Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra Active Fuel Management Problems

chuck1

A year ago I towed an 5,500 pound 29 foot travel all around the U.S. with my 2011-Silverado 5.3. I towed 8,000 miles and put an additional 10,000 miles seeing the sights of our country. The truck and trailer had ZERO ISSUES, not even a flat tire. The truck has 40,000 miles on it now and runs fine.

According to some on here I guess it's ready to blow up!

sadsilverado

chuck1,
May you never have trouble with your AFM engine. Really, i hope you don't.

But please, others have or are experiencing expensive engine failures at various levels of mileage. Have some compassion, as having to fork over about $4K for repair if out of warranty is bad. Being without truck for three or four days if in warranty at the wrong time is no fun either.

My personal experience was about engine longevity. expected about 300K miles, and was surprised when it didn't make half that. It takes time for most people to rack up high miles, but I exceeded warranty in just over four years. Glad I had a 48 mo loan.

If you're reading this message, you either work for GM or have had trouble with your truck. My advice if you're an individualy owner is to keep it only during the warranty period. There is an outside chance AFM failures become public and trade-in values slip, so swapping out for another brand is also recommended.

Best of luck.

churchy25

Amen sadsilverado....amen.

lstrip

Chuck has been on this forum many years
trying to downplay this issue.
He is either quoting sales numbers or telling the
same stories of how good his truck is.
He is GM and they know there is an issue.

chuck1

I don't work for GM.

corvetteman81

I purchased a new 2013 GMC 1500, 5.3L in August 2013. I heard a ticking sound on the test drive. I asked the sales person if that was common on these trucks. They assured me this was only temporary and would go away as the engine brakes in. Four months later the sound changed from a tick to a squeak and only increased, I broke down and took it in to the dealership that I bought the truck at. After the foreman listening to the engine he automatically assumed the issue was the cam. I thought just by him hearing it and making such a certain guess, was very odd. The dealership had my truck November 20th &21st. They replaced the camshaft, all of the lifters, belt kit, misc gaskets and misc valves... Long story short, the noise came back the day after I got the truck back! Mother F**ker!!! I calmly called the dealership Monday November 25 to inform them that the squeak was back and louder then before. I took the truck in that night after work so the shop foreman, service manager and another tech could listen to the noise and tell me to monitor the squeak. I was informed that the real issue to start with was the roller on the lifter seized and formed a flat spot on the roller. That caused a grove on the cam lobe, hence the squeak. makes sense right? The problem I have, is that as far as I'm concerned, my engine is now a paper weight. The debris that flaked off the camshaft would be slivers that are more than likely passing through the oil galleries causing more problems that I'm sure will arise in the near future. I will let that same dealership replace everything again. I will be polite to them when the same thing occurs again after. But strike three, I better get a new engine!

If a GM representative is reading this, I want to make this clear... Your product IS slipping! You should be striving to make a far superior product than what you currently are. Anyone who owns a GM knows we paid top price for your product. I purchased a new vehicle for reliability, safety, and for the simple fact of not going through this with a used vehicle! I chose a GMC because I Thought it was a smart choice? was it? Prove it!!!

pernluc

I have an 08 silverado ltz. Has been in the shop more than ive had it at home. Started using oil at 60k went through several oil consumption tests, had the motor rebuilt once, was put off and off tilli got to 105 k and was told it was out of warranty but that GM would give me a brand new motor for 500 of my own participation. I was mad but agreed. Hood latch warning is on all the time and the lights flicker at night when i hit a bump or use the brakes. Dealership has had it in 5 times and cannot fix the electrical issues on this truck. Further the extended warranty company is dragging their feet about the repairs. This truck gets terrible gas mileage and makes strange noises all the time. As to the guy that from a previous post that works for gm and says thay have had no problems i would guess that you either are a liar or a brainwashhed corporate suit. AFM will be the end of chevy and GMC they need to send some spies to ford because they have evidently figured it out. I guess that we should have not bailed gm out. Hell its survival of the fittest and GM is a impalla with a club foot on the savanna. Gm tried to tell me that the oil consumption was due to poor oil quality. Wow, as i always had my oil changed at the dealership.
BUY FORD, OR TOYOTA.

pernluc

Its really a matter of corporate greed. wec are all on the hampster wheel. Just try and get off.

nukstr

FINALLY FIXED, "SERVICE STABILITRAK & TRACTION CONTROL DIAGNOSTIC PROBLEM:
"SERVICE STABILITRAK",
"SERVICE TRACTION CONTROL",
"HARD SHIFT 1-2 GEARS"-(STABILITRAK TURNING OFF-CLUNK NOISE)
"STABILITRAK OFF",

"TRACTION CONTROL OFF"

CAUSE:

FUEL WAS 45% ETHANOL @ 85-(COSTCO GAS)-COMPUTER WENT INTO LIMP MODE CAUSING (AFM) TO GET STUCK AND NOT RESET COMPUTER.

