2007 Honda Accord V6 Mobil 1 5w-20 EP 12,403 Mi

[FZ1]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Oil is done. 10k max.


What leads you to say that?

I see nothing in this report that indicates oil is "done". To the contrary, everything looks good. Wear rates are low, contamination low, vis OK. TBN is low, but that is to be expected. We would need to know the TAN also, before having a better view of the lube. Without knowing TAN, I cannot assure you that it's safe to go further, but then again neither can anyone assure this lube is "done" either. What we do know is that the wear rates are admirably low, and therefore we can presume acid is not acting on parts yet.

Nice to see someone actually extend a syn OCI, rather than run 4k miles and dump it.

I will note that for contrast, you might consider a conventional lube to see how well it would also perform. Your driving style is very tame and probably isn't going to really harm any lube, regardless of base stock.

The oil has thinned from 8.9 to 7.12...The flashpoint is down from 446 to 360...The tbn is low... The insoluables,probably,soot is .4...So I would leave a little margin for error and dump it at 10,000.

 

[dnewton3]

Low vis is not a reason to condem; it's a cautionary note for further monitoring and analysis. Flashpoint, as well, is not a reason to condemn. Also, FP testing is a bit dubious at times in this arena. TBN already discussed; no reason to condemn when you don't know TAN. TAN would need to be several points higher than TBN to condemn. Insolubles are at .4 and the condemnation level (per Blackstone) is .6; he's no where near the limit.

There is aready plenty of margin available at this current OCI. He could easily and safely go further with continued monitoring.


Only when contamination reaches a presrcibed point, or wear totals get too high, is there a reason to OCI. Anything short of that is a waste of fluid.

At 10k miles, there is no reason to even UOA here. Mobil assures coverage out to 15k miles with EP, if the conditions are met. Why even pay for UOA info that one intends to ignore and pick some arbitrary OCI duration rather than use data and facts?

Your condemnation limits are fine for you, but they are not based in sound reasoning, but rather super-duper conservative fail-safe considerations. There is already safety margin built into condemnation limits; you're heaping more margin on top of margin that already exists.

The end-all, be-all reason to use any lube is to reduce wear as low as practical, within a cost structure. If the OP had run a 50/50 mix of goat milk and cow urine, and yet got wear this good, I'd still suggest he keep using it. Results are what matters, not gut-feeling guesses. If TBN were zero, and wear was good, would it matter? If FP were 200, and wear rates continued to be low, would it matter?

UOAs have two distinct, but related, offerings. They are a DIREDCT view of lube health and an INDIRECT view of equipment health. But the GOAL of any UOA is to manage a maintenance program relative to safe operation within sustainable costs; to maximize these efforts is to work towards the best ROI possible.

It really does not matter what fluid was used or what condition it's in here; the end result here is a wear rate that is VERY low. To plan an OCI this soon is totally wasteful. The margin of safety is so large here that dumping the fluid is cutting off a large percentage of available lifecycle of the fluid.

In spite of the concerns you have for low TBN, low vis, moderate insols, and who knows what else, the wear rates are still admirably low. Really, really low. Perhaps, just possibly, those things don't mean as much to an engine as you'd care to think. Because if they did, would not the wear already be affected to such a horrid level that it would manifest into really high wear? And yet this is not the case. Which I why I tell folks these are items to watch and monitor, not condemn.

Continued monitoring is the proper reaction plan for FP, insols, TBN/TAN etc, not a panic dump because some mental panic threshold has been usurped.

Clearly we differ in our approach.
- I use UOAs for the intended purpose; manage the OCI out to safe and sane levels and sustain low wear rates towards a total magnitude condemnation point.
- Your mantra is to pick an OCI, and then work backwards to blame some attributes of the lube.

We can agree to disagree.

 

[Brons2]

For once I agree with dnewton. Try 13,750 next time.

 

[NO2]

Originally Posted By: dparm
I would be interested to see the TAN after that many miles. How long was this oil in the pan?


11 months. I'm going to try extending it a little longer next time, maybe up to a year. I have a teenage driver starting soon , so driving habits will probably change dramatically.

Glad to see this formulation meets Mobil's claims of 1 yr/15K mi, at least under these light driving conditions.

Thanks for all of the great information.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Another almost stellar run of M1.


Another?
Where have they been posted. I haven't seen a stellar report from M1 in months,if not longer.
There was one with 0w-40 not long ago however it was a short run with high wear metals,although the oil was still serviceable,if that's what you call stellar.
Op
This report is nothing short of fantastic. Looks like you may be able to stretch the interval a bit longer but that's you're call.
Thanks for posting

 

[Built_Well]

I'm just an oil newbie, but I believe both FZ1's and Dnewton's perspectives on oil are valid.

