I will stop worrying about recommending an 8K m1ep OCI in my friends V8 Tundra; great report.
Mobil 1 5W-30 EP 20,979 miles 2004 Sequoia
- Thread starter mibro
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: k24a4
Mibro, the use of a magnet is intriguing to me. Do you place yours on the engine block around the filter or on the drain pan, and how big/strong do they need to be for maximum effectiveness?
Also, why the Donaldson filter specifically? Was it the donaldson endurance plus, which, according to the website, puts additive back in the oil?
http://www.donaldson.com/en/engine/lube/lube.html#TopOfPage
The donaldson with synthetic media is about the best spin on filter money can buy and they only cost around $10. It is not an endurance filter as far as I know they cost around $60 and don't have any gasoline filter applications
Mibro, the use of a magnet is intriguing to me. Do you place yours on the engine block around the filter or on the drain pan, and how big/strong do they need to be for maximum effectiveness?
Also, why the Donaldson filter specifically? Was it the donaldson endurance plus, which, according to the website, puts additive back in the oil?
http://www.donaldson.com/en/engine/lube/lube.html#TopOfPage
The donaldson with synthetic media is about the best spin on filter money can buy and they only cost around $10. It is not an endurance filter as far as I know they cost around $60 and don't have any gasoline filter applications
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: lipadj46
Originally Posted By: k24a4
Mibro, the use of a magnet is intriguing to me. Do you place yours on the engine block around the filter or on the drain pan, and how big/strong do they need to be for maximum effectiveness?
Also, why the Donaldson filter specifically? Was it the donaldson endurance plus, which, according to the website, puts additive back in the oil?
http://www.donaldson.com/en/engine/lube/lube.html#TopOfPage
The donaldson with synthetic media is about the best spin on filter money can buy and they only cost around $10. It is not an endurance filter as far as I know they cost around $60 and don't have any gasoline filter applications
Agreed. Bought a case of these a while back. Absolutely fantastic filters.
Originally Posted By: k24a4
Mibro, the use of a magnet is intriguing to me. Do you place yours on the engine block around the filter or on the drain pan, and how big/strong do they need to be for maximum effectiveness?
Also, why the Donaldson filter specifically? Was it the donaldson endurance plus, which, according to the website, puts additive back in the oil?
http://www.donaldson.com/en/engine/lube/lube.html#TopOfPage
The donaldson with synthetic media is about the best spin on filter money can buy and they only cost around $10. It is not an endurance filter as far as I know they cost around $60 and don't have any gasoline filter applications
Agreed. Bought a case of these a while back. Absolutely fantastic filters.
I think you found your moneys worth here, sticking to 20,000 miles per oil change is a good amount of usage out of your oil, i don't know if i would risk the wear that might occur at the higher level, but should you try post the new UOA for our viewing pleasure.
Even at 15k your getting a good bit out of that M1 EP
Even at 15k your getting a good bit out of that M1 EP
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I think you found your moneys worth here, sticking to 20,000 miles per oil change is a good amount of usage out of your oil, i don't know if i would risk the wear that might occur at the higher level, but should you try post the new UOA for our viewing pleasure.
Even at 15k your getting a good bit out of that M1 EP
You raise an interesting point about wear. I think it's possible to make the argument that frequent oil changes cause MORE wear than running long OCIs. In other words, wear rates are highest with fresh oil and drop as the oil is run longer.
I don't really know why this is but there's a fair amount of data floating around to support this theory. So, running longer OCIs may well mean less wear, not more. Of course, this will no longer be true at the point where the oil no longer provides adequate lubrication. The question is, where is that point and what causes the oil to no longer be serviceable.
Off the top of my head, I think the three factors that cause an oil to no longer provide adequate lubrication would be:
1. Viscosity out of acceptable range.
2. TBN out of acceptable range.
3. Suspended insolubles too high.
Point # 3 can be addressed with filter changes, point # 2 can be addressed with partial refreshes - i.e filter change with 1 qt. oil added - which just leaves point # 1.
I guess I'm working towards the conclusion that (with a high quality synthetic that is temperature stable AND a high quality filter changed at, say, 20,000 miles) oil changes are not really necessary at all UNLESS the viscosity is out of the acceptable range.
