# Oil Consumption Letter from GM



## GTO JUDGE (May 14, 2005)

*Has Anyone received a letter like this from GM?

I am assuming there have been oil consumption issues raised with GM?*


----------



## koman (Sep 25, 2006)

crap i better go check my mailbox for that too. i haven't burnt a drop or lost a drop since i've purchased the car. i'm on to 15k miles now with the manual


----------



## GTO JUDGE (May 14, 2005)

koman said:


> crap i better go check my mailbox for that too. i haven't burnt a drop or lost a drop since i've purchased the car. i'm on to 15k miles now with the manual


*Mine does not use oil either at 19.5K, but many do. I am figuring there have been complaints regarding this, hence this letter.*


----------



## koman (Sep 25, 2006)

you know i have heard about a few engines that had the first and second piston ring line up and kill the motor in 300 miles due to oil consumption. the ls2s. i dunno about you or anyone else but 300 miles is less than a tankful of gasoline for me seeing how i normally get 350+ miles to a tankful.


----------



## ls2weber (Apr 21, 2007)

Well I allways check my oil once a week (must be because I used to have a VW) I was a 1/2 quirt after 2,000 miles other than that I think this is normal. I have yet to see a hi HP engine not burn alittle oil.


----------



## Zebra (Sep 2, 2006)

I received the letter yesterday. Mine doesn't burn any oil, but I don't drive my GTO aggressively. 

For those that haven't received the letter. The letter says the GTO may burn oil if driven aggressively. Aggressively meaning pushed beyond 3000 rpm to redline on a regular basis and engine braking frequently.


----------



## sparky (Dec 24, 2006)

my 06 with 7500 miles doesn,t use any but i recieved my notice saturday but iam waiting for the notice concering strut rub on my tires.


----------



## Red Bearded Goat (Mar 19, 2007)

Yup, Saturday. Read it and filed it under Pontiac CYA, then checked the level and it was still at the top mark with a little over a grand on the clock. I suspect its an internal oil consumption issue related to the PVC valve. I wonder if the Vettes have the same problem and got a letter from Chevy?
Red Beard


----------



## BV GTO (Jul 14, 2006)

Received mine last Friday. Since I have so few miles on mine GTO, I haven't worried about this, but I should get back in the habit of checking all fluid levels on my cars during refueling.


----------



## gbanks (Apr 23, 2007)

I received mine in the mail today. My 2006 Quicksilver GTO has 7500 miles and has not used any oil to date.arty:


----------



## UdnUdnGTO (Jan 30, 2006)

arty: on! I got mine today. Isn't that kinda like a disclaimer. It is your driving not our workmanship that is causing your car to use oil. Mine doesn't use oil at 37,000 I regularly drive over the 3,000 RPM mark and it does not use oil.:agree


----------



## PapitoGTO (Aug 17, 2006)

Got mine's today. Something somewhere must have happen for GM to sent out a letter like that.


----------



## The_Goat (Mar 10, 2005)

Got mine Saturday.. wtf? Mine doesn't use a drop of oil and I drive "spirited" at times.


----------



## TORRED1 (Apr 1, 2007)

Haven't received mine but will be on the look out for it, I have noticed that mine appears to use oil, had to add a quart,(mobil 1). Have 26700 on the car, its an 04, and do use engine braking, can't help it, it just sounds so good!. But why would this cause oil use, is it burning it or blowing it out some where, that is the question.


----------



## CPO's GTO (Jul 1, 2006)

I received my letter today...My guess is they have replaced one too many
ls2 under warranty for 'very spirited driving' and are looking for a way out...
CYA all the way!:lol:


----------



## spice06 (Apr 3, 2007)

Recieved it today but I posted it in the wrong forum


----------



## madkat (Jul 20, 2006)

I recieved mine today as well


----------



## exwrx (Apr 5, 2007)

This letter materially alters the warranty that you agreed to when you purchased your vehicle. Under the Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, such a material alteration or change to the agreement can void the contract, or simply be ignored if conduct is contradictory to the letter, meaning that you can make GM pay you back for your inconvenience/cost of coverage, or even buy back your car. 

