Shell RT6, 5w-40, 21,466mi, 06 GMC Duramax

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
259
Location
Richmond, VA
Very pleased with these results.

Lab was ALS-Atlanta this time, I bought the NAPA $14 kit, and the universal averages are from my first Blackstone report.

I have to admit I got the OCI itch to dump it at 15k, but I could DNewton's voice in my head, "Don't do it," "that's wasteful." Thanks Dave.

I will probably just keep my OCI at 20k and sample for a health report.

I kept the "mild" EFI Live tune throughout the duration of this OCI. I also changed the Baldwin Oil filter @10k into the OCI and cleaned the AFE 7-layer air filter ~500mi into the OCI.

The .5 qt of makeup is due the filter change.

BTW, my wife and I still drive it like it's stolen, and it's saw plenty of short trips under 5mi.

Comments appreciated.


Code:
MI/HR on Oil 21,466 13,893 6,700

MI/HR on Unit 106671 85,205

Sample Date 01/13/14 03/05/12

Oil Rotella T6 5w-40 Rotella T6 5w-40

Make Up Oil Added .5 qts (Filter) 0 qts Univ Averages



ALUMINUM 6 6 2

CHROMIUM
IRON 24 34 13

COPPER 4 14 13

LEAD 1 0 3

TIN 2 3 1

MOLYBDENUM 67 62 36

NICKEL
MANGANESE Not Tested 1 0

SILVER
TITANIUM
POTASSIUM
BORON 23 38 89

SILICON 6 8 10

SODIUM 10 4 4

CALCIUM 860 970 2212

MAGNESIUM 1171 1258 376

PHOSPHORUS 1070 1098 1082

ZINC 1312 1309 1268

BARIUM


Should Be:

SUS Viscosity @ 210°F Not Tested 77.3 66-78

cSt Viscosity @ 100°C 15.0 14.84 11.9-15.3

Flashpoint in °F Not Tested 420 >410

Fuel %
Antifreeze % No 0.0 0.0

Water % 0.07 0.0
Insolubles % 0.3 0.1
TBN 7.2 8.3 >1.0
 
Originally Posted By: DNVDMAX
Very pleased with these results.

Lab was ALS-Atlanta this time, I bought the NAPA $14 kit, and the universal averages are from my first Blackstone report.

I have to admit I got the OCI itch to dump it at 15k, but I could DNewton's voice in my head, "Don't do it," "that's wasteful." Thanks Dave.

I will probably just keep my OCI at 20k and sample for a health report.

I kept the "mild" EFI Live tune throughout the duration of this OCI. I also changed the Baldwin Oil filter @10k into the OCI and cleaned the AFE 7-layer air filter ~500mi into the OCI.

The .5 qt of makeup is due the filter change.

BTW, my wife and I still drive it like it's stolen, and it's saw plenty of short trips under 5mi.

Comments appreciated.


Code:
MI/HR on Oil 21,466 13,893 6,700

MI/HR on Unit 106671 85,205

Sample Date 01/13/14 03/05/12

Oil Rotella T6 5w-40 Rotella T6 5w-40

Make Up Oil Added .5 qts (Filter) 0 qts Univ Averages



ALUMINUM 6 6 2

CHROMIUM
IRON 24 34 13

COPPER 4 14 13

LEAD 1 0 3

TIN 2 3 1

MOLYBDENUM 67 62 36

NICKEL
MANGANESE Not Tested 1 0

SILVER
TITANIUM
POTASSIUM
BORON 23 38 89

SILICON 6 8 10

SODIUM 10 4 4

CALCIUM 860 970 2212

MAGNESIUM 1171 1258 376

PHOSPHORUS 1070 1098 1082

ZINC 1312 1309 1268

BARIUM


Should Be:

SUS Viscosity @ 210°F Not Tested 77.3 66-78

cSt Viscosity @ 100°C 15.0 14.84 11.9-15.3

Flashpoint in °F Not Tested 420 >410

Fuel %
Antifreeze % No 0.0 0.0

Water % 0.07 0.0
Insolubles % 0.3 0.1
TBN 7.2 8.3 >1.0


WOW TBN of 7.2, couldn't you go significantly further?
 
Stellar TBN retention. Are we starting to see some thickening? I show virgin vis. At 14.2.

I am seeing that people who drive hard show great UOA's. Hmmm
 
Yeah I think although the TBN is great the thickening does raise an eyebrow. Even the sample seemed a little thick at room temp.

My EGR is disabled, but my PCV is intact.

Here is the UOA doc:
 
I bet 30k would look pretty close to what you have there. I wonder if it would be progressively thicker as km goes on. Those dmax are really nice on oil.
 
