28,147+ miles on Schaeffers 15w40 Cummings 5.9L turbo

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

quote:

---

Originally posted by davidc:
Hey guys, how many of you commenting actually "own" a Cummins Turbo Diesel?

I do and have since 1990.
Those Iron numbers are high compared to my 13 year experience with my two trucks.
I averaged 20-25 ppm iron on 12000 drains intervals on my first truck and now 35-45 ppm on my current truck with 147K on it. This was using standrad full flow filters.

I think those iron numbers are high.

---

David, I think there are several things missed on this, try running your engine oil drain out to 28,000 miles on a motor with approx same miles as this one, then look at the numbers.

I think you're not comparing apples to apples here with such a difference in mileage. Also, not all engines are going to wear the same, as some may think. You can have an engine that has consistant higher wear numbers no matter what you do such as the ls1. But in comparision to the previous drains, you can see an improvement. Thats the reason for a trend analysis on that one vehicle where you can establish the norm for that engine and tell if you are having improvements in what you are doing.

[ July 24, 2003, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

 

[wulimaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny:
The main point is that since they have figured out the correct Moly mix, their $3 oil gives equal protection to Amsoil's $7 oil, to a point.

---

I don't know why people think Amsoil is that expensive.

At todays prices. 4 gallons = $60 + $10 preferred customer 6 month membership = $70/16 qts = $4.38 per qt. if all you ever purchase is the 4 gallons in 6 months. You still have to add shipping and tax though. I have no idea what Shaeffers cost in this small amount?

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wulimaster:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny:
The main point is that since they have figured out the correct Moly mix, their $3 oil gives equal protection to Amsoil's $7 oil, to a point.

---

I don't know why people think Amsoil is that expensive.

At todays prices. 4 gallons = $60 + $10 preferred customer 6 month membership = $70/16 qts = $4.38 per qt. if all you ever purchase is the 4 gallons in 6 months. You still have to add shipping and tax though. I have no idea what Shaeffers cost in this small amount?

---

Cost is usually less than 2.68 a qt and if bought in min orders, there's no shipping costs and there is no membership fees to contend with either. So, if you can get an oil that does as well, for almost half the cost, why spend the extra? Can you see an oil analysis that shows where the extra cost is providing the difference in wear protection compared to the schaeffers oil?

 

[userfriendly]

Actually Pet Can bought up the Gulf Canada service stations.
Bob; It looks as if very little of the AW and DD additives were taken up during your test.
Would that not indicate a high quality base oil. The theory that AW additives only come into play when the oil film is at a boundry state may have been proven with your test.
Engine design may also have played a part of allowing the engine oil service interval to be as long as it was.
Now how can I compare your test to a horse race?
Lets see.....
You just bought a million dollar horse.
The previous owner said would win every race it entered.
So convincing his arguements and testamonials, you repeat his stories to thousands of others.
Finally you enter this prize steed in a nationally televised race.
The poor thing gets his butt kicked by every plow horse in the field.
Embarrased and mad as H___ , you phone the previous owner demanding an explanation.
You are told that the race must have been too long or too short, it was either too cold or too hot outside that day, it was not Saturday or Tuesday, the race was unfair because the other horses were not as expensive as yours, and plow horses should not be allowed to race against a TB.
When you add that the plow horse was also pulling a plow during the race, the prevoius owner makes a comment like "you just don't get it do you...?" and hanges up.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

Boy, this was one of the first topics carried over from my old board. I see you're still obsessed with that old race horse theory.

"Would that not indicate a high quality base oil. The theory that AW additives only come into play when the oil film is at a boundry state may have been proven with your test.
Engine design may also have played a part of allowing the engine oil service interval to be as long as it was.

I agree with you, that first, this is an easy engine on oils. Also that the demand on the additives were of such on this engine there was min uptake. So, is the schaeffers a good quality base oil? Yes, and the point that was carried here was it(schaeffers 7000 blend) was compared to a couple of excent synth base oils and showed to hold up AS WELL. Why? because a good well balanced blended mineral blend can indeed do an excellent job and that just because it's synth doesn't prove to have a big if any advantage over certain mineral oils/blends. Don't forget to look at the gas engine and it's analysis with the m1 oil compared to the schaeffers blend, again, different engine(horse) different location, and different demands. Are these analysis's used because they are the best results, no at that time. This was first published by Terry, a third party to this testing at that time and we now have even more oil analysis reports that are provided by many others on this board which should also provide you with the old horse theory that it's not just that prize one, but hey, must be a bunch of others. We see many poor samples, and if properly done showing the trend, no matter what oil is used, it will be one of the best analysis for that trend, and again holding up in comparision to any other oil. So, point here would be, if it's showing bad on one, I'd like to see how well a full synth would have done. Most likely not much if any better. You can't put life back into a dead horse, nither can schaeffers or any other oil(full or otherwise) for that matter put life back into a worn out part/engine.

 

[userfriendly]

I like plow horses, Percherons, Belgiums, ect, but when a plow horse pulling a plow beats a TB in a foot race, you can be sure the TB owners are going to cry foul.
I read this thread for the first time last night, and that is what I got out of the conversations between you and the TB guys.
Several people on this board make broad un-supported statments about the qualities of this synthetic or that synthetic.
Quite often I think they are just repeating sales propaganda from the various oil marketers.
I find it very hard to sit on my hands and not say anything when those wild (horse?) statments are posted.
How could a full synthetic have done any better than your oil during the test I just read?
It could not have. That is a gimmie.
If the test was performed in Alaska in Janurary with several extreme cold starts, then yes, a 0W40 or 5W40 may have shown an improvement over your 15W40 oil.
But then so would a 5W30 conventional.
"But the test was not performed in Alaska so the test was not fair to the synthetic oil" the synthetic salesmen will plead.
So lets be fair about this Bob, for the sake of the synthetic people.......
When we all move to Alaska and its always winter, then we will all switch to synthetic engine oils.
Just for them.

 

[userfriendly]

Bump bump bump .....

This thread has historical significance that in the beginning, BITOG was about pushing the boundaries. Now its CYA posts.

The engine oils back in 02 would have been either CG-4 or GH-4.
The fuel would have been low sulfur, not ULSD.

The "old school stuck in the past oil" went 28,000 miles in a 5.9 Cummins!!!!!!

If I removed the DPF on my truck, I would be hard pressed not to go back in time and test the limitations of these engine oils.