changing your oil too often will harm your engine
- Thread starter fj610
- Start date
- Status
Putting aside technical and chemical arguments, I tend to go with "real world" experiences if possible. There is always a counter argument. http://www.agcoauto.com/content/news/p2_articleid/54
Originally Posted by Shannow
Doesn't mean that new oil eliminates the tribofilm (the argument against changing your oil), or that extended oil drains reduce wear.
If you believe that it does, I can offer you some "preconditioned oil" to use as an additive., in litre bottles for $20/L, you pay for the shipping
Whoa lets not give Mobil any more marketing ideas..
![[Linked Image]](http://i63.tinypic.com/9r15bb.jpg "[Linked Image]")
Doesn't mean that new oil eliminates the tribofilm (the argument against changing your oil), or that extended oil drains reduce wear.
If you believe that it does, I can offer you some "preconditioned oil" to use as an additive., in litre bottles for $20/L, you pay for the shipping
Whoa lets not give Mobil any more marketing ideas..
Originally Posted by quint
Originally Posted by Shannow
Doesn't mean that new oil eliminates the tribofilm (the argument against changing your oil), or that extended oil drains reduce wear.
If you believe that it does, I can offer you some "preconditioned oil" to use as an additive., in litre bottles for $20/L, you pay for the shipping
Whoa lets not give Mobil any more marketing ideas..
Originally Posted by Shannow
Doesn't mean that new oil eliminates the tribofilm (the argument against changing your oil), or that extended oil drains reduce wear.
If you believe that it does, I can offer you some "preconditioned oil" to use as an additive., in litre bottles for $20/L, you pay for the shipping
Whoa lets not give Mobil any more marketing ideas..
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by vq40
https://www.sae.org/publications/te...Ck0rlC5O9eRwiX_Mt4Jc-b36vlN9xG827uQwSUw0
That SAE paper has nothing to do with the thread title.
Changing oil often may not do any real harm, but from the synopsis of that SAE paper it certainly sounds like they found that extended oil changes decreased friction and caused less engine wear.
"In one of our previous studies it was observed that engine oil samples collected from fleet vehicles after 12,000 mile drain interval showed 10-15 % lower friction and more importantly, an order of magnitude lower wear rate than those of fresh oils. It was also observed that the composition of the tribochemical films formed was quite different on the surface tested with the drain oils from those formed with fresh oils. The objective of this investigation is to demonstrate how the friction and wear performance changed with oil drain intervals."
Originally Posted by vq40
https://www.sae.org/publications/te...Ck0rlC5O9eRwiX_Mt4Jc-b36vlN9xG827uQwSUw0
That SAE paper has nothing to do with the thread title.
Changing oil often may not do any real harm, but from the synopsis of that SAE paper it certainly sounds like they found that extended oil changes decreased friction and caused less engine wear.
"In one of our previous studies it was observed that engine oil samples collected from fleet vehicles after 12,000 mile drain interval showed 10-15 % lower friction and more importantly, an order of magnitude lower wear rate than those of fresh oils. It was also observed that the composition of the tribochemical films formed was quite different on the surface tested with the drain oils from those formed with fresh oils. The objective of this investigation is to demonstrate how the friction and wear performance changed with oil drain intervals."
Rest of my quote....
Originally Posted by Shannow
It's about tribofilm formation on metal surfaces, using previously used oil, most of which was past it's condemnation limit with respect to TBN/TAN, or thickening.
Used oil forms tribofilms quicker and better...it's been pretty standard knowledge forever, as in order to form tribofilms, the virgin additives have to break down some.
Doesn't mean that new oil eliminates the tribofilm (the argument against changing your oil), or that extended oil drains reduce wear.
If you believe that it does, I can offer you some "preconditioned oil" to use as an additive., in litre bottles for $20/L, you pay for the shipping
Test used a cam and follower rig.
Test used oil removed from taxis, some of which had increased viscosity by double, some of which had no TBN, some of which had TBN below TAN
They applied the used oils to the rig, and measured tribofilm formation.
