5w30 oil

[PunchT37]

Anyone run 5w30 in a l84/l87? I am in a hotter climate.

 

Also, I`m wondering why GM states to run 5w30 in the Vette engines and the 4.3 LV3 or LV1? These engines have the same oil pump and lifters as the truck v8`s. The 6.6 and LV1 have no fuel management so, I might see that. What say ya`ll?

[Jay P]

The bottom end of the truck 6.2l is the same as corvette 6.2 and some of them recommend 0W-40 so 5W-30 should be fine. I would if it were mine (actually did in my 19 Denali 6.2l). I would in a 5.3l also. The 0W-20 is used for meeting CAFE/emissions standards.

[PunchT37]

Cool. Was wondering if the thicker oil would cut down on the lifter problems that we hear about mostly on the truck v8`s.

[Black02Silverado]

24 minutes ago, PunchT37 said:

Cool. Was wondering if the thicker oil would cut down on the lifter problems that we hear about mostly on the truck v8`s.

The lifter issue is poor quality parts.  GM and like other manufactures use the lowest bidder for parts to save money and so the materials used are subpar if you ask me.  They build them just to last past warranty.  Remember they are out to sell vehicles and make money.  The days of quality are gone.  You can use 5w-30 but if in warranty and the dealership finds out they can deny it.  I run 0w-20 and my used oil analysis are good.  I use AMSOIL's Signature Series.  If you are interested let me know. I can send you a quote delivered to your door.

[Colossus]

2 hours ago, Black02Silverado said:

The lifter issue is poor quality parts.  GM and like other manufactures use the lowest bidder for parts to save money and so the materials used are subpar if you ask me.  They build them just to last past warranty.

 

This.  And it's almost across the board with all manufacturers. 

[Grumpy Bear]

5 hours ago, PunchT37 said:

Anyone run 5w30 in a l84/l87? I am in a hotter climate.

 

Also, I`m wondering why GM states to run 5w30 in the Vette engines and the 4.3 LV3 or LV1? These engines have the same oil pump and lifters as the truck v8`s. The 6.6 and LV1 have no fuel management so, I might see that. What say ya`ll?

 

An acronym for you. C.A.F.E. 

 

IF it were a matter of "The lifter issue is poor quality parts only" then they would all suffer the same fate at the same rate per XK units of production. While it is not unheard of that a LV1 or LV3 kill a lifter it is EXTREAMLY RARE, but the motor is not. WT and Vans bread and butter for a good part of the K2** production cycle. And most of those cases due to neglect of oil maintenance service and over confidence in factory licensed oils of OEM recommended weight and OCI. Yet....no one seems to get the drift. 

 

Like information? Early SAE grade chart: 

 

 

 

In between chart: 

 

 

More current chart: 

 

 

Look at the HTHS values. The value your rings and lifters see. Focus on light 40, the 30 and 20. What pops out at you? 

 

Not everyone has fallen for this .

 

Note the HTHS values required for a 0 or 5W30 if certified by Porsche C30, ACEA C3 or Volkswagen 504/507, Benz MB229.31/51, BMW Longlife-04, GM Dexos-R.

 

(API SP is 2.9, not 2.6 for *W30) Same as Dexos1/2Gen2/3. 

 

 

At the same time the EPA is on them to pull phos, zinc and sulfur (wear and oxidation/corrosion) and OEM tuning requiring lower levels of ash and CALCIUM and TBN. So much so those of the last chart had to establish MINIMUMS for TBN.  

 

Many use cheap non-shear stable VII's (3 of the 4 available) and hide 100C HTHS values vs 100C HTLS, (Orbahn/Bosch shear stability testing). 

 

Shear Stability and Viscosity Loss (savantlab.com)

 

Viscosity is the heart of the Hersey Equation and foundation for the Strebeck Curve. The thing that keeps parts from touching parts. OEM's and the EPA for fuel economy are taking away both viscosity and wear additives they like to now rely on instead of what matters, viscosity, faster than the chemical industry can evolve. 

 

Don't just run a *W30. Run one that will meet the higher Euro viscosity spec and as much SAPS as your motor will tolerate or the manufacture will accept if under warranty. Keep it cool, clean and change it often.  High solvency adds HUGE to cleaning, detergency, dispercency. Keeping clean the ring packs. 

 

It's a pretty short list or a more frequent oil change. 