I prefer FZ1's more conservative approach, but I intend to keep my Camry until the wheels fall off. However, if you buy a car every 5 or 6 years, you may prefer Dnewton's approach. Both are valid stances.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Built_Well
I'm just an oil newbie, but I believe both FZ1's and Dnewton's perspectives on oil are valid.

I prefer FZ1's more conservative approach, but I intend to keep my Camry until the wheels fall off. However, if you buy a car every 5 or 6 years, you may prefer Dnewton's approach. Both are valid stances.


I have been doing 10K OCIs for decades with M1 oils,and have had nothing but good results, and reccomend others(which many are doing) to do the same, and all are having great results as well. However I have seen way to many engines get sludgey and have heavy varnish using dino and extending their OCIs out to the 10K range. I would never suggest to someone to go that long on any dino. Too much risk. IMO. Yes, a few OCIs may not show much gunk, but many engines do get sludge and heavy varnish by doing long OCIs with dino.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Built_Well
I'm just an oil newbie, but I believe both FZ1's and Dnewton's perspectives on oil are valid.

I prefer FZ1's more conservative approach, but I intend to keep my Camry until the wheels fall off. However, if you buy a car every 5 or 6 years, you may prefer Dnewton's approach. Both are valid stances.


Not really. One is based on reason, one is based on irrational "feelings". Recommending a 10K change given this UOA is silly, as is the suggestion that this will somehow shorten the functional life of the engine. There's no rational reason for the OP to change his oil change interval.

 

[Built_Well]

Well, I'll just repeat FZ1's advice, which sounds very rational to me. Your retort, however, does not seem based on rationality.
You even use the word "silly" to attack FZ1's viewpoint, instead of providing evidence to the counter his view. Please provide evidence, not attack words.

You even said his viewpoint is based on "feelings," yet he provides hard data below, something you did not do. Sorry, but you would not make a good, rational debater who provides hard evidence to support a position. I'll repeat what FZ1 had to say:

"The oil has thinned from 8.9 to 7.12...[from nearly 9 to nearly 7] The flashpoint is down from 446 to 360...The tbn is low... The insoluables,probably,soot is .4...So I would leave a little margin for error and dump it at 10,000."

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Built_Well
Well, I'll just repeat FZ1's advice, which sounds very rational to me. Your retort, however, does not seem based on rationality.
You even use the word "silly" to attack FZ1's viewpoint, instead of providing evidence to the counter his view. Please provide evidence, not attack words.

You even said his viewpoint is based on "feelings," yet he provides hard data below, something you did not do. Sorry, but you would not make a good, rational debater who provides hard evidence to support a position. I'll repeat what FZ1 had to say:

"The oil has thinned from 8.9 to 7.12...[from nearly 9 to nearly 7] The flashpoint is down from 446 to 360...The tbn is low... The insoluables,probably,soot is .4...So I would leave a little margin for error and dump it at 10,000."


Sorry, it's silly. I don't know what else to say. They dude says the exact same thing on every UOA posted. There's no point in doing a UOA if you're going to disregard the information it provides. When the information demonstrates that the lubricant is still suitable for use, a recommendation for shorten the interval for no reason is silly.

Most shear occurs between new and 1,000 miles. There are literally thousands of UOA's which demonstrate that. TBN is not low, it's reasonable for a fairly long drain. Below 1 is low. He's 40% over that. FP is likely an artifact of the fuel, given the methodology used to determine it--and soot levels are no where remotely close to the condemnation limits (generally around 6%). I don't see why I need to provide "evidence" that the oil is suitable for use over this interval--the UOA actually does that perfectly well.

 

[JANDSZIRKLE]

I have been debating too use Mobil 1 EP or Mobil 1 HM in wifes car, debates now over, EP wins, she only drives it 10xxx miles a year EP would make a wonderful yearly OCI for her by looking at how well it held up. will do uoa on it 1st too make sure its ok then change it out.

OP thanks for posting!

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Built_Well
I'm just an oil newbie, but I believe both FZ1's and Dnewton's perspectives on oil are valid.

I prefer FZ1's more conservative approach, but I intend to keep my Camry until the wheels fall off. However, if you buy a car every 5 or 6 years, you may prefer Dnewton's approach. Both are valid stances.



I don't buy a car every 5-6 years. I believe in milking out the value from of my vehicles, just as I do my fluids.

For example:
- my wife's 1995 Villager with 242k miles on it; running 10k+ mile OCIs on dino house brands
- my daughter's 2000 Galant with 201k miles on it; establishing extended OCI pattern currently on dino house brands


Being a "newbie", I think you'll eventually discover there are two kinds of UOA posters here; people that use them as toys to play with, and folks that use them as tools in well-reasoned and actively managed overall lube maintenance program.

