10w-30 vs 5w-40 question

[Ramblejam]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Many of you still don't understand the concepts of macro and micro data analysis.


That we understand.

We we don't understand is why you continually inflate this "analysis" into something far beyond what it is, and always act as if you have obtained some sort of bully pulpit here from which to preach unquestionable truths to the ignorant masses.

 

[Pontual]

Dnewton, I have a question. Dont you think that oxidation and its particle counts (also the soot production from combustion) wouldnt play a part in this equation? I mean the nm insolubles as solid lubricants in darkened used oil, also helps, besides layers of TBC, interacting with the assented tribofilms? That would be a grand part of oil maturation, as cause and effect?

In other words. A little soot, is good?

I knew changing oil too soon would impart wear. Look that recent thread that people believe you could change oil daily and wouldnt have higher wear agains the theory I posted of washing tribofilm. I was bashed or ignored there also, but fine, cucarachas cant think.

 

[3311]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: 3311
Originally Posted By: dnewton3



or more than 12,000 UOAs in my database? If so, step and and give your proof!


Purchase and read 2007-01-4133.
Collect and analyze more than 12,000 UOAs.
Don't talk to me about theory of lube properties; show me real world data that proves it matters.

I have asked you this before and have never seen an answer. Do you have your 10,000 now 12,000 UOA data base in a digital sortable data base or spread sheet form? It would certainly support your arguments and be of value for the whole BITOG community. We might be able to collectively add to it and further it's usefulness.

Step up and show us your real world evidence you love to quote so often.

My evidence you request is in the normalcy article. Have you read it? Many of you still don't understand the concepts of macro and micro data analysis.

What I can do is analyze any sub-set of data desired, and look at the performance range compared/contrasted to other sets.

This wear-rate phenomenon isn't limited to one type of engine or one generation of transmission, etc. This is an overall phenomenon that is seen as a wide ranging generalization. There will always be some obscure odd-ball items that don't conform, but the VAST majority of data exhibits this conditional response; use the lube longer (as long as it's not overtly abused) and the wear rates go down.


I'm sorry let reword it for you so you understand, post your supporting evidence you used to write your article for review.

As you like to state, post up or shut up!! Post the 10,000 UOA's, now 12,000, or stop referring to them to support your assertions. And stop referring to your article as "evidence". It's nothing more than anyone of your interminable posts here without the supporting evidence to back it up.

Sorry for the Dnewtonesque tone but you don't seem capable of a dialogue without snarky condescension.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: 3311
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: 3311
Originally Posted By: dnewton3



or more than 12,000 UOAs in my database? If so, step and and give your proof!


Purchase and read 2007-01-4133.
Collect and analyze more than 12,000 UOAs.
Don't talk to me about theory of lube properties; show me real world data that proves it matters.

I have asked you this before and have never seen an answer. Do you have your 10,000 now 12,000 UOA data base in a digital sortable data base or spread sheet form? It would certainly support your arguments and be of value for the whole BITOG community. We might be able to collectively add to it and further it's usefulness.

Step up and show us your real world evidence you love to quote so often.

My evidence you request is in the normalcy article. Have you read it? Many of you still don't understand the concepts of macro and micro data analysis.

What I can do is analyze any sub-set of data desired, and look at the performance range compared/contrasted to other sets.

This wear-rate phenomenon isn't limited to one type of engine or one generation of transmission, etc. This is an overall phenomenon that is seen as a wide ranging generalization. There will always be some obscure odd-ball items that don't conform, but the VAST majority of data exhibits this conditional response; use the lube longer (as long as it's not overtly abused) and the wear rates go down.


I'm sorry let reword it for you so you understand, post your supporting evidence you used to write your article for review.

As you like to state, post up or shut up!! Post the 10,000 UOA's, now 12,000, or stop referring to them to support your assertions. And stop referring to your article as "evidence". It's nothing more than anyone of your interminable posts here without the supporting evidence to back it up.

Sorry for the Dnewtonesque tone but you don't seem capable of a dialogue without snarky condescension.


