Chevrolet Malibu Forums banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have a 2015 turbo Malibu and since August its had oil consumption issues. This seemed to start manifesting itself roughly in August (strangely along with a noise issue that is the subject of the previous post). I do not have any leaks anywhere. I don't see oil spray underneath the car. Its been in the dealer and I get the same BS line about 1 qt in 2000 miles as normal. There actually is a bulletin on this (01-06-01-011I). Yes, its high mileage, I'm just over 98k miles. I drive ~100 per day. GM says this is considered aggressive use and my usage is not unheard of in this time frame and the use isn't covered. The dealership started a consumption test on the car, and in the past 1000 miles I had to add over a quart of oil. At this point, GM and the dealer are saying that there is nothing they can do. The way I see it is I had NO OIL ISSUES until this past August, when I got my first low oil warning. Now, with the miles I put on, I will need to add a quart every week to 2 weeks.

I'm taking it to another service place I trust and see what they find on Friday. Based on the results there, I will most likely call the customer support line and see what they can do.

Yes, I realize it has higher mileage. I've been changing the oil whenever the OLM said to. I have the records from the oil change place. However, as I said this started in August. Something changed. I'm afraid that if I ignore it like the dealer/GM says, I"ll have a broke engine in a bit and no recourse.

Has anyone else had similar oil consumption issues?
 

·
Super Moderator
2017 SS Sedan 6.2L
Joined
·
4,921 Posts
If your Malibu has a 5 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty, I don't see how your dealer can deny you coverage. Contact GM customer service or drive to a different dealership before warranty is up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
If your Malibu has a 5 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty, I don't see how your dealer can deny you coverage. Contact GM customer service or drive to a different dealership before warranty is up.

I agree. A quart of oil every 2000 miles is unacceptable. That likely means more fuel consumption as well, if the compression is low due to piston/ring/cylinder issues. I have owned vehicles with 300k that used much less motor oil then that.
 

·
Administrator
2011 Malibu LTZ 3.6L V6 Red Jewel Tintcoat
Joined
·
17,848 Posts
Sadly, the manufacturer decides what is acceptable and what is not. Ford and all the others are that way, too.

I sympathize with you and hope you can get this resolved to your liking. If mine were to use that much oil or even half that, I'd be looking for another car, as I would think it spells certain doom very soon.

I see lightning during a storm and I start counting until I hear the thunder. That lets me know how long it is until the storm arrives. You've pulled the dipstick (lightning) and even counted the miles before adding a quart (thunder). How long before something bad happens (storm)?

I hope your PT warranty is in effect if/when something happens, but I hope nothing happens even more! Please keep us posted on your experiences and successes.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
728 Posts
I had a very similar issue regarding my 05 Impala. Now the dealer after quite some time finally chalked it up to me having an oil leak even though I never saw any leakage on the ground whatsoever but the oil leaks would've cost $1,000 to fix but my engine was only at about 147k and I'd go through almost 3-4 quarts of oil in 3000 miles. I'd have to add oil in between oil changes. I don't know if it was using oil along with losing it or what was going on, I didn't keep it to find out. I didn't really know something was wrong until I decided to do a full synthetic oil change and when I was about half way between mileage change, the dipstick showed my oil was about half way down already so it was about 3000 miles. The worst part is oil is the blood of a car, you need a certain amount of it and of course the less you have, the faster what you have wears out because there isn't as much to go around so by the time the oil change came around, the oil was very dirty. So I know that doesn't help you out on your issue per se but it's definitely not uncommon even on newer vehicles for stupid things like this to happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Well, I got the results back from the second source, and they see no issues with PCV or leaks anywhere. The only thing found is the hose from the intercooler to the throttle body has lots of oil in it. I'm most likely going to take it to another dealership and see what they say. The secondary place I took it to said they have heard of many issues form the dealership I was at and suggested another.

To me it sounds like the bearings in my turbo are questionable. I used to own a Grand National, so I know of turbo issues (although I never had any on that car). Hopefully they will have a better response.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Well, I got the results back from the second source, and they see no issues with PCV or leaks anywhere. The only thing found is the hose from the intercooler to the throttle body has lots of oil in it. I'm most likely going to take it to another dealership and see what they say. The secondary place I took it to said they have heard of many issues form the dealership I was at and suggested another.

To me it sounds like the bearings in my turbo are questionable. I used to own a Grand National, so I know of turbo issues (although I never had any on that car). Hopefully they will have a better response.
Its unfortunate, but since all the automakers have to meet the CAFE standards, the use of small liter, turbocharged motors has been a way to achieve those goals, along with 6-8 speed transmissions.

Of course, the problem is that the use of turbochargers in small displacement motors will likely lead to many issues, none the least of which is less engine life as well as troubles with the turbocharger itself.

