asilverblazer

Your 2016 had the same crank bearing failure as a 2019-2024?

I doubt the machines care whether Bob, Jesus or Mickey Mouse pushed the button.

Personally, if it's anywhere on the upper 3/4's of the marked area I'm not adding anything, to avoid the 'risk' of overfilling. If I am close to oil change time, and it's at the bottom of the marked area, I still might not add any. For this to be the case (which it never has) the engine would be consuming an amount of oil that I am no longer worried about the longevity of it.

You could hold yourself liable for something you did to yourself, for yourself.

I see you've stepped in my cynicism.

Carfax is at best a joke and more appropriately called a scam. I've seen clean car fax cars that were wrecked and commanded a premium price because of the clean car fax, do a little digging and you find that it was likely repaired (botched) in someone's backyard and worth 1/2 what was paid. Flip side, we had a new Explorer Sport Trac way back in 2003, someone hit and messed up the rear door and running board. Not a bad crash - a fender bender in all rights except it was't the fender it was the door. I made sure that it was professionally repaired, with genuine Ford parts, no Bondo, perfect paint match etc. No one would have ever know it was hit - except for car fax. Instant 1500.00 to 2000.00 hit at time to get rid of it. A 'regular' appearance at the dealer oil change line means what exactly? What oil was put in it, how was it driven, environment, other maintenance, etc... Meanwhile, Grumpys truck, the worlds best maintained, (probably) comes with extensive documentation that never makes it past the next buyer. Absolutely nothing on Carfax... suddenly it's the worst maintained. Carfax is a cheap way for Big Data to sell a product to make lazy consumers feel better about their used car purchase. 'Buy Back Guarantee', good luck. Carfax = the automotive version of Experian, Transunion and Equifax - junk big data, that no one is responsible for and only useful for extracting money out of the weakest player in the game, the lone consumer.

What is that going to fix? (Besides a bunch of breaking a bunch of manifold bolts...) Are they cracked? Touching them will likely cause more problems than a little rust.

For a 2000 model - GMT 800 the pattern is: For a 2014: Fron seat mount spacing looks identical - enjoy.

That's not what I was talking about. I have not seen it specifically documented that bottom of the hatched area equates to "1 quart low". I've never measured or compared a dipstick reading at the bottom of the acceptable range, added 1 quart, took a new reading and it be exactly at the top of the range. My view of the manual is if it is BELOW the mark, add one quart at a time until the level is within the hatched area, 1 quart could put it 1/4, 1/3, 1/2 all the way there. I don't know, none of mine have been BELOW the mark to require adding any to find out. However, if over 400 miles it takes multiple quarts to keep it in the hatched area, yes, that is a problem. EDIT: None of my vehicles have ever been to the bottom of the range, every check shows them give or take somewhere on the top half of range. (I might even challenge my own memory and say at worst the top 3/4s.) Never to the bottom, much less below the "add" mark, so I've never added 1 quart to see how much it moves the level up the stick. Circling back to my point, the volume coming out is less than what everyone suggests my dipstick readings should be indicating. If from the top to bottom mark of the hatched area equates to 1 quart of oil, I would see the dipstick reading (on every vehicle I've touched in the last 30 years) be at the top of the mark when I fill with new oil and be at the bottom just prior to changing; based on what I am measuring in the drain pan. However, the dipstick readings are NOT showing that amount of drop. See above.

I take it as add one quart at a time until the level is within the hatched area. I'll be attempting to better determine on my current two trucks what 1 quart looks like on their dipsticks.

My expectation for any vehicle: 250k on the original engine and transmission. Following manufacturers recommended maintenance. (I know, another argument) After that, there's not much truck left around them. Weather: faded paint, dried out rubber and plastic, hazy headlights Urban/Rural warfare: Door dings, rock chips, brush scratches, windshield chips, fender benders Road wear: CV-shafts, ball joints, wheel bearings, bushings, water pumps, seals and gaskets Kids: Stained seats, carpets, melted crayons Oops: Got in with a screwdriver in my pocket, knocked something over in the garage on it, left the windows down in the rain... It's a long road (pun intended) to keep a vehicle nice enough to continue investing in after the 10 years/250k miles.

Perhaps, especially as noted since this post in the days of smaller capacities. I haven't seen any data or official publication describing or acknowledging the same - especially in the last decade. I posted it already, but, yes, when level falls below (point of semantics, below, not, to) the marked area, add oil. Never add oil above the mark. Given that above the mark is just as dangerous as below the mark (per the manual, not exactly my opinion) to keep the level at the top of the mark, or full, could be just as risky as at the bottom of the mark.

It would be coincidental for both front brake hoses or calipers to fail at the same time. There is an old thread on here of similar a similar issue, not sure how best to direct you to it - but I would be looking at the brake booster.