I fully explain in my article where the data comes from. In fact, in the article, the second bold-Grey header line is actually titled ... wait for it ...
"Where the data comes from".

The data is fully supported by the information I was given from Blackstone. If you doubt the validity of the UOAs, you may call them and ask for Ryan Stark, and he will confirm that he and I collaborated on the transfer of data, and he reviewed my article before I posted it, so that he could make any comments (of which he had only a few) as to the confidentiality of the data. I was never given access to private info such as names and addresses or accounts, etc. I received from them the raw data in excel format form, and then I used my Stat-Pro programs to crunch the data. I have all the data stored. I cannot give it to you, nor post it here, due to the agreement I have with Blackstone. Blackstone essentially "owns" the data; they gave it to me on loan, for a lack of better terms. In addition, I do collect data from several other sources around the 'net, but most are from Blackstone. I own the rights to the data processing work-product and article; it is scheduled to be published formally in the future.

I apologize for the snarkiness, but the source of the data is clearly communicated and discussed in my article.


No - I will not violate my agreement with Blackstone; I value the relationship too much.
No - I will not post my work-product details; I am in the process of being published and it would be foolhardy of me to give away info I own, past what I share in good faith here.

You are welcome to call and ask Ryan to validate my credibility as to my claim of the source of the data. You can find the contact info at their site.



BTW ...

I get a little tired of folks saying I don't post my proof! Just because you don't understand what you read, does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about or have failed to show proof of concept.

For goodness sake, folks, do you expect me to walk to your home, invite myself in, turn on your computer, bring up the webpage, and read it aloud to you as I move your finger over the monitor screen so you can follow along?

for those who say I don't post data, what is it that you think this is or isn't, as taken DIRECTLY FROM THAT ARTICLE? http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/

Oil Miles Vehicle Miles Al Cr Fe Cu Pb
5002 49997 3 1 14 4 3
4976 54973 4 1 13 7 4
4998 59971 3 2 18 6 2
5012 64983 3 1 11 3 6
5003 69986 4 1 15 4 5
5101 75087 5 1 15 3 2
4968 80055 2 1 16 2 6
4899 84954 3 2 18 8 8
5060 90014 4 1 17 5 6
4937 94951 5 1 13 6 3
5014 99965 3 1 15 6 5
5028 104993 3 1 11 3 3
4949 109942 5 1 18 6 7
4993 114935 3 1 15 2 2
5093 120028 4 2 15 5 5
4953 124981 2 2 16 5 4
5001 129982 4 1 14 6 3
5009 134991 3 1 15 2 5
5029 140020 6 1 12 4 2
4920 144940 4 1 17 5 4
4936 149876 3 1 13 4 2
5065 154941 2 3 14 5 6
4956 159897 6 1 13 6 3
4952 164849 3 1 12 8 2
4993 169842 5 1 12 2 5
4927 174769 2 2 14 7 5
5086 179855 4 2 13 5 5
5023 184878 4 1 15 2 3
5001 189879 3 1 18 5 4
5058 194937 3 1 13 3 2
5027 199964 3 2 15 4 4
5019 204983 5 1 13 3 4
4987 209970 6 3 12 4 3
5003 214973 2 1 16 3 5
4989 219962 6 1 15 5 3
4901 224863 5 1 18 2 2
4896 229759 3 1 12 5 6
5023 234782 2 2 18 2 4
4919 239701 4 1 13 4 2
5102 244803 3 2 14 3 3
5014 249817 5 1 11 6 4
5019 254836 2 3 12 2 4
5027 259863 6 2 13 3 5
4966 264829 2 1 14 3 4
4976 269805 5 1 12 3 7
5020 274825 2 1 18 4 3
5030 279855 6 1 15 2 5
4960 284815 3 2 13 6 4
Oil Miles Veh. Miles Al Cr Fe Cu Pb
4996 n/a Avg 3.7 1.4 14.4 4.2 4.0
52 n/a Std Dev 1.3 0.6 2.1 1.7 1.5
5151 n/a UL 7.6 3.2 20.7 9.3 8.6
5102 284815 Max 6.0 3.0 18.0 8.0 8.0
Ppm/1K 0.7 0.3 2.9 0.8 0.8


The reason I was able to post that data is because Blackstone did not own it; I got it from another source and was able to publish it with permission.

