Sugar Bears 2015 GMC Terrain SLE-2 2.4 AWD

[mikef95]

Yeah I'll definitely run a sample first. The indicator would be fuel in the oil correct?

[mikef95]

Yeah I'll definitely run a sample first. The indicator would be fuel in the oil correct?Yeah I'll definitely run a sample first. The indicator would be fuel in the oil correct?

[Grumpy Bear]

5 hours ago, customboss said:

Your quote from Machinery Lubrication is old news and was true  overall  about ~20 years ago......that PAO formulation is no longer a major player, why? Cost and new chemistries for GRP III++ ( estolides and other sugar based synthetics) can add all the solvency and miscibility you need at a VERY LOW treat and not reportable on any SDS.   RLI does it with cold pressed, filtered veg bases.

 

I read that article. Cleaning solvents based on some unique PAO chemistries. 

 

Estolides are Group V not III++, never heard of III ++ just III+.  Group II+ is just a more severely treated Group II. AN's are Group V. Fact is Group V is whatever is not defined by the first 4 groups. The more processed they become the more saturated they become and less polar they are making them poor solvents as they can not longer hydrogen bond. It's the saturation that gives them the heat edge. 

 

This must be one of those circa 1999 Castrol v Exxon/Mobil wars where we are going to change the MEANINGS of words to suit a marketing pretext. Hey...I'll keep an open mind but not a gullible one  Water is water. 

[Grumpy Bear]

2 minutes ago, mikef95 said:

Yeah I'll definitely run a sample first. The indicator would be fuel in the oil correct?Yeah I'll definitely run a sample first. The indicator would be fuel in the oil correct?

 

Yes, correct. @Black02Silverado on this site is who I use. Only GC method fuels dilution I know of. 

[customboss]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

NPG Polyol Ester

https://www.nyco-group.com/2018/03/aviation-derived-ester-technology-for-the-industry-2/

[customboss]

24 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

I read that article. Cleaning solvents based on some unique PAO chemistries. 

 

Estolides are Group V not III++, never heard of III ++ just III+.  Group II+ is just a more severely treated Group II. AN's are Group V. Fact is Group V is whatever is not defined by the first 4 groups. The more processed they become the more saturated they become and less polar they are making them poor solvents as they can not longer hydrogen bond. It's the saturation that gives them the heat edge. 

 

This must be one of those circa 1999 Castrol v Exxon/Mobil wars where we are going to change the MEANINGS of words to suit a marketing pretext. Hey...I'll keep an open mind but not a gullible one  Water is water. 

You are correct in general but Estolides are custom synthesized to the application but for discussions sake the bases Novvi and BioSynthetic make FOR AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE OILS  are near GRP IV but not considered group IV or GRP V.  That keeps prices down. This is how they are making inroads over the big PAO and GRP III+ HVHI petrol based producers. Interesting that they are so reasonable in cost even large companies like Chevron are using them in the Havoline I mentioned a few posts ago. Maybe it is marketing getting in the pure way of grouping.  In Europe they have GRP VI.  LOL  

 

They make good fuels feedstocks too. 

 

Here's a long but good discussion about Ester base oils and specifically Estolides from BT 

 

 

 

[customboss]

PIO  Group VI embraced by ATIEL ( automotive makers in Europe drive oil standards) not like here where oil drives everyone.....LOL  

 

https://www.proquest.com/openview/10168c4f483ec1084d6e079fb8e1c6b6/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=44644

 

 

[garagerog]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

You mean this part?

 

https://www.gmpartsonline.net/oem-parts/gm-rear-wheel-drive-differential-carrier-housing-42540531?c=Zz11bml2ZXJzYWxzLWFuZC1yZWFyLWF4bGUmcz1kaWZmZXJlbnRpYWwmbD03Jm49QXNzZW1ibGllcyBQYWdlJmE9Z21jJm89dGVycmFpbiZ5PTIwMTUmdD1kZW5hbGkmZT0zLTZsLXY2LWdhcw%3D%3D

No, not the differential, the transfer case, although they do appear to have that in stock now for something like $1030.

[Black02Silverado]

1 hour ago, mikef95 said:

Yeah I'll definitely run a sample first. The indicator would be fuel in the oil correct?

Mike, If you are interested in getting a used oil analysis with me. PM me what you are interested in and we can go from there.

[KARNUT]

2 hours ago, mikef95 said:

So to clarify, are you saying that a bad high pressure fuel pump was the primary cause of your oil consumption?

