DIFFERENT OILS AND NO FILTER ON ENGINE

[Pablo]

Bob - yes indeed good test. I sure would love to make these tests more scientific, but this is still data. I predict wear will go down - oil faster!

You'd be needing a BP-89? (return line swivel fitting)

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

No idea what it's called but does sound like that's it. It's a return line from the bypass filter that can swivel so it can be placed or drilled into a oil cap but yet let the cap be removed without binding.

Not sure how much more scientific we could get on these analysis, maybe you have some suggestions of something I'm missing?
thanks
b.

 

[Spector]

Actually, other then the sample size being too small ( need more engines) and as to blinded, who cares. Probably need the control group though, more engines of his type with UOA with filters, same oil, condition. Sort of impossible.

I think Bob's tests are about as close as we are going to get and certainly I have more faith in them then those run by oil companies, filter companies etc.

 

[Pablo]

Uh, Spector, Bob works for Schaefer's. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but....

 

[Steve S]

Bob I have an amsoil return swivel in my shop I'll mail you if you will give me an address.

[ August 10, 2003, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Steve S ]

 

[Pablo]

my other post got deleted - strange - I guess it was the bit about the wake up call.

Scientific - in a nutshell: unbiased, repeatable, double blind, calibrated, traceable, controlled....are words about tests. Not to say your tests are invalid, or bad. To say a test in "unscientific" is NOT a insult, it's just a fact.

 

[Ken2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by FowVay:
I have a question about the oil. Do you think that the synthetic base oils are more resistant to deterioration/break-down than the mineral oil? Other than cold flow properties and high temperature stability, why would there be any difference between a good quality mineral oil and a synthetic base oil? My main reason for using synthetics is to protect a hot running turbocharger and prevent formations in my engine.

I have recently purchased my first batch of Schaeffer's 10W-30 (#703) and I have to tell you that I'm simply amazed by this oil. I don't know if these engines have more localized hot spots than others but I do like to keep my engines spotless inside. I hope the Schaeffer's performs in this regard too.

---

I didn't see an answer to your question about the advantage of the synthetic, so I'll take a stab at it.

The PAO synthetic provides better thermal and oxidative stability. The oil will withstand high heat and have less oxidation over a longer period of time than oil without the synthetic, everything else being equal. As Bob is showing, the top quality mineral oil and the very similar syn blend protect equally well, but expect the syn to protect longer.


Ken

 

[Spector]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo:
Uh, Spector, Bob works for Schaefer's. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but....

---

True, but he is not testing or reporting on the oil in this test, just the the filter, or lack of one. I don't care if he uses Schaeffer's oil as long as it is the same oil. It is also a matter of WHO do you trust!

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve S:
Bob I have an amsoil return swivel in my shop I'll mail you if you will give me an address.

---

Steve, by all means, I could use it and thanks in advance.
B Winters
540 Sailfish Dr. E.
Atlantic Beach, fl. 32233

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spector:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo:
Uh, Spector, Bob works for Schaefer's. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but....

---

True, but he is not testing or reporting on the oil in this test, just the the filter, or lack of one. I don't care if he uses Schaeffer's oil as long as it is the same oil. It is also a matter of WHO do you trust!

---

First, I think that people should be trusted until proved otherwise. I am the first to offer respect as I want to be treated no less, and after these years I've been talking with many of you, I suspect I've not given reason for anyone to believe otherwise.

I make no effort to "push" what I sell on here. I do on occasion offer suggestions but with reasons behind it.(mainly grease) but when it comes to motor oils, Only when someone specifically asks about schaeffers do I then discuss it.

Granted, the first part of this test was to compare synth base against mineral base. Why did I chose to stay with schaeffers? No other brand of oil uses a blend with pao and additives, and the same base mineral/additive without the pao, so to compare just how much does a pao synth base added to an oil will affect the wear numbers.

