AMSOIL 5W-30 HDD/Ford 7.3 diesel
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Hi ****,
how long was this oil in service?
The iron level indicates that this oil was left there far too long considering the top up rate which equals 55 quarts!
The up side is that it helped maintain the TBN
Was the oil changed at this point?
I wonder what the top up rate would have been if the oil was changed every 8 or 10k?
This is a typical case of where a cost benefit analysis could be undertaken to see if the by-pass filter was really justified
Regards
how long was this oil in service?
The iron level indicates that this oil was left there far too long considering the top up rate which equals 55 quarts!
The up side is that it helped maintain the TBN
Was the oil changed at this point?
I wonder what the top up rate would have been if the oil was changed every 8 or 10k?
This is a typical case of where a cost benefit analysis could be undertaken to see if the by-pass filter was really justified
Regards
This is an example on the payback from syn oils. Lets see the initial cost of the oil, the add oil, Total 70 qts at around $6.85 per qt. Then 10 analysis at, let's guess $20.00 each. $150.00 for the bypass setup plus 4 of the $30.00 elements.Then 6 full flows at $10.00. Compared to let's say 4 gallons of Mobil 1300 at $7.00 per gallon and a $10.00 filter = $38.00 per oil change x 23 oil changes = Hope there is alot of cold winters or maybe an increase in fuel consumption. or Big Al is doing pretty good$$$$$.
Yikes, 55 quarts of make up oil.
It would be very interesting to see Delvac 1300 under the same circumstances.
It would be very interesting to see Delvac 1300 under the same circumstances.
I wouldn't allow the iron to exceed 100 ppm nor the copper to exceed 40 ppm.
This engine @ 110,000 shouldn't be consuming a quart/2000 miles.
Is the bypass filter still flowing or clogged? 110,000 on a bypass filter element sounds like false economy.
Ken
This engine @ 110,000 shouldn't be consuming a quart/2000 miles.
Is the bypass filter still flowing or clogged? 110,000 on a bypass filter element sounds like false economy.
Ken
2000 Excursion, 115,000 on vehicle, 110,000 on oil, AMSOIL Bypass system, sampled every 10K, full flow changed either 10 or 20K, bypass unchanged. Usage about a quart per 2000 miles
Analysis by Oil Analyzer (CTC)
Iron 197
Chromium 5
Lead 39
Copper 49
Tin 0
Aluminum 8
Silicon 19
Boron 1
Sodium 2
Magnesium 35
Calcium 4153
Phosphorus 1122
Zinc 1364
Moly 5
Fuel Vis 100 C 10.59
Water 0
Soot/solids 1.1
Glycol neg
TBN 7.05
Oxid 6.0
Nitr 10.0
F-soot 1.15
Iron and copper were flagged as high, but suspect that the long drain interval didn't affect the flagging. Consider that this is equal to about 20 drains.
[ March 20, 2004, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: **** in Falls Church ]
Analysis by Oil Analyzer (CTC)
Iron 197
Chromium 5
Lead 39
Copper 49
Tin 0
Aluminum 8
Silicon 19
Boron 1
Sodium 2
Magnesium 35
Calcium 4153
Phosphorus 1122
Zinc 1364
Moly 5
Fuel Vis 100 C 10.59
Water 0
Soot/solids 1.1
Glycol neg
TBN 7.05
Oxid 6.0
Nitr 10.0
F-soot 1.15
Iron and copper were flagged as high, but suspect that the long drain interval didn't affect the flagging. Consider that this is equal to about 20 drains.
[ March 20, 2004, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: **** in Falls Church ]
I honestly don't see how we can claim 110,000 miles on the oil, when in effect, the oil is changed one quart at a time every 30,000 miles or so.
Assuming a quart every 15,000 (ave) with the full-flow and a quart every 2000 due to leaking/burning and the AVERAGE molecule in the crankcase probably has no more than 15,000 miles in residence...with a normal distribution from zero to 30,000 miles and the usual small tail going higher.
Nothing personal ****. I just don't see where saying 110,000 miles on the oil is accurate.
