deal.

 

[Phishin]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
I was expecting it to be better than the universal averages being that it's
a premium synthetic. If it was my car, I'd be looking for a different oil.


Pennzoil Platinum is NOT a premium synthetic. It's simply a synthetic oil. Nothing special about it. Nothing exotic about it. And it's about as cheap as you can find. Not sure why anyone would consider it "premium". PU might be considered Premium since it uses GTL base stock. But to me, a "Premium" synthetic oil needs something (additive package, base stock, etc.) to make it standout against the competition.

And like the others have said....GM engines don't wear like a 4 cylinder Honda. They shed high metals forever. And ever. And these engines run forever.

 

[Geoff]

I am limited to Dexos oils per warranty, which are sort of semi-synthetic and up. I have a Dexos 2 rated oil (Mobil 1 ESP) in now, which is recommended in Europe for the car. I recently ran on the track which sends the oil temps to about 250F. It has an HTHS of 3.6 which will make the comparison to PP interesting. I may gradually extend change intervals depending on how the oil looks.

I assumed break in, so changed oil at 500, 1000, 3000, 6000, and 8800 miles prior.

I love this engine and the car is a complete blast to drive normally or hard on the track.

 

[fnbrowning]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

I would recommend a few more shorter dino oil OCIs to flush and normalize the wear, then you can start playing with longer OCIs and UOAs. There is no sense in paying for syns for such short and expected data.


Originally Posted By: Geoff
I am limited to Dexos oils per warranty, which are sort of semi-synthetic and up. I have a Dexos 2 rated oil (Mobil 1 ESP) in now, which is recommended in Europe for the car. I recently ran on the track which sends the oil temps to about 250F. It has an HTHS of 3.6 which will make the comparison to PP interesting. I may gradually extend change intervals depending on how the oil looks.

I assumed break in, so changed oil at 500, 1000, 3000, 6000, and 8800 miles prior.

I love this engine and the car is a complete blast to drive normally or hard on the track.


Geoff;

While dnewton3 has an excellent reputation here, sometimes such an individual can be so married to a philosophy that they forget it is not a universal answer.

I have a LS3 in a Corvette, and after extensive reading, I can assure you that GM has very specific reasons to recommend a synthetic oil for the LSX series of engines in our cars. Regardless of whether my Vette was/was not in warranty, I would not follow any advice to pour dino sweat into my sump, and your decision not to with your Camaro is sound.

Your first 3 oil changes were well considered. However, now you need to begin trusting your OLM more. GM put a considerable amount of effort into insuring that the OLM is accurate and dependable - including hard driving episodes.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: cchase
Eh, I'm not sure if you can call it "break-in", these engines shed big Cu and Fe numbers well into their lifetimes.

Split the difference and say GM engines take a lifetime to break in.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: fnbrowning
Originally Posted By: dnewton3

I would recommend a few more shorter dino oil OCIs to flush and normalize the wear, then you can start playing with longer OCIs and UOAs. There is no sense in paying for syns for such short and expected data.


Geoff;

While dnewton3 has an excellent reputation here, sometimes such an individual can be so married to a philosophy that they forget it is not a universal answer.

I have a LS3 in a Corvette, and after extensive reading, I can assure you that GM has very specific reasons to recommend a synthetic oil for the LSX series of engines in our cars. Regardless of whether my Vette was/was not in warranty, I would not follow any advice to pour dino sweat into my sump, and your decision not to with your Camaro is sound.

Your first 3 oil changes were well considered. However, now you need to begin trusting your OLM more. GM put a considerable amount of effort into insuring that the OLM is accurate and dependable - including hard driving episodes.




If your inference is that I am "married" to the concept of fully protecting equipment while getting the most vaule from any choice, then yes, I'd agree with you.

GM recommends syns for their high-performance engines because they want to assure the top level of protection under the most extreme circumstances. In a 'Vette, the syn engine oil is very important when the car is being driven HARD on a track, for long sessions, where underhood temps are very high and the oil is being stressed greatly. But take that same car, and drive it to the country club each Sunday for brunch and a round of golf (as I see many 'Vette owners do) in a very mild manner, and syns are not "needed" at all. GM recommends syns as a worst-case scenario protection, not a "needed for everyday use" application. A few WOT runs down the backroads are NOT a sign that syns are "needed". Racing applications have shown a disparity in lube performance, not daily driving.

Any decent SM or SN dino oil in this engine will do just fine for short-to-moderate OCIs and "normal" driving habits; it will protect the engine from wear, and wash out residuals. Then, he can use whatever ultra-premium syn he chooses, and continue to waste it by dumping it too early, as I suspect he will. Yes - I am casting a stereotype here; many folks want to "baby" their "baby", and think that using/dumping syns in short OCIs is the "best", even though data and facts show us a completely different story. Will using syns hurt an engine? No it certainly will not. But it really shows no evidence of helping, either, in "normal" use. But this practice certainly hurts one's wallet.

I stand by my comments; he is wasting money and not getting a good return on his investment. He could save money by not using a syn for such short OCIs, and not paying for UOAs because he's likely going to ignore the information containted therein. And his motor will be none the worse off.

 

[rbarrios]

Is this Camaro engine DI?


PP seems to be one of the oils- that performs very well in GM DI engines...right?
Thats about as 'premium' as Ill go on my 2013 DI 3.6.
On my 2010 3.6 VWB- is as 'premium' as ill go.

 

[901Memphis]

Castrol Edge would be my favorite oil for a DI engine due to its low deposits.

 

[Geoff]

Thanks for the comments guys. I will post the results from using Mobil1 ESP 5w-30 within the next month.

rbarrios, the LS3 is not direct injected. However it does inhale a measurable amount of oil vapor from the PCV system, as I think many engines do, therefore the problems with direct injected engines. This is one reason low volatility synthetic oils and catch cans are popular choices for this engine.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: NMBurb02

They're inline with the universal averages, seeing as the OP's sample has about 20% fewer miles than the average.


I was expecting it to be better than the universal averages being that it's
a premium synthetic. If it was my car, I'd be looking for a different oil.



You make me laugh.
Wear metals aren't gonna change if mileage on 2 different oils are similar. Syns last longer,that's what they are for. Short runs don't require synthetics,nor will a syn lessen wear in comparison to a conventional run for the same amount of miles/hours.

 

[Boss302fan]

PP is a very good syn oil and this is a very typical GM engine shedding metal.