 

The OEMs have only the warranty milage to worry about. You good with 60K? 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 18 by Grumpy Bear

[Black02Silverado]

6 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

 

The OEMs have only the warranty milage to worry about. You good with 60K? 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly poor quality materials to include oil design to make them last just long enough. They are in the business of making money not long lasting vehicles. Those days are over. Why do you think GM lowered the warranty down from 100k miles. Because they knew that was too long and they would be fix vehicles under warranty like crazy. 
 

Just like all the transmission failures that now happen after the 60k warranty. We are one of them and I did everything to prevent it. Change fluid often, lower transmission thermostat temperature, even deactivated AFM. Still went out at 82k miles. 

[Grumpy Bear]

3 hours ago, Black02Silverado said:

Exactly poor quality materials to include oil design to make them last just long enough. They are in the business of making money not long lasting vehicles. Those days are over. Why do you think GM lowered the warranty down from 100k miles. Because they knew that was too long and they would be fix vehicles under warranty like crazy. 
 

Just like all the transmission failures that now happen after the 60k warranty. We are one of them and I did everything to prevent it. Change fluid often, lower transmission thermostat temperature, even deactivated AFM. Still went out at 82k miles. 

 

Preaching to the choir Nick. Yes indeed. Good quality lubricant is NOT a guarantee or a CURE for inept workmanship and/or poor materials. Never meant my comments to be taken that way. Sorry  

 

However, ......in the case of the valvetrain we have a different situation. The 4.3, 5.3 and 6.2 all use the SAME parts, same part numbers. Different oil spec, different result.... I think that is worth noting. It can also be improved upon. Yes, there were some limited batches "identified' as bad heat treat that made it into some motors anyway.... Recall issued. 

 

We can never know the quality of the parts or workmanship. But if adequate; lubrication specification and quality are front and center. We can't save a bad part with great lubrication, but we CAN lengthen the life of a good part with better lubrication IF the OEM spec isn't up to the task. Oh, and it is not up to the task. 

 

Sorry to hear that all that great effort and excellent lubrication went for naught in your pride and joy. That is truly sad. But take a breath. It wasn't your fault. It wasn't AMSOILS fault and if you allow 'them' an opportunity your experience will be offered as proof your choice of lubricant points out it is the same old, same old scheme and marketing tricks. We both know that isn't true. Shame on GM 

[Grumpy Bear]

3 hours ago, Black02Silverado said:

Exactly poor quality materials to include oil design to make them last just long enough. They are in the business of making money not long lasting vehicles.

 

AMEN. Didn't register that on the first read and reply. 

 

I'm certain we can all agree that the days of the GM 3800 and pre-AFM LS bullet proof motor days are over. So, we have but one tool to work with. Our brain.

 

Stop listening to the marketing noise. 

 

1.) Oils need to change because of tighter tolerances. OMG is that crap. Tolerance is the 'deviation from specification allowed'. Tighter makes everything better in machining.  

 

2.) We need lighter oils because 'clearances are tighter'. Tell me please, what clearance is tighter than that at the cam/lifter interface at partial lift at peak ROC valve velocity. A thing true since WWII Bearing clearance has been about the same thou per inch of journal diameter for over a hundred years. 

 

3.) We have 'better' materials with finer finishes.  0-5 rms (mirror smooth) has been around forever and besides there is a minimum before the surface becomes unwettable. That value isn't not set by men but by nature. There may be cheaper ways to make something so hard it's brittle (the limit on useful hardness), but the limit was found decades ago. There is NOTHING new under the sun. Stellite, chilled white iron ring any bells. Just as hard as any fancy coating or treated tool steel. Just not as romantic. 

 

4.) It would cost too much to build it right. So,.....that was the reason to discontinue the 3800 after 40 plus years? I'm not even going to comment on the stupidity of that statement past its stupid. 

 

What is true. Wear and fuel economy are goals headed in opposite directions where lubrication is concerned. Wouldn't have to be but as cost ISN'T prohibitive, it's just more. Greed is the issue, not ability.  

 

The regulators ask the impossible. Not the task but the timeline. This is a truth. They current available tool sets demand the use of bad tools, such as heating the oil past reason and OCI's past usefulness. 1970 all over again. Working together with greedy blenders and low bidders to deliver failure covered over by shorter and shorter warranty times. 

 

Corporate engineering by bean counting instead of physics. 

 

An unwillingness of Joe Average to do the 'right thing'. There is enough cause to go around. 