I think you found your moneys worth here, sticking to 20,000 miles per oil change is a good amount of usage out of your oil, i don't know if i would risk the wear that might occur at the higher level, but should you try post the new UOA for our viewing pleasure.
Even at 15k your getting a good bit out of that M1 EP
You raise an interesting point about wear. I think it's possible to make the argument that frequent oil changes cause MORE wear than running long OCIs. In other words, wear rates are highest with fresh oil and drop as the oil is run longer.
I don't really know why this is but there's a fair amount of data floating around to support this theory. So, running longer OCIs may well mean less wear, not more. Of course, this will no longer be true at the point where the oil no longer provides adequate lubrication. The question is, where is that point and what causes the oil to no longer be serviceable.
Off the top of my head, I think the three factors that cause an oil to no longer provide adequate lubrication would be:
1. Viscosity out of acceptable range.
2. TBN out of acceptable range.
3. Suspended insolubles too high.
Point # 3 can be addressed with filter changes, point # 2 can be addressed with partial refreshes - i.e filter change with 1 qt. oil added - which just leaves point # 1.
I guess I'm working towards the conclusion that (with a high quality synthetic that is temperature stable AND a high quality filter changed at, say, 20,000 miles) oil changes are not really necessary at all UNLESS the viscosity is out of the acceptable range.
Nice report!! I have not seen the trend of higher Fe with m1EP, just the 'regular' M1. Anyhoo, m1 EP looks like it is worth every penny. I'm getting some magnets too!
Originally Posted By: mibro
Off the top of my head, I think the three factors that cause an oil to no longer provide adequate lubrication would be:
1. Viscosity out of acceptable range.
2. TBN out of acceptable range.
3. Suspended insolubles too high.
Point # 3 can be addressed with filter changes, point # 2 can be addressed with partial refreshes - i.e filter change with 1 qt. oil added - which just leaves point # 1.
I guess I'm working towards the conclusion that (with a high quality synthetic that is temperature stable AND a high quality filter changed at, say, 20,000 miles) oil changes are not really necessary at all UNLESS the viscosity is out of the acceptable range.
I think your theory is pretty sound. And I agree that Toyota makes some great engines that are easy on oil. Since you have already proven out the oil and filter you use, it makes no sense to change it. You could easily go further as long as your driving habits don't significantly change.
Before you consider centrifuging your oil, consider a bypass filter. That way you can remove the wear particles continuously.
Although I think the magnet is a good idea, I don't subscribe to the cascade theory. IMO the iron in your UOA is primarily corrosive wear with some thin-film lubrication conditions. You're not going to generate chunks of hard iron and steel particles from normal operation. Silicon particles (as SiO2 or fine sand) ingested through the intake however would be much larger and very abrasive. Wear metals commonly track with silicon levels, and iron levels track well with miles, time and silicon levels. The cascade theory suggests that iron begets more iron, and I just don't see that. But I do believe that rare-earth magnets will reduce your Fe levels.
I have used a mesh filter in the past (Trasko) and the tiny particles that the mesh traps are not magnetic.
Off the top of my head, I think the three factors that cause an oil to no longer provide adequate lubrication would be:
1. Viscosity out of acceptable range.
2. TBN out of acceptable range.
3. Suspended insolubles too high.
Point # 3 can be addressed with filter changes, point # 2 can be addressed with partial refreshes - i.e filter change with 1 qt. oil added - which just leaves point # 1.
I guess I'm working towards the conclusion that (with a high quality synthetic that is temperature stable AND a high quality filter changed at, say, 20,000 miles) oil changes are not really necessary at all UNLESS the viscosity is out of the acceptable range.
I think your theory is pretty sound. And I agree that Toyota makes some great engines that are easy on oil. Since you have already proven out the oil and filter you use, it makes no sense to change it. You could easily go further as long as your driving habits don't significantly change.
Before you consider centrifuging your oil, consider a bypass filter. That way you can remove the wear particles continuously.
Although I think the magnet is a good idea, I don't subscribe to the cascade theory. IMO the iron in your UOA is primarily corrosive wear with some thin-film lubrication conditions. You're not going to generate chunks of hard iron and steel particles from normal operation. Silicon particles (as SiO2 or fine sand) ingested through the intake however would be much larger and very abrasive. Wear metals commonly track with silicon levels, and iron levels track well with miles, time and silicon levels. The cascade theory suggests that iron begets more iron, and I just don't see that. But I do believe that rare-earth magnets will reduce your Fe levels.
