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

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

This is a copy from the old board showing our previous oil sample from back in Dec of 2001.

code:

---

Cummings 5.9L turbo.. oil analysis

From: bob in jville

Date: 18 Dec 2001

Time: 15:45:37





Comments

I just got a new oil analysis report on a 6 cly

5.9l turbo cummings desiel..



truck has total of 40,579miles on engine at last

oil sample taken.



truck has had a top of the line amsoil 15w40

prior to schaeffers put in. amsoil had 14,724

miles at time schaeffers supreme 7000 15w40 blend

was put in. amsoils oil looked good, wear numbers

showed a little higher due to some of the

leaching caused from a new engine, but overall

had an acceptable tbn level. the exact specifics

on this sample is priprortory and was asked not

to share any more specifics with this piticular

analysis sample.





now here is schaeffers blend..



miles on this oil is 13455, filter was changed at

the beginning when schaeffers was first installed

27224 miles on truck. there is also more hours on

this oil as well not included in this report.







glycol- neg,

%water-
%fuel-
visc-100deg C 13.5(little higher than other),

%solids-na,

soot-NA,

%oxo-13.3,

%nox-7.1,

TBN- 10.5 (tbn on new oil is 10.5),

Tan-NA,

Fe iron-74,

Cr chromium-3,

Lead-5,

copper-67,

tin-1,

aluminum-11,

nickel-0,

silver-0,

manganese- 1,

silicon-10,

boron-27,

sodium-3,

magnesium-15,

calcium-2672,

barium-0,

phosphorus-961,

zinc-1280,

molybdenuim-105,

titanium- 0,

vanadium-0,

cadmium-0



where the higher levels of wear appear is

actually lower than amsoils numbers which shows

that what ever was in the engine is comming down.



point i bring on this analysis is that compared

to amsoils top of the line full synth, the blend

shows to be holding every bit as good at this

point in the test for near half the cost of the

full synth.



we are going to change filters, top off and

continue on with this oil.



tests have been provided by Dyson Analysis. (

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/terry.html )

---

I believe Terry has some updated info to post on the continuation from this truck. Look forward to seeing this as I have not seen it myself.

[ November 02, 2002, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

2nd and 3rd response on old board....

Re: Look good but question the TBN
From: Tom
Date: 18 Dec 2001
Time: 18:47:31

Comments
Numbers look excellent, one item that I find it difficult to believe is that after 13,000 or so miles the TBN did not change. I would question that? Seems very unlikely. I would quesion the lab, not necessarily the oil.

Also, you mention a significant difference in cost between the previous oil and Schaeffers. How do we know that if we don't know the cost of Shaeffers versus the Amsoil? Amsoil can cost anywhere from $4.35/quart to $7 versus ????????

Also, what brand of filter are you using?

------------------------------------------------

Re: Look good but question the TBN
From: Terry Dyson
Date: 18 Dec 2001
Time: 19:05:33

Comments
Tom, In our tests both oils in this engine retained their TBN with almost no depletion. 7000 was 10.5 Amsoil AME 12.5 . This is a very clean well running test engine.I can't answer cost per qt questions as we just test lubricants in field trials. I believe the Schaeffer to be less than $3 a qt retail. Oil filter for the Amsoil test was a SDF filter from AMsoil. Wix from NAPA for the Schaeffer run. We will be changing the filter to a Fleetguard Stratapore. As bob stated the Schaeffer actually had more hours of operation than the AME test. 6 months on Schaeffer 7000,3 on Amsoil AME.

--------------------------------------------

 

[MolaKule]

Looks good for a Blend?

Do we have the exact analysis numbers for the Amsoil 15W40 AME?

Thanks

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

Terry was the only one that had that information on amsoil as it was another customers analysis and I did not pay for that. He was generous enough to give me what I posted. As much as I would have liked to had all that data, I have to respect his business ethics.

 

[Terry]

Hold on to your horses guys.
Below are both a Amsoil(AME) run of 14,724 miles and then 7000 Blend at 13,455 miles,and further to 9,200 miles(22,655 miles to date,still in service). These results are a testament to the capabilities of the Cummins TD (2001 version) and Schaeffers a primarily petroleum based 15w-40. I have recomended AME 15w-40 for years and it is a great oil,the results below show the 7000 Blend 15w-40 is too.
The Amsoil FF oil filter was used with the AME.
Wix FF on the first 13,455 miles of Schaeffers test.
Fleetguard Microglass on the 9,200 mile test and still in service, 2qts & 24oz.s top-up to refill filter. Mileage 27224,40679,49819. 6,6,7 months.
No oil consumed in all three tests. OAI lab on all three tests.

code:

