For further information on the oil change the car never sat for long periods of time without being driven. On a rainy day when I go to work it's my vehicle over a bike and I live in the Pacific Northwest so that's often. It may see 100 miles a week. For the last 6 months it's been nearly the only vehicle I drive seeing 200+ a week. The oil never needed topping off and after 10k it's perfectly level and ya its a nice shade of black. The valves and cams look amazing. No sludge or visible wear patterns at all and it looks brand new.
crazy long OCI would you do it......?
- Thread starter yaris0128
- Start date
- Status
GM 3.1L V6 engine here. Closing in on 45k miles/6 years since the last oil change. Would do it again without hesitation. If the UOA shows that degradation of the oil is minimal after the first "official" OCI, then you can usually at least double/triple the manufacturer recommended OCI without issue. Maintaining oil quantity is important, and the lack of oil changes is no excuse for not performing the routine maintenance inspections that usually accompany an oil change at the prescribed intervals.
Can you explain what specific parameters you look for in the UOA to make a determination?
Originally Posted By: pitzel
GM 3.1L V6 engine here. Closing in on 45k miles/6 years since the last oil change. Would do it again without hesitation. If the UOA shows that degradation of the oil is minimal after the first "official" OCI, then you can usually at least double/triple the manufacturer recommended OCI without issue. Maintaining oil quantity is important, and the lack of oil changes is no excuse for not performing the routine maintenance inspections that usually accompany an oil change at the prescribed intervals.
Originally Posted By: pitzel
GM 3.1L V6 engine here. Closing in on 45k miles/6 years since the last oil change. Would do it again without hesitation. If the UOA shows that degradation of the oil is minimal after the first "official" OCI, then you can usually at least double/triple the manufacturer recommended OCI without issue. Maintaining oil quantity is important, and the lack of oil changes is no excuse for not performing the routine maintenance inspections that usually accompany an oil change at the prescribed intervals.
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
The more I read on this forum the less chance there is that I will ever buy a used car.
Why? If a UOA confirms no adverse effects- then no damage is occurring. So why? Because you're uncomfortable with it doesn't mean it's bad.
So what else hasn't been changed. I'd pass on that used car. Penny wise and pound foolish.
+10000000000
BITOGers freaking out that someone has 10k miles on synthetic. I am disappointed.
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
The more I read on this forum the less chance there is that I will ever buy a used car.
Why? If a UOA confirms no adverse effects- then no damage is occurring. So why? Because you're uncomfortable with it doesn't mean it's bad.
So what else hasn't been changed. I'd pass on that used car. Penny wise and pound foolish.
+10000000000
BITOGers freaking out that someone has 10k miles on synthetic. I am disappointed.
Originally Posted By: Noey
congratulate yourself for having anal oil as well.
???
I'll be sure to try that sometime.
congratulate yourself for having anal oil as well.
???
I'll be sure to try that sometime.
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
BITOGers freaking out that someone has 10k miles on synthetic. I am disappointed.
Me, too. There seem to be a lot of peace-of-mind and penny-wise type posters relatively recently, and it's bugging me. It seems that most of them jump into a thread and back each other up on out-dated methodology and logic, and those who want to put in a good reply just don't have the time or patience. All it takes is one logical person to post to shut that down, but sometimes that doesn't happen...
Heck, I post mostly from my phone, and I'm not one of the more experienced lubrication experts by a good margin. If only the experts could disregard everything else in their lives and be available to post up good info and rebuttals at a moments notice, on a 24/7 notice.
Originally Posted By: thunderfog
Originally Posted By: Noey
congratulate yourself for having anal oil as well.
???
I'll be sure to try that sometime.
I wanted so badly to include a response to this in my earlier reply, but didn't want to muddy the finger-wagging waters, so to speak.
BITOGers freaking out that someone has 10k miles on synthetic. I am disappointed.
Me, too. There seem to be a lot of peace-of-mind and penny-wise type posters relatively recently, and it's bugging me. It seems that most of them jump into a thread and back each other up on out-dated methodology and logic, and those who want to put in a good reply just don't have the time or patience. All it takes is one logical person to post to shut that down, but sometimes that doesn't happen...
