Mobil1 Study and Honda's extended first drain

[Ed]

I ran across this website-http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html
that has the results of a fairly exhaustive test on Mobil-1. One of the items that caught my eye was the following paragraph:
"Engine wear actually decreases as oil ages. This has also been substantiated in testing conducted by Ford Motor Co. and ConocoPhillips, and reported in SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-3119. What this means is that compulsive oil changers are actually causing more engine wear than the people who let their engine's oil get some age on it. "

Some time ago I read an article that some old timers advised against changing the oil too often as it prevents the oil from "getting to know" the engine.
I always figured this was just some old codgers wives tale but apparently there is some rationale here.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the guys who did the extensive mobil 1 testing did the same thing for the highly hyped "Synlube". Betcha the results wouldn't be much different.
Ed

 

[Al]

I seem to recall that one. Refresh my memory-is it bc the viscosity increased ??

[ February 16, 2004, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Al ]

 

[Dr. T]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ed:
One of the items that caught my eye was the following paragraph:
"Engine wear actually decreases as oil ages. This has also been substantiated in testing conducted by Ford Motor Co. and ConocoPhillips, and reported in SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-3119. Ed

---

Does anynoe have a link/copy of this paper? I wonder if this is a misconstrued thought because new oil has a better ability to trap and contain wear molecules than an older one leading to an assumtion that it's creating more wear? I certainly can't see how changing the oil more frequently can increase wear? Seems twisted to me...

 

[mrhonda]

checked out SAE.org and it'll cost ya ($12 to download).


"SAE Technical PapersDocument Number: 2003-01-3119


Book Number: SP-1810


Title: Antiwear Performance of Low Phosphorus Engine Oils on Tappet Inserts in Motored Sliding Valvetrain Test

Meeting Where Presented: SAE Powertrain & Fluid Systems Conference & Exhibition, October 2003, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Session: Rheology and Tribology


AUTHOR(S):
Hong Gao - ConocoPhillips More publications by this Author
Arup K. Gangopadhyay - Ford Motor Co. More publications by this Author
J. Scott McQueen - ConocoPhillips
E. Dewayne Black - ConocoPhillips
Ronald K. Jensen - Ford Motor Co. More publications by this Author
Kay K. Bjornen - ConocoPhillips More publications by this Author
Edward A. Soltis - Ford Motor Co. More publications by this Author


File Size: 1590K


Product Status: In Stock


Purchase more technical papers and save! With TechSelect, you decide what SAE Technical Papers you need, when you need them, and how much you want to pay. Learn more >

 

[khager]

quote:

---

Some time ago I read an article that some old timers advised against changing the oil too often as it prevents the oil from "getting to know" the engine.

---

Yea I guess when the oil develops a long term relationship and commits to the engine everything is better. Say what!!!

 

[tpi]

One issue I see with excessive oil changes is each change has possiblity to introduce grit into the system. Example: oil filters. At $3.99 I can't see mfg. perfection regarding cleanliness. Packaging isn't air tight in most cases. And any dirt here goes to oil pump then directly to the bearings.

I try to go a maximum change interval which still keeps engine free of sludge and varnish. In most of my vehicles this has been 6000-10,000 miles using synthetic.

 

[Palut]

One thing I noticed when I came across this site a few months ago: The eleveated wear levels they noted in the first few thousand miles of the M1 occurred in the first few thousand miles they drove the car. Isn't this the time of the heaviest break-in wear? IMHO the increased wear that they're seeing is just the normal break-in wear, and not some issue with the oil "getting used to the engine."

 

[Rick]

That's a bunch of crap. So what if you change your oil more often. That will not create more wear. With mine i'm able to prime my filter so when I change it I get no startup noise and farly quick oil pressure. Ok 1k changes are crazy but even if you want to do that, how is that going to create more wear. E.G you have an older engine with lager clearence's. So the engine will take care better with thicker oil. Like we have all seen, dine oil's will tend to loose there vis do to shearing over the oci. That is if you don't have access to HM oil's.