It could be consumption too, GM allows (acknowledges, expects?) some loss.

That's a bunch more variables, Grumpy might be able to calculate it, I'm not going to. Thanks for sharing, number 6 seems risky given the owner's manual statements:

I'm aware - but not to how much. Why I'm not alarmed at seeing 'fluctuations', 'drops', etc. on the dipstick... Is it in the range? Yes, good.

Again, every vehicle I've touched I drain out less than what I put in. (Further evidence is I use the new containers to take in the old oil, they never overflow, and there's plenty room to pour more in when the drain pan is empty. Usually, an empty quart bottle on the two newest trucks with room to spare in another.) Pull drain plug and let drain into catch pan. Pull filter and dump into catch pan, set upside down on the fancy little filter holder to drain 'more'. Take a few minutes to clean up, get new stuff out, etc. Clean drain plug, clean oil filter sealing surface, inspect things, whatever... Put drain plug in and install new filter. Fill engine with new oil set aside the new (empty) containers. Pour the old oil in the new containers, note the markings on the side, put old filter in the new filter box. Wipe out pan. Throw away one empty quart container. Cap the others, one will usually have some room in it still. There may be "some drop" on the dip stick, it's never been a quantity to warrant measuring for sake of comparing to any previous reading. Of course, given this conversation I'll be making much more careful observations of the reading on the dipstick, to see what 1 quart plus minus looks like within the marked area. However, the dipstick, in my opinion, isn't the most accurate gauge to determine "oil consumption, use, etc." not that I have any better alternative. I think it's best suited to determine if engine has a reasonable amount of oil to prevent failure. If an EXACT amount was required, it wouldn't have a range specified, it would have a single mark. GM knows some oil will be lost, note the acceptable consumption per mile. The larger capacity pans that have come about in the last decade I think are a result of that, to allow for some between changes without the result of oil starvation.

One could interpret this to mean the level should be right in the middle of the marked area, above the top line is indicated to be just as bad as below the bottom...

No, when I fill with new it's within the marked area on the stick, when I drain, it's still within the marked area. I've never measured where within the marked area it is at different times, if I were to estimate the differential between the highest and lowest point I'd guess less than 1/4".

I think this is the closest I'm going to get to reconciling your statements with my experience. Can you confirm you haven't measured the amount of oil drained from your engine to verify what quantity was in the engine at time of drain? For what its worth, the quote above EXACTLY replicates my observations on my 2015, 2016 and 2018, no measurable drop on the stick. EXCEPT that when I measure the oil volume drained from the pan - the drained volume is about a quart less compared to a new fill.

My question(s) are direct to this point, with no insult intended, could the dipstick not be showing an amount of loss comparable to what I see by measuring the volume drained at change time? I think most GM vehicles light comes on at max 7500 miles. I've also noted how much larger the oil pan capacity has grown - 10 quarts in my L5P, 9 in the Yukon, 10 in my previous Sierra. If 5 quarts in yesteryear could last 5k miles, the 10 should be doing 10k miles. That thought process isn't about oil life and degradation, but I'm alluding to maybe the capacity has grown to account for the 'loss' and prevent "seizing up all over the place" due to oil starvation.

My interest isn't what is or isn't oil use, I'm interested in your measuring the use (or lack of) to compare to my own experience/measurements.

To be clear I'm not arguing whether your vehicles do or do not use oil. I am interested in continuing a technical discussion about what amount, if any, we can measure as being 'used' or 'lost'. As I stated, I measure the oil volume that I have drained from the oil pan and compare that directly to how much I put back in. There is always more going in than what came out. Generally, at a minimum, 1-2 cups, at most 1-1.5 quarts. The smaller discrepancies, were smaller oil capacity engines (5 quart load) and the larger discrepancies were on larger oil capacity engines (9 quarts). Generally, these never showed any 'measurable' oil loss per the dipstick(s). Oil was always within the marked area. Could it have been higher in the marked area one time vs another, I have to assume so, but the level on the stick never warranted a more significant dipstick reading accuracy check. I've come to the conclusion that so long as the oil level is within the range on the dipstick the volume is acceptable. Any loss that doesn't exceed the published acceptable use or fall below the dipstick marking is not considered a problem, meaning, the amount that I see being lost are not 'abnormal' or enough to warrant further investigation. Could it be that your measurement method isn't accurate enough to show an amount of oil loss? (This isn't an insult; I am exploring the measurement limitations of dipstick readings.) To wit, an oil pan that spreads a large volume over a greater surface area compared to a narrower pan would show variations in their measured volume quite differently on a dipstick.

Give or take, all but my earliest vehicles had that short an interval. To be sure any vehicle I've touched this century, generally they've all been on a minimum 5k interval.