Here's the catch. They can legally screw you if you do not reply "seasonally", stating that you object to this alteration. You must send a certified reply, stating that this is a alteration of your warranty agreement, to which you did not agree, nor contract to, when you purchased the vehicle.

ALL of you should send a reply with your objection immediately. If GM does not refund part of the cost of the vehicle, offer to purchase back your vehicle at a reasonable cost, or acceptable substitution for the now useless warranty, they can not hold you to this. It is a statement. If you do nothing you agree to it.

.... who knew Law School, and staying awake through contracts would come in handy....arty:


----------



## CPO's GTO (Jul 1, 2006)

exwrx said:


> This letter materially alters the warranty that you agreed to when you purchased your vehicle. Under the Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, such a material alteration or change to the agreement can void the contract, or simply be ignored if conduct is contradictory to the letter, meaning that you can make GM pay you back for your inconvenience/cost of coverage, or even buy back your car.
> 
> Here's the catch. They can legally screw you if you do not reply "seasonally", stating that you object to this alteration. You must send a certified reply, stating that this is a alteration of your warranty agreement, to which you did not agree, nor contract to, when you purchased the vehicle.
> 
> ...



I think I'll follow your advice on this one...I agree with you 100%. :cheers


----------



## GTO_Mike (Jul 24, 2006)

Got mine the other day. I think people are having oil problems and then having to have a lot of warrenty work done. Just a guess though.


----------



## Red Bearded Goat (Mar 19, 2007)

exwrx said:


> This letter materially alters the warranty that you agreed to when you purchased your vehicle. Under the Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, such a material alteration or change to the agreement can void the contract, or simply be ignored if conduct is contradictory to the letter, meaning that you can make GM pay you back for your inconvenience/cost of coverage, or even buy back your car.
> 
> .... who knew Law School, and staying awake through contracts would come in handy....arty:


Do you have a resume to go with your legal advise? It sounds like a lawyer looking for work, what color does that class action suit come in.:lol: After the letters fly, hiring representation follows and in the real world that costs money. 

I read it as a simple letter advising owners to check their oil every fill up same as the owners manual already states with clarification that a specific driving condition "could" create excess oil consumption. The owners manual already advises GTO operators not to use the engine for braking as in down shifting to slow down. I believe you have over read the letter's intent. 

As an engineer, I read it as reaffirmation to their position already in print as written in the owners manual and now they are provide a reason why (aggressive driving defined by 3000 RPM to redline) down shifting shouldn't be done. I could write a boring brief on the basic engine combustion cycle science with respect to the pressure, volume, time relationship expressed in RPM as found in the torque and HP curves for the 6.0 engine, and interpret what happens at 3000 rpm and above, but it will cause drowsiness. So I'll leave the Mr. Wizard explanation alone and provide a practical reason why. Crankcase pressures can differ between acceleration at a specific RPM and braking at the same RPM. Its caused by the pumping effect of the underside of the pistons. I believe they may have found in test bed trials the crankcase pressure variation causes the engine to consume oil when used as a brake. Under acceleration there is a free flow of exhaust and intake air flow is high, relieving under piston pressure in the crankcase via the PVC valve properly. Under deceleration, the opposite effect occurs with respect to exhaust flow and intake air, they decrease while under piston pressure is near constant or slightly increased for the same RPM and is the counter effect causing the engine to slow along with friction and cylinder compression. The under piston pumping rate being the same while the intake flow rate is decreased would cause the sump pressure to increase because some of the relieving effect is lost due to the decreased intake flow and force some sump oil to be pumped out the PVC and into the intake. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ nap time's over. 

