Oil type for 2014 Sierra 5.3

[Grumpy Bear]

1 hour ago, KARNUT said:

I must have miss-read. I took it as that the add package was good till at least 5K. Not that it didn’t work until 3K-5K.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or maybe I miss read it. Your take makes perfect sense. Cliff will let me know. 

[sdeeter19555]

I must have miss-read. I took it as that the add package was good till at least 5K. Not that it didn’t work until 3K-5K.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's how I read it as well...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[sdeeter19555]

To be truthful, it's been a while since I've seen a UOA that showed an oil that was at condemnation limits at 10k miles...I'm sure there are, but between the tolerances of the newer engine components, improved fuels, and the quality of oils; it doesn't seem as prevalent as it once did...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Grumpy Bear]

2 hours ago, sdeeter19555 said:

To be truthful, it's been a while since I've seen a UOA that showed an oil that was at condemnation limits at 10k miles...I'm sure there are, but between the tolerances of the newer engine components, improved fuels, and the quality of oils; it doesn't seem as prevalent as it once did...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Tolerance is an interesting word. In manufacturing it means a specific acceptable deviation from the intended specification. For example their might be a camshaft lobe hardness specification of say 62 Rc +/- 1 which means all tested that fall between 61 and 63 Rc will be accepted for assembly. When we attach the word "improved' to that word it can mean literally anything. Intuition says to a closer tolerance but intuition is wrong as many times as it is right. In practice it might mean that someone got tired of rejecting parts that were 1/2 a unit either side of the target range and so to them an improved tolerance is one the permits more out of spec parts to be used. Don't laugh. I was part of a six sigma team for years...this stuff happens routinely.

 

 

 

[dieselfan1]

All this talk about oil, blah blah, blah.

Dump Mobil 1 0W20 in it and be done.

Talk talk talk

It's oil man.

I never heard of anyone having a problem because they used the wrong brand of oil. Have you?

[Grumpy Bear]

49 minutes ago, dieselfan1 said:

All this talk about oil, blah blah, blah.

Dump Mobil 1 0W20 in it and be done.

Talk talk talk

It's oil man.

I never heard of anyone having a problem because they used the wrong brand of oil. Have you?

Brand? Almost as interesting as tolerance. But no, no damage from wrong brand. Wrong type? Now that's a different story.

 

BTW, any idea what TYPE Mobil 1 is? PLEASE don't say 'synthetic".

 

Know why it is named Mobil 1?  Because Mobil, like you, believed that ONE oil TYPE and in ONE oil GRADE could do it all for every application and in every situation for any ICE. Exactly how many Mobil 1 oils are there now from that first offering? So if Mobil/Exxon knows this...... 

 

Moving on. I heard in the interview process once upon a time a fella brag that he had 30 years experience on a certain job. The fella asked him why it took so long to learn a simple thing. Should have seen the look on that guys face. The interviewer proceeded to inform the fella that what he really had was 30 times one years experience. Why is that story relevant?

 

People brag, "I've never had an oil related failure". Good for you. How often do you trade? How far do you drive them? Telling me you've driven a million miles without an oil related failure kind of looses it's punch when one finds out that million was spread out over a twenty lifetime trades....right? 50K miles a truck? I've seen guys run cars 100K and NEVER change the oil OR filter. Just add as she burnt to the ground. 

 

 

[Jacoby]

22 hours ago, Cowpie said:

 There is also evidence that for the additive package of many motor oils to be truly effective, the oil needs to be used for longer periods than that.  

I’m pretty sure Grumpy read this right. 

 

You are saying the oil gets better the more/longer it gets used???  That might be the most absurd thing I’ve ever read EVER in all the oil threads I’ve ever come across. 

[DONWT15]

19 hours ago, Jacoby said:

I’m pretty sure Grumpy read this right. 

 

You are saying the oil gets better the more/longer it gets used???  That might be the most absurd thing I’ve ever read EVER in all the oil threads I’ve ever come across. 

I read it the same way. My concern would be why have all these additives if they don't help for the first few thousand miles? That's the critical time isn't it?

Kind of proves diyer's point then. Why spend the money? Buy the cheap stuff and change at 3000. 

