The 3.6 is an outdated power plant.....lacking torque and thirsty. In the 2015 XTS it's crazy that anybody would spend 60k plus and get a variant of this power plant. Captive audience....doctore said:It blows my mind that there is no "low oil" warning of any kind on this vehicle!!
I have read this thread when I bought the Enclave and indeed checked my oil levels often for a while, just to find out that it was remaining constant between oil changes.
So, I just did a trip from Michigan to Florida: checked all fluids before leaving, oil interval was at 65%, I don't think there was even 1K miles since change at the GM dealer with regular Mobile. When I got to Florida, the next day the E began acting the same way it did when one of the ignition coils failed - it would misfire at medium load. No check engine light, no overheating. Oil was the last thing I would've checked, luckily I stumbled on a thread here with the guy showing coil symptoms, but it turned out the oil was low. Checked the oil - it was just a drop at the bottom of the stick!!! Took over 2 qts to bring it back to normal level...I have no oil stains in the garage, the blow-back thingy wasn't overly full, plus there was no staining at all on the intake, the 2+qts of oil just vanished somehow.
Oil being so vital to a vehicle - I can't believe there are no sensors associated with it - no low oil pressure light or anything...insane!
Then why is GM using it in numerous current models across most lines?john 070 said:The 3.6 is an outdated power plant.....lacking torque and thirsty. In the 2015 XTS it's crazy that anybody would spend 60k plus and get a variant of this power plant. Captive audience....
Yes it cold be if the bottom end of the engine and pan are somewhat "V" shaped - allowing for more square inches of surface (and therefore quantity) when full as compared to when the level is down a qt. The dipstick is a measure of distance up and down, not a true indicator of actual volume in the container.but it seems that the lower the oil becomes within the sump, the faster it is consumed. I haven't measured this specifically, but am observing anecdotally. Can this be true?
The martini glass effect.Blue Oval said:If you think of a container that is shaped like a funnel, and you remove a fixed amount at a fixed rate (like one ounce per minute or in the case of an engine one ounce per hundred miles) the distance the level drops in that period is greater as the level goes down due to the smaller surface area/volume of the container. The rate of withdrawal remains the same, but the level drops faster as the volume of the container gets smaller.
Just like an hourglass - the level drops slowly as long as the sides of the tube are parallel, but goes down faster when the level reaches the tapered bottom of the vial. The sand is still leaving the chamber at approximately the same speed - although the weight of the sand in a full chamber may have some effect on the rate - but that is the idea.
Pardon me, but screw that. It might not be uncommon but that doesn't mean it's OK.GoldEnclave said:BTW, my Subaru dealer's service manager just "warned" me that the newest Subaru engines are considered within tolerance if they consume up to 1 quart of synthetic oil per 1,200 miles! The explanation is that Subaru's newest engine designs have such tight fit tolerances that thin weight synthetic oil is necessary to squeeze between the moving parts for proper protection. In turn, the slicker synthetic oil tends to get past seals more easily than the conventional heavier weigh oils previously used, so there is more blow-by. He alerted me after I had complained that GM deems 1 quart of oil consumed per 2,000 miles within tolerance. Yikes!
. Even Porsche's official stance per a car mag was 3 qts. Per change interval is acceptable (to whom?). My buddy's wife's Q5 2.0T lit up recently to add. BS.zman said:Pardon me, but screw that. It might not be uncommon but that doesn't mean it's OK.