Lastly, each state has their own consumer protection laws so your code you quote may not hold water in all 50 states or for that matter in any outside of your own. The letter wasn't sent certified, return receipt as notice of contract change (it was sent by Customer & Relationship Services, not legal), by sending a reply to GM as you advise you will put GM on notice of receipt of their letter, and loose plausible deniability that the letter was actually received should a dispute arise that would need to go to arbitration.:seeya: 

Red Beard


----------



## Gotagoat (Jan 6, 2006)

Mine doesn't use oil and although I drive very conservatively, I check it frequently. I assumed (the mommy of all screwups) the letter was a heads up so I read it and tossed it. As I used to have a Porsche that I drove very aggressively and ruined two engines, I'm riding with Red Beard's explanation and line of thought.


----------



## BlackSheep (Nov 29, 2006)

I got my letter on Saturday and have already started looking at BMW's. I went looking on Saturday after the mail came. I am going to drop this thing before it gives me problems and they refuse to cover it under warranty. I figure that I should not have any problems with a new M3. If I get rid of this, I will never buy another GM vehicle again. That is all that I have owned in over 20 years of driving. I just can't believe that GM would do this to the consumers that bought the GTOs. They know that there is a problem and do not want to spend the money to fix it. So, they had an attorney draft up this letter and send it out to all of us so they will have a way out of not honoring the warranty. They figured that it was cheaper to do that. I do love this car, but do not want the problems. You should not spend $32,000 + and have to worry about things every time you jump into it.

Another bit of info. Just saw it on the news. GM was passed in sales by Toyota. Toyota is now #1 in the Auto market.


----------



## Red Bearded Goat (Mar 19, 2007)

BlackSheep said:


> I got my letter on Saturday and have already started looking at BMW's. I went looking on Saturday after the mail came. I am going to drop this thing before it gives me problems and they refuse to cover it under warranty. ,,,, You should not spend $32,000 + and have to worry about things every time you jump into it.


Yo blacksheep that looks like a very nice ride so take a chill pill or something. Its only a letter telling you to check your oil, same as the owners manual does. Nothing new, hear? 

FYI, I worked in Germany in 98 for 6 months. Before you plop down 40 to 50k on the beamer after getting reamed on the trade in of the GTO, think of this,,,, their work force get loaded while on the job. Oh yea, Germans love their beer and bring it to work as a matter of routine. The art of engineering is bombed,, and you don't want to look into the maintaince requirements or service costs of the BMW, or electrical issues, oil leaks, transmission problems, bla, bla, bla. Try a Lexus, d'oh, that's a Toyota. 

Also, if your driving a GTO and don't have a care in the world, your driving way too slow... the only thing I worry about in my GTO is the po po with a laser gun! 

Red Beard.


----------



## Red Bearded Goat (Mar 19, 2007)

Gotagoat said:


> Mine doesn't use oil and although I drive very conservatively, I check it frequently. I assumed (the mommy of all screwups) the letter was a heads up so I read it and tossed it. As I used to have a Porsche that I drove very aggressively and ruined two engines, I'm riding with Red Beard's explanation and line of thought.


Gotagoat, 
I just don't understand the histeria a stupid letter has generated. 

2 engines in the Porsche, och! I have a couple friends that own Porsche's, a 911 and an old 912. I've driven both. The 911 is fast and fun in the turns, but each has probally spent more garage time then road time because of a mulitude of problems. 

I could be wrong, but for go fast I believe the GTO is a better choice,,,, but the Porsche can handle the turns and that's what I like to do most. I'm not comfortable with my GTO yet (factory 18's) to take it to the edge of control on a set of S's.

Red Beard.


----------



## exwrx (Apr 5, 2007)

UCC is UNIFORM CODE, applicable to all 50 state. Even GM can't escape legislation....though they often try. When they do, such as when they refuse to do Service/warranty work, or send out such letters, it's called Duress by Proficiency, which if severe enough ... constitutes Fraud. Fraud is theft by means of misrepresentation, or the legal acquisition or property in an illegal manner. 

In lay man terms...."You are being robbed", the only difference here being that they sent you letter telling you that they're doing it. 