 

We can do what we can do in the face of it all. I've been a car guy my whole life and it is sad to watch if FAIL under its own weight of greed and corruption.  Harder still to watch the consumer accept it as normal. 

 

 

 

[PunchT37]

I agree with a lot of this stuff. That`s why I brought it up here. If it were tolerances and small oil passages, why a different oil spec on engines with the same parts. It must be a numbers thing. How many pickups out there vs a Camaro, Vette, or Caddy.

 

Also, why would GM refuse to change a lifter design after 17 years or so? Even with the bad press on the internet? Amazing.

 

We realize it`s not just gm but all these govt. complex vehicles today. But, GM takes the cake with how long these lifters have been about.

 

After 25 years as an auto tech, I`m glad I`m OUT now.

Edited June 18 by PunchT37

[TrailBossMike]

On 6/17/2024 at 8:30 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

 

An acronym for you. C.A.F.E. 

 

IF it were a matter of "The lifter issue is poor quality parts only" then they would all suffer the same fate at the same rate per XK units of production. While it is not unheard of that a LV1 or LV3 kill a lifter it is EXTREAMLY RARE, but the motor is not. WT and Vans bread and butter for a good part of the K2** production cycle. And most of those cases due to neglect of oil maintenance service and over confidence in factory licensed oils of OEM recommended weight and OCI. Yet....no one seems to get the drift. 

 

Like information? Early SAE grade chart: 

 

 

 

In between chart: 

 

 

More current chart: 

 

 

Look at the HTHS values. The value your rings and lifters see. Focus on light 40, the 30 and 20. What pops out at you? 

 

Not everyone has fallen for this .

 

Note the HTHS values required for a 0 or 5W30 if certified by Porsche C30, ACEA C3 or Volkswagen 504/507, Benz MB229.31/51, BMW Longlife-04, GM Dexos-R.

 

(API SP is 2.9, not 2.6 for *W30) Same as Dexos1/2Gen2/3. 

 

 

At the same time the EPA is on them to pull phos, zinc and sulfur (wear and oxidation/corrosion) and OEM tuning requiring lower levels of ash and CALCIUM and TBN. So much so those of the last chart had to establish MINIMUMS for TBN.  

 

Many use cheap non-shear stable VII's (3 of the 4 available) and hide 100C HTHS values vs 100C HTLS, (Orbahn/Bosch shear stability testing). 

 

Shear Stability and Viscosity Loss (savantlab.com)

 

Viscosity is the heart of the Hersey Equation and foundation for the Strebeck Curve. The thing that keeps parts from touching parts. OEM's and the EPA for fuel economy are taking away both viscosity and wear additives they like to now rely on instead of what matters, viscosity, faster than the chemical industry can evolve. 

 

Don't just run a *W30. Run one that will meet the higher Euro viscosity spec and as much SAPS as your motor will tolerate or the manufacture will accept if under warranty. Keep it cool, clean and change it often.  High solvency adds HUGE to cleaning, detergency, dispercency. Keeping clean the ring packs. 

 

It's a pretty short list or a more frequent oil change. 

 

The OEMs have only the warranty milage to worry about. You good with 60K? 

 

 

 

 

 

I literally don't have enough time to point out all the false information and misinterpretation in your post.  I'll clear up some.

-HTHS for D1G3 is 3.1 minimum.

-EPA didn't reduce zinc, etc.  Newer API service classifications demanded better base oil.  Better base oils produce less contamination due to less oxidation and thermal degradation, this required less dispersants and detergents (DI additives).  Less DI require less AW additives.  The DI additives compete with AW additives and reduce tribofilm production.

-Only a fool would recommend running a high SAPS overbased calcium sulphonate oil in a direct injection engine.  Calcium is the major contributing factor to LSPI.  This was addressed by the formulation change in API SN+ and SP.  This change was a reduction in calcium and replacement with magnesium based additives.

-Its the Hersey Number and the Stribek Curve

-Your use of HTLS is incorrect in referencing it to HTHS.  It's a pretty obscure measurement and is irrelevant to oil outside of a tribology lab.

-HTHS is provided by all oil manufacturers.  It meets the requirements of the certifications the oil meets.  Consumers don't need to know the exact value, only if it meets the OEM requirements.

-With low sulphur gasoline available everywhere, TBN and TBN retention is no longer a relevant value.  Don't believe me?  Read the Chevron paper on TAN and TBN.

That's all I really care to type for now.  Do you use AI to write this stuff?  It would explain a lot of the misinterpreted data and bizarre formatting of the post.

