Would you vote for mandatory limits to engine oil consumption (mileage-dependent)?

[goblin]

Just thinking out loud...

Imagine a mandatory limit to how much oil an engine can consume for the first (substantial) part of an engine's life.

Example:

- From new to 100k miles: no more than 1qt per 6k miles (or any other reasonable value).

- 100k to 150k: no more than double that or something.

Capped at 10 years.

Logic: from a consumer point of view the consumer is better protected. The current "1qt/1000mi is ok and not a defect" mantra is obvious abuse.

From a pollution (and consumer's money) point of view, an engine going through 1qt/1000mi goes through double the oil vs one that doesn't. Plus the catalytic converters will be doomed.

Main bonus: would force the manufacturer to spec the correct oil for the engine, vs what the CAFE requirements forces it to do.

Or am I missing something here ? Will the medication kill the patient ? Is it possible to make an engine not over-consume oil at the expense of reliability and end up with engines that would fail prematurely while not consuming oil ?

Or is it OK to simplify that an engine engineered to not (over)consume oil is more reliable than one that does, all other things being equal?

All this - for new 4 stroke engines of course. Rotaries excluded !!!

 

[PF52]

Seems this would be a tough one to test and enforce.

 

[racer12306]

While I agree 1qt/1000 is ridiculous, I don't think mandating something would be a good idea.

The simple element of maintenance falling on the user could blow the whole thing about. A mistreated engine will consume more oil later in life and the manufacturer shouldn't be liable for that.

My want is for no consumption, but I know that's not reasonable. I'm currently at 129k, uses about 1/2qt/10,000. I'm happy with that.

 

[RDY4WAR]

There would need to be clear documentation of oil level when the oil is changed, and incrementally, by the end user. It's a good idea in theory, but I don't think it would work well in practice. Some OEMs are already being held accountable on oil consumption issues through class action lawsuits.

 

[buster]

Would getting rid of low tension rings solve that problem? Now that I think about it there are many engines using low tension rings that don't have oil consumption.

What causes one engine to drink oil vs another of the same brand? Manufacturing differences? Break-in?

 

[Astro14]

Absolutely no way I would vote for some arbitrary limit. Some engines use more than others. It’s not a problem, but you want to make it one?

To whom do you think the manufacturers will pass on that cost of increased engine replacement?

 

[millerbl00]

Sounds good. Force real quality control.

 

[RDY4WAR]

Would getting rid of low tension rings solve that problem? Now that I think about it there are many engines using low tension rings that don't have oil consumption.

What causes one engine to drink oil vs another of the same brand? Manufacturing differences? Break-in?

Engine was built at 4 pm on a Friday. (or 8 am on a Monday)

 

[trd1zz]

Just don't buy vehicles with problematic inferiorly engineered engines?

 

[KrisZ]

No way, I would never vote for something like that.

Even if it did work as intended, which in most cases it absolutely doesn’t, I’m against increasing government involvement and mandates where natural supply and demand forces should govern what is successful and what’s not.

 

[supton]

I'm seeing nothing but worms here. Law of unexpected consequences and all that.

What if this law added another grand to the price any and all vehicles? An OEM could self insure by just replacing engines that fail under this--but not actually address any underlying design issues. If they only have to replace say 1% of a particular engine family within this 100k, they might be willing to do nothing more than collect some extra cash at point of sale, and then do whatever they can to not return it for actual defects.

What's the energy content, or grams of CO2, or ____ (name your metric) in a quart of oil, times however burned over the lifetime of the engine, compared to the cost of making a new engine and swapping?

I know catalytic convertors can be damaged by oil burning, but I thought the problem years for Toyota (2.4 and 1.8) and all Saturn 1.9's did not result in large numbers of cat failures? Or did those just not run long enough to fail a cat?

 

[4wd]

Fixing a problem that I don’t have ? Probably not …

 

[buster]

Engine was built at 4 pm on a Friday. (or 8 am on a Monday)

I always wondered about that lol.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Just thinking out loud...

Imagine a mandatory limit to how much oil an engine can consume for the first (substantial) part of an engine's life.

Example:

- From new to 100k miles: no more than 1qt per 6k miles (or any other reasonable value).

- 100k to 150k: no more than double that or something.

Capped at 10 years.

Logic: from a consumer point of view the consumer is better protected. The current "1qt/1000mi is ok and not a defect" mantra is obvious abuse.

From a pollution (and consumer's money) point of view, an engine going through 1qt/1000mi goes through double the oil vs one that doesn't. Plus the catalytic converters will be doomed.

Main bonus: would force the manufacturer to spec the correct oil for the engine, vs what the CAFE requirements forces it to do.

Or am I missing something here ? Will the medication kill the patient ? Is it possible to make an engine not over-consume oil at the expense of reliability and end up with engines that would fail prematurely while not consuming oil ?

Or is it OK to simplify that an engine engineered to not (over)consume oil is more reliable than one that does, all other things being equal?

All this - for new 4 stroke engines of course. Rotaries excluded !!!

No because operator behavior can dictate consumption.

 

[jadmt]

Engine was built at 4 pm on a Friday. (or 8 am on a Monday)

I was told the 3.6 pentastar was built 24/7 so didn't really matter poor quality regardless

 

[jadmt]

I will never vote for more laws....just more wasteful money.....guess who would have to hire more people to enforce it and monitor it you the guberment....and guess who would pass the cost of extra engineering/manufacturing on? yup the car makers.....in reality I have owned over 25 new cars and trucks and even more motorcycles and never had one burn oil...not even a quart between oil changes ever...had a mazda once that would go thru 1/2 quart in 6000 miles if I let it go that long but I always changed it earlier so never had to add.

 

[CKN]

Those motors that use oil are well documented. If you dont wish to add the required oil to maintain it- the simple answer is to buy another vehicle.

 

[racer12306]

Just don't buy vehicles with problematic inferiorly engineered engines?

A problem with that mindset is that we don't know about these problems until a few years in.

Average driving is 12-15k, so 3 years is 36-45k miles, IMO it's really hard to screw up an engine in that timeframe, think gross negligence.

 

[martinq]

If fuel consumption and emissions are regulated I don't see why oil consumption should be any different. These are not 2-stroke engines, there should not be any significant oil consumption during the OCI. If it is, it should be listed on the specs along with everything else. MPG of gasoline, MPG of oil.

 

[CleanSump]

Sounds like part of a plan to force EVs on everyone by more nanny government. The consumer will pay for it.