I Don't Change My Oil

[hattaresguy]

I know of a number of people who did this with diesel motors and a couple diesel Mercedes, one NA 606.

All you need is a bypass like a Frantz to really filter the oil, and an oil with a good base stock to start with, like lets say Amsoil 15w40 diesel oil.

Change the filters every 5k-10k and top off as needed.

I lost track of one of the cars but the owner was well over 100k miles without a change and Blackstone kept sending the sample back good for continued use.

 

[jsinton]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
jsinton, first, when you get your UOA, make sure to include the TAN in addition to the TBN.

Second, you are doing your math wrong. You aren't including the wear metals you are dumping through burned or leak oil. Your actually wear concentration will be about 3.5x (3.5 times) the numbers reported in the UOA report. Why?

Since you're adding makeup oil, you're diluting the wear metals in the oil each time. Every time, you multiply it by about 0.8, accounting for 1 qt added for a 5 qt sump (20% dilution of wear metals). So, if a is the amount of wear metals in 4000 miles, you resulting wear metals will be:

((a*0.8 + a)*0.8 + a)*0.8 + ... = a*0.8 + a*0.8^2 + a*0.8^3 + ...

^ denotes raising to a given power.

You can look up the formula for this geometric series and do the calculation, and the result will be such that the reported UOA values are underestimating your actual wear metals by about a factor of 3.5.

This is the formula: Correction factor = # of makeup-oil additions * (makeup oil as percent of sump) / { remaining oil as percent of sum - [remaining oil as percent of sump]^(# of additions + 1) }

So, your actual wear metals will be about 3.5 times what will be reported on your UOA. If the UOA reports 100 ppm, it's actually 350 ppm. Therefore, make this large correction before you make a judgment based on your bare UOA results. 350 ppm of iron in 5 qt of oil is 1.5 grams of iron -- just to give you an idea of how much metal is being scraped.


I fail to understand the significance of your logic. If I pull a filter at 4k since last filter change, that will represent my WORST oil to date at any given time during my experiment. That should be a pretty good indicator of success or fail, will it not?

I'm not interest in the woulda/shoulda if I hadn't been losing oil, I'm only interested in the real-world condition of my oil using my schedule.

 

[jsinton]

Originally Posted By: ram_man
I think even if the facts prove you are wrong that you probably won't be honest about it. You seem to be dead set that neglect is good for your engine. To be very honest I could care less about uoa and such. Let's see under valve cover pictures and let's see how long the engine lives without excessive noise usage or any other issues. Oil analysis is important but it's not fool proof. There has been multiple people say your logic is flawed.....why you don't take the advice is beyond me. Other than for interest it's a waste of Time to send it to a lab we know what you are doing is stupid. Why not change the oil and then do so from now on.


I get it. Then I shall disregard anything further you have to say. Thank you for your honesty.

 

[jsinton]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
I know of a number of people who did this with diesel motors and a couple diesel Mercedes, one NA 606.

All you need is a bypass like a Frantz to really filter the oil, and an oil with a good base stock to start with, like lets say Amsoil 15w40 diesel oil.

Change the filters every 5k-10k and top off as needed.

I lost track of one of the cars but the owner was well over 100k miles without a change and Blackstone kept sending the sample back good for continued use.


That's been my experience also. I'm simply out to prove it again. I have been repeatedly called less than truthful, but I don't care. I'm not doing this for other people, but if others can benefit from my experience, all the better.

 

[dave1251]

I am sorry for the personal attacks against you.

From what I have seen it is because of personal ignorance and from people whom have not done any research on what you are doing.

Like I said. The results will be very intriguing to say the least.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: jsinton


What I failed to tell everyone is that this is not the first time I have tried my experiment. Before my present batch, I had started another batch that lasted 30k. I had the oil tested at 17k and 27k. The results were excellent, with Blackstone also telling me I was changing the filter too much. So it's not really a "hail-mary" play.


So there is a method to your madness!

