Recent Topics
Who knew?
by SaturnIonVue
12/19/14 02:42 AM
Mobil 1 0w40 4.4L jug $28 at Canadian Tire
by dgunay
12/19/14 01:33 AM
Considering Mazda 3, 6, CX3 or CX5 as next car
by hotwheels
12/19/14 01:07 AM
Looking for Corrado fog light (1994)
by hotwheels
12/18/14 11:26 PM
Hello
by hotwheels
12/18/14 11:21 PM
Interesting article about 5w-20 oil
by kenv
12/18/14 09:45 PM
(Unintentional) Bottle Aged Beer
by aa1986
12/18/14 09:28 PM
ADBV on Fram PH9837?
by Digital2k2
12/18/14 09:09 PM
Seeking Browning BLR-81 Information
by 2cool
12/18/14 08:54 PM
Ford Transits
by Eric Smith
12/18/14 08:32 PM
Ford 6F50 tranny
by Throt
12/18/14 08:22 PM
Probable Mercedes HQ move from NJ to Atlanta
by Joe1
12/18/14 08:22 PM
Newest Members
sam369, hotwheels, oilpsi2high, Joemc, gijello
52222 Registered Users
Who's Online
48 registered (berniedd, 2010_FX4, 268i, 3800Series, 10thmandown, 5 invisible), 652 Guests and 180 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
52222 Members
66 Forums
223624 Topics
3545926 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#2783154 - 10/25/12 09:47 AM Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: HTSS_TR]
DanMiller Offline


Registered: 06/28/11
Posts: 115
Loc: Winnipeg Manitoba
Interesting, I would have thought changing the filter would be good. I have never heard that the filters become more efficient
I would assume you guys are taking about a higher quality filter.

Top
#2783166 - 10/25/12 09:56 AM Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3]
dnewton3 Offline



Registered: 05/14/07
Posts: 5716
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
Actually, just about any filter will become "better" with age.

Now - first we have to exclude situations where filters are used TOO far, or are WAY too old.

But in "normal" use, just about any filter increases it's efficiency. Simple explanation; as the media loads up, it closes down the pore size to ever tighter openings, thus reducing the size of particle that can pass through the next time. It's a self-fulfilling prophesey; the more it traps, the smaller particle it can trap, which goes round and round ...

Only if the media were to become blinded off to a point where th bypass were to open frequnelty/always, would there be an issue. That is typcially much further out than folks think.

Ironically, we are programmed as a society to always think that "new" is "better". In some examples, I would completely agree with that. "Newer" engine designs certainly are "better"; they run cleaner, get better fuel economy, and have more power density per displacement. And "newer" oils are also "better"; oils that are made today have stronger add-packs, and more robust base stocks due to refining and manufacturing capabilities.

But dumping in "new" engine oil and putting on a "new" filter (say every 3k miles versus every 7.5k miles) really does not achieve what folks think it does. As oil ages in the crankcase, and filters catch more particulate, they both actually improve as the miles pass.

And that is particularlly what this article shows. Between the SAE studies, and my data bank evidence of many thousands of UOAs, wear rates actually do go down as the lube system matures. It is beneficial to leave the oil in place as long as practical; there is litte benefit to changing oil often on some blind-obedience schedule.


Edited by dnewton3 (10/25/12 09:59 AM)
_________________________
Conventionals vs. Synthetics isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, while assuring safe operation, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized. The same applies to filters.
Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube and filter. Don't do it the other way around ...

Top
#2783583 - 10/25/12 04:26 PM Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3]
DanMiller Offline


Registered: 06/28/11
Posts: 115
Loc: Winnipeg Manitoba
Interesting your explaination makes alot of sense, have there been any studies that back this up ? I would be interested to read them ( not that I don't believe you ).

Top
#2784008 - 10/26/12 04:39 AM Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3]
dnewton3 Offline



Registered: 05/14/07
Posts: 5716
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
Plenty of studies in the SAE catalog; go to their site and buy what you will. I have purchased many over the years.
_________________________
Conventionals vs. Synthetics isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, while assuring safe operation, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized. The same applies to filters.
Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube and filter. Don't do it the other way around ...

Top
#2793295 - 11/05/12 04:56 AM Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3]
fpracha Offline


Registered: 12/07/10
Posts: 483
Loc: MA
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
But dumping in "new" engine oil and putting on a "new" filter (say every 3k miles versus every 7.5k miles) really does not achieve what folks think it does. As oil ages in the crankcase, and filters catch more particulate, they both actually improve as the miles pass.