SOLUTION:
DRAINED & CLEANED GAS TANK-
CHANGED FUEL FILTERS (*ONLY IF NEEDED)
CLEANED INJECTORS-
RESET COMPUTER-
FILLED GAS TANK WITH NO ETHANOL- (http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp)

TOTAL AMOUNT WITH TAX: $444.86

REFERENCES
(STABILITRAK CLUNK NOISE): http://chevroletforum.com/forum/silverado-fullsize-pick-ups-21/2010-silverado-stabilitrak-question-47580/
(AFM)-Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Fuel_Management
(ETHANOL): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ethanol_fuel_mixtures
(GAS STATIONS WITHOUT ETHANOL): http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp

pissedoff60

I got bit by the AFM bug my 07 LTZ 6.0 with 88k miles is in the shop getting lifters and a camshaft repair quoted for 4k beyond angry will be the last gm I ever own

pissedoff60

Dear Chevy you ever get kicked in the balls? Twice? By the same person? Thanks for selling me a piece of trash do yourself a favor people looking at Chevy trucks and treat them like the plauge

stitta

I just recently had the same issue. 2008 Silverado 5.3. Yesterday the check engine light came on and I took it to the shop.

No oil in on the dipstick and horrible knocking. I am assuming it is the AFM.

Can someone at GM cust service please reach out to me?

nogm1

First time posting here.  Pretty much the same story as a lot of people here.  Purchased a 08 Silverado last July with 75k on it and felt pretty good about it.  Fast forward about 8 months and 10k and my truck quits at the gas station while idling.  I think sensor or something stupid because of course my low milage Chevy can't have a major problem right?  Long story short I have it towed to the dealership and it's a broken valve spring on the #3 cylinder.  $263 and some change and my  truck is back  running good.  Gm gives me a $100 service letter and I'm a happy camper.  Until last weekend,  I'm on my way home from the Detroit area and it starts running rough and all the lights and traction control go nuts.  I have it towed again and this time it turns out to be a collapsed afm lifter on #6 cylinder.  Mind you this is about a month and 1k after the original problem. I call Gm and I get the normal "we need to lookin to it". In the end they pay 45% of a 1400 repair that I am still waiting to have done because the dealer is "busy with a lot of big jobs" No doubt just a couple of other Chevy boat anchors that they pawn off as trucks. At some point it is not about warranty terms it  is about they made a subpar product and won't stand behind it.  I personally feel what they have done is criminal and unethical.  I will never buy a gm product again as this is the second gm vehicle I bought that had major engine issues under 100k (the first being that little gm gem called a rendezvous that I bought for the wife) and cost me thousands of dollars.  I will also take ever opportunity to talk people out of buying a gm product. To all the people that get on here and talk about how great gm is,  I am glad you have not had to go through the issues that I have and I wish you luck in the future. I am no longer going to purchase from a company that knowingly produced a product that will fail and just hopes it is  outside of the warranty period so they don't have to pay to fix it. It's not a matter of did they make some bad trucks,  when you make as many as they do your bound to have some bad ones, it's about what they do when it gets brought to their attention.  GM's actions in this matter tells me they don't believe in the product they sell. If it was truly just a "oops we had some bad trucks get out" they would take care of it.  They know that they sold potentially millions of bad trucks and don't want to pay to fix that many. In the end the poor saps of America ponied up a lot of our hard earned money to bail them out because they were greedy and even that wasn't enough so instead of doing the right thing they took even more of our money and handed us a lemon.  The only thing I am thankful for is I did not buy my truck brand new so instead of having a 40k driveway ornament I have a 22k one.  I will be offing mine  as soon as I get it back and pray that the poor person that makes the mistake of buying it has better luck than I did.  I guess what we need to do as consumers is warn as many people as possible about these trucks and stop buying them.  If no  one will buy them maybe they quit making them. 

thecardoc3

Time and again we see this failure occur and when asked no-one can confirm that the car was always serviced with engine oil that actually met the vehicle's specs. There was plenty of misdirection that took place when GM switched to the dexos specification which superseded the 6094M and 4718M specifications that would have originally applied to these vehicles. Attempts to portrait the dexos specification incorrectly as a brand have played a role in a number of vehicle owners not sourcing the correct products. It has been all but impossible for someone without a real education about engine oil specifications to know just what was really an equivalent product to the GM 6094M and 4718M specifications that were in addition to and exceeded the API and ILSAC standards.

There is another issue at play here as well, the fact that your engine cannot be looked at sooner. Everywhere that you look you usually only see the consumers perspective and even when they get it right the techs still usually take it in the chin. Nobody ever discusses the fact that this job, replacing the lifters pays the tech 11.7 hours (plus additions) as a customer pay job, but that drops to 9.6 hours if the manufacturer provides you assistance for that same job. Did the tech do something wrong here that causes his/her pay deserving to be cut? All to often if anything was ever mentioned about these practices a lot of effort would then be put forth to simply dismiss the issue as something other than a consumer one. Part of their argument was that if there is a shortage of qualified technicians, where are the cars that aren't getting repaired? Looks like we found some of them. This is just the tip of the iceberg in this issue, the trade hasn't been able to attract the people that you need it to have for decades, and even if that changed tomorrow, it would take some fifteen to twenty years to get the new hires up to speed to solve the kinds problems that your engine is now experiencing. Well that is if they would even stay in a job that would see them having to accept a pay cut over what they should make to try and help you. BTW this isn't just a GM practice, all of the manufacturers and their dealers have a hand in similar treatment of their technicians. When someone really understands the issues then they understand why we tell them you shouldn't be wondering why its difficult to find qualified techs, you should be wondering why you find any at all. Hope you don't have to wait too long and that it gets repaired completely.

nogm1

My problem isn't with the tech servicing my vehicle.  I am all too familiar with how techs are paid and treated.  I went to school to be a tech and when I did some real checking I decided it wasn't for me.  I now make almost 3 times the money car techs do turning wrenches on machines.

