Jump to content

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

Posted (edited)

After reading through all 22 pages of this thread, things sorta blend together but did I not see any 2012's or 2013's with issues? Looking to possibly buy a new 2013 so just doing some research.

 

My 2000 Sierra w/5.3 uses maybe half a quart in 5000 miles, if that.

Edited by zedbear
Posted

Mines been using around a liter of oil every 3000miles or so... and after that the oil doesn't seem to last... I'll top it up and it's down 1/4 of a liter less then 1000km's later... Engine has had everything done to it that could be done besides rings and pistons before I bought it... Hope it doesn't get any worse where I'll need rings and pistons because if that's the case, it's getting traded for a new Ford... This is 2013, a new modern engine shouldn't burn oil like this

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Mines been using around a liter of oil every 3000miles or so... and after that the oil doesn't seem to last... I'll top it up and it's down 1/4 of a liter less then 1000km's later... Engine has had everything done to it that could be done besides rings and pistons before I bought it... Hope it doesn't get any worse where I'll need rings and pistons because if that's the case, it's getting traded for a new Ford... This is 2013, a new modern engine shouldn't burn oil like this

 

 

I agree! You'd think GM would have oil usage figured out by now. I've been watching this thread for a long time and hard to believe so many people are having oil consumption issues. Not so many with the the 6.0 and 6.2 engines, so something must be wrong in the 5.3 engines. I'll be buying a truck in probably a couple of years, and these forums are one way I do research - to see how real people are doing with their trucks. So far, GM isn't looking so great.

Posted
GuyGene,

You, as well as anyone else experiencing this concern, can feel free to contact me privately and I would be happy to look into this further for you. Thank you.

 

Tricia, GM Customer Service.

LMFAO

 

Sent from my Nokia 5190 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Posted

I'm not having this oil using problem because my trucks are older and don't use oil (wow, what a thought! My OLDER trucks don't use oil!). I'm just doing pre-buying research. Plan to buy in about one or two years, and reading these forums is a good way to see what real drivers are saying about their trucks. Plus, I am not so brand loyal, reliability is #1 to me. Oil consumption does not bode well for reliability.

Posted (edited)
I'm not having this oil using problem because my trucks are older and don't use oil (wow, what a thought! My OLDER trucks don't use oil!). I'm just doing pre-buying research. Plan to buy in about one or two years, and reading these forums is a good way to see what real drivers are saying about their trucks. Plus, I am not so brand loyal, reliability is #1 to me. Oil consumption does not bode well for reliability.

You don't see many people post about not using oil. Nobody with a good non oil using engine is going to have the drive to post about it. Someone with a issue is going to post about it. They are mad. So think about that.

 

Your trucks age has nothing to do with it. I have a 2001 sunfire that never uses oil and had a 1990 Oldsmobile that did. All engines manufactured have some that use oil. That's how it is.

 

Sent from my Nokia 5190 using Tapatalk 2

 

Edited by tanked_darren
Posted (edited)

 

I agree! You'd think GM would have oil usage figured out by now. I've been watching this thread for a long time and hard to believe so many people are having oil consumption issues. Not so many with the the 6.0 and 6.2 engines, so something must be wrong in the 5.3 engines. I'll be buying a truck in probably a couple of years, and these forums are one way I do research - to see how real people are doing with their trucks. So far, GM isn't looking so great.

 

I bet the 5.3 "appears" to have the most problems because that is the most popular engine. It would be nice to know what percentages of engines were sold during the years. I have read that it is mostly AFM engines having the consumption problems which are all engines except the 6.2 is non-afm until 2014, then all engines get a "revised" AFM.

Edited by 2009 GMC
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

I went in for my first reading and am down 3/4 of a quart after about 1500 miles. We're going to do another 1 or 2 readings and decide how to move forward from there. I also gave the service manager a copy of a spreadsheet that I use to track what kind of MPG I'm really getting. I calculate 2 sets one from the DIC and one from readings from the Trip and the pump. The DIC calculations have me getting 12.39 mpg and hand calculating show me getting 12.83 mpg.

 

I consider this to be extremely low my 1999 extended cab Silverado with a 5.3, 4 spd, 3.73 rear got on average 15 mpg even after 200,000 miles. I was expecting to be getting around 16 mpg with the newer truck. 2009 Crew Cab 5.3, 6 spd and 3.42 rear and traction control. The new truck is also running 20 inch 275 tires where as the 99 was running 17 255 tires. My driving is basically putzing around town here and there and every few weeks a 80 mile roundtrip highway run. I don't get on it very much most of the time.