Heck, I post mostly from my phone, and I'm not one of the more experienced lubrication experts by a good margin. If only the experts could disregard everything else in their lives and be available to post up good info and rebuttals at a moments notice, on a 24/7 notice.
Originally Posted By: thunderfog
Originally Posted By: Noey
congratulate yourself for having anal oil as well.
???
I'll be sure to try that sometime.
I wanted so badly to include a response to this in my earlier reply, but didn't want to muddy the finger-wagging waters, so to speak.
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Me, too. There seem to be a lot of peace-of-mind and penny-wise type posters relatively recently, and it's bugging me. It seems that most of them jump into a thread and back each other up on out-dated methodology and logic, and those who want to put in a good reply just don't have the time or patience. All it takes is one logical person to post to shut that down, but sometimes that doesn't happen...
I am astounded by your post. You smugly dismiss any poster that does not agree with your “methodology and logic” as stupid. I suppose you think it is “logical” it has been 6 years and 45,000 miles since Pitzel has changed the oil in his GM 3.1L V6. I can’t believe any credible automotive power train engineer, petroleum engineer, or automotive technician would ever advocate this kind of “maintenance” on any engine under any circumstances. Yet you and some others accept this insanity. I am all for getting the most out of your oil but this is next to unbelievable. With the money some people spend on UOAs they could have changed the oil in their engines multiple times instead. Am I the only person on this forum that feels like they are in the Twilight Zone when reading some of these posts??
I would love to hear from someone with real credentials to provide an educated input on this subject (not any self-appointed experts without any formal training or education). Perhaps someone could provide us a link to some credible technical papers or articles that can explain why it is OK to use the “Pitzel Approach” to engine lubrication.
Me, too. There seem to be a lot of peace-of-mind and penny-wise type posters relatively recently, and it's bugging me. It seems that most of them jump into a thread and back each other up on out-dated methodology and logic, and those who want to put in a good reply just don't have the time or patience. All it takes is one logical person to post to shut that down, but sometimes that doesn't happen...
I am astounded by your post. You smugly dismiss any poster that does not agree with your “methodology and logic” as stupid. I suppose you think it is “logical” it has been 6 years and 45,000 miles since Pitzel has changed the oil in his GM 3.1L V6. I can’t believe any credible automotive power train engineer, petroleum engineer, or automotive technician would ever advocate this kind of “maintenance” on any engine under any circumstances. Yet you and some others accept this insanity. I am all for getting the most out of your oil but this is next to unbelievable. With the money some people spend on UOAs they could have changed the oil in their engines multiple times instead. Am I the only person on this forum that feels like they are in the Twilight Zone when reading some of these posts??
I would love to hear from someone with real credentials to provide an educated input on this subject (not any self-appointed experts without any formal training or education). Perhaps someone could provide us a link to some credible technical papers or articles that can explain why it is OK to use the “Pitzel Approach” to engine lubrication.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
- Messages
- 2,847
Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
The more I read on this forum the less chance there is that I will ever buy a used car.
LOL!
The more I read on this forum the less chance there is that I will ever buy a used car.
LOL!
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,326
Long gone.
The correct answer is leave it in until the UOA comes back and it's posted so it can be discussed. I have oil in one of my "toys" that's almost eight years old. None of the maladies I read here.
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
What happened to the BITOG of yore, where questions were asked, data requested and sage advice given?
The correct answer is leave it in until the UOA comes back and it's posted so it can be discussed. I have oil in one of my "toys" that's almost eight years old. None of the maladies I read here.
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
What happened to the BITOG of yore, where questions were asked, data requested and sage advice given?
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,326
Yep. Take a look at the UOA sub-forum. People posting UOA's on M1 EP with 5k -7k miles. The replies are, "WOW! Looks great!". Well, yea.
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
BITOGers freaking out that someone has 10k miles on synthetic. I am disappointed.