---

Amsoil 7000 Blend 7000 Blend



Miles between analysis

14724 13455 9200

total miles on oil

14724 13455 22655



gly neg neg neg



H20 %


Fuel%


Vis100C 13.2 cSt 13.5 cSt 13.2cSt



Soot


OXD % 7.8 13.3 13.3



NOX % 10.0 7.1 8.6



TBN 12.5 10.5 10.7



Iron 82 74 65



Chrome 3 3 3



lead 4 4 4



copper 519 67 57



tin 2 1 1



alum 8 11 11



Ni 0 0 1



silver 0 0 0



Mang 2 1 2



silicon 19 10 10



boron 35 27 38



Sodium 3 3 2



Magnes 25 15 19



calcium 4335 2672 3425



barium 0 0 0



Phos 1278 961 1178



zinc 1339 1280 1313



Moly 0 105 86

---

Cummins mid mileage engine guidelines
iron 75
Chrome 15
lead 30
copper 20
aluminum 15

Since the oil has only been changed 3 times the copper leachate from the oil cooler and lines has not dropped to below the cummins level but is NOT a wear factor,actually helps the lubricity of the oils.

Wish I had one of these Dodge Trucks,what a clean running engine, and low maintenance !

I adjusted the lines into columns so to make it easier to read.

[ July 15, 2002, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

 

[GW]

Thanks Terry,

I am still wondering why the first run of Schaeffer was changed out when everything looked so good.....?

[ July 17, 2002, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

 

[Terry]

just well engineered lubricant in a tight engine.

We did NOT change the original Schaeffers out,just the filter.
The 7000 Blend has 22,655 miles/13 months of service non stop.

[ July 17, 2002, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

 

[Terry]

Note also that this vehicle has NO bypass filter and still shows extremely low wear #'s and LOW soot.

GW

 

[Spector]

Interesting that the Schaeffers and Amsoil have similar numbers in the zinc and phosphorus areas. Thought with the Moly that Schaeffers would have less of the others. Moly, we know Amsoil does not use it. Based upon the numbers, do they need to?

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

Actually, Moly only plays a small part because when considering the amount of zinc/ph comparisons.

What many are now starting to think is if it has moly in the oil, it's got to be good. That is incorrect. It primarily has a lot to do with the proper balance of additives. If too much of one vs the other causes a fight between the two can either cancel out each others function or even cause reactions to each other.

Another point I might add is that in Schaeffers case, like some other companies(rp for example) has an unknown(secret) added ingredient(penetro) that works like moly in the barrier performance areas therefore will be different than just an oil with moly added to it.

In this analysis, Schaeffers being a blend and not a full synth, having similar mileage to amsoil in this case has done well. Now at 22,000+ miles again another analysis still against a full synth with higher levels of antiwear additives, seems to be holding up just as well with even so slightly lower wear #'s.

The interesting thing is that this oil is handling the soot levels extremely well for 22,000 miles on that oil, and also maintaining the visc levels. Terry stated that they are continuing to run this same oil in this engine past this 22,000 miles.

Another point to consider while looking so much at tech data sheets. Many feel that the higher the flash-point the better the oil will hold up for longer duration extended oil drains. I have always felt that this is very mis leading when looking at oils. Just how often is your oil exposed to 400+ temps for any period of time? So, if oil isn't exposed to this extreme heat, how does that effect one oil against the other if both are say 420deg vs 490 deg flash-point? If neither are being forced to those higher levels of heat and taxing the limits showed by the tech data sheets, then neither will be effected to any degree of concern. So what is really happing is the base oil starts to rely on the additive levels and proper blend of each to see how the oils actually handle the soot,dirt,blowby gases and such.

I have seen in many of these oils, where they have a higher TBN than Schaeffers, but after being run around the same amount of miles in comparisons against Schaeffers, The Tbn on the one would be diminished much farther than schaeffers. This has nothing to do with the base oil so much as it does with how they balance the blend of additives. Again, too much of one thing, not enough of another can = the difference between extended drains and wear protection against the other.

These are just some thoughts on the subject and thinking out loud.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

Another thing I just looked at and find interesting that supports what I'm saying..

On the oil analysis of 22,000 miles on mobil one, He is changing his bypass tp filter every 3k miles and freshing the oil up. This works out to the filter and one quart every 2-3K means about 9 qts added over the 22K miles. These are exceptional wear #'s.

Aluminum 3
Chromium 1
Iron 10
copper 1
Lead 0
Tin 0

Molybdenum 38
Nickle 0
Manganese 1
Silver 0
Titanium 0
Potassium 2
Boron 75
Silicon 5
Sodium 4
Calcium 2336
Magnesium 405
Phosphorus728
Zinc 879
Barium 0

Notice though, even with it showing moly and adding oil every 3k mile, this full synth seems to have a much lower amount of detergents and antiwear additives. Not having the base oils visc,ox,nox levels, kind of hard to establish just how much farther this could go, but given what is there, how well do you think it is doing in comparison to the blend?

