2007.5 lmm duramax
- Thread starter 4x4le
- Start date
- Status
Looks to be in good shape. Would be nice to know the TBN.
TBN?
Originally Posted By: jrmason
It should look outstanding with 3 quarts of make up oil added in that time frame...do you have a leak somewhere? Hopefully you are not burning that much...
1 qt per 4500 miles? Doesn't sound too bad to me!
It should look outstanding with 3 quarts of make up oil added in that time frame...do you have a leak somewhere? Hopefully you are not burning that much...
1 qt per 4500 miles? Doesn't sound too bad to me!
That is an approximation. I had a gallon jug that was not full that I have used completely now. It was about a qt that I put in it after I pulled the sample. Less than a gallon in 13,500 miles does not seem bad to me but I could be wrong.
I am tuned on efi live and have the egr blocked and the dpf and doc deleted but the pcv is not re routed which is most likely where the oil goes. Nothing hits the ground.
This was my first time sending in a sample to shaffers and the kit is only $12 postage paid but I have a blackstone kit I can send if it will give needed info. I was under the impression that calcium was a good indicator of tbn.
Does soot and viscosity seem ok? Its been a while since I looked at any uois. Also the Moly seems low considering I used 2 bottles of their moly ep. Does it seem like they are a waste to use or would it be depleted quite a bit if I didnt use any?
I am tuned on efi live and have the egr blocked and the dpf and doc deleted but the pcv is not re routed which is most likely where the oil goes. Nothing hits the ground.
This was my first time sending in a sample to shaffers and the kit is only $12 postage paid but I have a blackstone kit I can send if it will give needed info. I was under the impression that calcium was a good indicator of tbn.
Does soot and viscosity seem ok? Its been a while since I looked at any uois. Also the Moly seems low considering I used 2 bottles of their moly ep. Does it seem like they are a waste to use or would it be depleted quite a bit if I didnt use any?
Since your constantly adding oil your replacing any additives that would otherwise be depleted. Your change intervals will be dictated by wear metals and/or contaminants (if your shooting for extended intervals).
Your numbers all seem fine. To give you a comparison, my soot was .4 and visc. @100C cst was 13.64. This was using Schaeffers 7000 15w40 at 12,300 miles with less than a quart of make up oil added. I generally go much further than that and am now using 9000 5w40. I used that as an example because it was the closest sample I had that was comparable to your mileage. The only reason I dumped that early was because I had to open up my gear case to replace a leaky front seal. (I have yet to add any oil since fixing this leak in 10k miles) And I installed a bypass filter at the same time so I wanted to play it safe and start fresh since I had the front of the engine opened up.
Your numbers all seem fine. To give you a comparison, my soot was .4 and visc. @100C cst was 13.64. This was using Schaeffers 7000 15w40 at 12,300 miles with less than a quart of make up oil added. I generally go much further than that and am now using 9000 5w40. I used that as an example because it was the closest sample I had that was comparable to your mileage. The only reason I dumped that early was because I had to open up my gear case to replace a leaky front seal. (I have yet to add any oil since fixing this leak in 10k miles) And I installed a bypass filter at the same time so I wanted to play it safe and start fresh since I had the front of the engine opened up.
Last edited:
I am not as concerned with "extended intervals" but rather not dumping good oil. I guess its all the same thing. I doubt I will go to work and brag about getting 30k miles out of an oil change but it will feel good knowing that I have not changed it at a waste
I certainly dont brag about it either, but your using a good quality oil that is capable of going much further than OEM recommended intervals. Your doing it right by double checking with a UOA. I do annual changes on the wife's TDI with the same oil (9000 5w40) and it works out to 15-20k miles. I'm money ahead by doing one UOA per year and going extended rather than dumping at 10k and I've still got a good "buffer" meaning the oil has plenty of TBN with low wear metals and insoluables.
Thanks for all the help everyone. My last post sounded snooty, but I didnt mean for it to sound that way or like that is why people here do uoas. What i was getting at was I wont feel ripped off no matter the mileage I get from my oil, I just want to know I am changing it at the right time.
I do expect longer life out of it vs rotella but I will not run rotella in this truck after noticing the difference when switching from it to shaffers 7000 in my 7.3.
My drift car has always had rotella 5w40 and the engine looked great when torn down after its last failure. That has me wanting to run it on rotella again but shaffers 0w50 sounds allot more suiting for this build.
I do expect longer life out of it vs rotella but I will not run rotella in this truck after noticing the difference when switching from it to shaffers 7000 in my 7.3.
My drift car has always had rotella 5w40 and the engine looked great when torn down after its last failure. That has me wanting to run it on rotella again but shaffers 0w50 sounds allot more suiting for this build.
Originally Posted By: Donald
TBN?
Total Base Number is a measure of the active additive remaining that neutralizes acid formation. Virgin diesel oil begins with a TBN of 12 or more, and as long as it stays at 1.0 or higher the oil is still capable of neutralizing acids. When I get my oil tested at Blackstone the TBN test is a $10 option, IIRC.
TBN?
Total Base Number is a measure of the active additive remaining that neutralizes acid formation. Virgin diesel oil begins with a TBN of 12 or more, and as long as it stays at 1.0 or higher the oil is still capable of neutralizing acids. When I get my oil tested at Blackstone the TBN test is a $10 option, IIRC.