 

[Dave]

Bringing this thread back from the dead...

I find it hard to believe that slightly used oil wears an engine less than a new one. Anyone have additional information (or has downloaded the study and found any problems with it?)

 

[drm7]

I recall this topic being discussed before. Don't many UOA show the wear / 1000 miles actually lower for the same engines when the OCI is extended? Wouldn't this show that early OCI may actually increase wear? That being said I know many 200k+ cars w/3000 mile changes.

 

[Gary Allan]

This has been a topic of some debate. Some attribute it to resuspension of the previous OCI's residuals. Some have suggested the empty filter on the first start up. Some have suggested that the new oil's add pack actually simulates wear by aggressively attacking surfaces. I intend to do a number of back to back 1000 miles OCI w/UOAs to kick most of this speculation out of the realm of possibility.

check this out ...and add your input!

 

[1sttruck]

Has anyone read the SAE paper ? Is wear based upon measurements ? If not then we're back to another thread that Gary ? had started, where I tried to suggest that you need to verify that metal in an oil analysis correlates with wear. One possible reason for increased levels of metals is a resuspension of particles that had started to 'plate out' or otherwise develop as a film, and while others are introduction of metals I'll assume that suitable controls were used.

Consider a sample of engines with a total/partial loss oil system, and another with extended drain intervals; which will demonstrate the least MEASURED wear after use ?

 

[1sttruck]

Another consideration is a benchtop wear test like a four ball test. If oil gets better with use does that mean that wear marks are greater with new oil, when starting the test ?

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

If not then we're back to another thread that Gary ? had started, where I tried to suggest that you need to verify that metal in an oil analysis correlates with wear.

---

quote:

---

where I tried to suggest that you need to verify that metal in an oil analysis correlates with wear

---

Assuming you see 50 ppm or Fe or 28 ppm of Pb ..where else would they come from? It would naturally imply that you DON'T add anything that would skew the results (FP, Techron, MMO, LC, etc...etc.)

Whether resuspended from a previous OCI or preciptated ...most metals have to be from wear. The exception being when some additives bond ..and plating occurs (apply any 'nomer you think is appropriate) and they displace particles.


Where else would they come from??

I mean how hard is it to isolate this anomoly??

 

[1sttruck]

Assuming that new oil results in more wear we should see stable, higher levels of metals with each short interval oil change, no matter how long one uses a short change interval, and at the end of the test more measured wear on engine parts.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Assuming that new oil results in more wear we should see stable, higher levels of metals with each short interval oil change, no matter how long one uses a short change interval, and at the end of the test more measured wear on engine parts.

---

Well how would you suggest that we, as po folk, challenge or confirm this assumption or assertion without measuring internal tolerances??

Would you figure that someone doing back to back 1000 mile OCI will see higher wear numbers (than a 3k OCI) ..each and every short OCI??

..or we could just keep debating it to death and achieve nothing but the opportunity to debate it some more

 

[1sttruck]

Unfortunately measuring wear on an engine will be impractical, due to time and expense. Benchtop testing with something like a 4 ball is also impractical for most of us. Looking for stable, high levels of wear metals with short change intervals will be expensive but doable. I had thought that surely UOAs have been correlated with wear in papers, or that 'new oil creates more wear as measured with UOAs' has been explained; this seems to be the easiest to pursue.

This topic seems important as it questions some of the assumptions of the validity of UOAs.

 

[Gary Allan]

Yes, one can't determine between particle suspension and particle generation. Particle rejection can be a factor. I would imagine, however, the engine manufacturers have the brains to have pondered this topic themselves. They appear to afford warranty coverage for extended drains with a UOA program in place.

The debate rest souly in the novice or "people who have just enough knowledge ..that they know that they don't have enough of it" types ..us.