Imagine me writing a letter with the opposite meaning, stating something along the lines of my impeccable driving habits, TLC of my GTO, care and service above and beyond the call of duty...etc.... and that GM therefore has to extend my warranty! Where would that go? Do you think GM would for even a fraction of a second take me serious? So why would you let them get away with taking from you something so precious as your car?

You're not taking this letter serious enough. It's my duty to worry and let you know what the legal implications of such documents are. 

For the record, I'm not an attorney....yet!


----------



## exwrx (Apr 5, 2007)

P.S.: Denying that it didn't come in the mail, isn't going to hold up. You might as well say that your dog ate it. They only have to make a reasonable effort. Same thing with service of suits or other legal actions. If I can't find you, I can serve you regardless by simply nailing it to your door, win my case and the only thing lost will be your right to a day in court. You have a fighting chance objecting. I won't be offended if you don't take my advice, just remember that I'll be there saying "I told you!" when GM won't fix your car.

I love how they state "aggressive". Just a ploy at the subliminal, picturing the reckless driver with a wanton heart and disregard for society. They couldn't say spirited or enthusiastic, as that would've sent the wrong message to the judge/jury. We are the evil drivers who broke their wonderful machine.


----------



## KC.MO.GTO (Jul 7, 2006)

I'm so sick of gm and the oil problems that they have. I traded my gmc 2500hd four door pickup truck for my gto because it consumed two quarts of oil every 3000 miles and three quarts when used to tow a trailer. I dont care what any of you say this oil consumption Bull is for the birds and your fooling yourself if you think its normal. I have an oldsmobile with 250,000 miles on it and it does not consume any oil and I beat the crap out of it all the time. My point is if they used to build cars that did not consume oil why is it normal for gm cars to consume oil now. My gto does not appear to consume oil yet but I'm so turned off by the letter that I will never buy another gm product again. Oh ya all the fords and mopars Ive owned never consumed oil.


----------



## Gotagoat (Jan 6, 2006)

I'm still with you, Red Beard. The letter is simply telling us to keep an eye on the oil level, which prudence would dictate anyway. If you're running it hard, check the oil level every fueling. GM isn't going to be able to refuse to work on your engine unless the damage is related to insufficient lubrication.
Yeah, the Porsche 911 was a blast but it spent alot of time in the shop and the bills were steep. However, I enjoy the GTO much more than I did the 911. As you mentioned, you can't toss it around like a Porsche but I still get my thrills in the mountains. And the grunt and sound of the LS2 is way better.
Incidently, I recently sold a BMW 528i which didn't use any oil until you started horsing it. Run it hard in the mountains and it would use a half quart in a tank of gas. Drive it like your mommy around town and it wouldn't use a drop between oil changes.


----------



## GTO 1 (Apr 10, 2007)

10W-30 oil would greatly improve this issue over 5W-30.


----------



## 4 BKT VET (Mar 28, 2006)

Any car driven aggressively should have more than the oil level checked regularly.


----------



## ls2weber (Apr 21, 2007)

Ok this should make you feel better, I got ahold of my old boss at Swift Dodge and told me the same letter of sorts goes out to the Viper owners and SRT8, my buddy is also head tech at VW and all drivers get a letter saying that they could go through a quart month and always check your oil. I see this letter as a good thing to make you check and keep your baby alive.


----------



## koman (Sep 25, 2006)

i just have the technical question that i thought of today after getting my letter in the mail... where does this oil go and why? it seems like something might not be sealing itself correctly if this is a problem. but here we have the double edged sword. an official letter saying "drive less aggressively" and the fact that if one drives less aggressively then the pcv valve dumps oil into the intake manifold or catch can for those with them... so where's the happy medium? i haven't had any issues with oil yet and 15k miles. currently i'm using castrol syntec 5w30. i didn't buy a "sports/muscle" car to push it around like a studebaker if that explains my driving technique any.