I have used a mesh filter in the past (Trasko) and the tiny particles that the mesh traps are not magnetic.
This is a great thread. Thanks for the info.
Originally Posted By: slalom44
Originally Posted By: mibro
Off the top of my head, I think the three factors that cause an oil to no longer provide adequate lubrication would be:
1. Viscosity out of acceptable range.
2. TBN out of acceptable range.
3. Suspended insolubles too high.
Point # 3 can be addressed with filter changes, point # 2 can be addressed with partial refreshes - i.e filter change with 1 qt. oil added - which just leaves point # 1.
I guess I'm working towards the conclusion that (with a high quality synthetic that is temperature stable AND a high quality filter changed at, say, 20,000 miles) oil changes are not really necessary at all UNLESS the viscosity is out of the acceptable range.
I think your theory is pretty sound. And I agree that Toyota makes some great engines that are easy on oil. Since you have already proven out the oil and filter you use, it makes no sense to change it. You could easily go further as long as your driving habits don't significantly change.
Before you consider centrifuging your oil, consider a bypass filter. That way you can remove the wear particles continuously.
Although I think the magnet is a good idea, I don't subscribe to the cascade theory. IMO the iron in your UOA is primarily corrosive wear with some thin-film lubrication conditions. You're not going to generate chunks of hard iron and steel particles from normal operation. Silicon particles (as SiO2 or fine sand) ingested through the intake however would be much larger and very abrasive. Wear metals commonly track with silicon levels, and iron levels track well with miles, time and silicon levels. The cascade theory suggests that iron begets more iron, and I just don't see that. But I do believe that rare-earth magnets will reduce your Fe levels.
I have used a mesh filter in the past (Trasko) and the tiny particles that the mesh traps are not magnetic.
My take on bypass filters is that they introduce several potential failure points in the oil circuit. I remember seeing a post a couple of years ago from a guy who'd blown TWO pickup truck engines due to oil leaks from bypass filter hoses. I think this risk outweighs the benefit for passenger vehicles.
The filter magnet removes iron particles from the oil that would otherwise pass through the oil filter media due to their (small) size. Without the magnet, these iron particles would pass repeatedly through the engine. I'll admit I don't really know how much of a problem this is. I think magnetic filtration is more important for automatic transmissions than for engines as trannies contain electromagnetic components - solenoids, etc. - that attract iron particles and may be damaged by them.
Originally Posted By: mibro
Off the top of my head, I think the three factors that cause an oil to no longer provide adequate lubrication would be:
1. Viscosity out of acceptable range.
2. TBN out of acceptable range.
3. Suspended insolubles too high.
Point # 3 can be addressed with filter changes, point # 2 can be addressed with partial refreshes - i.e filter change with 1 qt. oil added - which just leaves point # 1.
I guess I'm working towards the conclusion that (with a high quality synthetic that is temperature stable AND a high quality filter changed at, say, 20,000 miles) oil changes are not really necessary at all UNLESS the viscosity is out of the acceptable range.
I think your theory is pretty sound. And I agree that Toyota makes some great engines that are easy on oil. Since you have already proven out the oil and filter you use, it makes no sense to change it. You could easily go further as long as your driving habits don't significantly change.
Before you consider centrifuging your oil, consider a bypass filter. That way you can remove the wear particles continuously.
Although I think the magnet is a good idea, I don't subscribe to the cascade theory. IMO the iron in your UOA is primarily corrosive wear with some thin-film lubrication conditions. You're not going to generate chunks of hard iron and steel particles from normal operation. Silicon particles (as SiO2 or fine sand) ingested through the intake however would be much larger and very abrasive. Wear metals commonly track with silicon levels, and iron levels track well with miles, time and silicon levels. The cascade theory suggests that iron begets more iron, and I just don't see that. But I do believe that rare-earth magnets will reduce your Fe levels.
I have used a mesh filter in the past (Trasko) and the tiny particles that the mesh traps are not magnetic.
My take on bypass filters is that they introduce several potential failure points in the oil circuit. I remember seeing a post a couple of years ago from a guy who'd blown TWO pickup truck engines due to oil leaks from bypass filter hoses. I think this risk outweighs the benefit for passenger vehicles.
