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

The TSB indicates that GM started equipping some motors with the fixes in 2009 but others up to 2011 still require the fixes. So, if you have a 2012 or newer, you probably don't need to worry about this AFM oil consumption problem.

I retract this statement. I think I misread the TSB. It looks the the problem affects motors from 2007 to 2011. Certain 2007-8 motors get a different valve cover than 2009-11 motors.

Posted

 

I don't know...at this point I'm hoping GM realized the issues and corrected the mistakes in a new design...if not the next truck will have a blue oval.

 

Thanks for the reply strike 1st. I hear you. GM had better have the '14s fixed as to eating oil. My '09 is at 60,000 miles and will be out of wty in 3 months. Using 1 1/2 -2 qts per 5,000 mile oil change. So, wty goes away and oil consumption jumps to the GM oh we would fix that level of burn but sorry Charlie out of wty. .

 

Heck my '90 GMC sub only burns 1/2 qt on a 4,000 mile oil change and it has 356,000 miles on an original 350 ci engine. Most of that is valve stem seals.

 

I was looking at Blue oval but now they have the aluminum thing going. Having worked in metallurgy, I am going to let that work out before going there. Well the 2015 Stang looks good and I hear you can see out of it, unlike the Camaro. So maybe keep the 09 oil well and get a stang for kicks.

 

So hope the '14 works and like you say surely (don't call me Shirley) GM has the oil thing fixed now. If not, I would return it like the old lady returns tires on the discount commercial.

  • Like 1
Posted

 

Thanks for the reply strike 1st. I hear you. GM had better have the '14s fixed as to eating oil. My '09 is at 60,000 miles and will be out of wty in 3 months. Using 1 1/2 -2 qts per 5,000 mile oil change. So, wty goes away and oil consumption jumps to the GM oh we would fix that level of burn but sorry Charlie out of wty.

 

I believe if you start documenting the problem now, you'll have much better chance of success later. If you haven't done any oil consumption tests, start immediately, and get the issue on their books.

 

FC

Posted

 

I believe if you start documenting the problem now, you'll have much better chance of success later. If you haven't done any oil consumption tests, start immediately, and get the issue on their books.

 

FC

Thanks, but have already done such. Oil use just below GM guidelines. Either way not good, as you either have an oil burner or the engine opened up. Just not a good choice and hopefully the '14 owners will not have to make such a choice.

Posted

Thanks, but have already done such. Oil use just below GM guidelines. Either way not good, as you either have an oil burner or the engine opened up. Just not a good choice and hopefully the '14 owners will not have to make such a choice.

 

I'm in the same boat... Not using enough oil for repairs under warranty, 94K on 2011 Silverado, the miles I put on it I will be out in a month or two. Shame because it didn't us a drop until 70k and now its using it fast. By my calculations it will be using enough for GM multi-step repair process at 110K or so.. I will keep the documents but doubt I will want to (call, pay for it and wait for a check, multiple trips to dealer, nag, fight etc.) to get out of warranty work done.

 

Looked at the 14's while waiting for my last oil analysis check.. Nice truck. Sticker shock! Not a single 1500 4WD truck under $42K on the lot! My 2011 was under $29K with the nice All-Star package..

 

I guess I'll wonder over to the other brand dealers and see what they have :) - I'm the customer and I can do that.

Posted (edited)

^ how much oil is it using?

 

I have read the thread. Any one have the fix and have put enough miles on the truck to know if it is working???

Edited by STex
Posted (edited)

Well, another option instead of going with a new pickup, if you go out of warranty and they don't cover, is to just buy a replacement crate engine and drop it in. You wouldn't have to play games with whether a "fix" solved the problem or not. Just start out fresh with a remanned crate engine. Darn sight cheaper than getting a new ride. Since GM is very much aware of what is going on with these engines, if you just trade, you probably would not get what you hope. If you have a great pickup already, just replace the engine. And even if you did decide to trade in, say, another year, you would get more out of the trade because of the low life on the engine. I would NEVER buy a first year run of a new power plant like the D.I. engines GM is putting out now. Let them get the bugs worked out first.

Edited by Cowpie
Posted

I have read the thread. Any one have the fix and have put enough miles on the truck to know if it is working???

 

 

None of the fixes (shield, valve covers, heads & valves) short of new pistons and rings did anything to slow the oil loss in my 'Kon. It took new pistons & rings to stop the oil usage for me. It didn't use any oil at all between changes for a while after that. At 40,000 miles since that repair, it will use maybe 1/4 qt. in 5,000 miles, and that's certainly acceptable to me.

 

FC

Posted

It's been a while since I updated my status. I've had new lifters, pistons, rings, valve cover and umbrella installed on my 09 Crew Cab. I've since put about 6000 miles on the engine. the oil was down one dimple on the dipstick. Now since this is regular oil it may be normal usage not sure. I plan on switching over to Mobil 1 in the next few days and will monitor things from there. I will also not that my MPG went from around 14.5 to about 16 . I'll have a much better reading on that once we hit summer and I don;t have the truck warming up all the time.

