Oil consumption

I did. What page/item did I miss? Anything starting in the index under "oil." I didn't see anything on this subject.

HW

Clarification: I checked the owner's manual BEFORE the original post.

HW

Similar consumption in my XT. The dealer said this is normal when running in a turbo-charged donk.

Rob

It definitely shouldn't be so much. Usually I have a little below "full" level right after oil change and I have a little above "minimum" level after

3500-3700 miles (at next oil change). I have Outback '97.

I guess I assumed there is one quart between the maximum/minimum marker holes. As I recall, when brand new, the oil level was just below full; now it's about half way between the max/min marker holes.

HW

Rob, what do you mean by "turbo-charged donk"?

HW

Yeah. Opinions will vary, and YMMV, too, but my opinion would be to top it off and keep on driving. Not to sound like a smart ass, but 1/2 qt in

2400 miles translates into a quart in 4800 mi. That's hardly cause for concern, especially when many mfrs still figure 1 qt/1000 mi is not excessive (Particularly if you're trying to convince them something's amiss with your engine! I remember battles with VW when they first went water cooled trying to convince them 1 qt/500 mi is excessive! They didn't buy it. I don't deal with them any more, but I understand they still won't budge much.) Nor would I compare it to your Volvo or Honda. IS it a Volvo or Honda? Didn't think so. I don't know about Volvos, but the Hondas I've experience with are a bit stingy on oil consumption, the Subies a bit thirstier. AND, is this your FIRST 2400 mi on the '04? If so, you're probably still seating in rings--it may take 5-10k miles before they're completely settled in. Another poster spoke of "just below full and just above minimum" in 3500+ miles. Since there's approx 1 qt between the lines, I can only guesstimate his reference points without seeing the stick, but it sounds like about 3/4 qt. Hmmmm... 1/2 qt/2400 mi = 3/4 qt/3600 mi on my cheapo calculator. Sounds to me like you're doing fine!

Rick

HW

Translation;

"Similar consumption in my XT. The dealer said this is normal when running-in a turbo-charged engine."

Also go here for a related forum discussion;

Rob

I have a new 2004 inpreza wagon 2.5 L - 4cyl over 4000 k's now. the oil level has not dropped at all.

Well, my experience with Hondas (89 and 92 Civics) was that they used NO oil in 5000 mile change period, UNTIL I had a head gasket develop a crack and got it replaced at about 60,000 miles. After that (when the shop put in Castrol instead of their previously used Pennzoil), it used about a quart per 1000 miles almost immediately, and deteriorated a bit from there. As for my two 99 Foresters, neither one uses ANY oil during a 5000 mile change period. One has over 70,000 miles, the other is over 80,000. These are not turbo engines, of course.

Hi Rob,

Does this mean that yanks don't know what a "donk" is or just HW?

Translation;

"Similar consumption in my XT. The dealer said this is normal when running-in a turbo-charged engine."

Also go here for a related forum discussion;

Rob

He is talking about a new car and a turbo. Hardly the same as a 6 year old Outback, my 98 OBW uses no oil at all.

3500-3700 miles (at next oil change). I have Outback '97.

I'm not doubting anyone's word but I do not understand how a car can use no oil whatsoever in let's say 3,ooo miles or 5,ooo kilometers. At each power stroke of the piston, most of the oil on the cylinder wall must be burnt with the fuel. As minute as this quantity must be, I calculate that for a distance of 5,000 kilometers at 3000 rpm (110 kmh) (highway condition so ideal situation; for city driving multiply by at least 4) there is 900,000,000 power strokes in a four cyl engine. And this is not going to burn ANY oil??!! If I'm wrong, i'm missing something and would dearly want to know what.

Hi,

You already caught the calculation discrepancy in your other post, but your basic idea is correct: engines consume oil. Don't you think the penny pinching manufacturers would love to eliminate that buck or two for the oil dipstick and tubing if they didn't? Yes, it's true some don't use much, especially when new, but I was taught the same thing Jim mentioned in the other thread--if it APPEARS the engine's not using oil, it's probably cuz there's water (condensation) or fuel (cold starts, running rich) dilution of the oil. This is not uncommon on cars driven short distances, particularly in colder climates where the oil doesn't get hot enough to boil off the water. OTOH, owners of such cars are sometimes concerned when they take the car on a trip and it "uses" a quart of oil rather quickly, then often settles down. What they don't realize is they've just boiled off the water/fuel contamination and are getting down to "just oil" again. Even eliminating that possibility, driving style and conditions often affect consumption.

Another thing to take a look at is the definition of "using oil." In my mind, if I put 4.25 qts in at a change, and 3,000 miles later, there's

3.75 qts left, the engine "used" a half a quart. But, since it's only halfway down the marks on the stick, and it's not NECESSARY to add any oil if one doesn't wish to top things off (I do out of experiences that became habit), someone else might (somewhat rightly) say it "didn't use any oil."

Naturally, opinions vary on this subject.

Rick

"Doesn't use any oil" in my case means this: I change my own oil. I am meticulous about where on the dipstick I bring the level up to, and about when I measure this (with warmed up engine, allowing a few minutes for oil to drain into the pan. I measure the oil frequently enough throughout a change period to follow any changes if they occur. I check the level again before changing the oil and filter. It is not down any measurable amount as far as the dipstip shows, and the amount in the drain pan measures back to over 4.25 quarts after allowing the filter to also drain into it (started as 4.5 quarts put into the engine at last change). The filter is certainly still holding more oil, which means my "usage" of oil is less than 1/4 quart in 5000 miles or more. While the logic of burning some amount of oil may be correct, the actual amount used is quite difficult to determine, I propose, and therefore my manner of following oil "usage" is quite sufficient for my purposes to convince me the engine is not "using oil." I have no trouble in this case saying that my engine does not burn oil. I have had plenty of engines than did "use, burn, consume, leak" or otherwise lose oil during use (and non-use.) It was pretty easy to be convinced that they were "using oil" without having to think through whether or not they achieved this loss through burning it in a healthy piston or leaking it through a gasket or blowing it by a worn piston etc, even though it would be nice to know exactly to which of these the loss of oil was due.

Also, I forgot to add: I definitely don't do continuous short trip driving. I do plenty of long trips with well heated engine, sufficient to burn off condensation that might occur.

Not sure. I'm glad you came along - I was beginning to feel like there was something wrong with me !!