And that is particularlly what this article shows. Between the SAE studies, and my data bank evidence of many thousands of UOAs, wear rates actually do go down as the lube system matures. It is beneficial to leave the oil in place as long as practical; there is litte benefit to changing oil often on some blind-obedience schedule.
Incredible revelations and thanks for your scientific writeup!
So for the sake of an engine's operating efficiency, in your experience, is your article also proving that "as thin as possible" is the best oil to use in an engine ?
or is it so that such a conclusion cannot be drawn from your collective data and SAE research papers?

Top
#2793326 - 11/05/12 06:17 AM Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3]
dnewton3 Offline



Registered: 05/14/07
Posts: 5716
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
The SAE paper (2007-01-4133) specifically notes that there is a vis increase, and that increase is non-detrimental at the valve train. However, it also acknowledges the concerns of fuel economy from parasitic drag in the cylinder, where surface area affected by vis is much greater than at the valve train.

In short, it's a balancing act.

The thing I'm trying to get across to people is that shorter OCIs generally are a total waste of money. You don't "gain" any wear reduction; you actually increase wear in shorter OCIs. While it may be counter-intuitive to the layman, it makes sense when you see the studies and data.

There are certainly times when shorter OCIs are warranted; heavy contamination or sludge. But those are not nearly as common as some believe, and I have always excluded such examples from my generalizations. I would NEVER suggest extending an OCI when there is a known problem that cannot be mitigated without phsical intervention, or stalling with OCI frequency. And that is really what it's all about; you have to KNOW your equipment, and your lubes, to really understand what is good/bad decision wise. Too many people here blindly take a "kitchen sink" approach; they throw everything at the lube interval (short OCIs, syns) and call it "good" and they have no idea how define acceptable condemnation limits, and are unaware of how far out even conventional lubes can successfully go.

As I've said (and it's in my signature line) ...
ANY lube can be over or under utilized.


Edited by dnewton3 (11/05/12 06:18 AM)
_________________________
Conventionals vs. Synthetics isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, while assuring safe operation, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized. The same applies to filters.
Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube and filter. Don't do it the other way around ...

Top
#2795488 - 11/07/12 10:41 AM Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3]
wemay Offline


Registered: 04/04/12
Posts: 2624
Loc: S. Florida
Fantastic article, thanks for sharing.

This is why i use Mobil Super 5000 or PYB 5W30 conventional in my Mitsu Lancer Ralliart Turbo. The vehicle is a daily driver (no modifications, no track use, very rare spirited drive). Now, because it is a turbo, and under powertrain warranty, i subscribe to a 3750 f/oci. There are huge battles on the Turbo forums between conventional vs synthetic oil users. I am not saying that conventional is better, it isn't. But also isnt neccesary for my application, oci or driving style. Mitsubishi and all the major oil giants list conventional 5w30 as the requied oil. I just make sure it meets API SN, GF-5 ILSAC.


Again, thanks for sharing.


Edited by wemay (11/07/12 10:45 AM)
_________________________
14 Sonata GLS 2.4 - 5w30 MAG1 dexos
13 Santa Fe S 2.0T - 5w40 Kendall GT-1
www.pqiamerica.com
www.toptiergas.com

Top
#2796242 - 11/08/12 02:24 AM Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11782
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Dave, I was doing some thinking about the deposition of anti-wear films with respect to the oils we see now compared to what was seen a couple decades ago. Now we see that the anti-wear protection does better much further into the OCI. I'm wondering how much of that is due to the lower ZDDP oils we see. Also, we certainly see some very high ZDDP applications for break in lubes. I'm just wondering how things might have compared back in the day, with, of course, some consideration of the fact that oils were much poorer back then, too.

As an aside, I do think we place too much stock into how much ZDDP was in the older oils. Some certainly had some high levels, but a lot of them (check Blackstone's articles) had the same as PCMOs today, or even much less. Back then, ZDDP content was a bit of a gamble, even with the top brand oils. Today, at least, you know you're going to get in the neighbourhood of 750 ppm, with few exceptions.

Just because the phosphorous limits didn't exist back then didn't mean oil companies made sure all oils had 1400 ppm ZDDP, either.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#2796282 - 11/08/12 05:13 AM Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3]
dnewton3 Offline



Registered: 05/14/07
Posts: 5716
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
When reading the SAE study they mention there are actually several different types of ZDDP compounds that can be used. The chemical make-up of the ZDDP does indeed affect the anti-wear layers. It also disucsses the affects of detergent packages reacting with the ZDDP and having a negative affect on the anti-wear layer.

