7,500-mile Maximum OLM oil change interval (OCI)

[donjetman]

Included with the 2012 TSB 11-06-04007C for 08-11 GM vehicles, equipped with Engine RPO LFA, LY2, L20, LMG, LC9, LH6, LMF, LH8, LH9, L76, LS2, LY5, LY6, L92, L96, LZ1, L94 or L9H, they will receive the enhanced oil life monitor (OLM) algorithm as part of the new ECM calibration. The enhanced OLM algorithm will provide a maximum mileage of 7,500miles (12,000km) between oil changes.

I knew this but had forgotten where I had seen it.

Our 07 w/L92 does not have this enhanced OLM algorithm.

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2012/MC-10138192-9999.pdf

 

[Marky Dissod]

The enhanced OLM algorithm will provide a maximum mileage of 7,500miles (12,000km) between oil changes.

Does this represent an increase or a decrease?
7,500 miles still seems a bit much.

Our 07 w/L92 does not have this enhanced OLM algorithm.

Don't think HP Tuners includes the Oil Life Monitor parameters, so, only GM can tune them, I guess?

 

[donjetman]

Does this represent an increase or a decrease?
7,500 miles still seems a bit much.

A big decrease, like 40-50% less.
https://www.tahoeyukonforum.com/threads/oil-life-question.146050/page-3#post-1844382
Yes, 7,500 is a bit much for my L92.

 

[Joseph Garcia]

I won't go a mile over 5000 miles between oil changes on my L92, often less.

 

[Marky Dissod]

Does this represent an increase or a decrease?
7,500 miles still seems a bit much.

A big decrease, like 40-50% less.

So, before GM improved the OLM-gorithm, it could've been 15,000 miles between oil changes?
Did anyone else's eyeballs get REALLY big?

IN THEORY, I COULD imagine ...
if I start up after an oil & filter change, drive from there to my next O&F change
100% highway miles between 40MpH & 70MpH til the gas almost runs out,
stopping only for petrol, never ever letting the engine get too cold, no stop'n'go,
and not getting much sleep, then, 7500 miles between O&F changes might make some sense?

(Anyone notice that, the better the average MpGs between oil changes,
the longer you can safely go between oil changes?
Doesn't that seem so much simpler and easier to calculate on the back of a napkin,
vs GM's Oil Life Monitor's excessively complex algorithm that HP Tuners can't or won't tune?)

7,500 is a bit much for my L92.

7,500 between oil & filter changes is a bit much for ANY engine,
even an engine no one enjoys or respects or cares for.

 

[j91z28d1]

there's a guy with a dodge on the oil forum that went crazy mileage. donjetman shared the link, dude pulled oil samples and just kept driving till it showed engine wear. it was something like 20 to 30k?


my old 2002 ls1 car, I used any old oil and always changed it when the dash said or even well after. well over a 100k on it when it go stolen and everything looked and sounded good. never cracked seal on it. only cut the filters open randomly.

10k is fine for a well build engine. sadly we just kinda gotta admit that gm forgot how to build a well made engine with the Gen 4 and has been all down hill from there.

so we gotta cover for that with 3k mile changes like they did in the 70s with really low quality oils, oil filters that weren't good by today's standards and carbs that ran super rich when cold. engines and trannys got much better from there and then all hat knowledge was lost and we've come full circle at 8 times the price.

 

[Marky Dissod]

... just kinda gotta admit that gm
forgot
how to build a well made engine with the Gen 4 and has been all down hill from there.

Forgot? Usually tend to agree with you, but this time, emphatically no.
GM not only added unnecessary complexities, not only did they not bother to improve the ring package,
they also went looking so much harder than they have in the past to pinch pennies,
that they skipped the final post-assembly cleaning step,
and let tens of thousands of 6.2L V8s out on the showroom floor with sand in their britches.

GM did not forget schidt. GM INTENTIONALLY went all Boeing on their 6.2L V8s
(yet, somehow, not the 'vette 6.2L V8s which are nearly identical).

 

[j91z28d1]

that's fair.. I was being nice haha.


Ambition outweighed engineering Talent? with a side effect of being cheap.


about the same thing that brought Boeing down too. only the stakes are much higher with badly engineered planes. I believe the corvettes all got the 0w40 m1 super car label and a higher bypass psi filter. I'd have to look if the base LT car got the dry sump or not, the older c6/7 zo6 got the dry sump to try and keep rods in them in long corners

 

[Marky Dissod]

Again, slight disagreement: the ambition was, to be cheap.
If the only hardware difference between the LT1 & the L86 was the intake manifold,
but the LT1 spec'd 0W40 vs the L86 & L87 spec'ing 0W20,
that alone already says they are more interested in CAFE MpG credits than engine protection,
which they THOUGHT they could STILL get away with,
even after going cheap on the L87s' bearings and skipping the L87s' last cleanings.

As if GM don't already make enough profit to begin with?
Guess they found out how much cheaper they could get away with making L87s vs LT1s.

LT1s might be wet sump; LT2s are DEFINITELY dry sump.