This UOA shows the lube likely could go way further, with some additional monitoring efforts. Taking an ultra-conservative approach is not "wrong", but it's not using the data for it's true value. It's an emotional response to a logical question.

 

[Built_Well]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
It's an emotional response to a logical question.


Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

NO2 didn't get a TAN reading, so that is a crucial piece of missing information. Without all the facts, I'll err on the side of safety.

Regarding the TAN, Dnewton, you even wrote the following in your first post in this thread:

"We would need to know the TAN also, before having a better view of the lube. Without knowing TAN, I cannot assure you that it's safe to go further, but then again neither can anyone assure this lube is "done" either."

Again, you wrote

"Without knowing TAN, I cannot assure you that it's safe to go further..."

You, FZ1, and I reached the same conclusion. Perhaps you've forgotten, or you have a selective memory favoring your latest opinion which has changed from your original posting in this thread [chuckle]. Like Jod, you also would not make a good debater.

Your viewpoint is not superior to FZ1's. His safety approach is not silly.

Perhaps your emotions have interfered with your memory. I wouldn't be so blunt, but you claim I have taken the emotional route, when it's clear to me you have

 

[k24a4]

and thanks for sharing. What is your avg mpg with the hypermiling technique?

 

[NO2]

So, as I understand it, TBN is simply a measure of buffer quantity. Since acids are generated at a fairly linear rate, the TBN measured buffers are consumed mostly at first and over time, less so as quantity decreases and secondary buffers (e.g those measured by Ca content + others) are consumed at a higher rate. TAN is irrelevant at TBN > 1.0 (given that the acid has been neutralized) and only becomes significant as secondary buffers become less effective and acid may increase.

So why is TAN necessary with a non-depleted TBN reading?

Dnewton3 & FZ1, what is the purpose of using expensive synthetics- who's apparent advantages are molecular consistency/sludge resistance, a more robust additive pack and better flow characteristics (at temperatures only experienced in a very few northern states & provinces!) if your OCI is short enough for conventional oils? It's not as if conventional oils lubricate better than synthetics at normal operated loads and temperatures. Does a synthetic 0w-20 really have an advantage in fuel economy over a conventional 5w-20 in the really real world given the $15 delta in price?

k24a4 - I get 33(70+mph)-38(rush hr 45-60mph) freeway, 28 mixed (about 6 better than consumer reports road test)

Dnewton3, I agree with your philosophy. At $35 for a UOA, it makes sense only for diagnostic/baseline wear analysis and to determine the useful life of a ~$60 synthetic oil/filter change for the driver/car mix of conditions. At least this UOA showed that Mobil was not exaggerating with their 15K claim for EP. It's cheaper as well as more environmentally sound to extend the OCI with only a small buffer.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Built_Well
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

NO2 didn't get a TAN reading, so that is a crucial piece of missing information. Without all the facts, I'll err on the side of safety.

Regarding the TAN, Dnewton, you even wrote the following in your first post in this thread:

"We would need to know the TAN also, before having a better view of the lube. Without knowing TAN, I cannot assure you that it's safe to go further, but then again neither can anyone assure this lube is "done" either."

Again, you wrote

"Without knowing TAN, I cannot assure you that it's safe to go further..."

You, FZ1, and I reached the same conclusion. Perhaps you've forgotten, or you have a selective memory favoring your latest opinion which has changed from your original posting in this thread [chuckle]. Like Jod, you also would not make a good debater.

Your viewpoint is not superior to FZ1's. His safety approach is not silly.

Perhaps your emotions have interfered with your memory. I wouldn't be so blunt, but you claim I have taken the emotional route, when it's clear to me you have



If you're going to quote me, then please take it in context, with the totality of the circumstances. Here is what I said in full:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
This UOA shows the lube likely could go way further, with some additional monitoring efforts.


How about we include the rest of my comments where I said " ... with additional monitoring efforts". That means TAN will need to be known as well. It was my intention to infer that if he continues to use M1 EP in the future, and runs longer OCIs, then he needs to know both. The wear rates and contamination are very low here; it's reasonable to expect they would continue to be so in successive UOAs. However, to extend from here, he'll need continued and addtional monitoring efforts (hence, TAN along with TBN). I would also include other tools such as PCs, visual clues, perhaps compression checks, etc. OCI extension is not an endeavor for lazy folks, and least not if you want to do it successfully.

I stand by my full, rational statment. This UOA shows that OCI extension is very likely (but not assured), and to do so would be best managed with addtional montoring. Please don't pick a portion of my statment apart; read it in its entirety.