With the advent of USLD TBN rarely exceeds 10-10.5, simply because high TBN isn't needed.
The true measure of remaining oil life includes TAN, the two shouldn't cross meaning if the TAN is higher than TBN its time to change.
The true measure of remaining oil life includes TAN, the two shouldn't cross meaning if the TAN is higher than TBN its time to change.
dnewton3
Staff member
I have seen that even when TAN crosses TBN, it's not an assurance of immediate demise of the fluid nor equipment.
Most folks don't understand why we use TBN/TAN. It's a tool to use as a predictor. It does NOT indicate wear; it is only a predictor that cautions one to pay closer attention to the lube condition.
For example, if you were running long OCIs with a syn/BP filter, and did a UOA every 5k miles, you would want to track TBN/TAN. At some point, TAN will cross over TBN. At that point, depending upon the range and "velocity" of the shift, you may want to start doing UOA with greater frequency, to look for an escalation of wear particles indicating the fluid has become corrosive. Often, the size of the sump will dictate how the fiscal decision plays out; cost of the OCI vs. cost of UOAs.
We use lubes to reduce wear; that is THE MAIN GOAL of lubicants. Inputs such as vis, FP, TBN/TAN, are all predictors of the potential lifecycle of the fluid. But wear data is the actual result of how it truly performs.
I've seen TBN be usurped by TAN in many of my longer OCIs, and never was the wear rate affected adversely. That is because, although I ran an extended OCI, I didn't extend it far enough to allow the relationship to become adverse.
Cross over is a mile-marker to pay closer attention; it should not be thought of as an automatic trigger to dump a fluid.
OCIs based upon the odometer are the least-common-denominator approach to lube program maintenance. They are simple to follow; they are reliable and provide for a safe operating condition. But they are wasteful. Extended OCIs with UOAs, PCs and other indicators are a way to manage the OCI to a good fiscal end. And using TBN/TAN is a way to further refine that approach to a greater level of detail. But it also ups the cost yet again. UOAs are tools, not toys (although one would be often hard pressed to recognize the difference on this site). Knowing how and why to do a UOA, and what to do with the data afterwards, is the real challenge.
I have yet to see a UOA posted here that showed a direct correlation to wear and TBN/TAN crossover. And my own personal experiences have shown this to be a non-issue for "normal" applications, to the point where I'm no longer paying for the TBN/TAN testing for any UOA at less than 15k miles. Even if it does "cross over", it does not manifest into a wear issue in short-to-moderate durations.
Most folks don't understand why we use TBN/TAN. It's a tool to use as a predictor. It does NOT indicate wear; it is only a predictor that cautions one to pay closer attention to the lube condition.
For example, if you were running long OCIs with a syn/BP filter, and did a UOA every 5k miles, you would want to track TBN/TAN. At some point, TAN will cross over TBN. At that point, depending upon the range and "velocity" of the shift, you may want to start doing UOA with greater frequency, to look for an escalation of wear particles indicating the fluid has become corrosive. Often, the size of the sump will dictate how the fiscal decision plays out; cost of the OCI vs. cost of UOAs.
We use lubes to reduce wear; that is THE MAIN GOAL of lubicants. Inputs such as vis, FP, TBN/TAN, are all predictors of the potential lifecycle of the fluid. But wear data is the actual result of how it truly performs.
I've seen TBN be usurped by TAN in many of my longer OCIs, and never was the wear rate affected adversely. That is because, although I ran an extended OCI, I didn't extend it far enough to allow the relationship to become adverse.
Cross over is a mile-marker to pay closer attention; it should not be thought of as an automatic trigger to dump a fluid.
OCIs based upon the odometer are the least-common-denominator approach to lube program maintenance. They are simple to follow; they are reliable and provide for a safe operating condition. But they are wasteful. Extended OCIs with UOAs, PCs and other indicators are a way to manage the OCI to a good fiscal end. And using TBN/TAN is a way to further refine that approach to a greater level of detail. But it also ups the cost yet again. UOAs are tools, not toys (although one would be often hard pressed to recognize the difference on this site). Knowing how and why to do a UOA, and what to do with the data afterwards, is the real challenge.
I have yet to see a UOA posted here that showed a direct correlation to wear and TBN/TAN crossover. And my own personal experiences have shown this to be a non-issue for "normal" applications, to the point where I'm no longer paying for the TBN/TAN testing for any UOA at less than 15k miles. Even if it does "cross over", it does not manifest into a wear issue in short-to-moderate durations.
17,625 miles on oil
Since my last sample I have added 2 qts but some of that was due to the filter change. It has been about a month since I added any oil and did the filter because I didnt want to add oil or change the filter right before taking a sample. I may need to add some soon but I didnt want to artificially inflate any additive numbers with new fresh oil.
Since my last sample I have added 2 qts but some of that was due to the filter change. It has been about a month since I added any oil and did the filter because I didnt want to add oil or change the filter right before taking a sample. I may need to add some soon but I didnt want to artificially inflate any additive numbers with new fresh oil.
Last edited:
- Status
