Between DI engines, AS/S and thin oil, I bet one or more of those CAFE-driven features are going to sacrifice engine longevity.
So we're burning less fuel, but junking our cars earlier.Between DI engines, AS/S and thin oil, I bet one or more of those CAFE-driven features are going to sacrifice engine longevity.
Yes, there are almost always unexpected, unintended consequences with any new technology or political feel-good legislation.So we're burning less fuel, but junking our cars earlier.
It would be interesting if we could calculate the extra CO emitted by building cars more often vs. the CO saved burning less fuel with features that allegedly shorten the life of cars.Yes, there are almost always unexpected, unintended consequences with any new technology or political feel-good legislation.
I was thinking the exact same thing! Couldn't come up with any stats or ways to articulate it. There's a huge amount of fossil fuels consumed in the mining and production of steel, glass and plastics before you even consider what it takes to build a car and then dispose of it. Probably lots of lithium in the electronics, too.It would be interesting if we could calculate the extra CO emitted by building cars more often vs. the CO saved burning less fuel with features that allegedly shorten the life of cars.
I think the key word here is “allegedly.“ We can probably all agree that in general, today’s cars are better built and last longer than the ones made a generation ago. And I would bet the vast majority of cars junked today are scrapped because of something other than engine failure.It would be interesting if we could calculate the extra CO emitted by building cars more often vs. the CO saved burning less fuel with features that allegedly shorten the life of cars.
And speaking of disposal, back in the day, junk cars were dropped in a hopper in a steel mill. The steel was melted down and everything else was burned off - plastics, fluids, freon, you name it!I was thinking the exact same thing! Couldn't come up with any stats or ways to articulate it. There's a huge amount of fossil fuels consumed in the mining and production of steel, glass and plastics before you even consider what it takes to build a car and then dispose of it. Probably lots of lithium in the electronics, too.
Precisely my point when I used the word "allegedly". I have owned 7 cars in my life and none of my previous 5 cars faced their demise because of engine failure. For most, it was rust that influenced my decision to let go.I think the key word here is “allegedly.“ We can probably all agree that in general, today’s cars are better built and last longer than the ones made a generation ago. And I would bet the vast majority of cars junked today are scrapped because of something other than engine failure.
I can't recall ever letting a car go because of engine failure or rust and I've owned probably 20, old and new. Never bothered to count. Usually, it was "bright shiny object over here"!Precisely my point when I used the word "allegedly". I have owned 7 cars in my life and none of my previous 5 cars faced their demise because of engine failure. For most, it was rust that influenced my decision to let go.
For me, it's an expensive pending repair that makes my decision to change horses. I have a hard time getting rid of a car that is in perfectly good condition.I can't recall ever letting a car go because of engine failure or rust and I've owned probably 20, old and new. Never bothered to count. Usually, it was "bright shiny object over here"!![]()
Our 2013 Chevy Equinox DI began guzzling oil (1L every 1k km) after around 4.5 years and 100k km. Presumably it was due to carbon/sludge buildup on the low tension piston rings or oil control rings as it slowed to ~1L every 3k km after an Italian tune up. GM said this was "normal", even after being sued.I think the key word here is “allegedly.“ We can probably all agree that in general, today’s cars are better built and last longer than the ones made a generation ago. And I would bet the vast majority of cars junked today are scrapped because of something other than engine failure.
And it would be interesting to see a scientific study showing definitively how much oil contamination or dilution is actually required to materially shorten engine life. I would guess that at least some of what we’re worrying about in this thread might not be making a big difference in the real world.
First off, race engines use a muvh higher viscosity oil because of the high revs and other abuse they go through, not because of the ring clearance.Subaru has responded to the MPG requirements by doing 2 things which I find somewhat interesting.
1) Ring clearance is higher. This means the rings are looser in the cylinder, letting more oil get by and reducing friction between the rings and cylinders. This is actually a very common strategy in the building of racecar engines. Take the tolerance range and go right to the loosest point for every spec. Get more power by having less resistance. So how is this dealt with in oil choice? For a racecar engine, the oil is upped to 20w 50.
2) Reduce oil viscosity. Going from 5w 30 to 0w 20 makes the oil lighter and reduces resistance everywhere in the engine. It also passes more oil past the oil ring and subsequently burns it off. The result is pretty obvious and is oil consumption.
3) This isn't MPG driven but instead market driven. Oil change intervals. Those of you who have been Subaru owners for a long time remember the 3750 mile oil change interval. Right about 6000 km. Now, they've gone to 6000 miles. This is because others are at 10k miles. Audi and Volvo are there and BMW is at 15k miles. So this is marketing weenie trumping engineers, worried that the Volvo sales person is going to tout their high miles till oil change and FUD the customer into thinking there's something wrong with Subaru. I'd guess that Subaru engineers stopped them at 6k and that the marketing weenies would like it to go to 10k. So since the oil change interval is a little less than double what it used to be means that even with the older close clearance engines and 5w 30 oil, normal consumption might be noticed.