FZ1's position is one if finality; he's stated the lube was "done" and would not run past 10k miles. I left open the possibility, perhaps even probability, that the lube can be used further, but it would need to be closely monitored with more efforts. He made a finite statement based upon emotion; I made an infinite statement based upon facts. Neither of us know what the TAN value is, but he's condemed the fluid regardless. I merely left open the likelihood that the lube will run furhter, but it needs to be watched with more tools. See the difference?

That is my logical explanation.

 

[Built_Well]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
If you're going to quote me, then please take it in context, with the totality of the circumstances. Here is what I said in full:
"This UOA shows the lube likely could go way further, with some additional monitoring efforts."


Well, I did quote you in full context. You wrote the above sentence a full 2 days after making your first statement. One post was on August 9, and your above statement appeared 2 days later on the 11th.

Anyway, it's an interesting point. Keep up the fine analysis. I just thought you were kind of harsh on FZ1. That's all.

 

[FZ1]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

NO2 didn't get a TAN reading, so that is a crucial piece of missing information. Without all the facts, I'll err on the side of safety.

Regarding the TAN, Dnewton, you even wrote the following in your first post in this thread:
Quote:
"We would need to know the TAN also, before having a better view of the lube. Without knowing TAN, I cannot assure you that it's safe to go further, but then again neither can anyone assure this lube is "done" either."

Again, you wrote

"Without knowing TAN, I cannot assure you that it's safe to go further..."

You, FZ1, and I reached the same conclusion. Perhaps you've forgotten, or you have a selective memory favoring your latest opinion which has changed from your original posting in this thread [chuckle]. Like Jod, you also would not make a good debater.

Your viewpoint is not superior to FZ1's. His safety approach is not silly.

Perhaps your emotions have interfered with your memory. I wouldn't be so blunt, but you claim I have taken the emotional route, when it's clear to me you have



If you're going to quote me, then please take it in context, with the totality of the circumstances. Here is what I said in full:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
This UOA shows the lube likely could go way further, with some additional monitoring efforts.


How about we include the rest of my comments where I said " ... with additional monitoring efforts". That means TAN will need to be known as well. It was my intention to infer that if he continues to use M1 EP in the future, and runs longer OCIs, then he needs to know both. The wear rates and contamination are very low here; it's reasonable to expect they would continue to be so in successive UOAs. However, to extend from here, he'll need continued and addtional monitoring efforts (hence, TAN along with TBN). I would also include other tools such as PCs, visual clues, perhaps compression checks, etc. OCI extension is not an endeavor for lazy folks, and least not if you want to do it successfully.

I stand by my full, rational statment. This UOA shows that OCI extension is very likely (but not assured), and to do so would be best managed with addtional montoring. Please don't pick a portion of my statment apart; read it in its entirety.

FZ1's position is one if finality; he's stated the lube was "done" and would not run past 10k miles. I left open the possibility, perhaps even probability, that the lube can be used further, but it would need to be closely monitored with more efforts. He made a finite statement based upon emotion; I made an infinite statement based upon facts. Neither of us know what the TAN value is, but he's condemed the fluid regardless. I merely left open the likelihood that the lube will run furhter, but it needs to be watched with more tools. See the difference?

That is my logical explanation.
That is your "logical explanation"? Look,if I dump a $30 oil fill 20% early,that costs me $6.,and for $30 more I get a new oil fill,right. You want to pay an addittional $35 to "moniter" old oil and keep running it,right? That's my financial explanation.

 

[dnewton3]

FZ1 - how would you know where the 20% early mark was at, if you didn't spend the money to UOA? You stated the oil was "done" and 10k miles was your limit as suggested for this UOA. But without the UOA, you'd have idea. It's just an arbitrary number you picked from thin air.

I would counter with this: Mobil 1 EP assures 15k miles, and no UOA would even be necessary. I'm sure Mobil has a "safety margin" built into their 15k mile warranty plan for this product, and so 15k miles would be a minimum, not a max. And yet you are ready to grab the wrenches at 10k miles? That's 1/3 less value from the fluid. The fluid could likely go even further than 15k miles, but we'd need TBN/TAN to know. My point is this; anything under 15k miles really is a waste of a UOA, if you do nothing with the info to extend the OCI. Why pay for a UOA, see the excellent service, and then OCI at less than the lube limit? No UOA is even necessary for EP; why pay for that info, and then totally ignore it? To what end, to what purpose, does it serve to pay for stuff you'd artificially limit?



Either greatly extend the OCI with full pragmatic knowledge using all available tools, or just stick to a "normal" OCI plan with the least expensive qualified fluid.

 

[coachditka]

Nice report. You are getting a good bang for your buck with that oil/filter combo.

Don't change a thing!