The Blackstone data I do not own, and I am under agreement that I won't use it past analytical purposes.

Feel free to call Ryan if you think I'm lying.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Many of you still don't understand the concepts of macro and micro data analysis.


That we understand.

We we don't understand is why you continually inflate this "analysis" into something far beyond what it is, and always act as if you have obtained some sort of bully pulpit here from which to preach unquestionable truths to the ignorant masses.



I'm not inflating anything. My data analysis is fair and accurate.

If you feel I have made an error in my analysis, then be specific and point it out. By that I mean show your work-product that would counter mine. Cite SAE studies that would counter the one to which I refer. Until you and others do that, I get tired of people just doing a "hit and run" comment and critique.

Am I flawless? Absolutely not. I make mistakes just as others do. But I don't take much stock in baseless complaints. If you or others don't understand, then ask specific questions AFTER reading and re-reading the article. Most every question I have ever been asked is already answered in the article. People just don't take the time to read, research and understand. If you had to answer the same question 500 times a year, you'd get a little short in your attitude as well. I've lost track of the PMs I get asking about details that are CLEARLY discussed in the article.

That being said, I do apologize for being rude; it's just my nature when asked the same thing over and over and over and over and over and ....



Most of the time, it goes like this ...

Dave, I think you're wrong!
Why?
Because I don't agree with you!
Why?
Because I don't.
What part of my research seems flawed or otherwise incorrect?
I don't know; I can't elaborate. I just think you're wrong.
Did you buy and read the SAE study?
Ummmmm ... no. But you're still wrong.
Are you trained in SPC/QC analysis?
Not - not really. But what you state can't be right.
Why? Do you have data that controverts mine?
No.
Have you collaborated with a major UOA facility?
No.
Have you ever toured a UOA facility?
No.
Are you an SAE member?
No. But you're still wrong because I don't understand.


There is a sign in my office that reads thus:
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.


I might be rude, snarky, and belligerent.
But to date no one has ever come up with data or a study that proves me wrong.
My data, and that of Ford/Conoco, is in complete concert and shows that their micro/lab data agrees with my macro field data.

I am open to any discussion based upon facts and credible study (not conjecture or theory) that would counter mine.

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: mbacfp
I thought the cold flow properties were similar between 5w40 vs 10w30? I live in California so not too big of a concern for me...coldest it has gotten this year has been on the high 30s. Thanks Kschachn.
Actually, some 10W30s have very similar cold flow properties to 5W40s-two that I use, Rotella T5 10W30 & Mystik JT-8 10W30, have very similar pour points & CCS/cranking numbers to Rotella T6 5W40. In your area, I would probably just put Delvac 1300 15W40 in it & call it a day, it's just not cold enough there (or, this year, even in Ohio) to need thinner HDEO.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Pontual
Dnewton, I have a question. Dont you think that oxidation and its particle counts (also the soot production from combustion) wouldnt play a part in this equation? I mean the nm insolubles as solid lubricants in darkened used oil, also helps, besides layers of TBC, interacting with the assented tribofilms? That would be a grand part of oil maturation, as cause and effect?

In other words. A little soot, is good?

I knew changing oil too soon would impart wear. Look that recent thread that people believe you could change oil daily and wouldnt have higher wear agains the theory I posted of washing tribofilm. I was bashed or ignored there also, but fine, cucarachas cant think.



No, soot is generally not good in any state. Soot is a very hard, abrasive carbon based particle, at least as I define it.

