Because there aren't any. And if there were they're so small that the filter doesn't catch them then they aren't going to do anything.

I'm really tired of all the chicken littles running around.

 

Miles have NEVER been a good indicator of when to change oil. Are they good highway miles or bad city miles with many cold starts, stop and go driving and mostly short drives? If the latter then my 1993 Vette Owner's Manual (before the OLM was used in Vettes) recommendations may fit. It stated, Change at 3,000 miles OR 3 Months whichever occurs first! Yep as many oil changes, your doing it for contamination not that the oil is worn out!

Nope for the C8, as C7 as C6 ONLY the OLM should be used. It gives a % oil life left if you want to look. It's a very sophisticated systems, monitors oil temps after cold starts for example. If the oil does not get hot enough long enough to evaporate much of the water of combustion that passed the cold pistons it will have you change oil earlier than the max time it will allow, 12 months! Yep that water forms with sulfur in oil and fuel and forms sulfuric acid. That eats metal when parked!

At ~10% Life left the OLM will display that # to the right of the dash. Each time you start it will show the lower number. MUST press OK to dismiss message. Can't miss it! Can always change sooner and reset the OLM, up to you!

PS: See my post #17!

 

There have been plenty of posts of oil analysis from early oil changes during the "break in " period, and in fact they do tend to show higher levels of "contaminants" , when compared with later oil analysis after the break in period. I'm quite certain the GM does the same sort of analysis and is aware of that increased level of contaminants during break in. But the question is, is that increased level of contaminants and actual issue that will reduce the life of the engine or perhaps reduce efficiency, or power, or some other measure of engine performance during it lifetime and at what mileage would those effects (if any) become noticeable.

Edit: I should add, the contaminants reported on this forum in the early oil changes that are higher during the break in period are mostly chemical contaminants - not things that will be removed by the oil filter, but potentially harmful to the engine if that contamination level was too high, for too long.

I'm thinking that the majority of owners simply follow the recommended schedule and no more, and there is scant evidence that more frequent changes extend the life, performance or efficiency of the engine vs mileage. I do not fault those that want to change the oil more frequently - and do those analyses - I have learned a lot from reading those posts. And, in some of those cases, the result has detected an actual engine issue. I'm just saying there is plenty of evidence that the contamination level is higher during break in.

 

I have never let a new car of mine go past 1100mi ever. Most have been done between 200-1000mi depending on time.

 

You didn't even watch the videos did ya, Lake Speed Jr. is an expert. I guess you don't have the time to learn something or perhaps your afraid you might be wrong? There are people in the world who know just as much about oil and lubrication as GM or members of this forum.
Thanks for your posts though, they really added a lot to the topic!

 

Why do You not drive it in Bad Weather? Asking For a Friend

 

When the Oil Change meter gets close to 0% it will let You know. Unless the Owner Manual suggests otherwise. Let the electronics that monitor things let Us know. This is not a F-15 Jet. It’s a GM Mass Produced Car.

 

I have never, ever got below 45%. Most of the time I change my oil at 50-55%.

 

Change the oil and filter now or very soon. There is nothing better that you can do for the engine at this time.

 

I watched the video. The successive samples taken from his Boxster show that the level of "contaminants" in the oil drops with each oil change. Contaminants discussed were iron aluminum and nickel - which are wear products. The analysis shows that the rate of generation of those contaminants was decreasing with each oil change. What is does not establish is did the early and more frequent oil changes actually have anything to do with how quickly the shedding rate of contaminants fell. Of course, if the oil were not changed, those contaminants would have accumulated in the oil between the oil changes so when the oil was changed, it would be higher. But it does not establish whether overall wear to the engine is actually reduced by the oil changes - it only establishes that the rate of generation of contaminants fell with mileage - which would happen anyway, oil change or not. Maybe it would have more wear due to the higher accumulation/concentration of those contaminants (which he asserts early in video) but that's not shown.

An example of a way to show that would be to run two identical engines, change the oil early and frequently in one, and stick to the 10000 mile (in his example) change in the other. Then take the engines apart and analyze the wear.