The oil issue to me doesn't hold water as far as my truck is concerned.  It is not a dexos motor.  If oil specs were the real reason theses motors failed gm would test the oil in your motor and say sorry about your luck,  you used the wrong oil.  They know they made a bad product period. I would guess that the reason you only hear the consumer side of things is because gm doesn't have a good reason why they produced some many of theses motors knowing they would fail. I personally welcome gm addressing this issue in an honest transparent matter but you and I both know that will never happen.  

thecardoc3

The oil that has routinely been used is definitely part of the problem. If you open up your owners manual it actually states to use an API SM ILSAC GF4 AND approved to meet GM 6094M. When you see that in the manual, the 6094M is now obsolete and it is superseded by dexos, meaning your engine is in fact one that should be using a product approved for the dexos specification.

nogm1

That is definitely strange because when I bought the truck the service manager at the Chevy dealer I bought it from told me I bought an old enough truck that dexos was not a required Oil. Just went and picked Up my loaner ( a crappy cruze, way to go dealership) the service manager laughed and said "well its smaller than you are use to. I wasn't amused. He then proceeded to follow me to my truck, because I needed my parking permit, watched me like I was going to steel something and tried to convince me that this never happens to these trucks. I respectfully disagreed and he replied that once it was fixed i would not have any problems with it. My reply to that was "i won't know because it is getting traded in as soon as it is fixed" he left me alone after that. When I go to pick it up i will be sure to questions about the oil thing. I will bet a pay check he tells me the oil I w running is fine.

nogm1

Never mind I did the checking myself and the oil I'm running is approved.

thecardoc3

There are more people who don't understand the requirement then there are that do.

nogm1

 I don't disagree but the fact remains that even motors that are serviced by gm from new fail. It's sounds to me that you have some kind of agenda. Diverting attention away from the manufacture of a garbage vehicle and blaming it on the consumer.  If these motors need some mythical oil that only gm has then every time one is purchased new or used that should be part of the sale pitch.  If a gm dealer can't prove that a used vehicle has not had the proper oil used in it and that could cause a major engine failure then they should disclose that at time of purchase.  If they can tell me to the day how long my vehicle has been out of warranty then they should be able to look and say wait a minute we don't show this vehicle getting it's oil changes from us. IMHO this still boils down to engineering and that was done or signed off on by gm. But this is all am age old argument of who makes a better product that will never end.  I thought I was with the right company but I was proven wrong.  I'm sure other people are switching to gm from ford or dodge and would say the same thing about them.  I know I won't feel a bit bad for anybody but the blue collar works at gm when I read about them going out of business.  My only hope is we are not dumb enough to bail them out again. Maybe the Era of good American made products is over as sad as that  to think about.  Sure even the foreign car companies assemble cars here now but that money winds up over seas.

thecardoc3

An agenda? Hmmm. How is the consumer being served when there are many who had their hands in creating issues like this but only one who is getting slapped for it?

nogm1

In my opinion the consumer is the only one being slapped here.  If you think selling someone a 40k truck that has a grenade for a motor is OK then I see why you have the perspective you have.  You have yet to address why the motors that are solely serviced at approved gm dealers are failing also.  I will assume you are a gm service tech or manager or good forbid a gm engineer.  I really feel no pity for someone that sees these truck and works on them all the time and will lie to people and  tell them there  is no issue with these vehicles.  Maybe I'm wrong about you and you are just defending your preferred brand which is something I would have done until recently.  If that is the case I hope you never have the troubles so many have with your gm product.  I do think you should seriously reconsider your stance on this and even if you got one that doesn't have issues stand up for the people that do. If you stick with gm you will sooner or later get a subpar vehicle and like I said in my earlier post is not about the fact that you were sold a bad vehicle is about what gm does to correct the issue.  As far as I can tell they have done nothing. Even if we all lived in fantasy land and gm was infallible one would think when I talked to my service manager he would say "this is due to the improper oil being used make sure you use blah blah oil in your truck from now on" but that has not happened because that is not the real issue here. Just as you said no one can say with any certainty that these motors got the correct oil but that being said you can't honestly tell me you know they didn't get the correct oil. If they were serviced solely at a gm dealer and didn't  this is still an issue with gm.  I know from reading hundreds of stories about this issue that more than a couple of these motors failed even after being serviced solely by gm.

thecardoc3

You are incorrect in all of your assumptions. I don't work for GM. I did have an independent shop and serviced quite a few of these and NONE of my customers have suffered any failures and the only thing that was done was to make certain that their cars were serviced correctly and that meant using products approved for the specification. I do know that it took some two years for one local dealer to finally make the switch to a dexos approved product and stop telling the customers that it was only a recommendation. There are lots of other techs around the country who witnessed and have reported similar occurrences. What everyone seems to have missed is the pressure to not use the approved the products which is easily demonstrated by articles just like these here in Edmunds,
http://www.edmunds.com/car-care/stop-changing-your-oil.html
http://www.edmunds.com/car-care/do-i-have-to-use-the-manufacturers-oil.html

Those aren't the only examples where the consumers have been coached to not follow the manufacturers recommendations when it came to servicing the vehicles. I could add links to dozens of articles where attempts to misrepresent the requirements served to confuse consumers as well as shop owners and technicians and even went so far as to try and portrait techs that were trying to get the facts out (as you just incorrectly did here) as having an agenda.