"Insolubles" is actually a collective term of not just soot, but oxidation compounds and other stuff including the additives as they morph with age/heat. The SAE study I often reference speaks to the changes in ZDDP, and that ZDDP actually is not one formulation but can be had in many forms, and each form reacts difference to the oxidation process. Again, I am not a chemist; I cannot explain the intricate details. I just except them for what they are. The SAE study I reference clearly references previous studies as it's foundation, and then goes on to elaborate in greater detail the influence of oxidation on chemical in the oil. What is UNIQUE about this 2007-01-4133 study is that it looked at the effects of the OCI in terms of wear and friction over time, relative to vis. All the other studies were done in a "same as" state with new oil. That is why this real-world study is better IMO than other stagnant testing or ALT scenarios. I think that the other oxidation byproducts (as defined in the SAE article) promote the TBC. But not soot.


I have no basis to really prove anything in terms of your specific question. It is just my gut opinion and nothing more that "soot" (as defined as byproducts of combustion specifically in hard-carbon form) cannot be good for engine wear. Other "insolubles" must be the good stuff that has positive effect on the TBC. I am just inadequate in the ability to explain why, with no chemical background.


I encourage anyone who wants to understand the TBC to read the study I refer to, and in that study it credits many previous studies I have also read. Sadly, because I have a limited understanding of chemistry, I can only regurgitate the info and not really explain it well. I do understand some of it, but not well enough to think I have a good basis to educate others. It would be better for those who want to understand it to buy and read those studies. I have read them, but my understanding is limited in that I cannot teach others. That does not change, however, the relevance of my UOA study data or conclusions. I can read, analyze and interpret the effects of chemistry, even though I don't understand all the minute nuances of such.

 

[Ramblejam]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I'm not inflating anything. My data analysis is fair and accurate


Did I say that? No. Outside of input/user issues (oh how I miss you, SPSS...), I'm not going to fault an analysis program.

It's the value and significance that I have an issue with.

Value - What's the margin of repeat-ability of test results from Blackstone at 95% confidence levels? As you're the individual utilizing this data, please don't say "Call Ryan."

Significance - Excluding outliers, anyone with an elementary knowledge of engine oil could quickly observe that the viscosity variables of emphasis here would not demonstrate a statistical difference. From there, you ran with it, as if it demonstrates something of usefulness.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
But to date no one has ever come up with data or a study that proves me wrong.


There's nothing to prove wrong; you've went a long, round-a-bout way of stating the obvious. That doesn't mean that confirmation bias, and interpreting data in such a way is correct, though.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I'm not inflating anything. My data analysis is fair and accurate


Did I say that? No. Outside of input/user issues (oh how I miss you, SPSS...), I'm not going to fault an analysis program.

It's the value and significance that I have an issue with.

Value - What's the margin of repeat-ability of test results from Blackstone at 95% confidence levels? As you're the individual utilizing this data, please don't say "Call Ryan."

Significance - Excluding outliers, anyone with an elementary knowledge of engine oil could quickly observe that the viscosity variables of emphasis here would not demonstrate a statistical difference. From there, you ran with it, as if it demonstrates something of usefulness.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
But to date no one has ever come up with data or a study that proves me wrong.


There's nothing to prove wrong; you've went a long, round-a-bout way of stating the obvious. That doesn't mean that confirmation bias, and interpreting data in such a way is correct, though.



In this article I wrote, I briefly discussed the lab equipment used and it's use:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-2/
In there I describe a very basic view of the ICP Leeman they use. They run a check-sample every 9th cycle. They are an accredited lab with many certifications. The equipment is accredited by outside sources.

I am in the process of a study protocol for gage R&R regarding UOAs. Again, my work-product is something I'm going to sell, not give away. I can tell you that the ICP process at Blackstone is formidable and trustworthy. I would encourage you to call Ryan, but it seems you're too busy to do that? Rather, you want to question my work, and the credibility of Blackstone, and other than do you own work to counter ours, you just want to criticize and then wait for someone to spoon feed you answers. Do your own work, sir.

 

[Ramblejam]

...on second thought, not worth it to say anymore. Let the others continue arguing with you.