The filter magnet removes iron particles from the oil that would otherwise pass through the oil filter media due to their (small) size. Without the magnet, these iron particles would pass repeatedly through the engine. I'll admit I don't really know how much of a problem this is. I think magnetic filtration is more important for automatic transmissions than for engines as trannies contain electromagnetic components - solenoids, etc. - that attract iron particles and may be damaged by them.
Originally Posted By: mibro
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Wow-Fe only 16 ppm after over 20K?? So much for Mobil 1 causing excessive iron! What filter magnet are you using?
I have some large rare earth arc segment magnets that I bought on eBay years ago, about 1-1/4" x 1-1/2". I looked for a long time to find arc segment (i.e. curved) magnets that had about the same radius as an oil filter. I think any external magnet will have the same effect, however, providing it has a strong enough field.
There's an interesting theory concerning failure of oil-lubricated machinery called "cascade failure." This says that wear progresses in a progressive fashion as each iron or steel particle causes more wear on each pass through the equipment. The solution to this is magnetic filtration, which removes the wear-causing particles from the lubricating oil thus preventing the wear cascade from getting started. Wear particles of non-magnetic metals (aluminum, copper) are not really a problem as they are much softer than iron or steel particles.
Anyway, I'm a believer in magnetic filtration.
And then as the wear increases the clearances open up which causes the wear to increase even faster.
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Wow-Fe only 16 ppm after over 20K?? So much for Mobil 1 causing excessive iron! What filter magnet are you using?
I have some large rare earth arc segment magnets that I bought on eBay years ago, about 1-1/4" x 1-1/2". I looked for a long time to find arc segment (i.e. curved) magnets that had about the same radius as an oil filter. I think any external magnet will have the same effect, however, providing it has a strong enough field.
There's an interesting theory concerning failure of oil-lubricated machinery called "cascade failure." This says that wear progresses in a progressive fashion as each iron or steel particle causes more wear on each pass through the equipment. The solution to this is magnetic filtration, which removes the wear-causing particles from the lubricating oil thus preventing the wear cascade from getting started. Wear particles of non-magnetic metals (aluminum, copper) are not really a problem as they are much softer than iron or steel particles.
Anyway, I'm a believer in magnetic filtration.
And then as the wear increases the clearances open up which causes the wear to increase even faster.
I believe in magnetic filtration too. It also increases the capacity of the filter. The magnet will catch stuff too small for the filter media. It will also catch stuff that would've been caught by the media. Anything the magnet catches frees up room in the filter media for other wear/dirt/carbon...
A properly installed bypass filter won't cause any problems. If you know anyone who keeps having bypass hose failures, obviously they're not routing them properly or using the correct hose. I see no risk at all to a bypass filter.
At ~240HP, this engine isn't stressed much. And, Toyota V8's just don't show wear with most oils. Its definitely a candidate for bypass filtration and NO oil changes ever.
I also don't care or believe in purposely running the oil low. Keep it topped off always. It won't change the 'total' TAN/TBN retention available from the oil.
Also note that the oil filter has synthetic media and is +2 over-sized. 21k miles with insolubles at .4 is good. Particle count would've been interesting.
TBN is good. TAN would be interesting.
A properly installed bypass filter won't cause any problems. If you know anyone who keeps having bypass hose failures, obviously they're not routing them properly or using the correct hose. I see no risk at all to a bypass filter.
At ~240HP, this engine isn't stressed much. And, Toyota V8's just don't show wear with most oils. Its definitely a candidate for bypass filtration and NO oil changes ever.
I also don't care or believe in purposely running the oil low. Keep it topped off always. It won't change the 'total' TAN/TBN retention available from the oil.
Also note that the oil filter has synthetic media and is +2 over-sized. 21k miles with insolubles at .4 is good. Particle count would've been interesting.
TBN is good. TAN would be interesting.
I really think a TAN reading is in order, as the viscosity has gone up out of range, this would concern me a bit. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't that a sign that the acidity of the oil has increased and is thickening the oil back up. I think a TAN shows this. Though I'm no expert. But that may show the oil has been run a bit too long. I'll let some of the experts here clarify as I'm not well versed. But I know a TAN would be very beneficial on an oil run this long, just to be sure.
- Status
Similar threads
