How Realistic Is This Theory?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Penn News: Penn and ExxonMobil Researchers Address Long-standing mysteries behind anti wear motor oil additives - in this they refer to the tribo-film as "smart" - knows when to stop growing ...
XOM seems to be there ...
 
Originally Posted By: Thebimmerfan
Mmmmm no. Not only 3 OCIs possible. Many, but many more...
Not only one is ideal...
Most said (you included) that short OCI will add "a small fraction of extra wear" and that's [censored]...
I'm afraid you're wrong on ALL points, at least try to write a little bit better, we're not seers...

Unlike resident industry-experts on here, in addition to regular posters who you are essentially describing as stupid; nary a scrap of evidence has been offered to backup your claims.

While its fine to have an opinion, telling everyone else they're wrong and not backing up the claim isn't much help. There is reason to believe this theory holds merit. Now, whether it makes any difference in the very long run is somewhat debatable.

In regards to the claims I made on trucking, while the mileage may be different, plus the running times, there is no doubt posters here are trying to push out oil changes beyond the manufacturer recommended. Its been mentioned several times that they (OEM, Factory, whatever you call it) endorse this, provided oil was analysed and shown to be serviceable. So the fact remains these guys are pushing oil to the limits, and their engines are not self-destructing or wearing prematurely.
 
Since we are talking about changing too early, what about these comments from Pitzel in another thread ?…..

Originally Posted By: pitzel
The key with a direct injection engine is to not change the oil any more frequently than the owners manual or oil life monitor demands (some people think they're 'helping' their engine by changing oil more frequently than spec -- this is wrong, especially for a DI engine!). And pay particular attention to the oil actually used. DIY or physically observing the mechanic/technican pouring sealed bottles of the properly spec'ed oil is best, if you can. Don't just blindly assume the dealer or the quickie lube will use the appropriate, specified lubricant, rather than low-bidder bulk 5W-30 dino that might not meet the latest specs on volatility.

Most of the trouble reported with DI engines and oil, particularly the notorious intake contaminant occlusion issues, has been related to either the use of improper lubricants (either out of ignorance, or out of profit seeking motives by less-than-reputable maintainers). Or the overly frequent changing of oil by good meaning people stuck on maintenance practices more typically recommended 30+ years ago. Old habits die hard, but with DI and the lack of fuel vapour diluting the recirculated crankcase fumes, intake contamination is exacerbated by those extra oil changes.


Originally Posted By: pitzel

The premise is that the intake occlusion/contamination issues are mostly caused by recirculated volatilized products of motor oil depositing on intake components as they mix with fresh intake air and are drawn into the cylinders as part of the intake air charge.

Motor oil volatility is at its peak when the oil is brand new. And declines over time as the oil is in service and is subject to repeated distillation inside the engine under the vacuum imposed on the crankcase by the PCV system.

So to fix the problem, simply minimize the volatility of the oil. By both selecting the least volatile oil as possible. And using that oil in its least volatile condition -- when its been in-service for a while, minimizing the exposure to 'brand-new' oil which is susceptible to higher distillation loss.

In Europe, and even in the manufacturers' labs in the USA, the problems could not be replicated, as manufacturer-recommended maintenance practices were adhered to in the test environment (over-maintenance isn't generally a usual test case!) and the actual European end-user environment. A few years back, I personally did a meta-analysis, on BiTOG, of a lengthy car-proprietary non-BiTOG forum thread where people were complaining of issues -- there was a very strong correlation between improper maintenance practice (too frequent oil changes) and intake contamination.

Also, manufacturers have tightened the volatility spec severely over the past few years in response to the DI intake contamination troubles. Ostensibly because controlling volatility is a significant component to the overall 'solution' to this problem.

Some people have had decent luck with "catch cans" and other inserts to the PCV/breather system. If there's no adverse affect on instrumentation or the normal characteristics, this can be a valid solution albeit requiring additional maintenance. However, it really doesn't address the root cause of too much, and too poor of quality motor oil causing the problem in the first place.


Original BITOG Thread
 
Joe90_Guy used to formulate oils, and his views correlate with pitzel

Originally Posted By: Joe90_Guy
If you ask me what three things to look out for in buying a GDI engine oil, I would say Noack, Noack & Noack. You want it to always be as low as possible because you fundamentally want to keep the oil in the crankcase and out of the combustion chamber. You should IMO, compromise every other aspect of your oil's performance (eg fuel economy & cold start) in pursuit low volatility. A full PAO 10W30 would be my first choice oil.