----------



## mumrah (Apr 3, 2005)

*Warning Light???*

Isn't there a warning light for low oil pressure? How can they say that they won't cover repairs if driven with low oil levels if the oil light does not properly work?


----------



## Red Bearded Goat (Mar 19, 2007)

koman said:


> i just have the technical question that i thought of today after getting my letter in the mail... where does this oil go and why? it seems like something might not be sealing itself correctly if this is a problem.


Koman,
If its not leaking via a seal and leaving a pool of oil in the driveway, then this is what I wrote could be the cause in a previous post. 

Crankcase pressures can differ between acceleration at a specific RPM and braking at the same RPM. Its caused by the pumping effect of the underside of the pistons. I believe they may have found in test bed trials the crankcase pressure variation causes the engine to consume oil when used as a brake. Under acceleration there is a free flow of exhaust and intake air flow is high, relieving under piston pressure in the crankcase via the PVC valve properly. Under deceleration, the opposite effect occurs with respect to exhaust flow and intake air, they decrease while under piston pressure is near constant or slightly increased for the same RPM and is the counter effect causing the engine to slow along with friction and cylinder compression. The under piston pumping rate being the same while the intake flow rate is decreased would cause the crankcase pressure to increase because some of the relieving effect is lost due to the decreased intake flow and potentially force some sump oil to be pumped out the PVC and into the intake.

Red Beard


----------



## Wing_Nut (Mar 6, 2005)

Just when I thought GM was starting to act like a real Automobile company. 

They have listened to their Bean Counters and Ambulance chasers and reverted to the CYA behavior of the past. Instead of supporting their customers, they publish a letter designed to release them from warranty responsibilities in the event of a class action lawsuit.

My LS2 was one of those that burned about 1 - 1.5 Qts every 5,000 miles. And, I did drive it hard. 3,000 - 6,000 RPM, engine braking, regular trips to 140+ MPH. While I didn't consider this a huge problem, it was certainly higher consumption than any other car I've owned in the past 20 years.

IMHO GM should have kept their mouth shut and quietly supported their product & customers. That's how you build brand loyalty. This letter is how you create mistrust and become "a domestic" brand.


----------



## paulvaagenes (Nov 19, 2006)

Did only 6 speed get letters? I have 06 A4 and have not recieved a letter. I read the letter that was posted and it only refers to the manual transmision.


----------



## Red Bearded Goat (Mar 19, 2007)

paulvaagenes said:


> Did only 6 speed get letters? I have 06 A4 and have not recieved a letter. I read the letter that was posted and it only refers to the manual transmision.


Yes, the letter stated with 6 speed trans and contained the same verbiage as the owners manual with respect to when you should check the oil level and if you run it with no oil they will not cover the damage. Nothing new there or unreasonable. The addition was the language about "aggressive driving" being 3000 RPM to red line and using the engine as a brake to slow down. That said, the owners manual already states that you should not use the engine to slow the car as a brake. This letter now defines it (the way I read it as an engineer, compared to what the manual states) that you may see higher oil consumption rates if your using the engine to slow the car when over 3000 RPM. I run mine aggressively up to speed but avoid down shifting when I'm over 3000 RPM to use the engine as a brake. I down shift to crank it up if I want or need more power and haven't seen oil consumption,,, But mine wouldn't be a good example since its is still a cherry with 1300 miles on the motor,,,, time will tell. I'd still like to know if Chevy sent a similar letter to Vette owners with the same engine ~ trans set up?

Red Beard


----------



## koman (Sep 25, 2006)

i drive pretty similarly and have yet to have an oil dissappearing issue with about 15200 miles on the clock. i didn't really care about the oil issues i'm more concerned about the "noisy injectors" i am hearing. run it til it blows up i guess...come on it's a "sports car" not a prius...i thought the poncho built excitement not woes and worries. as far as customer loyalty, unless there is another rwd high hp vehicle made by the general besides a vette then i'll probably go fishing elsewhere.