Just read this Amsoil page and watch them recommend products that don't meet the specification. http://www.amsoil.lube-direct.com/2011/04/dexos-1-amsoil-has-it/ Take specific note of this claim from that page. "While this isn’t the exact grade of oil called for in the dexos requirement. The 0w30 (AZO) oil specifications include: API SN (Resource Conserving), SM…; ILSAC GF-5, GF-4…; ACEA A5/B5, A1/B1; Ford WSS-M2C946-A, WSS-M2C929-A; Chrysler MS-6395N; Suitable as a replacement for GM dexos1™ (supersedes LL-A-025, 6094M and 4718M)"

BTW, the idea of dealers not using products that met the vehicle specs, do you really think it that it hasn't happened many times through the years?

nogm1

Posting articles does not prove to me that it's an oil spec issue.  I'm glad you had customers that did not have a problem with their gm products. I still ask that you prove to me that all of these failures are vehicles that did not get the correct oil.  You can't because you don't know.  I also still ask if the oil is the problem why is gm even fixing these vehicles under warranty?  If oil spec is not followed then that voids the warranty correct? 

As far as the dealership not using the right product, I still consider that a gm issue.  All gm dealerships are approved by gm and this issues has been going on long enough that gm should have figured out that dealerships are selling incorrect oil and holding them responsible.  I have yet to hear a story that gm told a vehicle owner "our dealership used the wrong oil,  they will be replacing your motor for free". This would take care of this issue in a couple of ways.  Dealerships that wanted to stay a gm dealership would conform and ones that didn't would be forced out of business.  

In the end all you have proven to me is that there is oil out there that doesn't meet spec and the obvious fact that oil companies will tell you anything to get you to use their oil.  No big surprise there but thanks for stating the obvious.  

Now I have one more question.  If this is a oil spec issue why do we not see major motor failures in all the car companies? Or are you telling me that gm just had the dumb luck to be the only ones that are getting bad oil?  If it's happening to them all I sure don't hear about it near as much and believe me now that I'm in the market for a new truck I've been looking. 

So let's go over my questions one more time to be perfectly clear.

If it's an oil spec issue why is gm not blasting that all over the place? (If I was gm and wanted to keep my rep I sure wouldn't be taking the blame for oil spec issues.)

Why are they fixing vehicles under warranty? (I know for sure it is not out of concern for the consumer,  I have dealt with gm on two separate vehicles and know that not be true. )

Can you prove to me that all of these failures are due to improper oil being used?  (And I don't just mean post some b.s. article or sales pitch that proves nothing about what you are saying the owners of these trucks did.)

If gm dealers are purposely selling the wrong product then why is gm not dealing with that problem?

I'll stop there and see if you can come up with actual answers to the question then we can move on to the rest of my questions. If you can't then I'm sure all of us who got sold lemons by gm would appreciate you not blaming us for an obvious design flaw. 

If you are correct in what you say you should be able to give me answers to these questions and you might want to send your resume to gm cause you just figured out something that the entire gm organization hadn't been able to figure out over the last 8 years.  I would say they need someone like you on their team of top engineers. 

nogm1

And just for transparency, Dexos is owned by GM, what a suprise. Still smells fishy to me either way. 

nogm1

Just thought of something,  anyone remember dex-cool. That was that nifty GM only coolant that destroyed motors and if I remember correctly they got sued over it and lost.  Shortly there after they filed bankruptcy and only have to pay pennies on the dollar, way to go on screwing people twice.  Sounds like we are being taken again.  I would tell GM to stick with what they are good at but lately all that seems to be is stealing people's hard earned money and giving them junk in return. They may want to consider finding a different catchy name for any other engine fluids people are going to start catching on at some point. 

thecardoc3

nogm1 said:

And just for transparency, Dexos is owned by GM, what a suprise. Still smells fishy to me either way. 

Correct this perspective first, "dexos" small "d" because it is the specification not a name or brand and is made by lots of different oil companies. http://www.centerforqa.com/gm/dexos1-brands

nogm1 said:

Can you prove to me that all of these failures are due to improper oil being used? 

Who is saying that ALL of the failures are only oil related? Anyone who only concentrates on one aspect of this is making a mistake. From there I don't know if I can prove anything to you. It's clear that the facts already on the table apparently aren't enough to do it and only you can make yourself put in more effort to study other causes objectively.

nogm1 said:

In the end all you have proven to me is that there is oil out there that doesn't meet spec and the obvious fact that oil companies will tell you anything to get you to use their oil. No big surprise there but thanks for stating the obvious.  

Just like in one of those Edmunds articles you have a Valvoline representative quoted in opposition to the dexos specification requirements and yet today Valvoline has several dexos approved products. Why was there no big announcement when they changed their position? Why was it so important for them to be involved try and shout down the concept when GM first adopted the dexos approval requirements? The worst part is that now that hind sight should be 20/20 nothing is being done to re-examine the issue. You'd rather attack me instead of doing your own homework on this which BTW serves to allow someone else to make the wrong choice when it comes to making a choice in the products used to service their car.

nogm1 said:

I also still ask if the oil is the problem why is gm even fixing these vehicles under warranty? If oil spec is not followed then that voids the warranty correct?  

