2001 Prelude has always burned oil--dealer says new engine needed!!??

Hi, I've had my 2001 Prelude since new. Manual, special edition. It
has burned oil since about a year or two into ownership. I brought it
in to the dealer a few times and was always told it was 'normal' for
preludes to burn a bit of oil. Last fall, the car had trouble
starting. This spring it just wouldn't. Brought it in and dealer said
spark plugs were fowled badly due to oil and engine codes showed a
number of misfires, etc. Dealer said I need a new lower half to the
engine!! WTF? Is this typical? Is there any way around this? I told
the guy to change the spark plugs and left. Engine light came on a day
later. *sigh* Do I have any options? Is this car only going to last me
another month? Thanks,

-Rob

 

What weight oil are you using? I found that my Civic would burn oil
after 60k miles on 5W-30, but not with 10W-30. If you are using 0W- or
5W-, try going up to 10W-. It shouldn't make a difference, yet it does.

 

Then you have some kind of serious problem. No modern engine should get
anything less than 8,000 miles per quart even at 100,000K.

After extensive testing of my own, I have found that there is zero
difference in oil consumption between 5W-30, 10W-30 and 10W-40.

I'd like to know your methodology.

 

I would think that a compression test is in order. If the car has
always used oil, methinks ring problem or ventilation right from the
factory that never got corrected.

JT

 

The Civic was run on Mobil One 15W-50 and 5W-30 full synthetic after
the break-in period. It used virtually no oil between changes. The
valves were always adjusted on schedule. After it hit about 70k miles I
noticed rough running; it was diagnosed as oil-fouled plugs and O2
sensor. It was also down most of a quart of oil for the first time ever.
They replaced the plugs, I replaced the sensor, and I stopped using the
5W- synthetic, using either the 15W-50 or a different brand of 10W-30
full synthetic. The car stopped burning oil and ten years later just
suffered only a little leakdown if it sat for more than a few days. It
was still fine when I sold it after 23 years and 146k miles. When I
tried the same thing with an AMC six that was using oil, the oil
consumption also stopped.

To sum up, we've had opposite experiences with changing viscosities.
I suspect that yours was due to the engines not using excessive oil in
the first place - correct me if I'm wrong on that. It certainly won't
hurt for this guy to switch to 10W-30, and it may help. I hope he tries
it and reports back.

 

Have you checked the PCV valve and associated plumbing?

 

15W-50 was not good choice. You surely suffered at least oil pump damage
and bearing damage if not ring damage as well using that stuff.

Why on earth would you use that viscosity? Your Honda's oil pump was not
designed for it, and your Owner's Manual certainly does not call for it.

No wonder you're burning oil; you broke your engine.

That was an older design of engine. Older-design engines often benefited
from oil of higher viscosities once the miles piled up.

10W-30 won't hurt. Won't help either.

He won't.

 

Did you even read what I wrote? The engine that I "broke" stopped
burning oil and was still running strong on the original internals over
a decade after this incident. I hope that you do a better job of reading
work-related documents.

 

Of course.

I wasn't there of course, so I have to accept your reporting as accurate,
but I stand by my guess as to internal engine damage.

Nobody should EVER do what you did with your car. 15W-50 is a /very/ bad
choice for any modern engine.

 

Why on earth do you say that? What supposed mechanism will cause oil
pump damage? I can almost believe the rings suffering due to decreased
oil flow, but have a hard time believing that a 50wt oil (a
comparatively wimpy 50wt at that.) will cause such severe starvation as
to 'break' the them. M1's 15w-50 has tons of zinc, moly, and boron
based anti-wear additives. Even IF oil delivery to the rings was
reduced (by how much, 20~30%?) I don't think it could kill the engine in
such a short time. I can't see any mechanism by which the plain crank
bearings would be damaged.

Europeans and those crazy Aussies routinely run xW-40 and xW-50wt oils
in the very same engines that are spec'd for 10W30 in North America.

Consider what happens every time you start your car on a cold morning.
Until the engine is up to operating temp, the cold oil circulating and
lubricating is vastly thicker than any hot 50wt. If thick-ish oil
caused bearing damage, we'd all destroy our cars in short order.

IMO.

 

Hi,
Ever tried a different dealership or independent garage who has a good
reputation? My OLD('98) CRV has ~279K Km so far on the clock, I change
oil every 8K Km with 5W-30 Castrol brand always. Between oil change I
don't need to top up oil. This cas still drives like new. I must say
something is definitely wrong with your car.

 

Tegger is normally a pretty reliable source of info, but apparently
I pushed some sort of "button" with this. He snipped the parts of my
post that directly contradict what he concluded, and since he hasn't
said otherwise, I'm going to assume that his "research" on the effects
of viscosity changes was done on cars that weren't burning oil to start
with. The final irony is that after saying that viscosity doesn't have
any effect on oil consumption, he accused me of "breaking" my engine
just by using 15W-50! I guess he thinks that Castrol GTX 20W-50 was sent
by Satan to prepare the earth for the Apocalypse. ;-)


Just to be clear, it's been my experience that older engines that
are using oil will often use less or even none if you switch them from
0W or 5W lower weight oil to 10W-30. I make no other claim.

 

Au contraire. I snipped everything BUT the apparently contradictory
part. And I even /joined together/ two parts of the contradictory
information that were originally spaced apart by other text, just so
people could see what I was replying to.
Go read my last reply again.

True. I've had absolutely no success getting oil-burning cars to quit
burning oil. Oil going /elsewhere/ is another story, but oil getting
sucked /past the rings/ (which is what "burning" usually is) is pretty
much a done deal and time for a ring job.