 

I can't figure out if the tires are making me take a hit on mpg and if the traction control could be also contributing to my crummy MPG.

 

Any one burning oil and having lifter noise notice crummy mpg ??

Posted

I went in for my first reading and am down 3/4 of a quart after about 1500 miles. We're going to do another 1 or 2 readings and decide how to move forward from there. I also gave the service manager a copy of a spreadsheet that I use to track what kind of MPG I'm really getting. I calculate 2 sets one from the DIC and one from readings from the Trip and the pump. The DIC calculations have me getting 12.39 mpg and hand calculating show me getting 12.83 mpg.

 

I consider this to be extremely low my 1999 extended cab Silverado with a 5.3, 4 spd, 3.73 rear got on average 15 mpg even after 200,000 miles. I was expecting to be getting around 16 mpg with the newer truck. 2009 Crew Cab 5.3, 6 spd and 3.42 rear and traction control. The new truck is also running 20 inch 275 tires where as the 99 was running 17 255 tires. My driving is basically putzing around town here and there and every few weeks a 80 mile roundtrip highway run. I don't get on it very much most of the time.

 

I can't figure out if the tires are making me take a hit on mpg and if the traction control could be also contributing to my crummy MPG.

 

Any one burning oil and having lifter noise notice crummy mpg ??

Continue to keep me posted and let me know if you need additional assistance. Thank you.

 

Tricia, GM Customer Service.

Posted

I have a 2011 Sierra 1500 I have the 5.3 afm with 24500 miles I bought truck with 18miles on it and its been consuming oil from first oil change I did it my self I thought I was going nuts. I buy the 5quart jugs with a quart on the side to make 6 syn Mobil 1 with dexos. So when I put the oil back I didn't even fill the 5q jug I'm about 1 1/2 quarts low every 3000 mies I paid 30k for this truck it should not be burning oil no way the dealship is sayin it's normal but its not. This is really bothering me what should I do this my first new truck I loved gmc but now I'm disgusted with them . I'm going to do a oil consumption test that there going to make me pay for witch is nuts but I need to get it recorded asap I guess. Then by there standards a quart of oil in 2000 miles is fine that's what there going to tell me but its not fine.. We will see what happens I just want the truck fixed that's all and I think that it is going to be a problem to get it fixed all I hear is horror stories but can someone give me advice on what I should do has anybody got it fixed yet please help me lol.. Thanks

Posted

After reading through all 22 pages of this thread, things sorta blend together but did I not see any 2012's or 2013's with issues? Looking to possibly buy a new 2013 so just doing some research.

 

My 2000 Sierra w/5.3 uses maybe half a quart in 5000 miles, if that.

wait for the 2014 it's a whole new engine they will be out soon
Posted

I just hope I can get this problem fixed I'm like stuck in a rut 2011sierra 5.3AFM consuming oil almost 2 quarts every 3000 miles and I'm using the correct oil with dexos but still loing oil please give me feed back on what I should do thanks I would like to stay loyal to gm I just want the prom fixed thank

Posted

@JCFitter51 I would call the dealership manager and tell then you want to sit down with GM district Rep, you should NOT be paying for that test. Record the meeting and tell them both you consider this to be a defective engine.

 

What kind of gas mileage are you getting ??

 

Explain to them nicely but firmly that if it does not get resolved, you will go to your attorney general and local news stations. But be ready to play hardball with them, they need to know you will make things very uncomfortable for them with bad publicity.

 

More than likely they will fix the problem, and if after 3 tries it's not fixed, I'd invoke the lemon law and make them give you a new truck. The amount of oil burned should be extremely negligible in most vehicles.

 

We're still doing my consumption test now, but my dealer so far has seemed very responsive. I've also recently given him a spreadsheet of my mileage for the past year showing that I am not even averaging 13mpg which is ludicrous for a truck that from GM should get much better then that. From what I've read here a GM Crew Cab with 5.3l v8 with a 6spd and 3.42 gears should average between 15-18 overall.

 

Good luck

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,914
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    AidenVorpagel
    Newest Member
    AidenVorpagel
    Joined
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 1,000 Guests (See full list)


  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • 286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • 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. 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...