Jump to content
  • Sign up for FREE! Become a GM-Trucks.com Member Today!

    In 20 seconds you can become part of the worlds largest and oldest community discussing General Motors, Chevrolet and GMC branded pickups, crossovers, and SUVs. From buying research to owner support, join 1.5 MILLION GM Truck Enthusiasts every month who use GM-Trucks.com as a daily part of their ownership experience. 

Is Your Gmt-900 Truck Or Suv Using Oil


Is your GMT-900 using oil  

1,514 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

On 11/28/2017 at 7:49 AM, Service1956 said:

No oil consumption on my 2011 Avalanche. Been using the Range device shortly after getting my truck. Has anyone heard if any of the 2013-2015 GM 5.3 engines of having oil consumption issues?

Some.  Do a search over on that forum and you'll see some posts on it there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 822
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

First off, I feel that not only me, but others that have read all of the rants on how the 5.3 AFM engines have been incorrectly labeled as being mechanically prone to failure has been over blown. Sure

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.

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

Posted Images

  • 2 weeks later...
On ‎10‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 9:51 AM, Jsdirt said:

Good to know, Steve. Thanks

 

 

42 miles on the clock, brakes pulsated - right off the showroom floor. 6+ warranty trips to dealer never fixed it.

 

4x4 switch was frigged up also right out of the gate. Dealer kicked can down the road until out of warranty, and I ended up eating it.

 

At around 2k miles, the interior began to squeak an rattle worse than any of my 20- 30 year old vehicles.

 

Also around that same time, the driveline developed a "clunk" on light throttle 1-2 upshifts that has got progressively worse as the miles rack up.

 

Lower ball joints failed at 38k.

 

Around 50k my front differential started leaking out the axle seals.

 

At 50k, engine started burning oil when pushed. (piston rings)

 

Also at 50k, upper ball joints, BOTH hub bearings, and one strut failed.

 

Currently, it failed emissions because for some unknown reason, the o2 & EVAP monitors refuse to run, no matter how much I drive it.

 

 

 

Only 91k on the truck! I've driven cars that I bought with over 200k on the clock that were 20 years old that didn't have HALF these problems. What a f***ing waste of money!!!

That is a lot of crap to fix, but it seems you are the victim of a 1st year run vehicle as much as anything else. Issues like yours always get ironed out as the model matures now that OEMs use 1st year buyers as test mules (I wont ever be one). You have an 11 year old truck that apparently still runs. I am wondering what DAMAGE has occurred to your engine? Is this truly serious, or is it like the piston slap of 2001 that never caused any shortened life (same people who freaked then now brag how they gmt 800 5.3 was the greatest engine ever made)? I'm asking because I love my truck, but at 62K I just checked the oil and noticed it a quart low for the first time (changed 4 months ago). I just did the AFM delete with a custom tune, and wonder if that could be a culprit (or the fumoto valve I put on last change). Will DI engines and the forthcoming shutoff system make a little oil use seem trivial? It sucks, but oil really only costs a few bucks a quart, and I don't want a different truck...   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad part of all of this is, it has nothing to do today with 1st year runs - that's a thing of the past with computer aided design tools.

 

Problem today is downright greed, and a IDGAF attitude by some (or all) of these companies. Quite a few vehicles today are having engine problems. How long have we been building engines?? They STILL haven't figured it out??? Think about that. 

 

Ford's 6.0 & 6.4 diesels are classic examples, along with their 4.0 DOHC gas engine. The latter was a great engine, until they band-aided it to make it OBD-II compliant, which added several failure prone components - namely the timing chain cassette tensioners. Ford also produced the 2.0 SPI for the 2000 - '04 or so Focus, which spit valve seats out of the head and into the combustion chamber causing catastrophic damage. Bent rods, smashed &  holed pistons, destroyed heads, and if the engine was spinning fast enough, the shrapnel got sucked into the rest of the cylinders through the intake manifold, destroying them as well. These are just 3 examples I picked off the top of my head - there are more. Fine designs, after 100+ years of automobile building. :sick:

 

The 5.3 is another great engine .... that GM cheaped out on. 2007 and up has changed -these are no longer 200-300k mile engines. Lower end is indestructible (except for the .05 cent oil pickup tube o-ring that can cause $6,000 in damage). The top end is a POS! Everything in the upper end is junk, IMO. Cheap, thin, low-tension piston rings that wear prematurely, failure prone AFM lifters that fail in several ways, camshafts that pit and wear down to nothing ... and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few more items here. If it has AFM, it WILL fail between 90 - 160k, depending on several factors. That's pretty much a guarantee. I've read HUNDREDS of posts & stories from professional auto techs regarding this issue - many have seen this several times, just in their ONE shop! That's a pretty big problem to show up that often in just one shop. The general public doesn't see this angle of it.

 

Best thing you  could've done is an AFM delete - if you changed the cam and lifters, then you've made the engine somewhat reliable again. If you just tuned it out, you just kicked the can down the road a bit.