----------



## exwrx (Apr 5, 2007)

3100 miles, just checked and it needed a quart. Figure 6-8 bucks per 3K miles.... not too bad, but still. I expected this type of thing from my previous subaru, and other high strung imports. Not from massive displacement, relatively low stress motors.


----------



## troy hudson (Mar 12, 2006)

put a catch can on the car and you'll see where the oil goes. i did and i was amazed. looks like it was meant to go there.


----------



## PWR_SHIFT (Feb 10, 2005)

BlackSheep said:


> I got my letter on Saturday and have already started looking at BMW's. I went looking on Saturday after the mail came. I am going to drop this thing before it gives me problems and they refuse to cover it under warranty. I figure that I should not have any problems with a new M3. If I get rid of this, I will never buy another GM vehicle again. That is all that I have owned in over 20 years of driving. I just can't believe that GM would do this to the consumers that bought the GTOs. They know that there is a problem and do not want to spend the money to fix it. So, they had an attorney draft up this letter and send it out to all of us so they will have a way out of not honoring the warranty. They figured that it was cheaper to do that. I do love this car, but do not want the problems. You should not spend $32,000 + and have to worry about things every time you jump into it.
> 
> Another bit of info. Just saw it on the news. GM was passed in sales by Toyota. Toyota is now #1 in the Auto market.


BlackSheep, read the last long-term test of a 2006 330i with a grenaded valvetrain, I believe in the Automobile rag, or possibly C&D, from 2-3 months ago (I get both and can't recall right now which one published it), along with the recollection of their experience with extensive (and expensive) engine issues on their last 4 or 5 Bimmers (including unfortunately wholesale engine destruction on a 2001 M3) . . . then spend your greenbacks on the ultimate driving (but unfortunately not ultimately dependable) machine, and keep holding your fingers crossed (might be a bit tough if you want to get one with a manual . . . oh well). Or you could just do the unthinkable and check the engine oil on you Goat once or twice between changes. 

Either way, happy trails.


----------



## cat1055man (Nov 6, 2005)

I drive my '05 M6 aggressively most of the time and like to downshift. I use a quart in about 1500miles. 11.5K on the car now. I do not know why GM put out this letter, the reports on this thread indicate this problem does not exist for most LS2's and some report not using a drop in thousands of miles and that is much better than any performance car I have ever owned. I must beat my cars a little more. Gotta love the torque these LS2's lay down when you put your foot into it!:cheers


----------



## PDQ GTO (Jun 21, 2007)

Yep, I got the letter about the same time you did. I have not had any oil loss other than the Norm. and I drive hard most of the time... Prob. a CYA type letter...



GTO judge said:


> *Has Anyone received a letter like this from GM?
> 
> I am assuming there have been oil consumption issues raised with GM?*


----------



## PDQ GTO (Jun 21, 2007)

Is there a time frame by which we must respond by?



exwrx said:


> This letter materially alters the warranty that you agreed to when you purchased your vehicle. Under the Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, such a material alteration or change to the agreement can void the contract, or simply be ignored if conduct is contradictory to the letter, meaning that you can make GM pay you back for your inconvenience/cost of coverage, or even buy back your car.
> 
> Here's the catch. They can legally screw you if you do not reply "seasonally", stating that you object to this alteration. You must send a certified reply, stating that this is a alteration of your warranty agreement, to which you did not agree, nor contract to, when you purchased the vehicle.
> 
> ...


----------



## GTO JUDGE (May 14, 2005)

PDQ GTO said:


> Is there a time frame by which we must respond by?


*PDQ that letter was an advisory letter. No response is warranted. I know of no one who got part of the price they paid for their GTO refunded to them because of this advisory letter. If this was the case every person who owns one would be cashing in. This is not an alteration of a warranty. Drive your car and keep an eye on your oil levels. 

If this were a legal document GM would be required to offer you a choice and you'd be required to sing off. 

Call the number if you have questions. *


----------