The used oil, exactly as it should have, being already partly reacted formed quicker and thicker tribofilms than the new, which had to make these reactive species in order to create the films.
In most cases the used oil had no reason being in any engine in the first place.
Edit...I've got the paper, that's why I can try (failing hopelessly) to correct beliefs (not you) that are spread based on the synopsis.
Originally Posted by Shannow
It's about tribofilm formation on metal surfaces, using previously used oil, most of which was past it's condemnation limit with respect to TBN/TAN, or thickening.
Used oil forms tribofilms quicker and better...it's been pretty standard knowledge forever, as in order to form tribofilms, the virgin additives have to break down some.
Doesn't mean that new oil eliminates the tribofilm (the argument against changing your oil), or that extended oil drains reduce wear.
If you believe that it does, I can offer you some "preconditioned oil" to use as an additive., in litre bottles for $20/L, you pay for the shipping
Test used a cam and follower rig.
Test used oil removed from taxis, some of which had increased viscosity by double, some of which had no TBN, some of which had TBN below TAN
They applied the used oils to the rig, and measured tribofilm formation.
The used oil, exactly as it should have, being already partly reacted formed quicker and thicker tribofilms than the new, which had to make these reactive species in order to create the films.
In most cases the used oil had no reason being in any engine in the first place.
Edit...I've got the paper, that's why I can try (failing hopelessly) to correct beliefs (not you) that are spread based on the synopsis.
Last edited:
^^^ I was only going from the SAE paper synopsis, which says nothing about them using already used oil. I was thinking they used new oil and ran it for increasingly longer OCIs. That's a test that would make more sense.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
^^^ I was only going from the SAE paper synopsis, which says nothing about them using already used oil. I was thinking they used new oil and ran it for increasingly longer OCIs. That's a test that would make more sense.
'zackerly...
^^^ I was only going from the SAE paper synopsis, which says nothing about them using already used oil. I was thinking they used new oil and ran it for increasingly longer OCIs. That's a test that would make more sense.
'zackerly...
That's excellentt!
(The Mobil 2 jug)
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
^^^ I was only going from the SAE paper synopsis, which says nothing about them using already used oil. I was thinking they used new oil and ran it for increasingly longer OCIs. That's a test that would make more sense.
The test rig was a cam running on a shim, bathed in the used test oil.
Here's some snaps...As can be seen, that oil had no place being in any engine. The other two were worse, one of them getting up to 130+ppm iron around the 7500 mile mark and dropping back to 30 at the 15,000 mile mark (sludge maybe).
You'll have to look hard for the white trace, but it's there...shows the steady wear of the new oil (not this is virgin oil with unactivated additives on virgin metal) until it flattens out on formation of the tribofilm. The used oils react immediately.
So I still stand by the statement that virgin oil, in an engine that has already seen service, broken in, and has established tribofilm isn't going to wear out quicker with more frequent oil changes.
^^^ I was only going from the SAE paper synopsis, which says nothing about them using already used oil. I was thinking they used new oil and ran it for increasingly longer OCIs. That's a test that would make more sense.
The test rig was a cam running on a shim, bathed in the used test oil.
Here's some snaps...As can be seen, that oil had no place being in any engine. The other two were worse, one of them getting up to 130+ppm iron around the 7500 mile mark and dropping back to 30 at the 15,000 mile mark (sludge maybe).
You'll have to look hard for the white trace, but it's there...shows the steady wear of the new oil (not this is virgin oil with unactivated additives on virgin metal) until it flattens out on formation of the tribofilm. The used oils react immediately.
So I still stand by the statement that virgin oil, in an engine that has already seen service, broken in, and has established tribofilm isn't going to wear out quicker with more frequent oil changes.
Hmm, they didn't bother to report copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and Chromium (Cr), which don't do well at all with used oil because of acid-induced corrosion. How convenient!
The valvetrain wear (iron [Fe]) is usually my least concern.
The valvetrain wear (iron [Fe]) is usually my least concern.
