Oil Change
- Thread starter cekkk
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
swathdiver
Full Access Member
I think the other pans are for other body styles, like Camaros and Corvettes.
Meccanoble
Full Access Member
I think there may be a difference in size with oil pans due to different size engines? 5.3L vs 6.2L ?? I know 5.3 uses 6 quarts. Maybe 6.2 requires more?
80-90 bucks sounds a lot for an oil change. Thats close to the price I was paying to change expensive oil on my E46 M3. Thats a good 40-60 you can save if you did it yourself even with synthetic. These dealerships be trippin trippin.
80-90 bucks sounds a lot for an oil change. Thats close to the price I was paying to change expensive oil on my E46 M3. Thats a good 40-60 you can save if you did it yourself even with synthetic. These dealerships be trippin trippin.
Meccanoble wrote, "I think there may be a difference in size with oil pans due to different size engines? 5.3L vs 6.2L ?? I know 5.3 uses 6 quarts. Maybe 6.2 requires more?"
I think Swathdiver explained it. I do recall reading, maybe on this forum, that the 6.2 took 8.5 qts., then GM changed that to 8 qts. I don't remember for sure that they were talking about Yukons. And maybe the difference is early model year builds vs. later builds. s\So I'll live with Swathdiver's answer until shown different.
My four Expeditions were all 5.4s and took 6 plus 1 for filter. Only one was new and only one that I can recall had a problem that called for warranty work. I'd feel better if this larger engine did take 8. But then, I'd feel better if it ran on 8 cylinders all the time, too.
It does look good all cleaned up. I hope it lasts longer than my other GM products. Out of a new '65 Impala SS, an '80 Olds diesel, an '87 Toronado, a '95 GMC (Yukon?) 4-door, a '97 Cadillac STS, only the DW's Toronado lasted any time at all. The others all had me so PO'd that I dumped them in a couple years. I don't like doing that. All were new except this one, Maybe it'll be different.
I do know that, it having been suggested I put in 6 and check, that filled it to above the fourth dot on the dipstick after I started the engine to let the oil circulate and then let it sit a while.
I think Swathdiver explained it. I do recall reading, maybe on this forum, that the 6.2 took 8.5 qts., then GM changed that to 8 qts. I don't remember for sure that they were talking about Yukons. And maybe the difference is early model year builds vs. later builds. s\So I'll live with Swathdiver's answer until shown different.
My four Expeditions were all 5.4s and took 6 plus 1 for filter. Only one was new and only one that I can recall had a problem that called for warranty work. I'd feel better if this larger engine did take 8. But then, I'd feel better if it ran on 8 cylinders all the time, too.
It does look good all cleaned up. I hope it lasts longer than my other GM products. Out of a new '65 Impala SS, an '80 Olds diesel, an '87 Toronado, a '95 GMC (Yukon?) 4-door, a '97 Cadillac STS, only the DW's Toronado lasted any time at all. The others all had me so PO'd that I dumped them in a couple years. I don't like doing that. All were new except this one, Maybe it'll be different.
I do know that, it having been suggested I put in 6 and check, that filled it to above the fourth dot on the dipstick after I started the engine to let the oil circulate and then let it sit a while.
Ex Euro Driver
Full Access Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
- Posts
- 221
- Reaction score
- 59
From the GMC media website itself. Scroll all the way to the bottom and look under capacities. 6 quarts for 6.2.
http://media.gmc.com/media/us/en/gmc/vehicles/yukon_xl_denali_xl/2013.tab1.html
http://media.gmc.com/media/us/en/gmc/vehicles/yukon_xl_denali_xl/2013.tab1.html
swathdiver
Full Access Member
I miss my '82 Olds Cutlass Supreme Brougham diesel. Despite the negative press, it was a very reliable car for our family. Once we treated the diesel engine as it was and not a gas engine, it performed well for us into the 1990s. I delivered pizzas in it and bracket raced at Moroso with it. Your '80 was a slightly different creature, not as robust block, heads or glow plugs. Neighbor few doors down still driving his '84 Toronado, it was my grandpa's favorite, his was an '81.
My '80's diesel engine crapped out at about 50k. Olds had the dealer give me a new Target. Dealer charged $350 for the deal. I suspected that was just because they could. But I'll pay that for a new engine any day. (Now that I think of it, that was a lot of money back then!) Olds had a history of trying new stuff, the Hydramatic and front-wheel drive, and took better care of its owners than the other GM brands when that new stuff failed.
GM developed it because they had a lot invested in big cars and needed something to offset dollar-plus a gallon gasoline, that engine gave me 29 mpg, as advertised. But after just a few thousand miles it dropped to around 21. Still, pretty good for a huge wagon. With all the EPA crapola on my 2014 6.2, I'm lucky to average 13+ in suburban driving. So much for government designed engines. And just like the toilets that don't flush cleanly and new $1200 washing machines that don't clean dirty clothes, when engineering is dictated by government regs, I call them government products.
Oh yeah. That engine failed at almost the exact same mileage.
GM developed it because they had a lot invested in big cars and needed something to offset dollar-plus a gallon gasoline, that engine gave me 29 mpg, as advertised. But after just a few thousand miles it dropped to around 21. Still, pretty good for a huge wagon. With all the EPA crapola on my 2014 6.2, I'm lucky to average 13+ in suburban driving. So much for government designed engines. And just like the toilets that don't flush cleanly and new $1200 washing machines that don't clean dirty clothes, when engineering is dictated by government regs, I call them government products.
Oh yeah. That engine failed at almost the exact same mileage.
swathdiver
Full Access Member
My Cutlass would get 35 mpg on the highway and 24 mpg while delivering pizzas with the engine running all night.
I think GM made a mistake moving away from low rpm high torque engines to euro style high winding engines with wimpy torque numbers.
One of my V6 Buick's back them made 230 hp and 335 ft lb of torque, not at 4,000 rpms but at 2,400 rpms, where most people actually drive.
If I tried to hit the sweet spot of my torque band at each light, I'd certainly go crazy in frustration trying to drive that fast all the time and not being able to. Those Buicks got 16-18 city and 26-32 hwy mpg. 32 by adjusting the fuel pressure down. Couldn't race because it was sipping gas like that.
I think GM made a mistake moving away from low rpm high torque engines to euro style high winding engines with wimpy torque numbers.
One of my V6 Buick's back them made 230 hp and 335 ft lb of torque, not at 4,000 rpms but at 2,400 rpms, where most people actually drive.
If I tried to hit the sweet spot of my torque band at each light, I'd certainly go crazy in frustration trying to drive that fast all the time and not being able to. Those Buicks got 16-18 city and 26-32 hwy mpg. 32 by adjusting the fuel pressure down. Couldn't race because it was sipping gas like that.
Similar threads