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
BITOGers freaking out that someone has 10k miles on synthetic. I am disappointed.
Quote:
can’t believe any credible automotive power train engineer, petroleum engineer, or automotive technician would ever advocate this kind of “maintenance” on any engine under any circumstances.
Quite to the contrary Sir, the field of used oil analysis has gained a lot of credibility in the area of machinery maintenance and reliability centered maintenance practices over the past few decades. Largely driven by many factors, both technical and economic, which operators have been using to optimize maintenance of their machinery.
Basically put, the old fashioned method of "on-schedule" maintenance has been shown to be unduly costly, and does not direct maintenance resources towards doing maintenance with meaningful results. "On-condition", using UOA and other methods, has proven its worth and is now the accepted standard in a very large number of applications. Slowly but surely, the automotive world is being dragged towards maintenance practices that are more rational than merely draining perfectly good oil on a schedule just for the fun of it. Quick lubes everywhere will fight such with all the folklore they can muster, but even the OEMs are pushing hard against such wasteful practices.
The oilpan is coming off the car this summer to fix a minor gasket leak that's been soiling my driveway a drop here and there, so I definitely will have proof of no sludging and efficacy of the long drains.
can’t believe any credible automotive power train engineer, petroleum engineer, or automotive technician would ever advocate this kind of “maintenance” on any engine under any circumstances.
Quite to the contrary Sir, the field of used oil analysis has gained a lot of credibility in the area of machinery maintenance and reliability centered maintenance practices over the past few decades. Largely driven by many factors, both technical and economic, which operators have been using to optimize maintenance of their machinery.
Basically put, the old fashioned method of "on-schedule" maintenance has been shown to be unduly costly, and does not direct maintenance resources towards doing maintenance with meaningful results. "On-condition", using UOA and other methods, has proven its worth and is now the accepted standard in a very large number of applications. Slowly but surely, the automotive world is being dragged towards maintenance practices that are more rational than merely draining perfectly good oil on a schedule just for the fun of it. Quick lubes everywhere will fight such with all the folklore they can muster, but even the OEMs are pushing hard against such wasteful practices.
The oilpan is coming off the car this summer to fix a minor gasket leak that's been soiling my driveway a drop here and there, so I definitely will have proof of no sludging and efficacy of the long drains.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,326
They all left when you new guys came in and think it's insanity to use a synthetic oil for 10k or more miles.
Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
I would love to hear from someone with real credentials to provide an educated input on this subject (not any self-appointed experts without any formal training or education).
Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
I would love to hear from someone with real credentials to provide an educated input on this subject (not any self-appointed experts without any formal training or education).
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Can you explain what specific parameters you look for in the UOA to make a determination?
Oxidation, insolubles, coolant/fuel contamination, silicon, TAN/TBN > condemnation figures, etc. Wear metals are cumulative, so yes, their numbers after a lot of operation will be higher.
The UOA section on this forum is full of oil samples that are only at a fraction of what ordinarily could be condemnation limits. Its rather unfortunate that more BiTOG'ers that post to the UOA section aren't committed to long drains even in the face of evidence that suggests their oil is handling the job with ease.
Can you explain what specific parameters you look for in the UOA to make a determination?
Oxidation, insolubles, coolant/fuel contamination, silicon, TAN/TBN > condemnation figures, etc. Wear metals are cumulative, so yes, their numbers after a lot of operation will be higher.
The UOA section on this forum is full of oil samples that are only at a fraction of what ordinarily could be condemnation limits. Its rather unfortunate that more BiTOG'ers that post to the UOA section aren't committed to long drains even in the face of evidence that suggests their oil is handling the job with ease.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,326
Too bad the credible automotive power train engineer, petroleum engineer, or automotive technician can't remove the nut behind the wheel who goes insane because their OLM hit 50%.
Originally Posted By: pitzel
Basically put, the old fashioned method of "on-schedule" maintenance has been shown to be unduly costly, and does not direct maintenance resources towards doing maintenance with meaningful results.