It should void the warranty, but not when their dealership management was as irresponsible as everyone else when it came to sourcing and using the correct products. At the same time, wasn't it "just an oil change" so the cheapest price is used to get customers in the door? Those articles that I linked were written by people who presented themselves as experts on the subject to the public and they got it wrong, right along with just about everyone else. For anyone that does get help from GM on this they should really be praising them because the way this all went down is the majority of the engines that today are having the biggest issues original specifications were 6094M and 4718M which became obsolete with the advent of the dexos specification. With the way products used to be (are still?) labeled combined with the fact that few consumers (and even their own dealerships) paid much attention to the specifications beyond the SAE, API and ILSAC ratings, the majority of the vehicles weren't serviced with products that met the specifications. It took GM re-writing the books and making the license for the approved products show up on the front of the bottle to even start to bring this all to light and here we are some five years later which BTW you are still arguing against.

Today you still find engine oils with claims like. "ACEA A1 Performance" What does that mean to a technician as well as a consumer? What about "Meets or exceeds the engine protection requirements of _______" (dexos, 6094M, 4718M etcetera) Does that really suggest it is a product that should be chosen for your GM vehicle?

BTW, if you think that GM is the only manufacturer having issues then you need to get more education about what has been going on, since around 1998. All of the European manufacturers have had significant warranty expenses do to improper product choices. Lots of Chrysler and Toyota engines failed from sludge accumulation and paid for it dearly and the cause was engine oils that failed to meet the engines demands, they have themselves to blame early on because they only required the API and ILSAC ratings. Chrysler started requiring the MS6395N to overcome the problem but few paid attention to the specification. (BTW they are now at MS6395R and S is due out shortly, scan back up to the previous response that had quotes and see what Amsoil is claiming)

Do you know what the real problem with dexcool was? Do you know anything about any engine coolant?
http://www.glysantin.de/en/products/g34.html Do you know that dexcool is not only still in use design changes in the cooling systems solved the reason that the coolant was failing. Do you know exactly what was changed?

nogm1

Sorry about the confusion it is dexos "small d" of you are talking about the spec. It is Dexos "capital D" of you are taking about the product that gm makes.  There cleared up.  

http://www.gmdexos.com/portal.aspx

Just get rid of any confusion here is gm's video to consumers.  While I don't doubt that it is a requirement I still think it's all about money for gm. I guess other people can watch and make their opinions. I think it's a product they came up with and call it a spec to sound good. 

So you only answered one of my questions and even your answer tells me that gm should still be paying for these motors because their dealerships where not using the correct product.  That all if you blame the oil and not the design of the motor. 

I know enough about dexcool to know it took a design change on gm's part to correct the issue.  So why would they use a coolant that the motors they are putting it in can't handle?  And how many people got stuck holding the bill on that one before they changed their design? 

Now you have said that all these motors may not have failed due to incorrect oil so please give me your next reason why these motors would have failed. 

thecardoc3

Cleared what up? You took one small baby step and then went right back to refusing to learn anything. If it is truly a design issue then one would make an easy argument for all of the engines to fail but that isn't the case. A number of the engines are not suffering any failures and have significant mileage on them (200K+) How does your perception (argument) account for them?

BTW did you see this post just about an hour ago? http://forums.edmunds.com/discussion/33729/chevrolet/trailblazer/2008-trailblazer-oil-pressure-guage-at-zero-but-driving-fine#latest

That is directly caused by using products that failed to meet the specifications that were in place at the time the car was put into service and when those were obsoleted and superseded by the dexos specification the above linked articles (and many others like them) served to prevent owners from reacting and adopting the new requirement.

Here is something you and every other consumer should be doing. Why aren't you asking the author of the above linked articles why he (they) haven't re-addressed the topic especially since the oil company quoted reversed their position? Would doing so open them up for some of the blame for anyone who didn't follow the recommendations and source the correct products? They played the price and cost game to sell their opinion and you just now mirrored that with this statement " While I don't doubt that it is a requirement I still think it's all about money for gm. I guess other people can watch and make their opinions. I think it's a product they came up with and call it a spec to sound good." The facts are that dexos approved products for a number of manufacturers cost less than half of what many of the non-approved products that someone can buy off of the parts store shelves.

"Now you have said that all these motors may not have failed due to incorrect oil so please give me your next reason why these motors would have failed."