That said, the 2.0 liter seems like a pretty decent compromise motor compared to the 1.5 liter. Like they used to say, "nothing beats cubic inches" or liters in this case. Chevy is doing the best that they can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
This is not unheard of. GM has had (in the past) a very high tolerance for oil use. I remember that their policy was once a quart every 900 miles as acceptable. The fact that you drive it long distance to work and back should not be an issue if you are performing the required maintenance. If you noticed an increase in consumption, then if it were me I would press the dealer to perform an oil economy type of test (it should still be under the powertrain warranty). Tell them that the consumption increased dramatically and you insist on it being examined.

So far my car has not consumed oil per my oil change intervals, which has been 4,000 miles. You could also try switching oil brands, as some brands are less prone to burning (from past experience).

Edit: I see that you have been changing the oil per the OLM. See how long it takes the monitor to indicate either a low oil reading or a change oil reading. A lot of people do this, and I won't say that you should or should not do this, but try not to leave oil in the crankcase beyond 4,000 miles. Unfortunately GM will do all they can to avoid repairing or replacing a motor because (I hate to side with them) old oil left after 3 or 4,000 miles will have a greater tendency to burn. Just keep your eyes on your mileage and press your case. Adding oil every week or a couple of weeks is a No-No in my view, so just make sure the oil body is fresh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I had the same problem during the summer. My car was consuming at least 1qt of oil every 3k miles or less. I did a visual inspection and I was unable to find signs of oil under the vehicle or in the engine compartment. I noticed during hard accelerations the car left a cloud of smoke behind all the time. Fast forwarding 3 months later one day the car started shaking really bad, the check engine light lit up. I took the car to get checked and the diagnostic was cylinder #1 misfiring. I replaced the coil and the problem persisted. I decided to check the plug from that cylinder and there it was my problem. I had a bad ring and the oil was leaking into the cylinder chamber. See picture of the plug.

I am not sure what direction to take now. Either to replace the engine or rebuild.

Best of luck.
 

Attachments

·
Super Moderator
2017 SS Sedan 6.2L
Joined
·
4,921 Posts
I had the same problem during the summer. My car was consuming at least 1qt of oil every 3k miles or less. I did a visual inspection and I was unable to find signs of oil under the vehicle or in the engine compartment. I noticed during hard accelerations the car left a cloud of smoke behind all the time. Fast forwarding 3 months later one day the car started shaking really bad, the check engine light lit up. I took the car to get checked and the diagnostic was cylinder #1 misfiring. I replaced the coil and the problem persisted. I decided to check the plug from that cylinder and there it was my problem. I had a bad ring and the oil was leaking to the cylinder chamber. See picture.

I am not sure what direction to take now. Either to replace the engine or rebuild.

Best of luck.
Thanks for the good info! Welcome!
 

·
Super Moderator
2017 SS Sedan 6.2L
Joined
·
4,921 Posts
Its unfortunate, but since all the automakers have to meet the CAFE standards, the use of small liter, turbocharged motors has been a way to achieve those goals, along with 6-8 speed transmissions.

Of course, the problem is that the use of turbochargers in small displacement motors will likely lead to many issues, none the least of which is less engine life as well as troubles with the turbocharger itself.

That said, the 2.0 liter seems like a pretty decent compromise motor compared to the 1.5 liter. Like they used to say, "nothing beats cubic inches" or liters in this case. Chevy is doing the best that they can.
"No replacement for displacement" is what I've always heard! :grin: My Malibu had a nice beefy N/A V6, and my new "Malibu" (as my car buddies like to joke) has a big push-rod V8. I love the sound and feel of a strong, non-boosted engine with 6 or 8 cylinders. My old LY7 3.6L with an intake had a great 7000 rpm growl, 'course my new LS3 sounds like the forbidden love child of a grizzly bear and a dragon.

Also, we're up to 9 and 10 speeds now! Who'd have guessed a decade ago that we'd have a Camaro with a 10-speed automatic that crushes exotic sports cars on the famous nurburgring?? Strange times!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
"No replacement for displacement" is what I've always heard! :grin: My Malibu had a nice beefy N/A V6, and my new "Malibu" (as my car buddies like to joke) has a big push-rod V8. I love the sound and feel of a strong, non-boosted engine with 6 or 8 cylinders. My old LY7 3.6L with an intake had a great 7000 rpm growl, 'course my new LS3 sounds like the forbidden love child of a grizzly bear and a dragon.

Also, we're up to 9 and 10 speeds now! Who'd have guessed a decade ago that we'd have a Camaro with a 10-speed automatic that crushes exotic sports cars on the famous nurburgring?? Strange times!
Yeap. None of the 1960's Muscle cars had Turbos. With Chevy it was the big-block 427 and the 396 that had muscle, the later 454, much less so due to lower compression ratios for "SMOG". The small blocks had the 327 and the 400 cubic inch motors that would smoke the tires real good too!

And 10 speed automatic transmissions? Back then it was three-speed auto trannys with no lockup converter and no overdrives. The sticks were all 4-speeds with no OD either. Hurst ruled the day!