Originally Posted By: pitzel
Basically put, the old fashioned method of "on-schedule" maintenance has been shown to be unduly costly, and does not direct maintenance resources towards doing maintenance with meaningful results.
Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Too bad the credible automotive power train engineer, petroleum engineer, or automotive technician can't remove the nut behind the wheel who goes insane because their OLM hit 50%.
The overall 'debate', even here on BiTOG unfortunately, is accentuated and characterized by extremities. Not a rational and diligent evidence based approach to maintenance including changing oil.
There's even evidence these days that changing oil too frequently can cause equipment damage. Yet paranoia of the evidence can run quite deep.
Too bad the credible automotive power train engineer, petroleum engineer, or automotive technician can't remove the nut behind the wheel who goes insane because their OLM hit 50%.
The overall 'debate', even here on BiTOG unfortunately, is accentuated and characterized by extremities. Not a rational and diligent evidence based approach to maintenance including changing oil.
There's even evidence these days that changing oil too frequently can cause equipment damage. Yet paranoia of the evidence can run quite deep.
Last edited:
I see the results of a lot of inbreeding here. Still waiting for some input from other than self-appointed experts.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
I see the results of a lot of inbreeding here. Still waiting for some input from other than self-appointed experts.
And in what form might exactly that take? Oil analysis to verify extended drains is well accepted in industry, albeit on equipment costing not just thousands of dollars, but millions of dollars. The numbers might be different for cheaper equipment, but the principles are not.
I see the results of a lot of inbreeding here. Still waiting for some input from other than self-appointed experts.
And in what form might exactly that take? Oil analysis to verify extended drains is well accepted in industry, albeit on equipment costing not just thousands of dollars, but millions of dollars. The numbers might be different for cheaper equipment, but the principles are not.
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Me, too. There seem to be a lot of peace-of-mind and penny-wise type posters relatively recently, and it's bugging me. It seems that most of them jump into a thread and back each other up on out-dated methodology and logic, and those who want to put in a good reply just don't have the time or patience. All it takes is one logical person to post to shut that down, but sometimes that doesn't happen...
I am astounded by your post. You smugly dismiss any poster that does not agree with your “methodology and logic” as stupid. I suppose you think it is “logical” it has been 6 years and 45,000 miles since Pitzel has changed the oil in his GM 3.1L V6. I can’t believe any credible automotive power train engineer, petroleum engineer, or automotive technician would ever advocate this kind of “maintenance” on any engine under any circumstances. Yet you and some others accept this insanity. I am all for getting the most out of your oil but this is next to unbelievable. With the money some people spend on UOAs they could have changed the oil in their engines multiple times instead. Am I the only person on this forum that feels like they are in the Twilight Zone when reading some of these posts??
I would love to hear from someone with real credentials to provide an educated input on this subject (not any self-appointed experts without any formal training or education). Perhaps someone could provide us a link to some credible technical papers or articles that can explain why it is OK to use the “Pitzel Approach” to engine lubrication.
You missed my point: the OP did not provide enough data - plain and simple, and an irrefutable fact - for anyone to make a decision about whether his interval was too long. Posts have been made and UOA have been posted showing that time may not be a as heavily weighted a factor as driving style, engine, and oil. This is known.
I did not comment on Pitzel's OCI, so I'm not sure what your point there is...
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Me, too. There seem to be a lot of peace-of-mind and penny-wise type posters relatively recently, and it's bugging me. It seems that most of them jump into a thread and back each other up on out-dated methodology and logic, and those who want to put in a good reply just don't have the time or patience. All it takes is one logical person to post to shut that down, but sometimes that doesn't happen...
I am astounded by your post. You smugly dismiss any poster that does not agree with your “methodology and logic” as stupid. I suppose you think it is “logical” it has been 6 years and 45,000 miles since Pitzel has changed the oil in his GM 3.1L V6. I can’t believe any credible automotive power train engineer, petroleum engineer, or automotive technician would ever advocate this kind of “maintenance” on any engine under any circumstances. Yet you and some others accept this insanity. I am all for getting the most out of your oil but this is next to unbelievable. With the money some people spend on UOAs they could have changed the oil in their engines multiple times instead. Am I the only person on this forum that feels like they are in the Twilight Zone when reading some of these posts??