 

Edited June 19 by TrailBossMike

[Grumpy Bear]

7 hours ago, TrailBossMike said:

I literally don't have enough time to point out all the false information and misinterpretation in your post.  I'll clear up some.

-HTHS for D1G3 is 3.1 minimum.

-EPA didn't reduce zinc, etc.  Newer API service classifications demanded better base oil.  Better base oils produce less contamination due to less oxidation and thermal degradation, this required less dispersants and detergents (DI additives).  Less DI require less AW additives.  The DI additives compete with AW additives and reduce tribofilm production.

-Only a fool would recommend running a high SAPS overbased calcium sulphonate oil in a direct injection engine.  Calcium is the major contributing factor to LSPI.  This was addressed by the formulation change in API SN+ and SP.  This change was a reduction in calcium and replacement with magnesium based additives.

-Its the Hersey Number and the Stribek Curve

-Your use of HTLS is incorrect in referencing it to HTHS.  It's a pretty obscure measurement and is irrelevant to oil outside of a tribology lab.

-HTHS is provided by all oil manufacturers.  It meets the requirements of the certifications the oil meets.  Consumers don't need to know the exact value, only if it meets the OEM requirements.

-With low sulphur gasoline available everywhere, TBN and TBN retention is no longer a relevant value.  Don't believe me?  Read the Chevron paper on TAN and TBN.

That's all I really care to type for now.  Do you use AI to write this stuff?  It would explain a lot of the misinterpreted data and bizarre formatting of the post.

 

 

Nope, just didn't drink the Kool-Aid.  HTLS or ASTM D445 speaks to stability in viscosity retention as a REFERNCE FOR ASTM D6616 (the number we don't' often see). Read and understand correctly before you attempt to correct. A Newtonian fluid will not change under stress. A cheap polymer will. Everyone has an iron jaw until hit in the mouth. I don't care what the viscosity is until it is stressed. Motor doesn't respond to oil in a bottle but to its immediate environment. HTLS. ASTM D6278 gets the final word and only Warren oil publishes that number for their products that I have seen. I've seen this test on my beloved Red Line and the viscosity loss is ZERO. The Warren DEXOS offering lost 14%. That MISTER is relevant.  

 

The rest of this is the same drivel used to convince birds they shouldn't fly this mumbo jumbo over LSPI. Context matters. Context is; In TURBO MOTORS under full boost at low rpm, read, with EXTREAM CYLINDER PRESSURE. Ya know, like the diesel like nature of the GM 2.7 Turbo. Then it is relevant. Lord my high compression NA 4.3 should be in the grave by now as for nearly 300K Km it has lived and thrived on high SAPS oils. ZERO KR under any circumstances. Uses no oil, runs on 70% ethanol. 

 

Know what else is relevant? Oil in a combustion chamber killing octane values of gasoline fuels. SAE Paper about 40 years ago. Most this garbage comes from the OEM's not assuring ring seal enamored with friction reduction. Calcium contributes under certain conditions when it is allowed to enter the cylinder is sufficient volumes with boarder line fuel limited knock BMEP. Not a blanket statement as you would like us to believe. Blanket statements are something the industry does when to lazy or enticed otherwise to explain. I have a GM Ecotec GDI 2.4 that uses oil to the tune of a quart in 2K and even with 100 octane fuel in the tank it shows KR WITH LOW SAPS OIL. That was an expensive experiment 

 

Competition for 'space' on the metal. There is a problem to have. Again, situational lab generated   that can happen with improper blending, not WILL. Because it can doesn't mean it's a problem for a well-educated blender. Phillips-66 is not an idiot. Salt will kill a human in sufficient dose, but it is also required for life. BALANCE and this argument you present is not BALANCED. It is also deceitful. You seem to bright to be this far off the mark, unless you got your education from ADVERTIZING.  

 

Lord, and people call me condescending.  Pull your thumbs out from behind those suspenders and pull up your pants. You didn't write this missive to educate the public but to attempt, poorly at humiliation of another human being. Honesty, I see in not your long suit.  

[KARNUT]

When I first bought my Camry I found an enthusiast site. Yea, there actually is one. The scuttlebutt was upping the weight of the oil would vastly increase the life of the engine. The downside was a couple miles per gallon. And of course changing the oil at 5K instead of 10K. Being the engine in a 2017 Camry wasn’t anything special. No turbo etc. Then you really start thinking. Wouldn’t thin oil cause more friction lowering fuel mileage? Then I realized all that’s been explained. So shut up and drive. And so I do.

