Non-dexos oil

[chris-i]

2020 GMC 2500 at4, with 6.6 gas and 6, speed trans. The truck is new to me only had 59340km (37000miles) when I got it. I normally do oil changes every 8000km (5000miles). So I'm nearing the first oil change since I've had this truck, it does have very minimal oil consumption.

My question is, does anyone use any higher quality oil that dosent have the "dexos" paid approved label. Such as Rotella T6, or amsoil, redline etc. And if so have they had less/or no oil consumption?

 

Thank you

[Z45]

I have used AMSOIL for over 40 yrs in every new GM vehicle I have owned. Its in my 2024 Sierra Denali 3.0L (LZ0).  You ARE NOT required to use dexos licensed oil. Only oil the MEETS the spec's and if it says so on the bottle then its true.  I have never had to add oil when using AMSOIL. It typically has a much lower volatility rate. 

 

I have even had the dealer install my AMSOIL for the free new vehicle oil change and looked the other way when he charged GM for the oil he did not use. I demanded the empty bottles back as proof the used my oil.

Edited March 12 by Z45

[newdude]

How much consumption exactly?

 

Might be worth running some Valvoline Restore and Protect first for about 4-5 oil changes, and then switch to an Amsoil,  Redline, Schaffers, etc.  

 

Rotella T6 is a diesel oil, not a gas oil.  So don't run that.  

Edited March 12 by newdude

[MORSNO]

Look at the labels on the oil container, and you'll see if it meets Dexos specifications.  Mobil 1, Amsoil, Pennzoil, etc. all have oils that meet this spec.  I only run Mobil 1 in my trucks. 

[Z45]

 

[No F-bdy Bs]

Any quality oil is fine, but I don't think I could find a reason to NOT run a Dexos oil with the ease of availability,and basically same price as any other synthetic. 

[diyer2]

IMO

You need to educate yourself on the different classes of oil. 

Check this out https://www.machinerylubrication.com/synthetic-oil-31800

 

[Pryme]

Amsoil is fantastic. I run it in my high performance 4cyl motorcycle with great results and regularly rip it up past 12k rpm then when I change it out I use it for the mower. All good. 
 

with that said I don’t run it in my truck due to price. If it was towing super heavy in tough terrain I’d run it though. 
 

I don’t use oil with the super tech I run in it. That’s dexos full syn. 

[Grumpy Bear]

7 hours ago, No F-bdy Bs said:

Any quality oil is fine, but I don't think I could find a reason to NOT run a Dexos oil with the ease of availability, and basically same price as any other synthetic. 

 

Did you know that both Dexos1Gen2 and Gen3 oils 'may contain' Group II/II+ base oils? Gen2 allows >30% with restrictions on read across. Gen3 limit is 30% without read across. ACDelco and Champion being the two major suppliers of these Semi synthetics. 

[Homer1959]

One thing missing from the oil geek’s video is an explanation of how the Rotella T6 can also be classified as SN—how can it be both? 

[Black02Silverado]

AMSOIL is every vehicle I own front to back.  Let me know and I can get you a quote on an oil change.

 

https://www.amsoil.com/p/amsoil-signature-series-5w-30-100-synthetic-motor-oil-asl/?zo=521390

 

[Grumpy Bear]

1 hour ago, Homer1959 said:

One thing missing from the oil geek’s video is an explanation of how the Rotella T6 can also be classified as SN—how can it be both? 

 

Because it will met the requirements of either; along with a few manufactures requirements. This might sound silly but it works a bit like; "Not all eggs are chicken eggs but all chicken eggs are eggs". In the oil universe this formulation is both chicken egg and egg in a universe where all eggs are chicken. 

 

Many SAE and API requirements are 'one directional'. That is they may have a minimum but no maximum or visa-versa allowing a single formulation to meet the requirements of many standards. 

 

Sometimes Lake makes a conclusion based on a test where the statistical variability is wider than the point he is concluding. It's like trying to assess two pitchers based on one throw of he ball for each and then saying short pitchers are better that tall ones. Few things are as precise in practice as the median would suggest standing on its own.