Tim
Assuming a quart every 15,000 (ave) with the full-flow and a quart every 2000 due to leaking/burning and the AVERAGE molecule in the crankcase probably has no more than 15,000 miles in residence...with a normal distribution from zero to 30,000 miles and the usual small tail going higher.
Nothing personal ****. I just don't see where saying 110,000 miles on the oil is accurate.
Tim
OK, here's some older samples I dug out.
Same Excursion, first column 12K on vehicle, 7K without drain-done 7/2000. second set 35K on truck, 30K oil-done 4/2001,
third set 65 on truck, 60K oil--3/2002
Iron 28/110/227
Chromium 2/5/5
Lead 6/20/27
Copper 15/69/93
Aluminum 7/10/13
Tin 2/9/8
Nickel 1/2/2
Manganese 0/0/2
Silicon 29/37/27
Boron 36/36/31
Sodium 1/2/4
Magnesium 44/37/28
Calcium 4358/4320/4333
Phosphorus 1257/1271/1236
Zinc 1380/1352/1324
Vis 9.8/10.3/10/2
Soot 1.1/1.2
Oxd 11.1/16.7
Nox 10/15.7/15.7
TBN 12.7/12.5/12.0
Up to 90,000, sampling was done every 15,000 miles. After that, every 10K.
Friend with fleet of Ford turbodiesels said he saw relatively high metal wear for the first 50-70,000 miles. when he retired one at 927,000 for body exhaustion engine and transmission still strong.
Yep, consumption seems somewhat high. At qt per 2000 miles, means that about 40% of the capacity was replaced every 15,000 miles. About like adding 2 quarts to a 5 quart system every 15,000 miles, which wouldn't be unusual.
So, in 100K, use about 50 quarts for makeup.
To get 10 100K, seven oil samples, seven filters, no bypass elements, and about 14 quarts to fill up the new filters
Oil at worst case 65 qts @$6 each= $390
Seven filters @ $14= $98
Seven samples @ $19= $133
Figure in a bit of tax, some freight, some rebates based on volume purchase, we can ballpark this at $650.
If he had the normal 5K drains at the local shop, we are talking close to $100, or about $2000.
At $50, still $1000.
Do it yourself, using decent oil at $1.50 per qt, $14 for a decent filter, no oil samples:
20x14= 280 qts of oil $420
20x filter @$14 $280
Makeup 40 qts 60
Total about $750
Cost effectiveness? Not including time, the enjoyment of being under the truck in cold/rain etc.
Same Excursion, first column 12K on vehicle, 7K without drain-done 7/2000. second set 35K on truck, 30K oil-done 4/2001,
third set 65 on truck, 60K oil--3/2002
Iron 28/110/227
Chromium 2/5/5
Lead 6/20/27
Copper 15/69/93
Aluminum 7/10/13
Tin 2/9/8
Nickel 1/2/2
Manganese 0/0/2
Silicon 29/37/27
Boron 36/36/31
Sodium 1/2/4
Magnesium 44/37/28
Calcium 4358/4320/4333
Phosphorus 1257/1271/1236
Zinc 1380/1352/1324
Vis 9.8/10.3/10/2
Soot 1.1/1.2
Oxd 11.1/16.7
Nox 10/15.7/15.7
TBN 12.7/12.5/12.0
Up to 90,000, sampling was done every 15,000 miles. After that, every 10K.
Friend with fleet of Ford turbodiesels said he saw relatively high metal wear for the first 50-70,000 miles. when he retired one at 927,000 for body exhaustion engine and transmission still strong.
Yep, consumption seems somewhat high. At qt per 2000 miles, means that about 40% of the capacity was replaced every 15,000 miles. About like adding 2 quarts to a 5 quart system every 15,000 miles, which wouldn't be unusual.
So, in 100K, use about 50 quarts for makeup.
To get 10 100K, seven oil samples, seven filters, no bypass elements, and about 14 quarts to fill up the new filters
Oil at worst case 65 qts @$6 each= $390
Seven filters @ $14= $98
Seven samples @ $19= $133
Figure in a bit of tax, some freight, some rebates based on volume purchase, we can ballpark this at $650.
If he had the normal 5K drains at the local shop, we are talking close to $100, or about $2000.
