- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
... That is, no "new" metal is being introduced into the sump, just stuff that was sequestered. ..but whatever the origin, I can't see it having any origin that could justify the term "wear".
My understanding of surface competition between Ep (typ zddp) and say, a calcium sulfonate would point to the possibilty of more wear in a highly stressesd engine when the relative ratio of detergent to EP is high, as when the oil is virgin. Is not this the reasoning used in porpotioning Ep to detergent in race oil and /or break-in oils? see Joe Gibbs.
If that's the case than it should occur only in highly stressed engines and not across enough units to produce a significant blip on the statistical radar.
...or so I would reason. This concept was promoted in some PR/propaganda campaign that (iirc) Ford put forth. It showed an sharp upramp @ 2k in metals. The implication being that the more often one transitioned through the 2k mark, the more metal ejecta one would experience. Longer drains, let's say the specified 5k, would cut this event almost in half.
The reader was left to speculate that they could cut their wear in half by doing longer drains (if they bought into it that far, why not the whole deal?).
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
... That is, no "new" metal is being introduced into the sump, just stuff that was sequestered. ..but whatever the origin, I can't see it having any origin that could justify the term "wear".
My understanding of surface competition between Ep (typ zddp) and say, a calcium sulfonate would point to the possibilty of more wear in a highly stressesd engine when the relative ratio of detergent to EP is high, as when the oil is virgin. Is not this the reasoning used in porpotioning Ep to detergent in race oil and /or break-in oils? see Joe Gibbs.
If that's the case than it should occur only in highly stressed engines and not across enough units to produce a significant blip on the statistical radar.
...or so I would reason. This concept was promoted in some PR/propaganda campaign that (iirc) Ford put forth. It showed an sharp upramp @ 2k in metals. The implication being that the more often one transitioned through the 2k mark, the more metal ejecta one would experience. Longer drains, let's say the specified 5k, would cut this event almost in half.
The reader was left to speculate that they could cut their wear in half by doing longer drains (if they bought into it that far, why not the whole deal?).