What's the point here? Just because some components out of the millions that are manufactured don't last as long as others amounts to some kind of neglect or conspiracy? Machines have wear and tear issues and sometimes parts of them break. Some just happen however many are caused for the entire range of reasons. A lot of the failures should have been preventable but unlike years past the people who spoke out against properly maintaining a vehicle got to run and hide (and be forgotten about) when the problems caused by their advice finally surfaced. You really should be pressuring for explanations from those authors as to why they didn't advise consumers correctly not looking for some other minutia related to a less common failure in an attempt to exonerate them for their hand in all of this.

thecardoc3

"I know enough about dexcool to know it took a design change on gm's part to correct the issue. So why would they use a coolant that the motors they are putting it in can't handle? And how many people got sick holding the bill on that one before they changed their design? "

When buying coolant, especially coolant sold in a concentrated form the installer is supposed to add distilled water to it, NOT tap water. Part of the real magic of G34 is that it can tolerate tap water better than almost any other formulation and since GM realized that getting everyone to use distilled water when mixing is near an impossible task, choosing G34 instead of any other coolant makes sense. G34's weakness is that it reacts to and begins to break down in the presence of air. When the upper seal (not the lower pressure seal) of the older style radiator caps failed it would allow air to be drawn into the cooling system instead of only pulling coolant back in as the engine cooled after shut-down. That air bring drawn in caused the fail and turn to mud. The solution was the degas bottle found on cars today and the elimination of the old recovery system. BTW, other manufacturers got around the problem of people not using distilled water by only approving coolant that is "pre-mixed" and used in full strength from the bottle. A number of these the coolants can also react to air and today you see degas bottle systems widely in use across most manufacturers.

Have some fun with this link. This isn't the whole story, it's just a lead in to the beginning of what all needs to be studied on just coolants. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=613261

nogm1

I guess we are not going to agree on the issue here.  You keep diverting attention to the oil manufacture and I keep trying to land it in the lap of gm. Like many  arguments I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle. 

I do want to point out that I read the post you linked to here and find it interesting that you have not told that person that his issue is caused by him using the wrong oil but you come to this thread and state that very thing.  Of course if you are trying to drum up business with him it's probably smart to not start off by blaming him.  I would think that if you truly want to help people understand the issue you would tell them that first off before you tell them what you can do for them. 

nogm1

So it was a design problem with gm's cooling system.  Hmm thanks for proving me right. 

thecardoc3

nogm1 said:

;Of course if you are trying to drum up business with him it's probably smart to not start off by blaming him.  I would think that if you truly want to help people understand the issue you would tell them that first off before you tell them what you can do for them. 

This is an example of how narrow minded someone can be. You have to assume that the only reason I am involved here at all here is because you think I'm trying to drum up some business and then everything else that you want to portrait extends from there. There are others here who know the circumstances involved, due to recent spinal surgery I couldn't help him now even if there was any chance that it would be geographically likely. The only reason I ever got involved here had to do with "experts" who went out of their way to present a story that they wanted to write and did just enough research to support their story without actually addressing the real reasons that caused the problems they were harping about in the first place. What was even worse then that was they turned around and tried to give the dealer management a way out of their share of the blame.

When the time comes that you accept that you can't get what you want because it isn't the single correct answer to the issue then you will start down the path towards understanding the big picture. This is an education issue on your part and its reflected with the articles that were linked that serve to make you feel that you are properly informed. Again, you should be asking those authors why they haven't updated the information on this subject to better inform the readers and yourself.

thecardoc3

nogm1 said:

So it was a design problem with gm's cooling system.  Hmm thanks for proving me right. 

Proving you right? Beyond knowing there was an issue of some kind I don't see where you knew anything at all about the cause and effect, let alone the solution. If you had then you should have been able to post the answer and then either boasted about your knowledge or at least asked to see if you were truly informed about the issue or not. Again, only vehicles that weren't serviced correctly, which included replacing the radiator cap with an updated version actually had the coolant fail. Funny how some radiator cap vendor is truly at fault for the whole problem but that little detail isn't worth mentioning is it? If half of the effort that goes into searching for who to blame would be put into properly educating many of the failures could have been prevented. Even now instead of studying and understanding the base cause you aren't capable of supporting education to prevent additional failures. If anything that typical consumer behavior is why GM doesn't even bother with these conversations, you'll just turn off anything other than exactly what you want to hear.

stever

>Correct this perspective first, "dexos" small "d" because it is the specification not a name or brand and is made >by lots of different oil companies.

GM owns the brand and licenses it to the oil companies. If you don't enter into a license agreement with GM you aren't entitled to use the brand. The capitalization means nothing (see smart car, MINI, eBay). It's just marketing.

nogm1

The narrow minded comment goes both ways.  I have not once heard you explain the other issues you keep talking about. If there are multiple issues here why are we stuck on just oil and not looking at everything. Let's look at the big picture!   All I keep hearing is oil this and oil that.  I'm not going to tell anyone to use anything but a dexos approved oil in their gm product if for no other reason than the warranty issue.  I am "educating" myself as we speak by doing my own research.  As a matter of fact we have someone at my shop that is formally educated and currently working on oil spec so I will be sitting down With him and discussing all of this.  So by correcting these so called experts, your words not mine,  you imply that you are an expert but yet you can't give me any hard evidence. You have proven that you can paste a link and complain about an article.  