 

 

Edited March 16 by Grumpy Bear

[Grumpy Bear]

Baby Max owners. Diesel is last quarter of so of the video. But what all two hours. Why some very good oils don't have the DEXOS approval. Good gas discussion as well. AFTON chemical engineer breakdown of all SPEEDIAGNOSTICS data. 

 

 

 

 

[Atlas]

3 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Baby Max owners. Diesel is last quarter of so of the video. But what all two hours. Why some very good oils don't have the DEXOS approval. Good gas discussion as well. AFTON chemical engineer breakdown of all SPEEDIAGNOSTICS data. 

 

 

 

 

 

So I watched the segment on diesel (starting at ~1hr 30 minutes in) until the end. Felt the need to comment.

 

Key points for diesels:

• Higher viscosity leads to lower wear, 50 weight shows an improvement over 20 weight
• Cleaner oil (less soot) leads to lower wear (add a bypass filter, and higher quality primary oil filtration).
• Oil additives tested show no significant benefit or harm, but harm may exist for things like wet belts as additives are not subject to API compatibility tests.
• They did not discuss fuel additive significance except in relevance to the Bosch CP4 pump which is stated to require fuel with higher lubricity than standard ultra-low sulfur diesel sold in the US.

My editorial on the data they presented:

• It lacks meaningful context.
• I'm left wanting more data, which these experts never seem to provide. Theory: the data exists but it's very underwhelming and wouldn't sell the sensationalist skew that leads to increased product consumption, including oil testing/analysis.
• I was annoyed by closing statements like "this helps people make choices backed by data". Ok, well, no, it doesn't for me since higher viscosity is specifically contraindicated. 

 

Example:

 

In discussing "Babymax" oil (0w20) this is specifically indicated for use by GM. 50 weight oil supposedly leads to less wear according to their chart which is explained by "For diesel-fueled engines, higher viscosity lubricants provide slightly better wear protection".

 

20 weight shows an average of ~2.2 "Log of Wear Metals Per 1k miles LS Means" against operating grade, and 50 weight shows a mean of ~1.8 "".

 

What does 1.8 versus 2.2 actually mean? How many more miles, hours, smiles, dollars, rainbows, wishes, or gold stars does this provide in terms of longevity or benefit, where lower wear theoretically means more longevity?

 

Analogy: If my doctor tells me that consuming 100mg less sodium per day, when I'm well within "healthy" limits for sodium intake, translates to 1 fewer diastolic mm/Hg blood pressure, does it actually matter even though the numbers are statistically significant?

 

Meanwhile, exercise in a daily routine lowers blood pressure even more, and the effect of limiting sodium consumption is virtually invisible in people who exercise regularly. This might translate to "driving style" or "exhaust gas temperatures". But sodium, just look at the data! Meanwhile if idle hours are significantly reduced in a diesel or lower gearing is used to keep EGT lower at cruising speeds under load, maybe 1.8 unicorn poops versus 2.2 really means absolutely nothing...

 

Help me understand? How do relatively many pickup truck owners reach 1M miles using conventional oils, brand agnostic, of manufacturer-prescribed weights?

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

4 hours ago, Atlas said:

What does 1.8 versus 2.2 actually mean? How many more miles, hours, smiles, dollars, rainbows, wishes, or gold stars does this provide in terms of longevity or benefit, where lower wear theoretically means more longevity?

 

Everyone would like an absolute when they get an answer.  What they are telling you is what the data subjected to analytics told them in the simplest terms possible. The methods of stats is a college course. Now that said....context indeed matters. So.....

 

If you trade every three years and are made from money then ignore everything you just heard. You will not benefit from the information.

 

I disagree that viscosity is contraindicated. Data says otherwise. But we can agree to disagree. Specific. 1.8 ppm/K is 18.18% lower wear than 2.2 ppm/k. That is a statistical fact. Does that mean it is guaranteed? Not on you life. Viscosity is but one of a host of variables. But what it does say that within YOUR context wear is 18% less and how that translates to miles depends on your personal context. 

 

I do like your summary however. Nicely put together.