Point is, Base oil is important, but more than that, additive balance seems to play a bigger role in oils ability to maintain extended drains.

[ July 15, 2002, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

 

[MolaKule]

Bob,

From the analysis, Schaeffer's must have a very robust "overbased" dispersant/detergent additive package that keeps the TBN this stable over the long-haul.

You brought up the topic of top-off or replenshment oil. Do we know how much top-off oil was being added between each interval of the Cummins Turbo-diesel's analysis?

One of things we have to keep in mind is that this is a blend, in which PAO's give the base oil it's added oxidative stability.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

So Molakule,

quote:

---

One of things we have to keep in mind is that this is a blend, in which PAO's give the base oil it's added oxidative stability

---

What are you saying? that the Pao is better than the esters used by a full synth?

What exactly is over-based mean? If you look at the virgin base samples provided awhile back, Schaeffers does not overload the detergents and such. If that were the case, I'd suspect that the TBN would be a bit higher than 10, wouldn't you agree? That's why amsoils 12tbn oil did a really good job cleaning on my stem seal tests as it has higher levels of detergents than Schaeffers, but it is one oil that falls faster when in use, therefore the tbn seems to drop more in the same amount of time from what I have seen in previous analysis.

 

[Terry]

Overbased means that the additives are at a level to ensure acidity is kept in check through out the drain cycle, lots of reserve alkalinity. Thats GOOD.

The comment about PAO is that it is more oxidatively stable,resists oxidation over most regular petroleum bases.

Depends on the type esters on oxidative stability.

 

[MolaKule]

Bob,

Actiually, I was complementing the way Schaeffer's held up, wrt their robust TBN package, even though the Calcium and Magnesium levels were lower than the AME.

"What are you saying? that the Pao is better than the esters used by a full synth?"

No, what I was saying was that PAO increases the oxidative stability of the total formulation, over a straight mineral oil. The PAO is also used to decrease the pour point to aid cold temp. operation.

When esters are added to a formulation, the oxidative stability is raised even more.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

Thanks terry and molakule.

Molakule, I must have had a brain fart when I read you comments as I totally missed the mark on it's meaning. sorry about that and thanks for being patient with me.

 

[Terry]

The info is embedded above,Kule. No top-up oil added during Amsoil run.

No top-up during first Schaeffer run.

2.75 qts added when wix filter pulled and Microglass fleetguard installed to fill filter on second Schaeffer run.

Thats it for any top up to oil level.

Engine uses 0, NADA , oil at all.

 

[MolaKule]

Hey, I missed the part about oil replenishment.

I hadn't had enough afternoon coffee and chocolate. That's mny story and I'm.....

 

[GW]

While this regurgitated post does make for some very interesting conversation and does show how well Schaeffer performs, I still do not think it is correct to present it as proof that Schaeffer can hold up as well as the synthetic in this case. The fact is that while you can show us now and into the future that the Schaeffer is doing a great job as an extended-drain oil, we will never know how the Amsoil would have compared over time.

To imply that the Amsoil in this case would not have the TBN retention as the Schaeffer does is also not correct in my opinion, as the Amsoil here had the same TBN retention as the Schaeffer. I have seen you state this about TBN retention before, and I would personally find it very interesting to see some real data that shows this.

One point was that the wear numbers of the Schaeffer were not really any different than the Amsoil - you have stated before that it is not the base oil but the additives that provide wear protection, so I am curious to know why the moly didn't produce lower wear numbers? This does lead me to question whether there is really a big gain with moly in an engine formulation - maybe its good for an oil company to use it as it has a dramatic effect when shown off with a Timken machine?

[ July 17, 2002, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

 

[Johnny]

Well, I hate to get in the middle of an oil war with two of my competitors, but here goes.

The Amsoil and Schaeffer's are both very fine oils. There is no doubt that Schaeffer's has figured out the correct blend of Moly with the rest of the additive package, and Moly is a very good barrier lubricant. I personally do not think that Bob or anyone else is trying to slam Amsoil. 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 know people that have run their Amsoil 25k to 30k with doing all the filter changes and some with the by-pass filters, I have not seen anyone run the Schaeffer's to 30k. Now I am speaking of gasoline powered engines with 4 to 6 quart capacities. It is a whole different story when you are talking about diesels with 14 quart sumps. Heck, we have a diesel oil that ran a million miles on an over the road truck. But they have 11 gallon sumps.

They are both great products. Please don't shoot the messenger. I will have to stand up for Bob on this; I do not see any Amsoil decussion boards anywhere, and if there were they probably would not let others share their opinions. This is a valuable tool and I personally thank Bob for his time and effort. Lets all just agree to disagree and share opinions. After all, it's just motor oil that we are talking about here. Not life or death. As my Daddy use to say, 100 years from now, no one will know the difference.