Another way, not as invasive, is to run one engine to the full 10000 miles before an oil change, then find a way to measure/estimate the total mass of those contaminants that he says are indicative of engine wear (iron, aluminum, nickel, copper, or whatever is relevant to indication actual wear of metal parts). Then do the same with a different car, with early and more frequent oil change, but estimate, at each change, the total mass of shed wear indicators, and add them up for the same 10000 mile period. Then compare to see if the total mass of shed contaminants that indicate engine wear is less with the early and more frequent oil changes.

 

^^^^
Yep, the presence of molecules of chrome, nickel, iron, etc does not mean they are causing wear. It reflects what is wearing not what is causing wear. Yep, if you have a fleet of the same type truck, oil analysis can define if one is having a rocker arm wearing excessively for example. May have to do with an alignment issue but is not a cause of wear.

In my former life we had many tractors that pulled trailers of liquid atmospheric gases. Being identical diesel engines oil analysis was useful defining when an overhaul etc was needed.

 

Yes - well stated.

 

What one should be more interested in or corned about is the actual benefit. It is difficult to quantify the effect of the volume of wear metals. What if changing the oil at a 10kmi interval will still allow the engine to have a 150kmi service life? Most will not keep a vehicle long enough to justify the extra cost/time of the shorter service interval.

 

Yes, I agree totally. The real benefit, if there is one (or more), would be some measure of longevity, engine power, fuel efficiency, oil consumption - something along those lines. We rarely see any quantitative data. And engine could be disassembled and analyzed at 10000 miles, be even if marginally less wear was shown, its still not quite what we want to know. But as it is, we rarely see even that much analysis.

The video person was a "certified lubrication specialist" and spoke of his racing experience and how they formulated oil for racing. So in that application, they may well get to see rapid degradation of engines in single race event, and get meaningful data regarding the impact of lubrication related wear on race performance. How does that translate to street use?

 

You are aware that the people who developed the engine are much more advanced than some money driven YouTube personality?

 

Thanks for watching the videos before blowing off Lake Speed Jr.
Oh wait, I guess you didn't or you would know he has forgotten more about oil, lubrication and engines than you or I will ever know!

 

Are you sure about that?

 

Yep! If your keeping your initial fill in there for 7500 miles you have proven it!
You still didn't watch the videos did ya.

 

I've got to laugh. There should be no debate that the most contaminants in the oil and wear the engine will ever see occur during the break in period.
All myself and the folks that agree with me are saying is for less than $100 and in the first 1000 miles we can be sure a majority of initial wear particles are removed. Why take a chance with an $85k car that may be kept for a long time when you could help it's life with something so inexpensive?
It's not rocket science it's common sense to me. You fellows want to keep the likely contaminated initial fill in there for 7500 miles be my guest. Gm will never complain if we change it early.
So let's just agree to disagree.

 

And there isnt.
Nobody said that the heaviest level of wear isn't during the initial break in. The oil analysis shows that the shedding rate of wear indicators is highest during break in. That is going to happen throughout the break in period whether the oil is change or not and its because the parts themselves are mating, wearing down the asperities , one could say. Whats not shown in the video, and what is typically not proven, is that getting those out of there at 500 miles instead of 7,500 miles makes any significant difference in engine wear, resulting longevity, power, efficiency or what ever measure one is trying to improve.

Lots of folks think it does, and change oil more frequently. The majority of owners do not. I typically observe the recommended oil change schedule, and I typically run my daily drivers well over 100k miles, and have not had engine problems.

Comparison of actual engine wear after 7500 miles with and without the early and more frequent oil changes during the break in would go a long way to making the point. Or comparison of compression ratio, oil consumption, whatever. Anything like that. The video only asserts that the wear indicators contribute to additional wear. Yeah - "common sense" says the accumulation of those wear indicators contributes to additional, but how much additional wear? Can it be measured? Or is it negligible?

Add: I neither agree nor disagree as to how much additional wear results if the oil is changed at 7,500 miles (or when the OLM says so) and whether that difference is signficant, when compared with the wear the results with early and more frequent oil changes, because there is no supporting information either way.