Mine doesn't actually appear to be consuming oil over the last 3k miles, but we're doing an oil change next week and will confirm at that time. We had a shop do the last one and I'm thinking they didn't actually change the oil... 

If the HPFP is the issue, and mine is consuming oil, I'll go ahead and get that changed asap.

I would start at the beginning of this thread. Not to be a stick in the mud. There’s been many I found the problem considering this vehicle. It’s not unusual I’ve been there. This particular engine is known to have problems at around 100K miles. 

[Grumpy Bear]

3 hours ago, mikef95 said:

Yeah I'll definitely run a sample first. The indicator would be fuel in the oil correct? Yeah I'll definitely run a sample first. The indicator would be fuel in the oil correct?

 

If you follow this whole adventure you will see that in this case there were multiple issues uncovered. Let's give you the Cliff Notes. 

 

Strike #1

 

The GM ECOTEC 2.4 I4 uses a low tension ring set. The oil control rings need to drain and the drain back area behind those rings was undersized. A condition GM refused to rectify. This means that the oil used in these motors MUST inhibit varnish formation and as it turns out the 7,500 mile OLM program and book OCI length used along with DEXOS licensed oils WILL NOT hinder that formation for very long. GM's first 'fix' for this was to recommend shorter OCI's in a TSB for those who complained. Not publicly promoted and routine for all the OEM's in general.

 

Strike #2

 

The CCV system utilizes an orifice instead of a PCV valve. It is undersized and plugs easy by two methods. The first is ICE in any weather that falls below 17 F. It's in the owners manual. The second is it's placement in the oil return. As it is but .0625" it takes little carbon/sludge to plug it solid. When this plugs and in the best situation water builds in the crankcase causing foam and sludge. In the worst situation the main seals overpressure and fail. In addition as an orifice it can not prevent 'back flow' and as the fresh air side reverses it ices in the air box well. 

 

Strike #3

 

HPFP leakage. Most fuel is more varnish and not matter how good your oil, how well you've reengineered the CCV or how good your success at freeing the rings they will not remain free for long. It is a manufacturing practice to mount fuel pumps in the oil side of the motor. Stupid stuff. 

 

Add these strikes together and the entire ring package carbons and collapses aka stuck rings and now an excess of combustion products enter the crankcase, oil consumption gets unbearable and at this point GM starts doing a 'consumption test' which if it exceeds a quart in 2K miles and your motor is under 150K the replace the rings and pistons, clean the vent and send you down the road. I did not wait on nor have any faith in GM to do the "right thing". And given the design...no trust in anything they may have to say on the matter. 

 

To the IGNORANT AND HATEFUL this looks like multiple failed efforts when what we have here is a series of successes that lead to a successful conclusion in a two steps forward one step back fashion. NONE of which would have been successful without EXPERT UAO ANALYSIS & INTERPRITATION or dogged determination and a HUGE background in all related fields. 

 

Now will it be that this motor will return to a zero oil usage status? Not likely. This sort of OEM screw up can, will and may have caused some damage oil and maintenance going forward will not stop. Time will tell. 

 

Hatters will hate. It's their nature. 

[KARNUT]

10 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

If you follow this whole adventure you will see that in this case there were multiple issues uncovered. Let's give you the Cliff Notes. 

 

Strike #1

 

The GM ECOTEC 2.4 I4 uses a low tension ring set. The oil control rings need to drain and the drain back area behind those rings was undersized. A condition GM refused to rectify. This means that the oil used in these motors MUST inhibit varnish formation and as it turns out the 7,500 mile OLM program and book OCI length used along with DEXOS licensed oils WILL NOT hinder that formation for very long. GM's first 'fix' for this was to recommend shorter OCI's in a TSB for those who complained. Not publicly promoted and routine for all the OEM's in general.

 

Strike #2

 

The CCV system utilizes an orifice instead of a PCV valve. It is undersized and plugs easy by two methods. The first is ICE in any weather that falls below 17 F. It's in the owners manual. The second is it's placement in the oil return. As it is but .0625" it takes little carbon/sludge to plug it solid. When this plugs and in the best situation water builds in the crankcase causing foam and sludge. In the worst situation the main seals overpressure and fail. In addition as an orifice it can not prevent 'back flow' and as the fresh air side reverses it ices in the air box well. 