So Subaru is probably best known for consumption "issues" because of the warranty that if the engine uses 10 ounces in 1200 miles, they give you a free short block. But if you look at Hyundai, if you use 32 ounces in 1000 miles (a quart), they'll tell you that it's normal usage. So good luck finding a vehicle that doesn't use oil.
Maybe. Though I think the engine was improved in the 2nd generation as well.Crosstrek model years 2013-2014 had a 7,500 mile OCI. The OCI was reduced to 6,000 miles after excessive oil consumption raised its ugly head.
I think you are referring to low tension rings. Rings are not "looser in the cylinder". The car would have no compression if the rings literally had a gap between them and the cylinder wall.1) Ring clearance is higher. This means the rings are looser in the cylinder, letting more oil get by and reducing friction between the rings and cylinders. This is actually a very common strategy in the building of racecar engines. Take the tolerance range and go right to the loosest point for every spec. Get more power by having less resistance. So how is this dealt with in oil choice? For a racecar engine, the oil is upped to 20w 50.
To add to others' similar comments...Subaru has responded to the MPG requirements by doing 2 things which I find somewhat interesting.
1) Ring clearance is higher. This means the rings are looser in the cylinder, letting more oil get by and reducing friction between the rings and cylinders. This is actually a very common strategy in the building of racecar engines. Take the tolerance range and go right to the loosest point for every spec. Get more power by having less resistance. So how is this dealt with in oil choice? For a racecar engine, the oil is upped to 20w 50.
2) Reduce oil viscosity. Going from 5w 30 to 0w 20 makes the oil lighter and reduces resistance everywhere in the engine. It also passes more oil past the oil ring and subsequently burns it off. The result is pretty obvious and is oil consumption.
3) This isn't MPG driven but instead market driven. Oil change intervals. Those of you who have been Subaru owners for a long time remember the 3750 mile oil change interval. Right about 6000 km. Now, they've gone to 6000 miles. This is because others are at 10k miles. Audi and Volvo are there and BMW is at 15k miles. So this is marketing weenie trumping engineers, worried that the Volvo sales person is going to tout their high miles till oil change and FUD the customer into thinking there's something wrong with Subaru. I'd guess that Subaru engineers stopped them at 6k and that the marketing weenies would like it to go to 10k. So since the oil change interval is a little less than double what it used to be means that even with the older close clearance engines and 5w 30 oil, normal consumption might be noticed.
So Subaru is probably best known for consumption "issues" because of the warranty that if the engine uses 10 ounces in 1200 miles, they give you a free short block. But if you look at Hyundai, if you use 32 ounces in 1000 miles (a quart), they'll tell you that it's normal usage. So good luck finding a vehicle that doesn't use oil.
In my reply I started to mention ring end gap but then thought that has nothing to do with them being "looser in the cylinder" and erased it. LOLI've built race engines. Rings must be fitted with larger end-gaps, not a flat "looser tolerances," IN FORGED PISTONS due to their thermal characteristics, not to gain power. In the building of those engines the process of blueprinting them is anything but your scenario. And anyway, what's a race engine got to do with anything Subaru.
I agree. I believe there is much more to oil than just the measurables from a UOA. Coking in ring landings is one and can't be measured by any UOA. You get coked/gummed up ring landings and you'll be burning oil. Then add GDI and the issues with IVD's. I'd much rather error on the side of caution.One thing I do that (I firmly believe) contributes to an engine's long healthy life: I always change my oil at 3,000 miles, regardless.
I think there’s something to the third point. It’s not uncommon to see Total Cost of Ownership numbers in car reviews and comparisons these days. No doubt that factors into the purchase decision for some people.First off, race engines use a muvh higher viscosity oil because of the high revs and other abuse they go through, not because of the ring clearance.
On your third point, I find that hard to believe. I don't know anybody who switched to a different brand of car because their oil change intervals are longer. This just sounds silly. "Oh, I'm going to buy a Volvo, Audi or BMW next time because I have to change the oil in my Subaru so often!" Nope, I don't believe this.
Maybe. Though I think the engine was improved in the 2nd generation as well.
I think CR is talking about the cost of major service intervals. They can be pricey indeed. An oil and filter change is still under $100 even with a quality synthetic oil.I think there’s something to the third point. It’s not uncommon to see Total Cost of Ownership numbers in car reviews and comparisons these days. No doubt that factors into the purchase decision for some people.
![]()
The Cost of Car Ownership Over Time - Consumer Reports
In this look at the cost of car ownership, Consumer Reports reveals the difference in maintenance and repair costs among 26 car brands at 5 and 10 years of ownership based on member data.www.consumerreports.org