Posted

I'm not sure I can say it's completely fixed yet, since I've only put a small amount of miles on the engine so far. I will say my dealer was very helpful in getting GM to approve to do ALL the fixes at one time and not piece meal it.
I also need to change the plugs as well since they were dirty. The dealer did clean them, but I want new.

Posted

None of the fixes (shield, valve covers, heads & valves) short of new pistons and rings did anything to slow the oil loss in my 'Kon. It took new pistons & rings to stop the oil usage for me. It didn't use any oil at all between changes for a while after that. At 40,000 miles since that repair, it will use maybe 1/4 qt. in 5,000 miles, and that's certainly acceptable to me.

 

FC

 

 

It's been a while since I updated my status. I've had new lifters, pistons, rings, valve cover and umbrella installed on my 09 Crew Cab. I've since put about 6000 miles on the engine. the oil was down one dimple on the dipstick. Now since this is regular oil it may be normal usage not sure. I plan on switching over to Mobil 1 in the next few days and will monitor things from there. I will also not that my MPG went from around 14.5 to about 16 . I'll have a much better reading on that once we hit summer and I don;t have the truck warming up all the time.

Thanks for the replies. Did your engines fail the piston ring test with the fluid or did the dealer just go all in for pistons and rings?

 

Looks like mine qualifies now for the fix. Not sure they will do the pistons/rings as they have yet to test for that. Do not like the idea of going into the engine but also do not like the idea of being out of warranty soon and the oil issue gets much worse and I have to pay.

 

Also if I sell or trade I would like to say with a straight face it is not a major oil burner and has had the repairs.

Posted

GM did not want to replace Piston and Rings at first with my vehicle, I aksed the service manager to go back to district manager and explain to them that since they were partially tearing down my engine anyways and that I wanted to minimize the number of times the engine was taken apart that I was requesting everything to be done at one time. I also insisted that it was a known fact that the piston and rings would need to be changed and that a cleaning with fluid sitting at the top of the piston was just a waste of time.

 

I had to wait a few weeks but they finally came to their senses and agreed to do it the correct way. I was ready to call GM corporate myself and fiel BBB complaints if they did not do eveyrthing at one time. I'm lucky in that the dealer I go to does do very good work, but not everyone is so lucky. in the end if you can get them to do it all at once you'll be much better off for it.

 

I also changed filter and oil after about the first 500 miles jsut to make sure no metal pieces would get circulated through.

Posted

 

 

 

Thanks for the replies. Did your engines fail the piston ring test with the fluid or did the dealer just go all in for pistons and rings?

 

Looks like mine qualifies now for the fix. Not sure they will do the pistons/rings as they have yet to test for that. Do not like the idea of going into the engine but also do not like the idea of being out of warranty soon and the oil issue gets much worse and I have to pay.

 

Also if I sell or trade I would like to say with a straight face it is not a major oil burner and has had the repairs.

 

Dunno that it was a "test", per se. I thought it was their hope-beyond-hope-that-this-works-to-unstick-the-stuck-rings attempt. As you can see below, it seemed to do precisely nothing for the problem in my engine.

 

Here's the chronology:

 

63,179 Start Oil Consumption Test (OCT). Installed AFM deflector, and cleaned carbon from cylinder [by pouring in GM Top Engine Cleaner through the plug holes] as per bulletin 10-06-01-008B. Replaced leaking rear main seal (12639249, 89060436). Replaced leaking left front axle seal (15801507). Replaced leaking transmission pump seal (24245110, 8654799, 24202535, 24226315, 12337931, 10x24233361, 24205103, 3x15709703). Note: all under warranty.

 

63,179 Dead spot in steering. Steering gear had not been tightened after previous repair. fixed.

 

64,340 1/2 qt. low. Topped-off, & advised to return.

 

65,532 1/2 qt. low. Topped-off.

 

66,766 1/2 qt. low. Stated that 1.5 qts. in 3,587 mi. is within their consumption spec of 2 qts. per 2,000 mi. Oil & filter change.

 

68,744 1/2 qt. low. Topped off. Reiterated this was, "well within" the spec.

 

70,093 1/4 qt. low. "Well within" the spec. "THIS COCLUDES (sic) THE OIL CONSUMPTION TEST"

 

71, 708 1 qt. low. "Reschedule customer to complete repairs". Oil & filter change. Sending paperwork to GM to get a SmartCare plan.

 

73,328 "removed cylinder heads and found excessive oil resting on top of valves. Checked valve stem wear and had excessive valve guid (sic) wear allowing oil to burn off in cylinders. Head. Cylinder - replace. Both Banks". Heads, valves, bolts, gaskets, seals, etc. Oil & Filter change.

 

75,228 "CUSTOMER STATES SINCE LAST REPAIR, THERE IS STILL A CONSUMPTION ISSUE. INSPECTED AND FOUND OIL CONSUMPTION AT 1 1/4 QUART IN 1900 MILES. CUSTOMER WILL RESCHEDULE FOR REPAIR"

 

75,530 "Followed bulletin 10-06-01-008B as per TAC instructions. Completed 2nd half of bulletin. Replaced pistons & rings as per bulletin. Tested and set oil to correct level. Request customer to return in 1,000 miles and re-evaluate consumption." Pistons, ring kit, gaskets, seals, bolts, etc., 2 spark plugs, oil & filter change, etc.