[Grumpy Bear]

2 hours ago, DONWT15 said:

I read it the same way. My concern would be why have all these additives if they don't help for the first few thousand miles? That's the critical time isn't it?

Kind of proves diyer's point then. Why spend the money? Buy the cheap stuff and change at 3000. 

Actually I think Cliff had a brain fart. Happens to us all. Not a big deal.....unless he's serious. 

[DONWT15]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Actually I think Cliff had a brain fart. Happens to us all. Not a big deal.....unless he's serious. 

I'll buy that. Had more than a few myself.

[Spurshot]

This ole thread was an entertaining great late night read.  

 

It spanned 3 years and the discussion was lively, and at times, testy, as most oil threads are. 

 

The topic about "tighter" or "closer",  "tolerances" was interesting and Marty started down the path of putting that topic in it's place, but I think he stopped before completing the thought.   As Marty explained, "tolerance", whether loser or tighter, is just a range that is acceptable.  "Tighter" tolerance is just a narrower range of an acceptable measurement.  So, if you were designing a main bearing to have a bore size of 2.500", as the designer, you are required to provide how much deviation from that diameter is acceptable, such as + or - .0002".  

 

What some of the members in this thread were referring to when they mentioned "tighter tolerances" is more properrly called "clearances".   I think they were trying to say that these engines that the manufacturer specifies 0-20w for have smaller clearances in their main and rod bearings.  I don't have access to any engineering data one way or another on that.  But using the correct terms helps keep the discussion understandable to everyone.

 

[KARNUT]

I was watching one of my favorite car programs this weekend called Gears. Stacy David is a talented guy. He always has products, tools and little tricks to help car guys. He also has advertisers whose products he pushes. This week was oil additives and their benefits. I guess he figures it can’t hurt. I haven’t used those type of products since I started using synthetics especially Amsoil. You’d be hard pressed to find a person who tested the limits more  then I have. Mostly from pulling stuff across country. And owning operating heavy equipment. As well as amateur drag racing. Non of my peers, suppliers said try this additive. I can’t absolutely say what the best oil is like most people on here try to do. I can only say what my experience has been. When something works I stick with it. I don’t go looking for trouble. That brings me back to oil additives. I wouldn’t do it. As for oil. Amsoil is up there as the best. Do I use it exclusively? Not always. I don’t push to extreme anymore. I don’t always change my own oil. I’m 66 I don’t feel like it. Sometimes good enough is enough.

[Grumpy Bear]

1 hour ago, Spurshot said:

   I think they were trying to say that these engines that the manufacturer specifies 0-20w for have smaller clearances in their main and rod bearings.  I don't have access to any engineering data one way or another on that.  But using the correct terms helps keep the discussion understandable to everyone.

 

 

The standard is a thou per inch of journal diameter. Hasn't changed in over a hundred and fifty plus years nor is it likely to. What has changed is the surface finish of moving mating parts. They are much smoother now than say 1930. If you give the Stribeck Curve a close look you may notice that the REQUIRED oil film thickness is DEPENDANT upon the ROUGHNESS HEIGHT. That number on the lower axis is a MULTIPLE of the SURFACE FINISH HEIGHT. I.E. hydrodynamic films begin with the film thickness is 4X the roughness height. Elasto-hydrodyanmic at a multiple of 3X and so on. 

 

 

So it isn't that the motor REQUIRES 0W20 or it will be damaged. That's BULL. It's that it can USE 0W20 and still maintain the film thickness required to support the lubrication regimes it needs to wear at a rate that gives acceptable service life. What is acceptable to the OEM is roughly 150,000 miles.  No, the REEL REQUIREMENT is based on the value of the oils HTHS number and it's impact on the fuel economy of the motor as CERTIFIED by the EPA. 

 

 

THIS equation above is what all the hubbub is about.

 

3.7 is the minimum high temperature high shear value an oil can display and still be called a 10W40 which at the time this equation was formulated was the benchmark viscosity for most OEM's. This equation, still used today ignores the lubricants lubricity and focuses only on its resistance in internal shear (drag). Which made sense in the day but there are oils today that via the reality of physics that can and do display HTHS values well above the SAE minimum for the grade and hence behave like a grade higher while maintaining the lower grades 100 C viscosity. Win Win.