So ..1struck ..wouldn't you see that if I did three back to back 1k UOA's and didn't see an upramp in particles that this would eliminate a decent amount of the debate?? Or perhaps a 1k, 1k, 2k, 1k, 3k?

What I'm trying to glean here is your rejection and discounting ..yet continued pondering that appears to dance around the topic in every angle imagined ..to the testing that I proposed in the other thread??

I haven't figured out what you "don't see" in it that would shut most of this debate down. Wear metals don't appear out of thin air. Does it matter if they are from a poor oil or an agressive one? The metals end up in the oil ..or at least they aren't where they were at one time. After a given frequency of short OCIs ..if they continue to reappear ..then we fault the oil ..if they don't, we attribute it to resuspended residuals precipitated out of previous OCIs. There could be one or two other reasons that this occurs ..but unless you can come up with other viable homegrown testing protocols ...this/these questions will remain unanswered ..at least to your satisfaction.

I may be slow ...so tell me in small words

This may be interesting to you.

[ December 02, 2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]

 

[1sttruck]

Back to back 1k intervals seems to be a step in the right direction. Another simple test that would complement it would be swabbing a defined area inside the engine with the intent of testing the swabs for wear metals, and then monitoring the area with additional cleans. Larger the area the better.

The idea to rule out wear metals 'plating out' and then later getting resuspended. The only problem I see with this is if you do find that a film inside the engine contains wear metals, it's still a potential source of resuspended material at a later point.

I'm just trying to be logical about this and to present different conclusions based on different assumptions.

 

[Gary Allan]

Okay ..you bring up good points there. This is what happens sometimes when you change oil chemistries ..or so we're told. That's why a single UOA on a new oil isn't all that informative (allegedly). That would be why you use ONE test oil for all the OCIs ..same action. I doubt that any oil suspends 100% of the particles generated from the engine ...or it may for a time..

We don't know. What we do know is that for some reason ..there's a sharp upramp and then a leveling of wear metals that occurs between 2k and 3k and beyond. From there on out we are only speculating that the production has gone down ..or retention has gone down. If it was production ..then a follow up 1k OCI should return to 1k UOA levels. If it is retention that slips over 3k ..then a 1k should have a "cleaning" action that fresh oil provides ..that 3k+ oil cannot and levels will be substantially higher then the second of back to back 1k UOA

The area swab test would be nice ..but impractical and I would offer that, assuming you're using the same oil from the same batch, it would only tell you what that oil leaves behind ..not what it's picking up. That is, it shouldn't necessarily add or detract from a test that is determining where this upramp in particles comes from since "that" oil doesn't suspend them ..it deposits them. If it deposits them @ 1k ..it will deposit them at 1k again ..and so on. Again ..the back to back will not remove these deposits ..but a 1k after a 2k may suspend particles that 2k oil was unable to retain ..but new oil can.

This will not be an "all inclusive" test. There are assuredly things happening that we don't have a clue about at our level of understanding. We should however be able to assert certain truths based on this test.

Something like: Back to back 1k UOA prduced no substantial difference in wear metals. 2k UOA showed no substantial increase in wear metals and a subsequent following 1k UOA had wear metals comparable to previous 1k UOAs. 3k UOA showed (or did not) increase in wear metal beyond the ppm/k trend in previous 1k and 2k UOAs. The subsequent 1k UOA had comparable wear metals with previous 1k UOAs (or did not).

All of this would be FWIW

and will still leave more questions. Suppose we get the exact same data when the volume of oil in the sump is doubled?

We may be looking at something along the lines of a "surface charge" on a wet cell battery. It reads 13.5 volts and is rapidly drawn down to 12.8 volts with a load on it ..but remains somewhat constant with a slow drop under that load (like TBN maybe ..if you catch the abstract concept that I'm struggling to articulate ) ..and we're merely seeing the "polish" being removed from the oil and then its more robust properties are all that remains.