At $50, still $1000.
Do it yourself, using decent oil at $1.50 per qt, $14 for a decent filter, no oil samples:
20x14= 280 qts of oil $420
20x filter @$14 $280
Makeup 40 qts 60
Total about $750
Cost effectiveness? Not including time, the enjoyment of being under the truck in cold/rain etc.
Hi ****,
Firstly, this appears to be a quite highly utilised vehicle and we have no knowledge of the retention aspirations. Not your average user?
Secondly, there is another issue here of course -UOAs and their purpose!
Even without stated wear metal limits for this engine, the oil was in the vehicle far too long.
This, despite the UOAs being undertaken!
If you only used iron and copper as a the determining factors the oil should have been out at around 45k or earlier. Even the aluminium is at a rate much higher than I am used too or would allow. Whilst the top-up volume diluted the uptake rate, the results still speak for themselves
This would have blown the by-pass filters's economics' argument to **** !
As well, it cannot be a case of the extremes of an expensive and a non expensive oil used differently! In the case you project it would seem to make sense to have taken UOAs to establish a OCI without a by-pass but using the current oil. This UOA determined OCI may have been up to around double or triple the 5k you have used in your projections and the 3MP study is confirming this
It is also quite normal for oil to be consumed at an increasing rate the longer it remains in use.
(As an example I go from about 1ltr/10kkms after an oil change to about 1ltr/3kkms near the later part of the OCI of 100kkms. The average being about 1ltr/6kkms) So oil use at a lower OCI and without a by-pass may have been considerably less than your "average"
So all of this would have seriously changed the "end choice" filtration economics in a real sense
I faced these issues a decade or so ago with my heavy diesels - the magical "break even" OCI point! It was in my case of either our UOA established 25k on mineral oils without a centrifuge, 60k on a semi synthetic, or 80k on a synthetic with a centrifuge. It would have "worked" at 60k with semi-synthetic and a centrifuge - but soot control and excessive viscosity still remained issues there that I was not prepared to accept
I had done a very similar thing about 1982 but then it was with the Isuzu engines in ThermoKing reefer units. I even visited the HO of ThermoKing in the USA about 1984 to relate to their Engineers what we had found and to compare results. We were Australia's largest ThermoKing user at that time
You highlight another point too, with new diesel engines in particular the bed in time can be quite long. I started one engine on Del 1 too early and it took close to 250kkms to settle into an established "engine family" wear rate.
**** I do not wish to be seen as a "knocker" of by-pass filters. The choice is an individual one of course and I use economics as the commercial bottom line - for me
But **** you probably know all of this - it is a good exercise though!!!
Regards
[ March 21, 2004, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Doug Hillary ]
Firstly, this appears to be a quite highly utilised vehicle and we have no knowledge of the retention aspirations. Not your average user?
Secondly, there is another issue here of course -UOAs and their purpose!
Even without stated wear metal limits for this engine, the oil was in the vehicle far too long.
This, despite the UOAs being undertaken!
If you only used iron and copper as a the determining factors the oil should have been out at around 45k or earlier. Even the aluminium is at a rate much higher than I am used too or would allow. Whilst the top-up volume diluted the uptake rate, the results still speak for themselves
This would have blown the by-pass filters's economics' argument to **** !
As well, it cannot be a case of the extremes of an expensive and a non expensive oil used differently! In the case you project it would seem to make sense to have taken UOAs to establish a OCI without a by-pass but using the current oil. This UOA determined OCI may have been up to around double or triple the 5k you have used in your projections and the 3MP study is confirming this
It is also quite normal for oil to be consumed at an increasing rate the longer it remains in use.