Another thing that I thought of when you finally do the oil change is to check how much oil it actually takes to fill to the full mark. In extreme cases where the pan has sludge in it, the amount can be substantially less than owner's manual specifications.

You're getting a lot of BITOGers excited over this oil change.
Maybe we should start up a pool on TAN, TBN, and Wear Metals.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: jsinton
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
jsinton, first, when you get your UOA, make sure to include the TAN in addition to the TBN.

Second, you are doing your math wrong. You aren't including the wear metals you are dumping through burned or leak oil. Your actually wear concentration will be about 3.5x (3.5 times) the numbers reported in the UOA report. Why?

Since you're adding makeup oil, you're diluting the wear metals in the oil each time. Every time, you multiply it by about 0.8, accounting for 1 qt added for a 5 qt sump (20% dilution of wear metals). So, if a is the amount of wear metals in 4000 miles, resulting wear metals will be:

((a*0.8 + a)*0.8 + a)*0.8 + ... = a*0.8 + a*0.8^2 + a*0.8^3 + ...

^ denotes raising to a given power.

You can look up the formula for this geometric series and do the calculation, and the result will be such that the reported UOA values are underestimating your actual wear metals by about a factor of 3.5.

This is the formula: Correction factor = # of makeup-oil additions * (makeup oil as percent of sump) / { remaining oil as percent of sum - [remaining oil as percent of sump]^(# of additions + 1) }

So, your actual wear metals will be about 3.5 times what will be reported on your UOA. If the UOA reports 100 ppm, it's actually 350 ppm. Therefore, make this large correction before you make a judgment based on your bare UOA results. 350 ppm of iron in 5 qt of oil is 1.5 grams of iron -- just to give you an idea of how much metal is being scraped.


I fail to understand the significance of your logic. If I pull a filter at 4k since last filter change, that will represent my WORST oil to date at any given time during my experiment. That should be a pretty good indicator of success or fail, will it not?

I'm not interest in the woulda/shoulda if I hadn't been losing oil, I'm only interested in the real-world condition of my oil using my schedule.

It's math. For one makeup addition, multiply by 1.125. For 13 additions, it's 3.5. Otherwise, your UOA results won't mean much at their face value.

 

[jsinton]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
I am sorry for the personal attacks against you.

From what I have seen it is because of personal ignorance and from people whom have not done any research on what you are doing.

Like I said. The results will be very intriguing to say the least.


Oh, well thank you, no need to apologize. Internet forums can be a rough place sometimes. I came here to bounce my ideas off people who think a lot about oil so I might learn something. I might fail miserably, but in any event I shall make my oil analysis public so all can view. Is there a way to upload attachment .pdf?

 

[jsinton]

I considered doing my oil analysis now, but I checked mileage, and I only have 675 miles on the present filter, so it would not be a good test. If I wait for 4k on the filter, that will represent my worst possible oil to date, with 52k on it. So I ask all to be patient with me as that's going to take a little while.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: jsinton
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
jsinton, first, when you get your UOA, make sure to include the TAN in addition to the TBN.

Second, you are doing your math wrong. You aren't including the wear metals you are dumping through burned or leak oil. Your actually wear concentration will be about 3.5x (3.5 times) the numbers reported in the UOA report. Why?

Since you're adding makeup oil, you're diluting the wear metals in the oil each time. Every time, you multiply it by about 0.8, accounting for 1 qt added for a 5 qt sump (20% dilution of wear metals). So, if a is the amount of wear metals in 4000 miles, you resulting wear metals will be:

((a*0.8 + a)*0.8 + a)*0.8 + ... = a*0.8 + a*0.8^2 + a*0.8^3 + ...

^ denotes raising to a given power.

You can look up the formula for this geometric series and do the calculation, and the result will be such that the reported UOA values are underestimating your actual wear metals by about a factor of 3.5.