I would love to hear from someone with real credentials to provide an educated input on this subject (not any self-appointed experts without any formal training or education). Perhaps someone could provide us a link to some credible technical papers or articles that can explain why it is OK to use the “Pitzel Approach” to engine lubrication.
You missed my point: the OP did not provide enough data - plain and simple, and an irrefutable fact - for anyone to make a decision about whether his interval was too long. Posts have been made and UOA have been posted showing that time may not be a as heavily weighted a factor as driving style, engine, and oil. This is known.
I did not comment on Pitzel's OCI, so I'm not sure what your point there is...
Pitzel, would love to see any UOA's that you've done. I'm with ya, most people change oil to frequently.
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Me, too. There seem to be a lot of peace-of-mind and penny-wise type posters relatively recently, and it's bugging me. It seems that most of them jump into a thread and back each other up on out-dated methodology and logic, and those who want to put in a good reply just don't have the time or patience. All it takes is one logical person to post to shut that down, but sometimes that doesn't happen...
I am astounded by your post. You smugly dismiss any poster that does not agree with your “methodology and logic” as stupid. I suppose you think it is “logical” it has been 6 years and 45,000 miles since Pitzel has changed the oil in his GM 3.1L V6. I can’t believe any credible automotive power train engineer, petroleum engineer, or automotive technician would ever advocate this kind of “maintenance” on any engine under any circumstances. Yet you and some others accept this insanity. I am all for getting the most out of your oil but this is next to unbelievable. With the money some people spend on UOAs they could have changed the oil in their engines multiple times instead. Am I the only person on this forum that feels like they are in the Twilight Zone when reading some of these posts??
I would love to hear from someone with real credentials to provide an educated input on this subject (not any self-appointed experts without any formal training or education). Perhaps someone could provide us a link to some credible technical papers or articles that can explain why it is OK to use the “Pitzel Approach” to engine lubrication.
You missed my point: the OP did not provide enough data - plain and simple, and an irrefutable fact - for anyone to make a decision about whether his interval was too long. Posts have been made and UOA have been posted showing that time may not be a as heavily weighted a factor as driving style, engine, and oil. This is known.
I did not comment on Pitzel's OCI, so I'm not sure what your point there is...
And what data would you like because Id love to provide that.
Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Me, too. There seem to be a lot of peace-of-mind and penny-wise type posters relatively recently, and it's bugging me. It seems that most of them jump into a thread and back each other up on out-dated methodology and logic, and those who want to put in a good reply just don't have the time or patience. All it takes is one logical person to post to shut that down, but sometimes that doesn't happen...
I am astounded by your post. You smugly dismiss any poster that does not agree with your “methodology and logic” as stupid. I suppose you think it is “logical” it has been 6 years and 45,000 miles since Pitzel has changed the oil in his GM 3.1L V6. I can’t believe any credible automotive power train engineer, petroleum engineer, or automotive technician would ever advocate this kind of “maintenance” on any engine under any circumstances. Yet you and some others accept this insanity. I am all for getting the most out of your oil but this is next to unbelievable. With the money some people spend on UOAs they could have changed the oil in their engines multiple times instead. Am I the only person on this forum that feels like they are in the Twilight Zone when reading some of these posts??
I would love to hear from someone with real credentials to provide an educated input on this subject (not any self-appointed experts without any formal training or education). Perhaps someone could provide us a link to some credible technical papers or articles that can explain why it is OK to use the “Pitzel Approach” to engine lubrication.
You missed my point: the OP did not provide enough data - plain and simple, and an irrefutable fact - for anyone to make a decision about whether his interval was too long. Posts have been made and UOA have been posted showing that time may not be a as heavily weighted a factor as driving style, engine, and oil. This is known.
I did not comment on Pitzel's OCI, so I'm not sure what your point there is...
And what data would you like because Id love to provide that.
- Status