 

I suspect with my engine that I'm in the beginning stages of cam bearing failure. Increase in engine noise, decrease in oil pressure (although minor at this stage), and increases in levels of iron and copper/brass, and the known history (of professional techs) on this issue all point this direction. My plan is to just run this thing until it doesn't - then I'll cross that bridge when the day comes. A carbureted 502 swap may be in it's future.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear ya about the 502 - Ill be puttin' a blown 6.2 in this puppy when/if my engine goes kaput - just saving up now that its paid off. Not sure why you don't think 1st year runs aren't a thing - quite a bit of the issues you mention were changed on the later gmt 900s (lifters for one). China cant make anything to spec no matter how well designed, and that is well known. There are tons of high mileage 900 trucks and SUVs in these parts that still run fine though 250K. Im just gonna keep on keepin on until I am actually affected - failure is an excellent excuse to modify :thumbs:

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, I feel that not only me, but others that have read all of the rants on how the 5.3 AFM engines have been incorrectly labeled as being mechanically prone to failure has been over blown. Sure, I do realize that they were not the most trouble free engines out there. People must consider the fact that all manufacturers have their own set of problems.

 

When mechanical engineers put their knowledge to work, they do so in ways that in theory will work according to what they know. When a design is studied, researched, and changed several times does the team approve of making it's way to the final phase of it's actual development. For the most part, the problem of 5.3 AFM engines using oil have been primarily with the 2007-2008 model years. The updated lifters I think arrived around 2010. The low tension piston rings were a design to save fuel by reducing friction and came with an added bonus of a longer lasting cylinder bore. The thinner oils such as the 5W-30 that these engines use, and the 0W-20 that my wife's 2015 malibu uses, have the same design factor.... by saving fuel. Both my 2011 Avalanche, and my wife's malibu both use "some" oil. Never had to add between changes. So what's the big deal if an engine uses a little oil?

 

I think the best a person can do is eliminate the 6000-7000 mile synthetic oil changes that some do because they believe that synthetic oil last longer than the petroleum based products. The problem is, is that letting it go that long contributes to the problem of too many hydrocarbons building up in the crankcase and mixing with the oil therefore contaminating the oil in reducing lubrication and speeding engine wear. I could be wrong, but that's my theory.

 

I really don't think these engines were that bad according to what some say. In the future............we will be faced with a new set of problems regardless of who the manufacturers are.

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Service1956 said:

First off, I feel that not only me, but others that have read all of the rants on how the 5.3 AFM engines have been incorrectly labeled as being mechanically prone to failure has been over blown. Sure, I do realize that they were not the most trouble free engines out there. People must consider the fact that all manufacturers have their own set of problems.

 

When mechanical engineers put their knowledge to work, they do so in ways that in theory will work according to what they know. When a design is studied, researched, and changed several times does the team approve of making it's way to the final phase of it's actual development. For the most part, the problem of 5.3 AFM engines using oil have been primarily with the 2007-2008 model years. The updated lifters I think arrived around 2010. The low tension piston rings were a design to save fuel by reducing friction and came with an added bonus of a longer lasting cylinder bore. The thinner oils such as the 5W-30 that these engines use, and the 0W-20 that my wife's 2015 malibu uses, have the same design factor.... by saving fuel. Both my 2011 Avalanche, and my wife's malibu both use "some" oil. Never had to add between changes. So what's the big deal if an engine uses a little oil?

 

I think the best a person can do is eliminate the 6000-7000 mile synthetic oil changes that some do because they believe that synthetic oil last longer than the petroleum based products. The problem is, is that letting it go that long contributes to the problem of too many hydrocarbons building up in the crankcase and mixing with the oil therefore contaminating the oil in reducing lubrication and speeding engine wear. I could be wrong, but that's my theory.

 

I really don't think these engines were that bad according to what some say. In the future............we will be faced with a new set of problems regardless of who the manufacturers are.

Good reading. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can think what you want, but the facts speak for themselves.

 

If you don't have any interest in automotive repair, or access to the resources that technicians use, or the desire to pay for them,  then I don't expect any of you to believe any differently.

 

I have nothing to gain by bashing a brand I have grown up with and LOVED my entire life. I just tell it like it is.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
You can think what you want, but the facts speak for themselves.
 
If you don't have any interest in automotive repair, or access to the resources that technicians use, or the desire to pay for them,  then I don't expect any of you to believe any differently.
 
I have nothing to gain by bashing a brand I have grown up with and LOVED my entire life. I just tell it like it is.
You have so many posts, I would never consider you a troll or ford forum "plant." I think you do have concerns, but until you have a mechanical failure, they are just worries; as they tech up trucks more, the more things will go wrong. I really dont want half the crap they put on trucks now like vibrating seats, self driving, and stop start tech. Loud tunes with usb (bt streaming sux), 4wd, heated seat & wheel are all I ever need. As for my issue, I changed my oil today, and I will say a little less than a quart was used in 4500 miles. I always use synthetic 5w30, so I may switch to high milage oil next time, but not too worried. OLM was at 47%, so I think Ill just start doing 4k changes regardless of %...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

I have 63k on my 2012 5.3. 

I bought it new and tuned it by 10k on the clock. 

Never had any issues. Doesn’t burn a drop of oil and I change the oil when the olm gets into the single digits. So that’s typically around 7k miles per change. 

 

Been an incredibly solid truck for 6 years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

2007 5.3 Silverado. Burns a small amount every 3k, probably less than a 1/4 qt. Seems I remember something in the manual saying that oil consumption is normal based on conditions and driving habits. I’ve never seen a drop of oil or wet spot under the truck st all so I never really give it a 2nd thought. Truck runs good so no issue to me!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

If history with this company is any indicator, I wouldn't count on it ...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with "Jsdirt". 

 

My 2009 GMC Sierra had no problems with it's 5.3L AFM.

 

My 2012 Sierra, also 5.3L AFM, had the entire bottom end replaced at 35K for oil issue. Then the cam & lifters were replaced at 75K. I thought GM had it all figured out by then.... :(

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.