This is the formula: Correction factor = # of makeup-oil additions * (makeup oil as percent of sump) / { remaining oil as percent of sum - [remaining oil as percent of sump]^(# of additions + 1) }

So, your actual wear metals will be about 3.5 times what will be reported on your UOA. If the UOA reports 100 ppm, it's actually 350 ppm. Therefore, make this large correction before you make a judgment based on your bare UOA results. 350 ppm of iron in 5 qt of oil is 1.5 grams of iron -- just to give you an idea of how much metal is being scraped.


I fail to understand the significance of your logic. If I pull a filter at 4k since last filter change, that will represent my WORST oil to date at any given time during my experiment. That should be a pretty good indicator of success or fail, will it not?

I'm not interest in the woulda/shoulda if I hadn't been losing oil, I'm only interested in the real-world condition of my oil using my schedule.


I think I understand what Gokhan is saying. His calculation is a required correction to really document how much metal has worn off your engine surfaces. It is not a "woulda/shoulda" fudge factor because it corrects for the fact that your are adding makeup oil at the rate of 1 quart every 2660 miles (1 quart in 4k miles due to burning/leakage, and 1/2 quart when you change the filter). Adding oil actually falsifies the wear metals reading because you're diluting the oil that already contains metal particles that have worn from the engine.

Of course, if I'm wrong in this, Gokhan can correct me.

 

[jsinton]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: jsinton
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
jsinton, first, when you get your UOA, make sure to include the TAN in addition to the TBN.

Second, you are doing your math wrong. You aren't including the wear metals you are dumping through burned or leak oil. Your actually wear concentration will be about 3.5x (3.5 times) the numbers reported in the UOA report. Why?

Since you're adding makeup oil, you're diluting the wear metals in the oil each time. Every time, you multiply it by about 0.8, accounting for 1 qt added for a 5 qt sump (20% dilution of wear metals). So, if a is the amount of wear metals in 4000 miles, you resulting wear metals will be:

((a*0.8 + a)*0.8 + a)*0.8 + ... = a*0.8 + a*0.8^2 + a*0.8^3 + ...

^ denotes raising to a given power.

You can look up the formula for this geometric series and do the calculation, and the result will be such that the reported UOA values are underestimating your actual wear metals by about a factor of 3.5.

This is the formula: Correction factor = # of makeup-oil additions * (makeup oil as percent of sump) / { remaining oil as percent of sum - [remaining oil as percent of sump]^(# of additions + 1) }

So, your actual wear metals will be about 3.5 times what will be reported on your UOA. If the UOA reports 100 ppm, it's actually 350 ppm. Therefore, make this large correction before you make a judgment based on your bare UOA results. 350 ppm of iron in 5 qt of oil is 1.5 grams of iron -- just to give you an idea of how much metal is being scraped.


I fail to understand the significance of your logic. If I pull a filter at 4k since last filter change, that will represent my WORST oil to date at any given time during my experiment. That should be a pretty good indicator of success or fail, will it not?

I'm not interest in the woulda/shoulda if I hadn't been losing oil, I'm only interested in the real-world condition of my oil using my schedule.


I think I understand what Gokhan is saying. His calculation is a required correction to really document how much metal has worn off your engine surfaces. It is not a "woulda/shoulda" fudge factor because it corrects for the fact that your are adding makeup oil at the rate of 1 quart every 2660 miles (1 quart in 4k miles due to burning/leakage, and 1/2 quart when you change the filter). Adding oil actually falsifies the wear metals reading because you're diluting the oil that already contains metal particles that have worn from the engine.

Of course, if I'm wrong in this, Gokhan can correct me.


Yes, I understand his math. That's no problem. But again, like I'm saying I'm scheduled to test my oil now at 52k after I reach 4k on the present filter. That should represent my oil in its worst stage to date (theoretically). So I don't see anything disingenuous. If I were to do a test now, after 675 miles after a fresh filter and oil top off, I would think that is not representative of my worst oil. So I'm waiting on my schedule. Perhaps we are actually agreeing and I don't comprehend that fact?

 

[Gokhan]

A_Harman, yes, that's exactly the point. If you're adding makeup oil, you should adjust your UOA results. In the OP's case, the adjustment factor is huge (3.5x) because he is adding makeup oil 13 times at 4k-mile intervals.