Times have changed a lot!!!
 

·
Administrator
2011 Malibu LTZ 3.6L V6 Red Jewel Tintcoat
Joined
·
17,848 Posts
Speaking only for big-engine "muscle" cars, it might be true that "all sticks were 4-speeds with no OD", but those weren't the only cars on the road.

The cars I owned at various times:
'64 Mercury Park Lane with 390 cid 4-barrel, 3-speed auto, no OD. Couldn't burn rubber, got maybe 20 mpg on a good day, and was powerful only once it was up to speed.
'64 Rambler "440 H" 2-door with 216 cid straight 6, 3-speed column shifter, manual OD, 2-barrel carb. Burned rubber and got nearly 30 mpg!
'66 Chevy II (not the Nova trim) station wagon with a 230 cid straight 6 and "three in the tree". No OD. 1-barrel carb. Gutless, but it ran well for as long as I had it.
'66 Dodge Polara with 383 cid 2-barrel, 3-speed auto, no OD. Got off the line nicely and then fell on its face when the 4-barrel version caught up and left me in the dust. Sub-20 mpg but a comfortable car.
'67 Chevy Caprice wagon with 327 cid 4-barrel, 3-speed auto, no OD. Fun car, lousy mileage, comfortable.
'67 Dodge Dart with 170 cid slant 6 1-barrel, 3-speed column, no OD. It was an economy car with no frills.

My brother owned a '64 Chevy Impala wagon with 327 cid 4-barrel, 2-speed automatic, no OD. Burned rubber, terrible mileage, ran very nice.

Of all of those above, only one had OD. By twisting a handle on the right side of the steering column and then moving it forward or backward, I could engage or disengage the OD. OD could be temporarily disengaged (for passing) when flooring the gas. The switch on the carb was broken when I bought the car so I wired in a manual switch and relay that allowed me to disengage it, and it did so with less throttle pressure, too.

Rambler added OD to their "bigger" engines to help offset the loss of fuel mileage. Had I bought one without OD it would have had the smaller 196 cid engine with 1-barrel. Glad I had the larger one!

Today's cars without boost, like my 2011 3.6L V6, have done very nicely at providing a lot of power from a much smaller displacement, which also yields much better economy. This engine (on paper) has 252 HP and about the same torques. It takes sticky tires like the Michelin Pilot Sports that I had to keep from burning rubber when launching, but even then I was able to get them to chirp every now and then. With lesser tires like I currently have, I can burn off the line any time I choose, and with the transmission tune provided by @cp-the-nerd, the tires chirp during the 1-2 shift at engine speeds above 3000 rpm.

It's still true that there's "no replacement for displacement", even today. Stuffing lots of air and fuel into a tiny little space is nice, but the practical side of it leaves some room for improvement when you consider just the LSPI/SPI issue.

Can you imagine a 327 cid (5.4L) V8 with today's EFI and other improvements? It'd blow your hair back!
 

·
Super Moderator
2017 SS Sedan 6.2L
Joined
·
4,921 Posts
Can you imagine a 327 cid (5.4L) V8 with today's EFI and other improvements? It'd blow your hair back!
You don't have to imagine. GM's current 5.3L V8s are 327 ci engines according to their spec sheet. The Silverado 5.3L DI VVT makes 355 hp/383 tq and has a cylinder deactivation system. I kinda hoped this engine would find its way into a Camaro with a proper intake for top end power, would likely make 390 horsepower. You can also get a port injected LSX 327 crate engine from GM for resto-mods and such.

Heck, you can find the recent w-body Impala SS, Buick Lacrosse Super, and Pontiac Grand Prix GXP with the 5.3L LS4 (port-injected) which made 303 hp all cooped up and watered down for FWD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Just a quick update. The new dealership changed the turbo. I'm getting it today. I don't know if that will take care of the oil issue, the whining noise issue or both. They will run another oil analysis after getting it changed.
 

·
Super Moderator
2017 SS Sedan 6.2L
Joined
·
4,921 Posts
I'm glad you got a resolution! Thanks for the update and detailing the potential repair solution for the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
That's good. If it were me, I would still keep an eye on the oil use. I would not keep oil in the crankcase more than 4,000 miles before changing it. Hopefully you may see a significant change in the oil use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
More on the continuing saga. In the 1st 1000 miles after the turbo change, its used a full quart of oil. Again, no leaks, no noticable smoke out the back or odd issues. I don't feel any hesitation or other driving issues. I still notice the high pitched engine noise (no, it s not turbo whine).

Something is not right. I'm still pressing for other repairs. Its over 100k now, but I've been documenting this since August, so hopefully something will come out of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Hmmm you are right, its still too much oil. You want to determine why its using oil, so that you can decide what to do. A small amount of oil (granted if its been using oil to this time) is ok, but a quart at 1k isn't good in my sight, especially for a modern engine.

Try the different oil brands/grade, and see what you get.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top