To me, the focus on Calcium/SAPS is somewhat misplaced. If you look at murder victims, they are often covered in blood. We all know that blood should be on the inside, not the outside and that having too much on the outside and not enough on the inside will kill you. However we generally don't blame 'the blood' as the cause death. Rather we look for the person who made the stab wound or fired the bullets! In GDI engines, calcium is like blood. The question is why is it where it shouldn't be and what's causing oil to cycle round your engine in dastardly ways...

PS - Forget TEOST. It's won prestigious awards for being The Most Stupidest Lubricant Test Ever Developed. Just remember, no-one was ever stuck on the side of the road because their TEOST broke down...


I miss his input. Did he get banned?
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Red91
I've read quite a few threads on here about more frequent oil changes causing more wear due to the fresh oil washing away the anti-wear layer put in place by the old oil, but how realistic is this theory?...What say you?


I don't think there is any real data to support that other than a few inferential comments from papers whose authors wanted some limelight as if they had discovered something new.

Consider this about an oil change:
1. fresh oil carries a new additive pack that replenishes the additive components (that have been degraded) including the detergent and Anti-Wear components,
2. replaces oxidization byproducts and the contaminants that were previously there.

I agree.
Yes detergents and AW additives do compete for ferous surfaces and new oil will have a fresh load of both but it's not going to eliminate the AW elements that have already been plated onto cam lobes etc, nor prevent the depositing of additional AW elements.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

Yes detergents and AW additives do compete for ferous surfaces and new oil will have a fresh load of both but it's not going to eliminate the AW elements that have already been plated onto cam lobes etc, nor prevent the depositing of additional AW elements.


That's not always true. If you read the study that Shannow linked, it appears some dispersants strip the zddp layer off. They're more active than zddp when cold, and depending on the type used can be more agressive than others. They always beat zddp in getting to the metal anyway.
 
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

Yes detergents and AW additives do compete for ferous surfaces and new oil will have a fresh load of both but it's not going to eliminate the AW elements that have already been plated onto cam lobes etc, nor prevent the depositing of additional AW elements.


That's not always true. If you read the study that Shannow linked, it appears some dispersants strip the zddp layer off. They're more active than zddp when cold, and depending on the type used can be more agressive than others. They always beat zddp in getting to the metal anyway.

I scanned that paper which was a study of various dispersants and their affect on inhibiting ZDDP tribofilm formation. They also tested the affect on existing ZDDP tribofilms and up to half the thickness was reduced, not "stripped" as you stated.

Anyway this was not a test of increased wear with new oil vs used oil.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

Yes detergents and AW additives do compete for ferous surfaces and new oil will have a fresh load of both but it's not going to eliminate the AW elements that have already been plated onto cam lobes etc, nor prevent the depositing of additional AW elements.


That's not always true. If you read the study that Shannow linked, it appears some dispersants strip the zddp layer off. They're more active than zddp when cold, and depending on the type used can be more agressive than others. They always beat zddp in getting to the metal anyway.

I scanned that paper which was a study of various dispersants and their affect on inhibiting ZDDP tribofilm formation. They also tested the affect on existing ZDDP tribofilms and up to half the thickness was reduced, not "stripped" as you stated.

Anyway this was not a test of increased wear with new oil vs used oil.


Also there are other AW additives that work during the warm up phase until the conditions are met for the ZDDP to become active.
I should imagine this would effectively offset any perceived wear.
As stated previously it's most likely more significant to not change formulations rather than more frequent oil changes in our daily drivers.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Thebimmerfan

Regarding truck engines - have you ever driven a truck? They use to run mostly long highway trips, sometimes between countries and continents. A truck can make 10 000kms in one week, noone would change the oil weekly, because no need for it, oil just won't be stressed enough. For a truck 1500rpm is the upper zone or revolutions, they use to run at about 500rpm, no spirited driving there, no stop and go city driving, oil in this case doesn't see much punishment. No comparison possible between the oil in a sporty driven, daily driver often revved up to 7000rpm and more and the one in a truck used mostly for long trips in ridiculously low rpm range.


You obviously don't know squat about trucks or truckers... They break into two camps - those that are getting bonuses for best fuel economy for their fleet, and those who think time is money and fuel burn can be offset. There have been plenty of time I let the speedo creep up into the low 80's.

None of my over-the-road engines ran, or even idled, at 500 RPM. Most redline at 2,150 or there abouts. Some like a 3208 will redline at 2,800. Some of the newer high toque engines will run happily at 1,300 or 1,500... But I don't know of a single example that will not self-destruct if lugged up a long grade at max payload at 800.

Marine power (ships engines) yes, 800 might be a working number. Trucks - not as far as I know, and I been driving Class A for about 50 years now ... I dunno everything, but I've prolly driven a 100 different trucks and engine combos and I never met one you describe ...

