Jump to content

Is Your Gmt-900 Truck Or Suv Using Oil

RyanbabZ71
 Share

Is your GMT-900 using oil  

1,555 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

shortyb Enthusiast

shortyb

Posted
Posted

I have 200k on my 04 and it uses a quart every 3k miles. I started using Lucas oil stabilizer each oil change, it helped.

  • Replies 825
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

GuyGene
GuyGene

I've been watching this oil usage issue a long time now. Sick of it. My '96 5.7 used NO oil! And I could get 20 mpg highway. Extended cab, loooong bed too. Dagnabbit, GM is running customers away.

Jsdirt
Jsdirt

Yep - they've forced alot of manufacturers to cut corners just to survive.   The EPA has done more harm to this nation the past 20 years than good. Another gigantic, bloated, goverment bureaucracy t

Cowpie
Cowpie

It is a sad testament to GM quality. My factory remanned 12.7L Detroit, 704,000 miles into its second life, only uses about 1 qt per 10,000 miles. Just did oil change on it at 21,580 miles on the oi

Posted Images

frankycjr Enthusiast

frankycjr

Posted
Posted

@shortyb I had a 99 silverado extended cab with the 5.3 v8, 4spd and 3.73 rear. At around the 200000 mile mark it also started using a bit oil, probably about a quart every 6000 miles. I ran Mobil 1 in that truck from the first oil change. I change the only around every 10k miles, and I had almost no problems with the truck. It got 15mpg from the day I bought it new, till the day I sold it with a blown tranny. I would have fixed it but my little kids weren't so little anymore and a Crew Cab seemed a better fit for us.

 

I had expected slightly better mpg from the crew cab since it has the 6spd and 3.42 gears and the afm and it should just be more efficient. Seems to me the car makers are just making the engines more complicated without any real efficiency gains. The winners in all this are the lobbyists and politicians and parts suppliers who all get a cut of the action.

shortyb Enthusiast

shortyb

Posted
Posted

@frankycjr Thanks I will have to try Mobile one. I have always used Valvoline in all of my trucks and I change it every 4k.

  • 4 weeks later...
Michael Watson New Member

Michael Watson

Posted
Posted

I have a 2009 Silverado with approx. 47,000 miles on it. Initially it didn't use any oil and then it would be about 1- 1.5 quarts between oil changes. My oil changes are the 5000 mile mark not the 3000. Just recently I was due for my oil change but went on a small road trip for the day. I got the dreaded oil pressure drop and alarm going off. Scared the crap out of me. I had already added the usual 1-1.5 quarts of oil about 1000 miles prior. I looked at the dipstick and it was below the hash marks just registering on the dipstick. Luckily I had some oil with me and was able to get back on the road. I have just started the oil consumption test with my dealer. I must say so far my dealer is being outstanding about it. We will see how it goes. I really do like my truck and hope this can be remedied.

RAT-ON Enthusiast

RAT-ON

Posted
Posted (edited)

Guys I'm not on here much, but just went through this with my truck, I did not read all 24 pages :D

 

Purchased my truck new (2008 5.3 Iron block, flex, AFM). Started using oil about 2 yrs ago, minor amounts between changes. I ran the truck about 1k miles then dumped that oil, then ran 5-30 dino valvoline for another 3k, then switched to mobil 1 syn up until 65k or so, changes about 50% OLM (maybe 4-4.5k). Once I started to notice it using more oil and before I knew of the issues (and TSB) I switched back to dino oil 5-30 valvoline and consumption went down some, but not much.

 

I noticed heavy oil consumption when towing and running in 3rd gear. My last trip from Indiana up to the UP of Michigan I ran 1250 miles pulling a 3 place snowmobile trailer running about 65-70 whole trip, nearly 2800-3k rpm generally. I used 1.5 quarts of oil, just like the same trip a year before. I took it to my dealer and they put in 8 new pistons and rings the TSB fix (oil tube, deflector, etc) no questions asked. I've only put on about 2k since then, but no oil usuage. I broke in the new rings just like I would on any new/rebuilt motor and I'm about ready to change the oil again. I don't have any towing trips planned, but I'll post again if I see any consumption.