I think in al's situation, he bought the first full 5w30 schaeffers oil and did a trial run, his numbers were no better than the 5w30 blend we sell. He admitted that as I had explain before and pointed out after. He just like the full synth feeling he gets from using full synth's. But in reality, the basic wear numbers were for the most part identical.

So, back to my test, blend 15w30 vers mineral 15w40. Problem was, I added a second element to this test and that was a different filter, so in reality, when the mineral out performed the blend in lower wear numbers, we can't imagine a blend with pao synth being our performed by taking out the pao right? So, now we focused on flow(through the filter). Now, to continue with this, I kept the fram filter in, ran the mineral 5w30. Two things here, I lowered the viscosity, still using the mineral and still with the fram filter. Again, the numbers lowered even more. I now have a test report sent in waiting for response back where I had switched back to the 5w30 blend again with the fram filter. This is where I'm looking to see how much if any the pao helps in wear reduction. IMO, I don't expect to see much. Keep in mind, I'm not in cold temps and not running extreme heat / oil drains.

The conclusion I'm looking for is this...
by using a standard additive and mineral base oil on the blends and mineral oils, my point of synth base oils ALONE do not provide better WEAR protection but DO provide better cold weather flow and extended drains.

Now I'm past that stage and I'm now working on the flow issue and by having data with a 14.00 high end m1 filter, vers a fram filter, vers no filter, we should see how a full flow filter may or may not provide much use. By all rights according to filter companies, the filter should provide better protection than not running a full flow. My opinion?, I think again that full 100% flow to the bearings as a primary concern will out weigh filtration in this case. Next step once completed this next 4k miles without a filter, now install a bypass filter again leaving the full flow filter out and still provide 100% flow to the bears.

So, Spector, I think we are seeing some interesting data from the same consistent lab on the same consistent engine with the same consistent driver and with the same consistent brand of oil, and is giving us a better understanding on flow, synth's and filtration.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

Here is the latest on my oil analysis trend.

The last 5w30 analysis is where I have been running a fram filter, replaced with a new air filter as si is down.(not as much as I thought it would be.) Also, notice that the difference between the two 5w30's first mineral and second blend counterpart. The difference between the two in ppm's shows very minimal wear differences between the two. I suspect that in part is due to lower si. Visc slightly higher as confirmed with higher levels of oxidation. The next analysis is due in about 2500 miles running the same blend oil only without any filter. (Anyone wanna pay for me and the family to go on vacation early? Like maybe a round trip to Utah would do just about right.

)

code:

---

[ M1 filter ] [ Fram filter ]

[Blend Blend] [ Molybond Mineral ][Blend]

oil visc 15w40 15w40 15w40 15w40 15w40 5w30 5w30

miles 10,500 4,022 4,000 6,845 9442 3520 3921



Wear Metals

copper 10 19 8 10 7 4 4

iron 30 17 12 16 20 8 5

chrom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

alum 2 2 2 2 1 2 2

lead 18 36 2 7 14 8 5



Additives

moly 121 114 99 85 78 91 95

phos 1146 709 937 716 765 980 920

zinc 1260 906 1017 786 752 862 809

magnesum 14 9 9 7 7 10 6

calc 3587 2976 2809 2228 2405 1923 1732



Contaminants

silicon 7 7 3 5 8 8 6

%antifreeze,fuel,%h20 all 0



Oil Properties

Vsic 16.65 12.81 14.49 14.82 16.37 9.51 9.95

50w 40w 40w 40w 50w 30w 30w

sulfur 4 45 15 12 14 14 33

oxidation 32 21 13 15 14 14 12

nitration 35 20 14 15 21 13 10

soot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

---

 

[Patman]

It's interesting that silicon went down with a new air filter, since sometimes a fresh filter lets in a bit more dirt at first.