(As an example I go from about 1ltr/10kkms after an oil change to about 1ltr/3kkms near the later part of the OCI of 100kkms. The average being about 1ltr/6kkms) So oil use at a lower OCI and without a by-pass may have been considerably less than your "average"
So all of this would have seriously changed the "end choice" filtration economics in a real sense
I faced these issues a decade or so ago with my heavy diesels - the magical "break even" OCI point! It was in my case of either our UOA established 25k on mineral oils without a centrifuge, 60k on a semi synthetic, or 80k on a synthetic with a centrifuge. It would have "worked" at 60k with semi-synthetic and a centrifuge - but soot control and excessive viscosity still remained issues there that I was not prepared to accept
I had done a very similar thing about 1982 but then it was with the Isuzu engines in ThermoKing reefer units. I even visited the HO of ThermoKing in the USA about 1984 to relate to their Engineers what we had found and to compare results. We were Australia's largest ThermoKing user at that time
You highlight another point too, with new diesel engines in particular the bed in time can be quite long. I started one engine on Del 1 too early and it took close to 250kkms to settle into an established "engine family" wear rate.
**** I do not wish to be seen as a "knocker" of by-pass filters. The choice is an individual one of course and I use economics as the commercial bottom line - for me
But **** you probably know all of this - it is a good exercise though!!!
Regards
[ March 21, 2004, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Doug Hillary ]
The bypass filter should have been changed about every 25k with this setup. Had the owner done this the wear rates and oil consumption would have been much lower....
A normal condemnation limit for Fe is 100 ppm ...the logic is that if you have this high a concentration of iron, the larger particles will "bootstrap" the wear rates of softer bearing metals.
Copper would normally be changed at approx 50 ppm ...a high concentration of copper in suspension/solution will act as a catalyst for oil oxidation to occur. High temp, bench tests for engine oils and gear lubes, sometimes use a copper strip for the purpose of accelerating the oxidation reaction under controlled conditions....
A normal condemnation limit for Fe is 100 ppm ...the logic is that if you have this high a concentration of iron, the larger particles will "bootstrap" the wear rates of softer bearing metals.
Copper would normally be changed at approx 50 ppm ...a high concentration of copper in suspension/solution will act as a catalyst for oil oxidation to occur. High temp, bench tests for engine oils and gear lubes, sometimes use a copper strip for the purpose of accelerating the oxidation reaction under controlled conditions....
Hi,
Ted (TooSlick) perhaps you may like to explain your comment;
Please enlighten us
Regards
Doug
Ted (TooSlick) perhaps you may like to explain your comment;
and;
Ted how do you arrive at this figure?
Please enlighten us
Regards
Doug
This bypass filter element has long since clogged, and I like to use 100 ppm of iron as the allowable limit for a light duty diesel ....As you know, commercial diesel engines often have condemnation limits of 200-300 ppm of iron.
The only reason soot seems to be under control is that you are adding a qt of fresh oil every 2000 miles. The soot is not longer being removed by the bypass filter, it's simply being diluted ....
The only reason soot seems to be under control is that you are adding a qt of fresh oil every 2000 miles. The soot is not longer being removed by the bypass filter, it's simply being diluted ....
Bypass element was still passing oil, based on temperature after operation.
Hi Ted,
it is your assumption that the by-pass filter has clogged - there has been no other mention of this except yours. The full flow filters were changed at reasonable intervals and this is a good indicator that the oil was still being filtered at an acceptable standard
The iron level is simply too high because the oil has been there too long. As this exercise shows, the oil will continue to have an increasing wear metal uptake rate until it is changed regardless of the filtration method
There is no evidence that to use your words "the wear rates would have been lower"! We really do not realistically know what they are. Some metals have even gone down according to the UOAs
Your reference;
As for this comment Ted;
Regards
Doug
[ March 22, 2004, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Doug Hillary ]
it is your assumption that the by-pass filter has clogged - there has been no other mention of this except yours. The full flow filters were changed at reasonable intervals and this is a good indicator that the oil was still being filtered at an acceptable standard
The iron level is simply too high because the oil has been there too long. As this exercise shows, the oil will continue to have an increasing wear metal uptake rate until it is changed regardless of the filtration method
There is no evidence that to use your words "the wear rates would have been lower"! We really do not realistically know what they are. Some metals have even gone down according to the UOAs
Your reference;
Ted this is really "your own" condemnation limit. It may be nowhere near what the engine maker's limit might be. For a diesel engine like this and using an extended OCI, I would expect the manufacturer's iron condemnation level to be about 150ppm
As for this comment Ted;
I really do wonder!
Regards
Doug
[ March 22, 2004, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Doug Hillary ]
- Status