 

Thanks-

Jason

 

Edit: Sorry truck has 82k on it, they did the fix around 80k IIRC.

Edited by RAT-ON
GuyGene Enthusiast

GuyGene

Posted
Posted

Rat, that's great! Did you have an extended warranty, or was it still under normal warranty?

  • 4 weeks later...
Service1956 Enthusiast

Service1956

Posted
Posted

At this point in time, I think GM has overcome the oil consumption issue with the 5.3 AFM built after February 1 2011. That would include almost all of the 2012, and all of the 2013. Based on my research on past problems, most early attempted repairs were done by soaking the pistons & rings in a cleaner, with the added oil shield installed on the ATM pressure relieve valve. Some times the repair worked, and some times it did not. The final phase was to replace pistons & rings, with the AFM shield. This drastic measure did work with faith on the problem not returning.

 

I believe that this oil issue involved only a few of the hundreds of thousands of these engines that were produced. I feel safe in saying that the 2012 & 2013 model years that have the 5.3 AFM engines will no longer fall into this problem. All of these engines are now equipped with the updated parts.......AFM shield, and updated valve cover. These parts were designed to prevent the problem, which did little to nothing to correct the problem once the pistons and rings were gummed up.

  • 2 weeks later...
GuyGene Enthusiast

GuyGene

Posted
Posted

I hope that's true, service. I usually buy used, so now, I'll make sure my next truck is '13 or newer when I finally buy. Are all 5.3s aluminum blocks? I sure like iron better, but I'm old fashioned.

GuyGene Enthusiast

GuyGene

Posted
Posted

All engines including for the HDs will have aluminum blocks. Nothing to worry about.

Even the 6.2 (or is it 6.0 now?) has aluminum? I guess they all are that way now for weight.

RVJ Enthusiast

RVJ

Posted
Posted

At this point in time, I think GM has overcome the oil consumption issue with the 5.3 AFM built after February 1 2011. That would include almost all of the 2012, and all of the 2013. Based on my research on past problems, most early attempted repairs were done by soaking the pistons & rings in a cleaner, with the added oil shield installed on the ATM pressure relieve valve. Some times the repair worked, and some times it did not. The final phase was to replace pistons & rings, with the AFM shield. This drastic measure did work with faith on the problem not returning.

 

I believe that this oil issue involved only a few of the hundreds of thousands of these engines that were produced. I feel safe in saying that the 2012 & 2013 model years that have the 5.3 AFM engines will no longer fall into this problem. All of these engines are now equipped with the updated parts.......AFM shield, and updated valve cover. These parts were designed to prevent the problem, which did little to nothing to correct the problem once the pistons and rings were gummed up.

I hope you are right. I've seen a couple people claiming they have 2012's and are burning oil. Our current 5.3 with AFM has been made for what, 6 years? It took that long to get to a place where we are thinking the problem is solved. Now we are getting all new engines with AFM in an all new truck again. Can you imagine the flak if they are starting out as oil burners again with their own set of problems all over again.

  • Like 1
GMCDriver1 Enthusiast

GMCDriver1

Posted
Posted

Even the 6.2L. Remember, the new 4.3, 5.3, and 6.2L are completely new engines, new blocks, and what not, redesigned for direct injection.

dsmmace Enthusiast

dsmmace

Posted
Posted

I had the fixes that gm offers done to my 2009. Oil pan deflector, new lifters, and the valve cover replaced. I went from burning a liter per 1000kms to none. I am surprised at the results, but happy that I shouldn't have issues moving forward.

 

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

  • 2 weeks later...
Mossyoakglock Senior Enthusiast

Mossyoakglock

Posted
Posted

is the Oil Consumption test and all associated fixes covered under the Powertrain warranty? I'm still within the 5yr/100,000 mile warranty.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,913
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Smitty462
    Newest Member
    Smitty462
    Joined

  • Who's Online   5 Members, 0 Anonymous, 651 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...