 

[Gokhan]

OP, as I said, you will need to multiply your wear-metal ppms by 3.5 to adjust for the amount diluted by makeup oil. Then you can divide the adjusted ppms by 10 to get the ppm per 5000 miles.

 

[jsinton]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
OP, as I said, you will need to multiply your wear-metal ppms by 3.5 to adjust for the amount diluted by makeup oil. Then you can divide the adjusted ppms by 10 to get the ppm per 5000 miles.


But why do you assume I add make up oil just before I pull the filter? Would that not be silly? I usually wind up pulling the filter when it's half quart low. So the oil sample, again, will represent my oil in the worst condition. It's not a controlled experiment, I don't pull the filter like clockwork. I do it when I feel like it. Sometimes that's 3k, other times it's 4k.

You're assuming I should care about the wear metals as if I never add oil. But that's not the point. I worry about my oil in the worst possible condition... at 4k.

 

[Gokhan]

OK, I think I understand your confusion. Wear metals are very small in size and are suspended in oil and they pass through the filter. Any wear metal large enough to be held at the filter won't show up in UOA anyway.

 

[jsinton]

Yes, I get it. But that's why I add oil and change the filter... to keep the oil clean... which is the whole point. I don't expect to see much in the way of wear metals... which is the point. I'm simply trying to prove it is possible to follow my system and have excellent oil. I'm not doing oil analysis to detect an engine wear problem. I'm doing analysis to verify my oil maintenance schedule is viable. I suppose then I should do the TBN and the TAN.

 

[BHopkins]

JSinton,

Sorry to get a little off topic here, but this should be brief so we can get back on track.

Would you share the Hyundai forum that you visit. My daughter-in-law has a minor electrical issue with her Sonata. She asked me for help, but I haven't been able to diagnose it. I found a Sonata forum and posted a question, but didn't get a single response, even after bumping it a few times. Pretty disappointed. Perhaps the forum you visit will be more helpful? It couldn't hurt for me to try, right?

BTW, I admire how even keeled you are, even when some here get personal in attacks. Great composure. Wish more of us here were like that.

 

[NMBurb02]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
OP, as I said, you will need to multiply your wear-metal ppms by 3.5 to adjust for the amount diluted by makeup oil. Then you can divide the adjusted ppms by 10 to get the ppm per 5000 miles.

Actually, your math is a bit off because it is assuming 1 qt added to a 5 qt sump. OP's car has a 3.75 qt sump. I could probably follow your math on any other day, but it has been a long day and my brain is pretty much mush at this point. Can you calculate the correction factor with that new data? I know it will be higher.

 

[jsinton]

Originally Posted By: BHopkins
JSinton,

Sorry to get a little off topic here, but this should be brief so we can get back on track.

Would you share the Hyundai forum that you visit. My daughter-in-law has a minor electrical issue with her Sonata. She asked me for help, but I haven't been able to diagnose it. I found a Sonata forum and posted a question, but didn't get a single response, even after bumping it a few times. Pretty disappointed. Perhaps the forum you visit will be more helpful? It couldn't hurt for me to try, right?

BTW, I admire how even keeled you are, even when some here get personal in attacks. Great composure. Wish more of us here were like that.

I'd be glad to help you. What is the problem?

 

[jsinton]

Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
OP, as I said, you will need to multiply your wear-metal ppms by 3.5 to adjust for the amount diluted by makeup oil. Then you can divide the adjusted ppms by 10 to get the ppm per 5000 miles.

Actually, your math is a bit off because it is assuming 1 qt added to a 5 qt sump. OP's car has a 3.75 qt sump. I could probably follow your math on any other day, but it has been a long day and my brain is pretty much mush at this point. Can you calculate the correction factor with that new data? I know it will be higher.


Actually, I usually fill with 4.5 quarts with a complete oil change to bring oil to the fill mark. The owner's manual says 4.2 quarts or 4 liters.