Ryan Start (Blackstone) ran an oil in his truck that had zero ZDDP whatsoever; the package was formulated in alternative ways. I think it was an aero-oil, IIRC. Anyway - after a couple short OCIs, there was no abnormal wear due to the lack of ZDDP. The wear that was present was due to two things:
1) the old 350 GM simply is a high-wear engine to begin with (see proof in my article)
2) the engine was a new rebuild - break in was occuring

So the "need" for ZDDP is greatly overblown in his opinion, and in mine. Wear can be attenuated by a large multitude of methods; ZDDP is just one of them. And while "ZDDP" is a description of an anti-wear additive, it tells us nothing of the actual sub-chemical composition. The nuiances really matter, as to the formation (or destruction) of the anti-wear layer.


Of course, getting the bulk of BITOGers to acknowledge this is difficult. And getting them to actually agree to it is nearly impossible. Regardless of how much proof (SAE study and Stark's example) one lays down. The oil bigotry runs deep here; long, wide and deep. Despite the facts.


Edited by dnewton3 (11/08/12 05:16 AM)
_________________________
Conventionals vs. Synthetics isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, while assuring safe operation, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized. The same applies to filters.
Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube and filter. Don't do it the other way around ...

Top
#2796466 - 11/08/12 09:42 AM Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11782
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Well, one thing about the old small blocks, you could throw all the ZDDP at them you wanted to, of whatever chemical makeup, and it would eat cams anyhow. wink

As for detergent packages, I suppose that's one reason why certain racing oils have little to no detergent and a boat load of zinc. As for me, I'd rather run an oil with some ZDDP (as opposed to some aero oil), but I'm not seeing the ZDDP levels of older oils with rose tinted glasses, either. The only "dated" oils I can think of that would have guaranteed high levels of ZDDP were some of the older spec dual rated HDEOs. For the rest, oil companies figured out long ago they could cut phosphorous from the oil and save some cash without API/ILSAC telling them to do so.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#2819033 - 11/30/12 09:37 AM Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3]
Sam_Julier Offline


Registered: 05/22/12
Posts: 173
Loc: Connecticut
David, My sincere appreciation for your efforts in preparing this article. Would it be possible to post a pdf of this article? Printing from the home page of the site produces screened typeface which is difficult to read. Thank you.
_________________________
2007 Volvo V70 2.4L PC Duron 0W30
2004 Volvo V70 2.4L PC Duron 0W30
1993 Volvo 245 T3 10W30 SM

Top
#2875734 - 01/18/13 06:07 PM Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3]
zerosoma Offline


Registered: 08/12/11
Posts: 2244
Loc: south dakota, usa
So, barring any problems with the engine - and I KNOW each case is different, but just for the sake of a blanket statement, a guy could run a conventional out to typical synthetic oci's (~10k range) without much cause for concern, pending that his engine was in good shape and the oil was a name brand...?
_________________________
2004 Hyundai Santa Fe LX 3.5L (98k) [Pennzoil Ultra 5w20/Napa Gold]
2005 Toyota Prius (202k) [Mobil Super Synthetic 0w20/Napa Gold]

Top
#2912295 - 02/19/13 01:18 PM Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3]
Stubb Offline


Registered: 02/05/13
Posts: 18
Loc: CA, USA
I am very interested in the "wear versus miles" analysis you performed, as a misunderstanding of this can be the basis for claims about oil quality and wear. From looking at your data presented, it seems that you could perform a regression analysis on your data to model the slope. This may provide a "wear rate" that is informative and distinguishing among oils or applications. This might also define an endpoint for an oil by identifying an inversion point on the slope. Further, examination of short-interval data across multiple changes (a paired analysis of data) may show an average initial rate due to tribochemical reaction with the new material. If this is truly wear (the metal has to come from somewhere) it would seem that a goal of lubricant design would be to reduce that initial wear rate.

Top
#3139690 - 09/29/13 06:23 PM Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3]
dustyroads Offline


Registered: 05/13/13
Posts: 337
Loc: upstate NY
I read your article late last year when I had just found this site and knew very little about the things we discuss on bitog. I just read it again and have much more appreciation for it now. I plan to make use of the info (the best I can), although I still have a lot to learn.

Thanks Dave !
_________________________
2011 Taurus sel

2012 Volvo big rig with D11

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2