Originally Posted By: abycat
I bet 30k would look pretty close to what you have there. I wonder if it would be progressively thicker as km goes on. Those dmax are really nice on oil.


That UOA is in miles
 
Would've been interesting to see TAN but everything looks excellent. It appears that you could go longer still if you wanted to, but do what you're comfortable with based on the info you now have.

I can't help but think even a conventional could get you 20k based on the dmax historical results. Then again maybe it would thicken much more than the t6 (?)
 
Last edited:
Typical boring Dmax UOA. Nothing to be afraid of there; looks great. Air filter is doing great with the Si so low! Don't change it; it's doing exactly what you need it to do.


Perhaps consider getting a Fumoto valve; then you can sample first, and then only decide to change oil if the UOA indicates (which this would not). That is what I'm doing on mine; into my third year of the OCI. You might also consider a bypass system, if you drive far annually. Then you can really stretch the OCI!
 
Last edited:
Here is one of my oil analysis reports on RT6 in a Cummins at 24k miles:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3192153/01_Cummins_Dodge_Ram_2500,_243#Post3192153

Fairly similar numbers. TBN holds up well.
 
A_Harman,

Wow, those numbers are pretty close. I even run similar boost levels at 35 psi.

I wonder how Mobil 1 TDT would compare. I bought a good stash when AZ was running their 12.99 special. I just hate to stray from something that is working fine.

I like the idea of putting a bypass on the truck, as DN3 stated above, but I don't know how much of an ROI I will see.

Off subject: Man do I miss my 2002 Z/28 like the one listed in your sig. I bought one from the Texas Department of Public Safety in 2003 with 2,100 miles on it. It had roll up windows, manual locks, and a radio with no CD player. I was able to get into the deep 11s for not much cash, I sold it in 2006. I liked the camaro more than the 2002 WS6 T/A that replaced it.
 
I bought my 07 with 20k on it and my first two oil changes filled it with M1 TDT, UOA at ~10k miles, copper was VERY high. Something in the M1 TDT leaches the copper from the oil cooler. Then I switched to T6 and it went back to normal.
 
Not just TDT. Amsoil and RP and RL have been known to do it as well. It's also happened with "normal" products, but at a much lower lever and frequency.

It's not harmful to the engine at all. But it has the ability to mask the onset of real problems, and by the time the overt spike of Cu from the chelation settles, the other problem may be a much bigger issue.

Look at the data in my "normalcy" article. Then consider what happens when we try to discover engine issues ...
If your Dmax were to average 3ppm over 7k miles, and you changed to a fluid that suddenly spike your Cu to 150ppm, you'd NEVER see any true shift in actual wear during that period. If it takes perhaps three successive OCIs to "flush" out the chelation from the reaction, and you try to get reasonable use of the syn fluid (perhaps 25k miles per OCI), then that represents 75k miles of driving around where you cannot see the trending due to wear in Cu.

Typically, we are looking for wear trending (three successive moves in the same direction in or out of range) to indicate an issue. Knowing the standard deviation helps here to understand what is "normal" for variance. Presume 3ppm in sigma allowance for an example.

So if you typically run 3ppm of Cu, and you start to get wear that shows 9 additional ppm of Cu, that would be a total of 12ppm of Cu in a "normal" OCI. We'd notice that for sure. But if you were at 120ppm of Cu due to the chelation, and you "add" in 9ppm of Cu wear, you'll never know it! It's too flipping hard to discern small wear shift from BIG chemical noise. How high can this get? I have documented data from one Dmax UOA where the Cu spiked to over 900ppm in the OCI. Yes - OVER NINE HUNDRED PPM! That is the most extreme case, but it's not uncommon to see 100-200ppm in an OCI often with this reaction.

Many folks would note that you can look for Pb to increase and if it's not there, to ignore the Cu spike. DANGEROUS! That is making a WHOLE lot of presumptions that cannot be thrown out like a blanket. Here are things to consider:
1) Pb avg (both macro and micro)
2) Pb std dev (macro and micro)
3) Engine family history
4) Engine family design (is Pb always present in the component design?)
5) External contributors to Pb?
I would agree that watching Pb is a good idea, but you cannot safely rely on it as a 100% effective communicative device to say you can simply ingore Cu. There are many times when Cu wear may be present, and no Pb shift takes place. They are not 100% mutually inclusive; they can be exclusive depending upon many other conditions.

These chemical Cu reactions are not harmful at all, but they completely mask part of the information we're seeking by doing a UOA in the first place.

I am not saying that one should never use those products. Nor am I saying that one should quit doing UOAs if you choose to use them. I am stating that you must understand all the benefits and limitations of every product you use, and that it's not just about the lube, but also the equipment and monitoring processes you select as well.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top