^^^ Interesting ... thanks for the additional info out of the paper. I see that the fresh oil is the only one with no Moly - all the others do have it. Was all the used oil the same brand & viscosity? Apparently, the fresh oil wasn't the same formulation since it's missing Moly. The used oils are more viscous too, which could have influenced the wear seen in the test.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Hmm, they didn't bother to report copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and Chromium (Cr), which don't do well at all with used oil because of acid-induced corrosion. How convenient!
Did those figure in the test rig, though?
Hmm, they didn't bother to report copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and Chromium (Cr), which don't do well at all with used oil because of acid-induced corrosion. How convenient!
Did those figure in the test rig, though?
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Hmm, they didn't bother to report copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and Chromium (Cr), which don't do well at all with used oil because of acid-induced corrosion. How convenient!
Did those figure in the test rig, though?
They should. The test rigs were three vehicles driven in Las Vegas.
https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/2007-01-4133/#abstract
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Hmm, they didn't bother to report copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and Chromium (Cr), which don't do well at all with used oil because of acid-induced corrosion. How convenient!
Did those figure in the test rig, though?
They should. The test rigs were three vehicles driven in Las Vegas.
https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/2007-01-4133/#abstract
By the way, the first thing I did after I changed my oil to M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS a couple of weeks ago was to drive my car to and from the suburbs on the LA-area freeways at night for 100 miles "so that a new tribofilm would form."
Originally Posted by Gokhan
... Dino (well, Group III) TGMO 0W-20 SN and the tiny M1-103 semisynthetic filter (9.1 oz?) are out, PAO Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0W-20 SN PLUS and Fram Ultra XG3600 full synthetic (19.0 oz) are in. I drove for about 100 mi to have the new PAO-based oil work in. The car effortlessly glides with the engine sounding like a fine musical instrument. Driving is fun again. ...
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...0w-20-m1-0w-40-final-verdict#Post5022866
Something only a BITOG member would do. Lol.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
... Dino (well, Group III) TGMO 0W-20 SN and the tiny M1-103 semisynthetic filter (9.1 oz?) are out, PAO Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0W-20 SN PLUS and Fram Ultra XG3600 full synthetic (19.0 oz) are in. I drove for about 100 mi to have the new PAO-based oil work in. The car effortlessly glides with the engine sounding like a fine musical instrument. Driving is fun again. ...
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...0w-20-m1-0w-40-final-verdict#Post5022866
Something only a BITOG member would do. Lol.
Ooops, never mind, I was looking totally at the wrong charts that had no bearing upon what I was thinking.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
By the way, the first thing I did after I changed my oil to M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS a couple of weeks ago was to drive my car to and from the suburbs on the LA-area freeways at night for 100 miles "so that a new tribofilm would form."
...
Curious, wouldn't tribofilm form under normal driving conditiond? Let's say you just used the car like you normally do instead of driving it 100 miles on the freeway?I
Does tribofilm from better or quicker at high(er) rpm and/or high(er) oil temps?
By the way, the first thing I did after I changed my oil to M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS a couple of weeks ago was to drive my car to and from the suburbs on the LA-area freeways at night for 100 miles "so that a new tribofilm would form."
...
Curious, wouldn't tribofilm form under normal driving conditiond? Let's say you just used the car like you normally do instead of driving it 100 miles on the freeway?I
Does tribofilm from better or quicker at high(er) rpm and/or high(er) oil temps?
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Hmm, they didn't bother to report copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and Chromium (Cr), which don't do well at all with used oil because of acid-induced corrosion. How convenient!
Did those figure in the test rig, though?
They should. The test rigs were three vehicles driven in Las Vegas.
https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/2007-01-4133/#abstract
No the oil sources were the taxis...the test rig for the findings was a bench test.
They weren't measuring wear on the taxis.
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Hmm, they didn't bother to report copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and Chromium (Cr), which don't do well at all with used oil because of acid-induced corrosion. How convenient!
Did those figure in the test rig, though?
They should. The test rigs were three vehicles driven in Las Vegas.
https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/2007-01-4133/#abstract
No the oil sources were the taxis...the test rig for the findings was a bench test.
They weren't measuring wear on the taxis.
- Status
Similar threads