So, if you are off by that much on that comment, what about your others ...
 
900 RPM is the new downspeeding/cruise target. Currently, PACCAR MX is hitting peak torque @ 1,000 RPM.

wDCZ6i2.png
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

Yes detergents and AW additives do compete for ferous surfaces and new oil will have a fresh load of both but it's not going to eliminate the AW elements that have already been plated onto cam lobes etc, nor prevent the depositing of additional AW elements.


That's not always true. If you read the study that Shannow linked, it appears some dispersants strip the zddp layer off. They're more active than zddp when cold, and depending on the type used can be more agressive than others. They always beat zddp in getting to the metal anyway.

I scanned that paper which was a study of various dispersants and their affect on inhibiting ZDDP tribofilm formation. They also tested the affect on existing ZDDP tribofilms and up to half the thickness was reduced, not "stripped" as you stated.

Anyway this was not a test of increased wear with new oil vs used oil.


Correct. Once again this study was a bench test of non fully formulated oils. The ZDDP layer that was reduced was one that was formed without dispersants present. In our cars we have a ZZDP layer formed in the presence of dispersants and when we change oil we use an oil with ZDDP and dispersants present. The effect of a mixture of ZDDP and dispersant was never tested against an existing film formed in the presence of a dispersant. We have yet to see a study that examines the effect of new fully formulated oil on existing real world tribofilms.

Ed
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
900 RPM is the new downspeeding/cruise target. Currently, PACCAR MX is hitting peak torque @ 1,000 RPM.

wDCZ6i2.png



That may very well be, but even your TQ curve shows flat and usable to 1,500 - so anywhere in there is good. TQ does not equal HP. HP is TQ X RPM. TQ is a valuable tool, and it will keep a load moving at speed on the flat, or in gently rolling country - but hit some big mountains and steep grades and you'll reach for HP and that will mean spinning the motor some. On your curve, that prolly means 1,500 plus a bit...

Maybe not like in my yout when it was overspeed and bump the governors to 2,300 so you could get the next shift. Big difference between mountain drivers and others. I grew up hauling in the Santa Cruz mountains where HP ruled ...

The thing is TQ can maintain speed, but to get the highest usable climbing gear into that optimum TQ range on a grade will mean getting the vehicle faster than that in the next lowest gear so that the decel during shifts will only fall back to TQ peak, which you can hold to the top...

Also big difference between say loggers or aggregate haulers who are dealing with muddy roads and soft conditions under wheel, and guys doing the interstate boogie ... There are many flavors in this kitchen. But all the flavors start at something higher than 500 RPM as postulated earlier ...
 
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Joe90_Guy used to formulate oils, and his views correlate with pitzel……...


I miss his input. Did he get banned?


Yeah, I don't know what happened to Joe90_Guy, but he had a lot of inside knowledge that added nicely to this site. He would give you a straight answer to a straight question too.
 
Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Joe90_Guy used to formulate oils, and his views correlate with pitzel……...
I miss his input. Did he get banned?

Yeah, I don't know what happened to Joe90_Guy, but he had a lot of inside knowledge that added nicely to this site. He would give you a straight answer to a straight question too.

Yeah, miss Joe90 for his deep and hands on insider knowledge on complex oil formulation and oil performance behaviours........ who could rip apart flawed interpretations/comments of 'class room' experts and oil/additive supplier company adverts....... in a simple and easy to understand language.
blush.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: Red91
I've read quite a few threads on here about more frequent oil changes causing more wear due to the fresh oil washing away the anti-wear layer put in place by the old oil, but how realistic is this theory?


That's a bunch of B+S from guys that don't change their own oil and are too cheap to hire their oil changed.


I have put well over 200k miles on a 93 jeep Cherokee 4.0L with religiously changing the oil at 3500k intervals. I've read into this theory as well in the past after it being brought up in conversation at some point and it doesnt make sense to play into that idea after retiring a vehicle that lasted 272k miles and after being sold is still on the road today. That jeep was sold 11 years ago mind you....the same guy that bought it from my dad when I left for boot camp still owns it 11 years later. He has had a new transmission installed and outside of plugs and filters and oil is all he has done to it.
 
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
900 RPM is the new downspeeding/cruise target. Currently, PACCAR MX is hitting peak torque @ 1,000 RPM.

wDCZ6i2.png



but hit some big mountains and steep grades and you'll reach for HP and that will mean spinning the motor some. On your curve, that prolly means 1,500 plus a bit...



I calculated a few data points and found the above torque curve will give peak HP at about 1700 rpm. Just FYI
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top