It's highly unlikely and hard to believe that your rings somehow got
"fixed" because you fed the engine different oil. It's easier to believe
that a leak of some kind got fixed as a byproduct of some other
servicing. You did imply later on that the car did have a "leakdown" of
oil that persisted until you sold the car.

No, I said *I* was unable to find any difference at all in consumption
between the grades I tried. Not the same thing.

To address Greg Campbell, I made an (unsuccessful) attempt at finding
any European Honda Owner's Manuals online in order to determine exactly
what Europeans are supposed to use in their engines. I did, however,
locate such information at www.castrol.co.uk .

Prior to model-year 2000, 15W-50 is the highest "alternate" viscosity
grade Castrol specifies (meant for /very/ hot climates, ~100F), but
their "recommended" viscosity for all pre-'00 cars is 10W-40.

AFTER 2000, Castrol no longer specifies any alternate viscosity higher
than 10W-40, and their "recommended" viscosity goes down to 0W-30.

A higher viscosity is harder for the oil pump to pick up, and harder to
squeeze through the filter. This is especially true when cold. This
means it takes "just a bit longer" for pressure to build in the
bearings, and "just a bit longer" for the rings and camshafts to receive
fresh oil.
All that "just a bit longer" means just that much more wear on each cold
start, and just that much shorter life for your engine's internals. No
"apocalypse", just shortened life.

And I make no other claim than that it is a bad idea to do other than
what Honda says to do for your engine.

You trusted them with +$20K of your money, evidently because you trusted
them to give you a finely-designed and built machine, but you won't
trust them to know what's best for that fine machine.

 

I had a 2001 myself and it used oil too -- which I was assured was normal
for a Prelude, particularly if you ran it hard into the VTEC. I used
routinely a quart every 2500-3000 miles and used Mobil 1 synthetic. I
traded the car at 67k miles for an 06 Accord coupe I4 --- and it does not
use oil. My dealer and other Lude owners told me that the design of the
Prelude engine was such that it was an oil user. I think you will find out
more about Preludes on an enthusiasts site. There used to be one I referred
to all of the time since most of the group here are not familiar with
Preludes.

 

As near as I can tell, the Australian tendency toward heavy oils is more
cultural than technical. Pick a lube manufacturer and then compare
their Au product lines vs. those sold in the US.

Compare Castrol's lineup.
Au
http://www.castrol.com/castrol/subsection.do?categoryId=8000003&contentId=6008505
Only one Xw-30, everything else is 40+, up to 10W-60(!)

vs.
US
http://www.castrol.com/castrol/subsection.do?categoryId=82915463&contentId=6005246
With several Xw-20 offerings and only one (may have missed more?) 50w.

Mobil's Au oils are also biased at least 10w higher. Haven't checked
any other companies.

Did you ever find any actual factory oil recommendations for US vs. Au
and elsewhere? Please post! I do know that several/most auto
manufacturers have retroactively re-specified many of their recent
models for Xw-20 use in the US (but not elsewhere.) That's going in the
opposite direction, but does imply that a wide range of viscosities will
work in most engines.

No argument there! Without looking at it's pour point, I suspect
running that 15w-50 during a North Dakota winter might not be the
smartest.

This, I'm curious about. At operating temp, there is not necessarily
any difference between a 0w-30 and a 10w-30. The 10W-X oils are, on
average, a hair thicker, but that's not guaranteed. If operating visc.
is similar, oil blow-by, etc. should also be similar. (?)

Not to take great issue, but IMO a number of factory specs are
influenced by marketing and perceived customer demands. I know for a
fact that Momma Honda's tire pressure suggestion for my car is out to
lunch by about 5 PSI. Customers of high end Accords want ride quality,
so give them what they want and lower the suggested PSI a few clicks. I
suspect oil specs are similar. If the average Aussie or German is used
to Xw-40 oils (and doesn't flinch at 25w-50!), spec something a little
higher.


Any Europeans or Australians out there? Please post your owner's manual
recommendations!
FWIW, my 92 Accord, built in Ohio, presumably for a North American
market, specifies 5w or 10W-30 for ALL temperatures.

 

Found a recent BITOG thread regarding the Mazda 3. US Spec is 5W-20,
but a fellow from Kuwait says his manual calls for 15W-40, also listing
20w-50 as an acceptable substitute.

 

I did, and it doesn't make sense. I noted that the engine stopped
burning oil, and was still fine ten years later, and this made you
conclude that I had "broke" it ten years earlier.

You aren't familiar with Honda engines leaking oil past the valve
seals when they get old and sit unused for a few days? Seriously? The
fact remains - and it is a fact - the car stopped burning oil with no
repairs just new plugs and O2 sensor, and 10W-30 weight synthetic.

You are telling me that I'm wrong about the viscosity making a
difference, so yes you *are* saying that the viscosity didn't matter.

I think you're losing track of what I wrote. I was using Mobil One
synthetic 15W-50 in the Honda engine. I simply *made a joke* about
Castrol 20W-50. Your response suggests, however, that my using 15W-50
for Summer use (which is when I used it) was not a problem.

So I should feel robbed because I only got 23 years and 146k miles
from my original engine? The one that was still running strong months
after I sold it? Really?

You've apparently confused my 1986 Civic Si with a new one. I paid
about $12k, with A/C. Get a grip, man. BTW, the dealer usually used my
oil for oil changes - the Mobil One 15W-50. They didn't make any silly
claims about it "breaking my engine."

 

Greg Campbell wrote:
(...)

I suspect that it's just that marginal extra viscosity - a bit more
than marginal as the engine warms up from cold - that makes the
difference. I seem to recall that most normal (not related to actual
damage) oil burning occurs at or near startup, so maybe it's just a case
of cutting the oil consumption for the few minutes when it's highest. I
don't know.

BTW, I didn't use the 15W-50 in Winter.

(...)