Piston Slap: Acceptable Oil Consumption?

by Sajeev Mehta

Published: October 9th, 2014

Justin writes:

Sajeev,

First I wanted to let you know that nearly everyday on my lunch break I check TTAC and each time I see a Piston Slap article I always make sure to read through it. I admire your knowledge and have learned quite a bit from your articles. I guess that I have a two part question.

The first part being since when has it become “acceptable” that a modern (low mileage) engine can consume a quart of oil in less than 5K miles. Audi and VW jump the front on my mind with their 2.0T mills, but I hear more and more through the woodwork about engines drinking oil. The second part of my question probably has more to do with correlation than causation but it seems like direct injection plays a role in this IMO unacceptable oil consumption.

Thanks!

Sajeev answers:

Why thank you for your kind words! This series is a shared duty between you the reader, me the writer and The Best and Brightest’s comments. We got a sweet little gig here, ya know? On to your queries…

I think one could write a PhD thesis on acceptable oil consumption, as it affects damn near every manufacturer these days. Yeah, blaming Audi and VW for that is a bit disingenuous. The V-10 powered BMW M-series burned rotary Mazda-levels of oil from day one. And cheaper, mainstream Japanese and American brands are far from exempt.

Like this thread suggests, I reckon acceptable oil consumption stems from two things: piston ring design (low tension?) and lightweight (like 5w-20) oils. Think about how many modern mills effortlessly zing the rev counter well past 6000 RPM and last for years with great horsepower figures AND fantastic fuel economy. Perhaps the downside to living in this new Golden Age of Automotive Engineering is a fraction of a quart of oil burning between service intervals.

I’m not saying its right or wrong, as I don’t know the right engine design and oil weight to end acceptable oil consumption while keeping today’s level of performance and long-term durability. And that’s where the B&B comes in. Off to you!

Send your queries to sajeev@thetruthaboutcars.com. Spare no details and ask for a speedy resolution if you’re in a hurry…but be realistic, and use your make/model specific forums instead of TTAC for more timely advice.

#0w20 #5w20 #AcceptableOilConsumption #Audi #BurningOil #Emissions #EmissionsControls #Environment #FuelEconomy #LightweightOil #Pollution #VW #PistonRing

Sajeev Mehta

More by Sajeev Mehta

Comments

Join the conversation

3 of 120 comments

-Nate on Oct 11, 2014

Pretty good thread here ; I had no idea modern engines used so little oil . -Nate

Like Reply
Chaparral on Oct 12, 2014

A car that gets 40 MPG equipped with a two-stroke engine that burns gasoline and oil at a ratio of 50:1, will burn a gallon of oil every 2000 miles. That's 500 miles/quart. If you're doing worse than this with a four-stroke, I think you've got a problem.

Like Reply
- -Nate on Oct 13, 2014
  
  So then ; You think maybe it's time to look at the piston rings in my old '69 C/10 shop truck ? . It _used_to oil foul the spark plugs every 150 ~ 200 miles but I up graded it to GM DELCO HEI ignition and opened the plug gaps to .075" and it now runs great and only has a *tiny* haze behind it although you can smell burned oil several miles behind it...... Is this not an O.K. situation ? . It hardly leaks a drop . -Nate
  
  Like

Recent Comments

Redapple2 jeffbut they dont want to ... their pick up is 4th behind ford/ram, Toyota. GM has the Best engineers in the world. More truck profit than the other 3. Silverado + Sierra+ Tahoe + Yukon sales = 2x ford total @ $15,000 profit per. Tons o $ to invest in the BEST truck. No. They make crap. Garbage. Evil gm Vampire
Rishabh Ive actually seen the one unit you mentioned, driving around in gurugram once. And thats why i got curious to know more about how many they sold. Seems like i saw the only one!
Amy I owned this exact car from 16 until 19 (1990 to 1993) I miss this car immensely and am on the search to own it again, although it looks like my search may be in vane. It was affectionatly dubbed, " The Dragon Wagon," and hauled many a teenager around the city of Charlotte, NC. For me, it was dependable and trustworthy. I was able to do much of the maintenance myself until I was struck by lightning and a month later the battery exploded. My parents did have the entire electrical system redone and he was back to new. I hope to find one in the near future and make it my every day driver. I'm a dreamer.
Jeff Overall I prefer the 59 GM cars to the 58s because of less chrome but I have a new appreciation of the 58 Cadillac Eldorados after reading this series. I use to not like the 58 Eldorados but I now don't mind them. Overall I prefer the 55-57s GMs over most of the 58-60s GMs. For the most part I like the 61 GMs. Chryslers I like the 57 and 58s. Fords I liked the 55 thru 57s but the 58s and 59s not as much with the exception of Mercury which I for the most part like all those. As the 60s progressed the tail fins started to go away and the amount of chrome was reduced. More understated.
Theflyersfan Nissan could have the best auto lineup of any carmaker (they don't), but until they improve one major issue, the best cars out there won't matter. That is the dealership experience. Year after year in multiple customer service surveys from groups like JD Power and CR, Nissan frequency scrapes the bottom. Personally, I really like the never seen new Z, but after having several truly awful Nissan dealer experiences, my shadow will never darken a Nissan showroom. I'm painting with broad strokes here, but maybe it is so ingrained in their culture to try to take advantage of people who might not be savvy enough in the buying experience that they by default treat everyone like idiots and saps. All of this has to be frustrating to Nissan HQ as they are improving their lineup but their dealers drag them down.