Just to be clear I said "IF" you were trying to drum up business.  Just like you I am trying to get all the possibilities out there.  

thecardoc3

BTW in that other thread you wrote " the86ali, please read his post in this thread. Just thought you should know you are using the wrong oil according to him. I'm not sure how he knows that unless you've told him what oil you use. " and in that we have something that can truly be agreed upon. You don't know what the difference is between using oil that actually met the vehicle specs and what didn't. That's OK, in that you are not alone with having failed to keep up with the specifications and requirements. What's not OK is failing to adjust and making the effort to learn more now that it has been pointed out to you. Yes, the sludging that clogs the pressure sensor screen is a direct result of using products that failed to meet the engine's requirements. But tell you what, don't just go on my word. Put some effort into learning about the issue, real effort instead of just parroting cynicism. That will in all likelihood take you a few days to a week of intense study and then come back and tell the board what you learned. While there is mis-information as well as accurate explanations a good starting point for you will be here http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/ When you learn enough to identify the difference between fact and fiction you'll then see how much of what you presently adhere to is in fact not correct. You will also then know how the oil being used in is fact to blame for the other OP's failure.

nogm1

I would like to point out you made an uneducated assumption about that guys 08 trailblazer by stating his problem was caused by improper oil usage.  You as far as I know have no clue what type of oil he used.  If I'm wrong please let me know. I'm  willing admit when I'm proven wrong. 

stever

I bet PhD tribologists don't agree with each other, even after years of study. Would an oil analysis tell you anything either?

Good old Wikipedia simply says that "sludge is usually caused by a poorly designed or defective crankcase ventilation system, low engine operating temperatures or the presence of water in the oil."

Consumer Reports says that "some engines appear more prone to sludge buildup than others".

nogm1

In all of your calling me uneducated you still aren't explaining anything.  You want people to believe what you are saying with out question. Now if there is false information all over the Internet what makes all of what you are saying true.  I'm still waiting for a discussion on all of the issues that come into play on  these motors failing. You admonish me for looking at only one aspect but you have done the same thing. I am open to hear your other points.  

Everything i have looked at so far, even gm info, tells me dexos is not required for my 08 Silverado.  It is  reverse compatible so it can be used but it IS NOT REQUIRED and since according to Bob the oil guy there are still plenty of people out there that make 6094m approved oil that is not dexos approved my motor does not  have to have dexos approved oil. 

thecardoc3

nogm1 said:

 

Everything i have looked at so far, even gm info, tells me dexos is not required for my 08 Silverado.  It is  reverse compatible so it can be used but it IS NOT REQUIRED and since according to Bob the oil guy there are still plenty of people out there that make 6094m approved oil that is not dexos approved my motor does not  have to have dexos approved oil. 

I told you to do some research and study and you will start to see what are facts and what is fiction. You wrote " there are still plenty of people out there that make 6094m approved " now exactly who would that be? Make sure that you demonstrate that the product you put forth is in fact on a list of approved products by GM (provide the list and or a link to it) for the 6094M specification and not just some company claiming to meet its requirements.

BTW exactly what does it mean if a company claims that its product meets an expired (obsolete) specification?

nogm1

What you seem to be not understanding is gm is where I got the info saying my truck does not  require dexos approved oil. I did Post a link to the video and website by gm to educate its consumer but you seem to have ignored that. No where have I seen gm use the term obsolete or expired for 6094m oil spec on vehicle that called for it.  Please b careful how you word things because us common rubes might get confused.  I see it is OK for you to use Bob the oil guy for reference but when I do it you scold me for not getting info right from gm. 

nogm1

And I see you are still avoiding the "other issues that had hand in all of this" question. 

thecardoc3

So you don't believe that when GM obsoleted the 6094M specification (as well as the 4718M) and made the dexos specification retro-active you were supposed to switch to the new product. Now is that GM's fault for doing that or yours for not following it? When you read the previous linked articles did they or did they not explain this to you in order to help you best protect your engine? Shouldn't you be asking them why they left you (and all of the other consumers) in the dark about this? After all they presented themselves as experts, didn't they?

Did you come up with your alleged approved list for GM 6094M? How about you at least admit that there is no such thing and that you had no idea and were just blowing smoke. Now there used to be one, but it expired when the specification did. The thing is almost NOBODY even knew anything about any approved lists until the dexos specification came into being. Otherwise don't you think those previously linked articles should have mentioned it?

"What you seem to be not understanding is gm is where I got the info saying my truck does not require dexos approved oil." You need to re-read where you got that information making sure to see through the lawyer-speak. Here is one example of a manufacturer Smitty's does a real good job of advising its customers here with their licensing flier. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=21&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAAOBQ&url=http://www.smittysinc.net/iqcms/assets/Uploads/Dexos-Flyer-5-2.pdf&ei=2RM0VfOXDveasQTr1ICAAg&usg=AFQjCNESGfUNRxrCCPdjWKp3AmaJIJEqJQ&sig2=i2_fVme3ULCRXn3vuAJIuA

From that link "Dexos1 is the only motor oil approved and licensed by General Motors for warranty service for all 2011 model year and newer GM gasoline engine cars and trucks. dexos1 supersedes the GM6094M, GM4718M and GM-LL-A-025 specifications for 2010 and older GM vehicles and is now the only motor oil GM recommends for those vehicles."

There are many more examples where manufacturers followed through and advised consumers correctly as well as those who did not, the latter being who's recommendations you apparently have followed.

thecardoc3

nogm1 said:

And I see you are still avoiding the "other issues that had hand in all of this" question. 

Let's get to first base on this and then we will address any other un-answered questions if some remain.

nogm1

First off as I stated days ago the oil I was using is a dexos approved oil (and my truck had a motor failure anyways) but you seem to be the ignorant type that doesn't listen.  Second you keep telling people that gm obsoleted the 6094m spec and I can find nothing from gm that states that. You do a whole lot of talking about knowing the facts but do little to prove anything you say is factual.

