What is the quarts "range" on the dipstick on these trucks?

[jfoj]

@Vladimir2306

I guess you have this all figured out.

I think you were also the one that told me the engine oil heats up quicker than the coolant temperature as well.

I do the best to clearly articulate what I firmly understand and know for fact, but I have found over the years, often you need to be careful about stating fact on some items that have running changes or have slightly different build configuration.

If you have evidence that the oil temps are running 120-130C, or 250-260F in the Summer, please provide the data, I would like to see it. I will find out here in the next 4 months first hand if this is the case. You should see what happens to oil viscosity 100C/212F, it is not going to help these engines.

Anyway, you do you.

Unfortantely todays vehicles are not necessarily designed for durability and reliability. There are too many conflicting requirement put on not only the automotive industry but almost anything that used energy these days. These products have become over priced, over complicated and are very tempermental to how they are used and need to be maintained. We can all thank the government officials with limited or no technical background for doing this to all the consumers.

 

[Vladimir2306]

@Vladimir2306

I guess you have this all figured out.

I think you were also the one that told me the engine oil heats up quicker than the coolant temperature as well.

I do the best to clearly articulate what I firmly understand and know for fact, but I have found over the years, often you need to be careful about stating fact on some items that have running changes or have slightly different build configuration.

If you have evidence that the oil temps are running 120-130C, or 250-260F in the Summer, please provide the data, I would like to see it. I will find out here in the next 4 months first hand if this is the case. You should see what happens to oil viscosity 100C/212F, it is not going to help these engines.

Anyway, you do you.

Unfortantely todays vehicles are not necessarily designed for durability and reliability. There are too many conflicting requirement put on not only the automotive industry but almost anything that used energy these days. These products have become over priced, over complicated and are very tempermental to how they are used and need to be maintained. We can all thank the government officials with limited or no technical background for doing this to all the consumers.

Yes, I know what viscosity oils have at 100C. Oil 0-20 has 8.52 mm²/s, oil 0-40 has 13.4 mm²/s, which is logical, oil with index 40 is almost twice as thick as oil 20. Let me give you an example. You are not a young man anymore, are you? You probably have problems with thick blood. And when a person's blood is thicker than normal, it is bad. And when blood is thinner than normal, it is also bad. Normal is good, 0-20 is good for our engines, any deviation from it is bad.
As for the fact that engines were reliable before, this is also a mistake. Engines also broke down, and a rare 900 reached 200 thousand miles without major repairs. And when several examples that drove without problems up to 300 thousand miles are used to draw a conclusion about the entire generation, this is not true. In Russia, in Statistics, this is called "Survivorship Bias." This is a very interesting phenomenon.

 

[viven44]

We would be far better off with higher Revs on this plaform, the 5.3l does seem to have higher Revs overall because it lacks the Torque of the 6.2l and needs to keep up speed by the TCM downshifting more gears.

@jfoj I am starting to believe in the past discussion that the aggressive gear shifting that sets up the engine to lug most of the time, combined with people not using premium fuel might really be hurting a good percentage of these engines. Many of the failures do seem to be happening at highway speeds if I am not mistaken so thats good evidence.

GM should (I believe) reprogram the TCM to make the 6.2L shift more like the 5.3L. Honestly there is extra torque, but clearly this "small block" engine is not able to take the beating like a traditional big block that ran on all cylinders, so GM needs to revise the operation where the engine revs more, just like the 5.3L..... I know its nice to see that both 5.3L and 6.2L get the same highway fuel mileage, but its no fun if the 6.2L's rod bearings have to take a beating to get the fuel economy. I know consumers are primarily looking at fuel economy and when you see all the 3 row lifted-cars get close to 30mpg, GM must at least offer 20mpg on these body on frame vehicles to sell them understandably. Reliability first though.

 

[jfoj]

Yes, I know what viscosity oils have at 100C. Oil 0-20 has 8.52 mm²/s, oil 0-40 has 13.4 mm²/s, which is logical, oil with index 40 is almost twice as thick as oil 20. Let me give you an example. You are not a young man anymore, are you? You probably have problems with thick blood. And when a person's blood is thicker than normal, it is bad. And when blood is thinner than normal, it is also bad. Normal is good, 0-20 is good for our engines, any deviation from it is bad.
As for the fact that engines were reliable before, this is also a mistake. Engines also broke down, and a rare 900 reached 200 thousand miles without major repairs. And when several examples that drove without problems up to 300 thousand miles are used to draw a conclusion about the entire generation, this is not true. In Russia, in Statistics, this is called "Survivorship Bias." This is a very interesting phenomenon.

I do not think the blood really gets thicker as you age, the pipes have sludge buildup and they become smaller!!!! This in terms raised the blood/oil pressure, but for the human body the higher blood/oil pressure is not a good thing, higher oil pressure on the 6.2l might be a benefit!

 

[jfoj]

@jfoj I am starting to believe in the past discussion that the aggressive gear shifting that sets up the engine to lug most of the time, combined with people not using premium fuel might really be hurting a good percentage of these engines. Many of the failures do seem to be happening at highway speeds if I am not mistaken so thats good evidence.

GM should (I believe) reprogram the TCM to make the 6.2L shift more like the 5.3L. Honestly there is extra torque, but clearly this "small block" engine is not able to take the beating like a traditional big block (just compare the size of the main and rod bearings on this engine vs a 454 big block...!!!) and definitely not on 2 cylinders out of the 8 allegedly at times so GM needs to revise the operation where the engine revs more, just like the 5.3L..... I know its nice to see that both 5.3L and 6.2L get the same highway fuel mileage, but its no fun if the 6.2L's rod bearings have to take a beating to get the fuel economy. I know consumers are primarily looking at fuel economy and when you see all the 3 row lifted-cars get close to 30mpg, GM must at least offer 20mpg on these body on frame vehicles to sell them understandably. Reliability first though.

Initially I did not think the transmisson was even downshifting, it just seemed the engine was loading up on slight grade increases and these are not steep or very long on the specific route I take often.

Still feel the DFM with a single cylinder trying to spin the rotating mass and propel the vehicle is not ideal as well, lots of load on a single rod bearing. Funny how the AFM had 4 cylinders doing the same job and for the most part the only failures were lifters/camshafts probably a lot to do with OCI, rather than "defects".

Then once I was able to track in real time and log the transmission behavior, I would see the transmission was downshifting from 10th to 9th gear, but it was really hard to tell/feel in the seat of the pants or see on the tachometer. Turns out the RPM would only increase about 100 RPM.

The poor/rich mans way of dealing with the Torque loading on the 6.2 is to just drive with the transmission in 8th gear on the highway. While I have not logged this behavior, you remove 2 Over Drive gears from the equation. You will CLEARLY take a hit on fuel economy, but at what cost? $10-$20 a trip? You could take a lot of trips to cover the inconvienance and/or cost of an engine replacement. I do not think anyone buys these 6000 lb bricks for fuel economy. While I think we all appreciate the fuel ecomony that these trucks get, at what cost in the long run???

I have no idea what fuel economy my truck would get if I had not disabled the Auto Stop/Start and DFM system, but for the almost 6000 miles I have on the truck the running Fuel Economy average is 17.5 MPG for the life of the vehicle at this point.