 

BTW you can still use the formula to compare two oils and their difference in HTHS on fuel economy. Use you current oils HTHS in place of the 3.7 and the new oils HTHS in the place noted HTHS. The result is the change in fuel efficiency in percent. 

 

Last note. Surface finish can only get so smooth before the surface refuses to 'wet' and that point is NOW. This move to 0W16 and future 0W8 oils is based on SOME improvements in sacrificial chemistries wear additives AND a lower OEM warranty centered acceptable service life. Come on, you have noticed the shorter warranty periods over the last decade right? Pretty soon we will be looking at cars now like we did in 1960. 60K is time to dump it. 

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Grumpy Bear

[customboss]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

The standard is a thou per inch of journal diameter. Hasn't changed in over a hundred and fifty plus years nor is it likely to. What has changed is the surface finish of moving mating parts. They are much smoother now than say 1930. If you give the Stribeck Curve a close look you may notice that the REQUIRED oil film thickness is DEPENDANT upon the ROUGHNESS HEIGHT. That number on the lower axis is a MULTIPLE of the SURFACE FINISH HEIGHT. I.E. hydrodynamic films begin with the film thickness is 4X the roughness height. Elasto-hydrodyanmic at a multiple of 3X and so on. 

 

 

So it isn't that the motor REQUIRES 0W20 or it will be damaged. That's BULL. It's that it can USE 0W20 and still maintain the film thickness required to support the lubrication regimes it needs to wear at a rate that gives acceptable service life. What is acceptable to the OEM is roughly 150,000 miles.  No, the REEL REQUIREMENT is based on the value of the oils HTHS number and it's impact on the fuel economy of the motor as CERTIFIED by the EPA. 

 

 

THIS equation above is what all the hubbub is about.

 

3.7 is the minimum high temperature high shear value an oil can display and still be called a 10W40 which at the time this equation was formulated was the benchmark viscosity for most OEM's. This equation, still used today ignores the lubricants lubricity and focuses only on its resistance in internal shear (drag). Which made sense in the day but there are oils today that via the reality of physics that can and do display HTHS values well above the SAE minimum for the grade and hence behave like a grade higher while maintaining the lower grades 100 C viscosity. Win Win.

 

BTW you can still use the formula to compare two oils and their difference in HTHS on fuel economy. Use you current oils HTHS in place of the 3.7 and the new oils HTHS in the place noted HTHS. The result is the change in fuel efficiency in percent. 

 

Last note. Surface finish can only get so smooth before the surface refuses to 'wet' and that point is NOW. This move to 0W16 and future 0W8 oils is based on SOME improvements in sacrificial chemistries wear additives AND a lower OEM warranty centered acceptable service life. Come on, you have noticed the shorter warranty periods over the last decade right? Pretty soon we will be looking at cars now like we did in 1960. 60K is time to dump it. 

 

If an engine is designed to handle 2.6 HTHS and that protects above MOFT that engine can last a long time with whatever the SAE calls that bottled oil. 0w8,0w16,0w20 etc. 

 

Using higher HTHS than an engine design requires just drags on cooling and oil flow in the most critical applications.  

 

Remember too thats design, once you load your engine with sludge, wear scars, fuels dilution, carbon loading, and potentially blocked or partially blocked journals all bets are off on this theoretical calculations.  

 

 

 

 

[mikeyk101]

Oh my, my poor wittle brain is now hurting from the information overload!!! Me, I will just stick with 0W20 as it is recommended and seems to work just fine. And even though I do know how to change the oil and do it for other stuff, I still just bring my Silvy to the dealer and have them do it as it's not much more expensive than doing it on my own. They also rotate the tires at the same time which saves me the trouble of doing it myself. And since I still have the GM ESP in effect for 3 more years and another roughly 50,000 miles, this is a good way to document that it is getting done. 

 

But this thread has presented a lot of very interesting information. Oil threads are usually the kiss of death and doesn't take much for them to go sideways...

Edited July 21, 2022 by mikeyk101