The only reason you keep saying that 6094m is obsolete is I backed you in a corner from the get go on my truck not being a dexos motor and you didn't want to look like you have no idea what you are talking about.  You seem to me to have way too much time on your hands to read a bunch of Internet articles and come in here and bully people that don't know better into thinking you know it all by typing a bunch of terms and abr. that don't hold up when really questioned. All I've ever ask for is proof of what you are telling people and you have yet to provide it  and to misdirect that you keep telling me to find it myself and when I find info to contradict what you say directly from the auto manufacturer you call me a liar. Maybe you got fired from the local quick oil change place forgetting to put a drain plug back in or something but whatever happened to you to act this way was no fault of anyone on here venting their frustrations with a poorly designed motor that cost good honest people lots of money through no fault their own.  When you can show me real data FROM GM showing these motors failed solely because of improper oil usage come talk to me. 

thecardoc3

Lets remind the readers who may be following this that you are not the original owner and have no idea how the vehicle was serviced from day #1. Its good that you used an approved product once you had the vehicle in your possession, but that in itself can't undo what was occurring earlier before you had control.

"The only reason you keep saying that 6094m is obsolete is I backed you in a corner from the get go on my truck not being a dexos motor" Guess again, I've been talking about this for years and started right off in the first response to you about the specifications and the changes, yours is just one more track on the same broken record so no you didn't back anyone into any corner. You've simply been more stubborn in resisting to accept the changes.

Today the correct specification for your car IS dexos and no it was not the original specification, the obsolete 6094M was. There is no way to know how your vehicle was serviced prior to your ownership which means you cannot prove that it was serviced correctly, but in my opinion the results speak for themselves. In light of those facts, if GM assists you in fixing this you really should be thanking them and at the same time asking why wasn't more done to help consumers like you understand all of this a long time ago. As far as needing to hand you details on a silver platter you don't want to see anything contradictory to your beliefs because you'd have to admit that you didn't know as much about the subject as you thought that you did. But you could go ahead and get a subscription to this magazine http://www.lngpublishing.com/LNGmagazine/ and then study back for the last six years and then you would see where all of the facts that you didn't know about came from. BTW, that's also how you would then be able to access BobITOG's site and start to separate the facts from the fiction.

nogm1

And like I have said before you can't prove with any  certainty that my truck was not services correctly.  I simply was replying to your statement that I  did the wrong thing with my truck which is completely inaccurate.  We still come back to the trucks that where serviced solely by gm from new and speaking of a broken record I know what you will say "dealerships used the wrong  oil" and I addressed that by saying gm is then responsible for said dealerships.  I will never be thankful to a company that at best did 45% of what they should have for me. 

Yet another long post where you can't prove anything and just misdirect.  So keep posting b.s. websites and trying to push whatever ignorant idea you want but until I have some proof of almost everything you keep regurgitating, which is really the same 1 illogical point  over and over, I'll stick with a flawed motor design and gm told people to go blow.  What I take away from this is you are the type of fool that really believes that gm would never lie about something and only watch out for the bottom line.  I pity you. And maybe you will look back one day and see how foolish you are right now. Out of all the companies that have been discussed here I would imagine if you did a customer confidence poll gm would fall somewhere near the bottom. But to that I'm sure you would reply "because no one knows what they are talking about,  poor gm got a bad rap".

nogm1

While reading back I have noticed all of what you are posting is links to oil manufactures, forums and blogs but still nothing from gm. I thought this was the kind of misinformation you are trying to correct?  I posted a link to gm's dexos website so I'm confused about who is trying to mislead who. Why  would smitty's be the place to go to find out what I should put in my gm vehicle? It can't be because they are trying to sell me their product could it?  You said yourself that oil companies misrepresent oil specs. so the way I see it is you picked them because they line up with your opinion because let's face it if the vehicle is 2010 or older that's all your mouth running is.

thecardoc3

I guess you missed this page in all of the research that you have done. http://www.centerforqa.com/gm/about-dexos specifically this QUOTE from GM from that page.

GM has found that using substandard oil can affect engine performance and, in the worst-case scenario, may damage or harm the engine. Only licensed dexos® products have been certified by GM to meet the dexos® specification. Only officially licensed products have gone through GM's rigorous testing process, are monitored for quality, and are recommended for use in GM vehicles. Unlicensed product quality and suitability for GM vehicles cannot be guaranteed and, therefore, use of unlicensed products may result in lower levels of performance and engine damage not covered under warranty.

dexos® is recommended by GM for use in all its vehicles except those with Duramax diesel engines requiring the use of API CJ-4 engine oil. dexos® is fully backward-compatible and can be used in older vehicles.
•dexos1® is designed for use with gasoline engines and replaces GM-LL-A-025, GM6094M and GM4718M.

"Replaces" yea that's the lawyer-speak that I mentioned to you but that means exactly what you have been told here now almost a dozen times. You keep trying to use insults to sway your perspective instead of applying yourself towards learning from the information that has been handed to you and even in the other thread you have no room to accept that someone who has actually made a life-long career out of fixing cars might know something about them that you don't. This has been entertaining but I'm going try to spend the rest of the night concentrating on studying more of the triangulation techniques used in diagnosing loss of communication issues between modules on a vehicle.