ZDP depletion and GM oil life monitor

[1911]

[/qb][/QUOTE]yep, just ran it around the track a time or two and called it good.....LOL LOL LOL ..... I think you have the aftermarket mixed up with the OEM's. That is how they do it....

What you read was completely wrong.

Any engine program like the LS1 for the Corvette, the LS6 currently and the upcoming LS7 are testing on dyno and in cars for YEARS before release to the consumer with the specified lubricants and coolants and such.

In the case of the Mobil 1 in the Corvette I would hazard a guess that the number of dyno engines run with Mobil 1 is in the hundreds....like somewhere between 200 and 300 all total. These are engines that run for 200, 300 , 400 or more hours at full throttle, max RPM, max power and are then torn down and analyzed in a variety of ways for wear and other lubrication performance. This is on top of the countless specific bench and dyno tests run on the specific lubrication system, cold start lube system performance, cold overpressurizaration (start at -20 and go immediately to 5000 RPM), cold start field testing and driveability, engine cooling testing, etc. Fleets or test cars are running with the production intent designs and lubes on accelerated durability, endurance, emissions, track testing, etc... The products are testing far in excess of what any customer can do.

In the case of the Northstar engines that spec Mobil 1, the Mobil 1 was part of the test program for those engines from the very beginning so every test and dyno engine that ran used Mobil 1. Similarily, the Supercharged Northstar for the upcoming STS-V/XLR-V has used Mobil 1 throughout the test program so it is a well proven entity. Plus, yes, it was run "around the track" a time or two....LOL. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure this is such a great thing in the name of science. Yes.....it shows that the Mobil 1 works acceptably but it also gives GM no clue how other lubricants may perform under the same conditions. In other words, GM really has no idea whether certain dyno lubes may work well too or if other synthetics may work even better. Sounds like marketing verification more than science.

Also, thanks for all your good info and posts here. It's good to get some inside info and knowledge.

1911

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
Wow! Upper management never overuled a proposed solution to a remedy a product shortcoming due to costs in the world you lived in? I never had an opportunity to work as an engineer at one of those places.

---

Thanks for the voice of reason 427Z06. Some people must think we were born yesterday.

 

[nickmckinney]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1911:

---

yep, just ran it around the track a time or two and called it good.....LOL LOL LOL ..... I think you have the aftermarket mixed up with the OEM's. That is how they do it....

What you read was completely wrong.

Any engine program like the LS1 for the Corvette, the LS6 currently and the upcoming LS7 are testing on dyno and in cars for YEARS before release to the consumer with the specified lubricants and coolants and such.

In the case of the Mobil 1 in the Corvette I would hazard a guess that the number of dyno engines run with Mobil 1 is in the hundreds....like somewhere between 200 and 300 all total. These are engines that run for 200, 300 , 400 or more hours at full throttle, max RPM, max power and are then torn down and analyzed in a variety of ways for wear and other lubrication performance. This is on top of the countless specific bench and dyno tests run on the specific lubrication system, cold start lube system performance, cold overpressurizaration (start at -20 and go immediately to 5000 RPM), cold start field testing and driveability, engine cooling testing, etc. Fleets or test cars are running with the production intent designs and lubes on accelerated durability, endurance, emissions, track testing, etc... The products are testing far in excess of what any customer can do.

In the case of the Northstar engines that spec Mobil 1, the Mobil 1 was part of the test program for those engines from the very beginning so every test and dyno engine that ran used Mobil 1. Similarily, the Supercharged Northstar for the upcoming STS-V/XLR-V has used Mobil 1 throughout the test program so it is a well proven entity. Plus, yes, it was run "around the track" a time or two....LOL. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure this is such a great thing in the name of science. Yes.....it shows that the Mobil 1 works acceptably but it also gives GM no clue how other lubricants may perform under the same conditions. In other words, GM really has no idea whether certain dyno lubes may work well too or if other synthetics may work even better. Sounds like marketing verification more than science.

Also, thanks for all your good info and posts here. It's good to get some inside info and knowledge.

1911 [/QB][/QUOTE]


I think we all know why Mobil 1 was picked, its everywhere and its about as Madison Avenue as synthetic oil can get.

GC may be the cats meow, but I can't find it readily, nor can I find the 10W30 Rotella I hear people talking about. 10W30 diesel spec sounds like what my 440 Mopar is requesting from the current menu.