[Grumpy Bear]

13 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

When I first bought my Camry I found an enthusiast site. Yea, there actually is one. The scuttlebutt was upping the weight of the oil would vastly increase the life of the engine. The downside was a couple miles per gallon. And of course changing the oil at 5K instead of 10K. Being the engine in a 2017 Camry wasn’t anything special. No turbo etc. Then you really start thinking. Wouldn’t thin oil cause more friction lowering fuel mileage? Then I realized all that’s been explained. So shut up and drive. And so I do.

 

There is a lot of research that can be accessed via the SAE and a good college library. Read enough of it, and I have, you see a pattern. Information taken from this research rarely gets public "in context".  Competition of additives is a good example. Concentration, the context, is left out. It sells low SAPS oils and an EPA agenda and they do have a niche but not for everything. Any problems it causes happens at concentrations in multiples of anything used in commercial lubricant. Does it happen? Oh yea, just not in a product you can buy. In a product you blend in a lab for that purpose. 

 

On water for example: Lesson 5.3: Why Does Water Dissolve Salt? - American Chemical Society (acs.org)

• The polarity of water molecules enables water to dissolve many ionically bonded substances.
• Salt (sodium chloride) is made from positive sodium ions bonded to negative chloride ions.
• Water can dissolve salt because the positive part of water molecules attracts the negative chloride ions, and the negative part of water molecules attracts the positive sodium ions.
• The amount of a substance that can dissolve in a liquid (at a particular temperature) is called the solubility of the substance.
• The substance being dissolved is called the solute, and the substance doing the dissolving is called the solvent.

There is a limit based on the chemistry and polarity. You can say correctly so that salt will not stay in or even go in solution and claim you are not telling a lie, but it is incomplete in its truth. ONCE THE LIMIT OF SOLUBILITY is reached it becomes true. Before the point is becomes USEFULL. 

 

A statement made in absence of context with INTENT to mislead. That is a LIE. 

 

I don't use Artificial Intelligence to write. I use the most powerful computing system on the planet, GOD given HUMAN intelligence. I'm 70 and just gave up a flip phone for crying out loud. 

[KARNUT]

23 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

There is a lot of research that can be accessed via the SAE and a good college library. Read enough of it, and I have, you see a pattern. Information taken from this research rarely gets public "in context".  Competition of additives is a good example. Concentration, the context, is left out. It sells low SAPS oils and an EPA agenda and they do have a niche but not for everything. Any problems it causes happens at concentrations in multiples of anything used in commercial lubricant. Does it happen? Oh yea, just not in a product you can buy. In a product you blend in a lab for that purpose. 

 

On water for example: Lesson 5.3: Why Does Water Dissolve Salt? - American Chemical Society (acs.org)

• The polarity of water molecules enables water to dissolve many ionically bonded substances.
• Salt (sodium chloride) is made from positive sodium ions bonded to negative chloride ions.
• Water can dissolve salt because the positive part of water molecules attracts the negative chloride ions, and the negative part of water molecules attracts the positive sodium ions.
• The amount of a substance that can dissolve in a liquid (at a particular temperature) is called the solubility of the substance.
• The substance being dissolved is called the solute, and the substance doing the dissolving is called the solvent.

There is a limit based on the chemistry and polarity. You can say correctly so that salt will not stay in or even go in solution and claim you are not telling a lie, but it is incomplete in its truth. ONCE THE LIMIT OF SOLUBILITY is reached it becomes true. Before the point is becomes USEFULL. 

 

A statement made in absence of context with INTENT to mislead. That is a LIE. 

 

I don't use Artificial Intelligence to write. I use the most powerful computing system on the planet, GOD given HUMAN intelligence. I'm 70 and just gave up a flip phone for crying out loud. 

I now have a 13 mini iPhone. I was using my last iPhone at work 11 years ago a 3 I think. I got notifications that it was losing support. It worked fine. I use my iPhone for everything. I’m using it right now. I have a Bluetooth speaker if I all of sudden want to hear music I use my phone. If a video pops up I cast it to my TV and watch it. GPS, music in my vehicle it does it all. I multitask because of my phone. I don’t use a computer or tablet just my phone. Direct TV, Amazon, and Netflix are on my phone. These things are incredible. I’m watching dale jr download with closed caption while I banging this out on my phone. If my brain could handle I could have music going in the background. Amazing.