 

Strike #3

 

HPFP leakage. Most fuel is more varnish and not matter how good your oil, how well you've reengineered the CCV or how good your success at freeing the rings they will not remain free for long. It is a manufacturing practice to mount fuel pumps in the oil side of the motor. Stupid stuff. 

 

Add these strikes together and the entire ring package carbons and collapses aka stuck rings and now an excess of combustion products enter the crankcase, oil consumption gets unbearable and at this point GM starts doing a 'consumption test' which if it exceeds a quart in 2K miles and your motor is under 150K the replace the rings and pistons, clean the vent and send you down the road. I did not wait on nor have any faith in GM to do the "right thing". And given the design...no trust in anything they may have to say on the matter. 

 

To the IGNORANT AND HATEFUL this looks like multiple failed efforts when what we have here is a series of successes that lead to a successful conclusion in a two steps forward one step back fashion. NONE of which would have been successful without EXPERT UAO ANALYSIS & INTERPRITATION or dogged determination and a HUGE background in all related fields. 

 

Now will it be that this motor will return to a zero oil usage status? Not likely. This sort of OEM screw up can, will and may have caused some damage oil and maintenance going forward will not stop. Time will tell. 

 

Hatters will hate. It's their nature. 

Not hate. You said yea it’s the fuel pump. You don’t say there’s more to the story. I just pointed that out. Now you did.

[Grumpy Bear]

3 hours ago, customboss said:

You are correct in general but Estolides are custom synthesized to the application but for discussions sake the bases Novvi and BioSynthetic make FOR AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE OILS  are near GRP IV but not considered group IV or GRP V.  That keeps prices down. This is how they are making inroads over the big PAO and GRP III+ HVHI petrol based producers. Interesting that they are so reasonable in cost even large companies like Chevron are using them in the Havoline I mentioned a few posts ago. Maybe it is marketing getting in the pure way of grouping.  In Europe they have GRP VI.  LOL  

 

They make good fuels feedstocks too. 

 

Here's a long but good discussion about Ester base oils and specifically Estolides from BT 

 

 

 

 

 

No idea what is going on in Europe but in the USA the very definition of Group V is ANYTHING that is DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF THE OTHER GROUPS. They don't "Get to Create" a non conforming subclass and call is a plus or plus plus..  That out of the way to the video...

 

AWESOME!! I understand Estolides and they are as I thought. Just a different Ester functionality with some pretty cool properties. Lowest ANILINE POINT to date. I smiled when he use the aniline point as a proxy for solubility. What is the aniline point of current POA's? One of the highest. 

 

http://www.lube-media.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Lube-Tech090-OilSolublePolyalkyleneGlycols.pdf

 

 

 

 

Something that I dislike about this sort of infomercial is something we've talked about off list a few times. He ONCE again points to hydrolysis as the Achilles Heel of Polyols (and diesters) and while showing the differences in structure between the two. Yet he, nor does anyone else, provide a case of this happening in a real world fully formulated MODERN PCMO in a healthy motor. He goes to great lengths to explain reverse esterification and waters catalytic influence and drones on about how it is self feeding once started THEN glosses over the FACT this takes more than 1% or TEN THOUSAND PPM to initiate. Is it possible? Yep if you crack a block. This creating problems that don't mean crap in the real world to promote a new product I find very distasteful. That's not even marketing. That's Polyh-Ticing. 

 

One very positive point I zeroed on on was the usefulness of TAN for esters to determine if this is happening. One source mentions a doubling of TAN as a trigger point for trashing the fluid. Other say 1 unit increase. Yet only one lab I'm familiar with test AN ROUTINELY for oils containing ester. 

 

I see your draw to them. Sustainable and moving away from fossil fuel sources. Well,  mostly as soon as they figure out the acid side. For now the Lions share. 

 

A down note was the 'off the shelf' add package and admission the result show it to be "over added" which I found silly. Why?  In this case he infers it does it's job TOO WELL? 

Edited August 3, 2022 by Grumpy Bear

[Grumpy Bear]

I can find no API reference current or otherwise for any Group II +, Group III + or ++ designation. However Infineum Chemical has this to say about marketing and those terms. 

 

https://www.infineuminsight.com/en-gb/articles/base-stocks/driving-group-iii-differentiation/

 

Group II/II+ and III/III+ have significant surpluses of supply over technical demand, which is driving their substitution of Group I

Thinner grades drive Group III+ demand (December 2014)

Many refer to high VI Group III base stocks as ‘Group III+’, which is considered to be a marketing term as opposed to a specifically defined API Group. High VI means these stocks can be used to formulate low viscosity engine oils.