 

No more oil consumption.

 

76,929 GM Smart Care plan issued, extending warranty on listed engine components to 106, 929 miles.

 

Now at 116K+, and it will use maybe 1/4 qt. per 5,000 miles.

 

FC

 

 

 

Thanks for the replies. Did your engines fail the piston ring test with the fluid or did the dealer just go all in for pistons and rings?

 

Looks like mine qualifies now for the fix. Not sure they will do the pistons/rings as they have yet to test for that. Do not like the idea of going into the engine but also do not like the idea of being out of warranty soon and the oil issue gets much worse and I have to pay.

 

Also if I sell or trade I would like to say with a straight face it is not a major oil burner and has had the repairs.

 

Dunno that it was a "test", per se. I thought it was their hope-beyond-hope-that-this-works-to-unstick-the-stuck-rings attempt. As you can see below, it seemed to do precisely nothing for the problem in my engine.

 

Here's the chronology:

 

63,179 Start Oil Consumption Test (OCT). Installed AFM deflector, and cleaned carbon from cylinder [by pouring in GM Top Engine Cleaner through the plug holes] as per bulletin 10-06-01-008B. Replaced leaking rear main seal (12639249, 89060436). Replaced leaking left front axle seal (15801507). Replaced leaking transmission pump seal (24245110, 8654799, 24202535, 24226315, 12337931, 10x24233361, 24205103, 3x15709703). Note: all under warranty.

 

63,179 Dead spot in steering. Steering gear had not been tightened after previous repair. fixed.

 

64,340 1/2 qt. low. Topped-off, & advised to return.

 

65,532 1/2 qt. low. Topped-off.

 

66,766 1/2 qt. low. Stated that 1.5 qts. in 3,587 mi. is within their consumption spec of 2 qts. per 2,000 mi. Oil & filter change.

 

68,744 1/2 qt. low. Topped off. Reiterated this was, "well within" the spec.

 

70,093 1/4 qt. low. "Well within" the spec. "THIS COCLUDES (sic) THE OIL CONSUMPTION TEST"

 

71, 708 1 qt. low. "Reschedule customer to complete repairs". Oil & filter change. Sending paperwork to GM to get a SmartCare plan.

 

73,328 "removed cylinder heads and found excessive oil resting on top of valves. Checked valve stem wear and had excessive valve guid (sic) wear allowing oil to burn off in cylinders. Head. Cylinder - replace. Both Banks". Heads, valves, bolts, gaskets, seals, etc. Oil & Filter change.

 

75,228 "CUSTOMER STATES SINCE LAST REPAIR, THERE IS STILL A CONSUMPTION ISSUE. INSPECTED AND FOUND OIL CONSUMPTION AT 1 1/4 QUART IN 1900 MILES. CUSTOMER WILL RESCHEDULE FOR REPAIR"

 

75,530 "Followed bulletin 10-06-01-008B as per TAC instructions. Completed 2nd half of bulletin. Replaced pistons & rings as per bulletin. Tested and set oil to correct level. Request customer to return in 1,000 miles and re-evaluate consumption." Pistons, ring kit, gaskets, seals, bolts, etc., 2 spark plugs, oil & filter change, etc.

 

No more oil consumption.

 

76,929 GM Smart Care plan issued, extending warranty on listed engine components to 106, 929 miles.

 

Now at 116K+, and it will use maybe 1/4 qt. per 5,000 miles.

 

FC

Posted

What is : GM Smart Care plan issued, extending warranty on listed engine components to

 

Did you have to pay for it or did GM add that in ?? If Gm added that I need to talk to me dealer

Posted

What is : GM Smart Care plan issued, extending warranty on listed engine components to

 

Did you have to pay for it or did GM add that in ?? If Gm added that I need to talk to me dealer

 

The dealer got GM to pay for it. I expressed how worried I was that the fixes would continue until the power train warranty ran out, and the Svc Mgr told me they'd take care of me. I didn't hear another word about it 'til the letter from GM showed up. They basically gave me a 30K mile warranty from the time the pistons & rings were replaced.

 

My opinion is that I got it for the following reasons:

1) My initiating it

2) At the time the repairs were being made (rather than afterward)

3) Because the dealer was working to help out as much as possible.

 

I'm not at all happy with the whole problem, but I can't fault my dealer one bit for doing all they could within GM's reimbursement guidelines. I like the dealer now more now, than I did when I bought the problem-plauged truck from them.

 

Also, the Smart Care wasn't for the entire power train, but just for a bunch of engine components they listed in a lengthy paragraph. I'm almost 10K past the expiration, & it's run fine the whole time.

 

Again, I think once the AFM shield and new valve cover are in, the new rings should be fine. I think it really needs all 3 fixes to work, though I've heard of piston-soak working in a few incidents.

 

FC

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • 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. 
    • 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.  
    • Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • 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.  
    • 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...