 

[dnewton3]

In my study, each engine has different data sets based upon overall population estimation, but I can assure you that I'm in good shape.

For example, regarding the Dmax, my confidence interval is 4.
The estimated population of the total set is 1.5 million.
The sample size is around 550.
Check my figures in the normalcy article; I'm right where I need to be in terms of sample set data. At the time I wrote the article, there were about 1.5 million Dmax engines. See this for 2011:
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/08/the-duramax-diesel-is-10-years-old.html

As for the others, I have good numbers as well.


As for the gage R&R, as I said, the data is forthcoming as work-product that I will sell and publish. The ICP processing you question has nothing to do with the sample sets. I'm not sure why you referred to the process in your chosen terms.


And I will note that there is a difference between enumeration statistical methodology and analytical process prediction and reporting. But I hope you already get that? I don't focus on theoretical models; I deal with factual existence in predictive discipline.


You're welcome.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
They are an accredited lab with many certifications. The equipment is accredited by outside sources.
They are? Accredited and certified in what ISO/IEC process? **Usually** a lab that has accreditations proudly posts them on their webpage and unless I missed it, I see no such posting on Blackstone's website. I see a listing of ASTM methods they use, but no where is an accreditation mentioned--unlike a lab like Polaris that has them listed for the masses.

I have used Blackstone at least 35 times to run UOAs and the feeling that I have from them is that they are not accredited to any ISO standard and if they are, it does not seem to be followed. I say this because of the various "issues" that seem to plague Blackstone regarding test results--more often than not a post will made in response to a UOA something to the effect - "I would have them re-run the sample".

PS...I would like a response to the posts that I made to you regarding emissions controlled diesel UOAs versus traditional non-emission diesels.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Pontual
In other words. A little soot, is good?

How so?

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

I'm not inflating anything. My data analysis is fair and accurate.

I am open to any discussion based upon facts and credible study (not conjecture or theory) that would counter mine.


Let's start with your data. We'll deal with the SAE article in separate posts.

Your data is Blackstone UOA, correct?

Do you have VOA's for each of the data points you use? It's necessary to subtract any wear metals present in the virgin oils, as any present effect your results.

I've given the following alternate explanation for higher wear metals at lower mileage in the past. It's a valid phenomenon that may explain part or all of what you see in a simple UOA.
Quote:
The "blip" we see in UOAs can not be used to demonstrate this supposed phenomenon either. Carryover is an uncontrolled variable.

Let's take an engine with a 5 qt. sump with 10% carryover that produces a constant 10ppm Fe per 1000 miles, and a 10K OCI as an example. Draw a sample at 1 mile and at every 1K thereafter. This is what the data would look like:

1 mile 11 ppm = 11ppm/mile
1K miles 21 ppm = 0.0210 ppm/mile
2K miles 31 ppm = 0.0155 ppm/mile
3K miles 41ppm = 0.0137 ppm/mile
4K miles 51 ppm = 0.0128 ppm/mile
5K miles 61 ppm = 0.0122 ppm/mile
6K miles 71 ppm = 0.0118 ppm/mile
7K miles 81 ppm = 0.0116 ppm/mile
8K miles 91 ppm = 0.0114 ppm/mile
9K miles 101 ppm = 0.0112 ppm/mile
10K miles 111 ppm = 0.0111 ppm/mile

There you go, higher wear metals seen in shorter mileage UOAs explained by simple math, no extra wear required.


Have you determined the extent of this phenomenon for every engine and application in your data set and corrected for it? If not you can not say that the increased wear metals is from wear.

Have you done experiments to determine if the higher metals might be from fresh oil solving varnish and sludge an releasing precipitated wear metals back into the oil. Unless you have proof that this is not a factor, you can't claim the higher wear metals are from wear.

The big elephant in the room is that UOA by ICP is not a proxy for wear. The limits of the instrumentation prevent it from being used as such. It is possible to have "high" wear metals and lower wear than an engine with "low" wear metals. What supporting proof do you have for each data point that is is a valid indicator of wear? An example would be ferrographic particle counts, or measurements of each engine correlating actual wear with the UOA data.