It's nice to see the viscosity held itself on this run compared to the last run. That's the PAO blend doing it's job right there, where the dino version sheared back ever so slightly.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

True the viscosity is higher and yes, this is what a synth base oil should do, maintain viscosity and vii. point though, in normal oil drain durations, the pao added did not provide much if any real value to wear protection but to the base oil's protection as you noticed. When it comes to lower cold temps, or going that extended drain, then yes, synth's have a definitely advantage but not for normal drain intervals does it provide wear protection as some would think.

 

[Roger]

To get a really fair comparison of the filters, don't you think you need to run the Fram filter with the 15W40 blend and vice versus...the mobil one filter with the 15w40 molybond mineral?

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

I wonder why that so many who claim synth base oils protect against wear is not chiming in here showing me why the extra synth oil in the blend vers the mineral is not makeing the wear numbers drop? Is it possible that the synth base oil doesn't actually provide wear protection so much as the additives do? That the mineral oils base is doing exactly what the synth base oil does, just provide hydrodynamic film only?

I'm giving the synth die hards here time to beat me up over this little test, let's not just let it die out just yet. I've seen soooo many statements about how synths protect better against wear, so help explain how does the synth base oil protect against wear in a normal engine under normal drain intervals.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

The idea was to run every thing the same EXCEPT the two oils. The only thing that would show different would be the cause of the different oil not the filter. My first mistake with the 15w40 was having changed to a different filter Had I not changed filter types I would have expected the wear to be near the same as the additives and flows were near the same. Case in point, the last two 5w30's, same filter, different oils, one with the pao synth, and as expected, both near the same on wear.

 

[Pablo]

To be brutally honest and the reason people haven't chimed in Bob:

a) Hard to make heads or tails of your data. When I look at the table I see the blend held up better and prevented wear better if not about the same (Fe and Cu are lower with the blend than the mineral). I think in short intervals many oils will look the same.
b) The sample test is really not scientifically meaningful - now before you get all pissed - this is NOT an insult. Just that the test is not controlled. Take a stat class, learn about DOE (design of experiments). You will see, especially with numbers as close as those, not many, if any conclusions can be drawn.
c) WE love you for setting up and running this site. You are the man. Schaefer's makes GREAT products. But you sell them. I expect people to question your motives 100% as much as they question mine.

As for the main "debate" I would say with new or newish oil - the base oil doesn't make a huge difference in wear metals, especially in engines with fairly loose clearance in warm climates. Go beyond 7.5k Miles, get cold in a tight engine - I'm thinking there will be a difference in basestock wear numbers. In controlled conditions, of course.

edit => cleaned up a typo or two

[ August 26, 2003, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Pablo ]

 

[MolaKule]

"My opinion?, I think again that full 100% flow to the bearings as a primary concern will out weigh filtration in this case. Next step once completed this next 4k miles without a filter, now install a bypass filter again leaving the full flow filter out and still provide 100% flow to the bears."

I have to agree and this is what I have found over the years with hydraulic systems and filtering; flow first, filtration second.

As to the Blend versus whatever, Schaeffer's uses PAO's as an additive to lower starting viscosity and to add some thermal stability at high temps, i.e., it raises the VI of the formulation and reduces wax growth at low temperatures. Technical papers from the late '70's to mid 1980's showed this formulation to be a good one.

In Bob's Escort, it certainly appears his engine prefers the 5W30, whether in mineral or Blend.
Also, the 15W40 had a formulation change between the first and second 15W40 analysis.

It would be interesting to see what Amsoil ASL, Mobil 1, or Redline 5W30 would do in his Escort with one of the freer flowing filters at the same mileage bracket.

[ August 26, 2003, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[JohnBrowning]

Bob with all of the oil samples you have for this vechile it makes it a great test mule. I would interested in seeing how other oils perform in your engine. Have you considered this. Most noteable things like Delvac1, Redline AMsoil??????????

 

[sbc350gearhead]

Has anyone settled the argument about oil filters having no effect on flow, due to the positive displacement oil pumps?