Some of the main questions around investment plans are those concerning Group III+ capacity increases, which may be required to respond to the expected demand for thinner SAE 0W-XX grades.

 

SK for one is actively promoting high VI Group III. “Group III+ provides performance benefits over Group III in formulating high performance motor oils thanks to its superior VI, lower Noack volatility, and outstanding low temperature properties,” says Jin Hur of SK. “It is also more cost effective since it allows for a significantly lower PAO treat in these formulations.”

 

This is however a complex area, which is mainly driven by OEM specifications. Because these specifications are not all the same, the PAO, Group III, and III+ base oils mix can vary depending on which characteristics in the specification are the most challenging to meet. At Infineum we believe part of our job is to provide the most cost effective and supply reliable formulation solution to the market. Group III+ type stocks will help, but ‘+’ could be 130 or 150 VI. To correct it, a formulation may require a lot more Group III+ than just using less PAO with conventional Group III. Group III at 130 VI vs. a Group III with a VI similar to PAO can make a very large difference.

 

****************************************************

 

Hence the term means a high VI Group II or III as the case may be and has absolutely nothing to do with Esters of which ALL forms are Group V fluids. I can find exactly ZERO references to any API Group III ++ fluids or even market mention.

 

Does anyone understand that if we start making definitions up for words that verbal exchange becomes impossible? 

 

" Bonnet abruptly inside blue north she went going stop" 

 

 

Getting some small group to agree, ignoring governance and the social contract doesn't make anyone sound smarter.

 

Why is this a sore point? Really?? 

 

This stuff is confusing enough for the layman. But....that IS the point...right? 

 

 

 

[mikef95]

12 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

If you follow this whole adventure you will see that in this case there were multiple issues uncovered. Let's give you the Cliff Notes. 

 

Strike #1

 

The GM ECOTEC 2.4 I4 uses a low tension ring set. The oil control rings need to drain and the drain back area behind those rings was undersized. A condition GM refused to rectify. This means that the oil used in these motors MUST inhibit varnish formation and as it turns out the 7,500 mile OLM program and book OCI length used along with DEXOS licensed oils WILL NOT hinder that formation for very long. GM's first 'fix' for this was to recommend shorter OCI's in a TSB for those who complained. Not publicly promoted and routine for all the OEM's in general.

 

Strike #2

 

The CCV system utilizes an orifice instead of a PCV valve. It is undersized and plugs easy by two methods. The first is ICE in any weather that falls below 17 F. It's in the owners manual. The second is it's placement in the oil return. As it is but .0625" it takes little carbon/sludge to plug it solid. When this plugs and in the best situation water builds in the crankcase causing foam and sludge. In the worst situation the main seals overpressure and fail. In addition as an orifice it can not prevent 'back flow' and as the fresh air side reverses it ices in the air box well. 

 

Strike #3

 

HPFP leakage. Most fuel is more varnish and not matter how good your oil, how well you've reengineered the CCV or how good your success at freeing the rings they will not remain free for long. It is a manufacturing practice to mount fuel pumps in the oil side of the motor. Stupid stuff. 

 

Add these strikes together and the entire ring package carbons and collapses aka stuck rings and now an excess of combustion products enter the crankcase, oil consumption gets unbearable and at this point GM starts doing a 'consumption test' which if it exceeds a quart in 2K miles and your motor is under 150K the replace the rings and pistons, clean the vent and send you down the road. I did not wait on nor have any faith in GM to do the "right thing". And given the design...no trust in anything they may have to say on the matter. 

 

To the IGNORANT AND HATEFUL this looks like multiple failed efforts when what we have here is a series of successes that lead to a successful conclusion in a two steps forward one step back fashion. NONE of which would have been successful without EXPERT UAO ANALYSIS & INTERPRITATION or dogged determination and a HUGE background in all related fields. 

 

Now will it be that this motor will return to a zero oil usage status? Not likely. This sort of OEM screw up can, will and may have caused some damage oil and maintenance going forward will not stop. Time will tell. 

 

Hatters will hate. It's their nature. 

Thanks for the great write-up. I had read through this thread but got a little lost haha.

I honestly have no idea what the engineers were thinking when they designed this motor. I would say this design is a complete failure. I'm not even sure if the oil consumption test applies to years after 2012 or 2013. As far as I know our 2014 and your 2015 wouldn't be eligible for any coverage from GM, which is absolutely ridiculous.