Here's what I've written on the limitations of ICP analysis.
Quote:
Now, let's talk about the size of those particles that make it into the plasma. You've probably read many times that ICP can see wear particles at about 5 microns. The labs will tell you this also. They are wrong.

The particle size is based on the aerodynamic diameter, not the actual diameter. An ICP is designed to have a hard cut off of 4.5-5.0 microns due to the fact that droplets larger than that destabilize the plasma. That's where the 5 micron figure comes from. The problem is that is the aerodynamic diameter and is based on a spherical droplet of water. Aerodynamic diameter is affected by density and shape. Metals have a higher density than water, therefore smaller particles are required to achieve the same aerodynamic diameter and be allowed to pass through to the plasma.

This is one of the many reasons why "wear metals" do not serve as a good indicator of wear. The ICP only sees a portion of "normal" wear and miss most if not all of the larger particles generated by abnormal and break-in wear. The other is that due to the different densities of the metals the instrument does not see them equally. Given an equal amount and distribution of particle sizes, the ICP could read 4X as much aluminum as lead due to the density difference between the two. An accurate measure of what is in the oil can only be made if the oil undergoes a digestion to put the metals in solution.

The first 5 pages of this presentation cover what I have talked about. The illustration at the top of page 5 shows the relationship visually. They use a material with a density of 4000 kg/m3 for illustration. Aluminum, depending on alloy has a density of about 2700-2800, copper 8940, iron/steel 7850, and lead 11340. Visualize the 4000 kg/m3 circles at half that size and that is roughly the relative size of an iron particle that an ICP can see vs the 4.5 micron water droplet.

Aerodynamic Diameter


Ed

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
edhackett- As usual, my thanks

 

[Nate1979]

Wait, are there still people on this site claiming UOAs are at all useful in so called wear rates? This is almost as funny as the off topic section.

 

[dblshock]

so what's your rec? 4qt. sump ultra filter on delvac 1 5/40 for 15k starting now in Green Bay, WI.

 

[Pontual]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Pontual
In other words. A little soot, is good?

How so?

I meant soot as the general darkening of the oil, and that would include oxidation, less polar varnish circulation and estetification, too, My bad to assume Dnewton had the same definition as mine. Mine should be wrong, by the way. So Ive learnt that soot is just the carbonification and its very hard and abrasive to parts. So .Im glad I asked. But Dnewton discarded as beneficial being just the hard abrasive carbon buildup from combustion, separating it from other oxidation byproducts, esterification and fuel contamination. That was a bad communication from my part.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Collect and analyze more than 12,000 UOAs.

Dave, can you answer this one?

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Real world proof, my studies of more than 10,000 UOAs, shows this grade topic is an overblown issue.
Out of curiosity, how many of those UOAs are for 2010 or newer diesels which have fully functional DEF, EGR, and DPF/SCR systems on them? I would be interested to learn if there are differences in wear rates between those engines and traditional non-DEF, EGR, and DPF/SCR engines.


Dave didn't, but I did answer it back on page 2. But to reiterate... the DPF/SCR is all downstream of the motor. It has virtually no effect on motor oil. EGR does, and we have had that since 2003 on diesels. Hundreds of commercial trucking fleets with thousands of trucks each, over 2 million commercial trucks running around just the U.S. alone, every day, each year, and the vast majority of them on some level of UOA sampling program. Stacks and stacks of those trucks with over 1 million miles to date. And OEM's factory filling with 10w30, with the a large majority of commercial fleets switching their entire fleet over to 10w30, even trucks built before the OEM's started doing 10w30 factory fills. A large portion of those trucks operating from Canada to the Rio Grande, year round, and grossing upwards of 80,000 lb, doing mountains, deserts, etc. I think there is more than ample data that 10w30 does just fine, especially in the newer emissions motors.

 

[MinamiKotaro]

Pick one and use it. It won't matter enough to make a measurable difference over the life of the vehicle.