 

[bbobynski]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CONMCK:
Question for bbobynski:

In your first post you use an example of 15w-40 Delvac with some EOS added, would this be what you would recommend for a high horsepower street strip engine SBChev making 1.1-1.2hpower/cu in. Or what would you recommend based on your expertise? [/QB]

---

That is what I use. If the engine has flat followers then definitely use the EOS. The flat tappets can take all the anti-wear additive you can throw at them...and the distributor gear in those types of engines tends to get heavily loaded due to high oil pump loads from high volume pumps and high RPM. If it is a new, green engine, install the distributor gear with a liberal dose of a good, heavy duty moly prelube grease to help it break in. It is is a roller cam engine the EOS is probably not as critical but still prelube the distributor gear the same way.

 

[bbobynski]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug Hillary:
Hi,
BenDarDunDat - sorry but my BMW has the original system and the newer system is much more sophisticated as I understand it
The oil change interval is now centered around 25k kms up from the 15k kms previously used

Fuel use is pobably one of the best ways to estimate oil life but it tells nothing about the oil's CONDITION! UOAs are advisable if using this method.
Fuel and hours are used in the Earthmoving and Marine Industries amongst others

Regards
Doug

---

yes, I would agree with you. From what I have read (and been told from clandestine sources) the BMW original oil life monitor was upgraded considerably. I think they may have gotten the idea from Dr. Schwartz...LOL...seriously. She explained in detail to everyone in the industry how it worked so it wasn't hard to crib off of it. This is not a slam at all at Dr. Schwartz. One of the main benefits she toutes is the evironmental benefits of introducing less waste oil to be dealt with so she would like to see an oil life monitor on every car.

Fuel usage is another way to gauge the oil condition also. That was discussed with the GM oil life monitor early on as part of the model but the data on the ZDP depletion and the correlation to cummulative engine revolutions was just too convincing.

Neither one can tell the actual condition of the oil obviously but the oil life monitor can do a very accurate job of predicting and is very conservative based on actual oil analysis. That is why I mentioned that the ultimate will be the oil life monitor connected with input from an oil condition sensor to cross check each other and eliminate some of the necessary safety factor.

Hours works well for marine and for earthmoving...and for locomotives and generators and tractors and such because engine run time has a direct correlation to cumulative engine revolutions (RPM X time...) which, as indicated, provides and excellent basis for estimating oil life. Hours works in those applications because the engines are running under a relatively fixed load at a relatively constant speed so the hours are a much closer estimate of the actual engine revolutions than in an automotive application. Plus, in those applications, the engines are always run for long periods of time so the factors involving cold starts, soaks, short trips, etc. are virtually non-existent. Oil life can be predicted very closely under those conditions which is a backhanded confirmation that doing the oil life model based on cummulative engine revolutions as the basis is a good idea and correct.

 

[bbobynski]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1911:
I'm not sure this is such a great thing in the name of science. Yes.....it shows that the Mobil 1 works acceptably but it also gives GM no clue how other lubricants may perform under the same conditions. In other words, GM really has no idea whether certain dyno lubes may work well too or if other synthetics may work even better. Sounds like marketing verification more than science.

Also, thanks for all your good info and posts here. It's good to get some inside info and knowledge.

1911 [/QB]

---

I could probably agree with your assessment to a certain point. There are so many oils that are good that work very well that it is impossible to test all of them under the same conditions and ferret out all the differences.

Not sure of the "marketing verification"...marketing to me means advertising. Even if the Mobil 1 is not the ultimate oil it has been validated under the worst case product testing for that specific product...that is not just "marketing". Besides, as I have said, someone has to test it...we test the Mobil 1 and recommend it as good. If you want to use something else....YOU are doing the testing.

If this irritates you that GM does not test all the other alternatives understand that we also do not test all the other tires, spark plug wires, spark plugs, etc.....we provide a validated product and provide the specs to maintain it as validated. If you think that you can do better, have at it...just accept the responsibility if you don't.

When you are developing an engine there are many many things to do and investigate. Some things you take for granted if they are working and use them I suppose. GM has definitely had a good working relationship with Mobil over the years. I would say that it is a mutual relationship as they see a lot of engine tests with their products and we get their undivided attention anytime there is the faintest hint of a lube related failure or question. They make a good product. I guess, at a certain point, you have to cut bait and fish and if the oil is working great then that is one less headache to deal with.

On the Supercharged Northstar program, for instance, the Mobil 1 was never even discussed...it was in the program from the beginning and never had a moments problem. For an engine that is making well over 100 HP/liter to run as reliably in test as it has I would question exacltly how much better any other oil could be...and, if it was "better" exactly what was being gained by it.

Dyno testing is not the only situation, understand. We have fleets of cars running cold start tests all winter in Kapuskasing for lube validation among other things as well as the normal durability and mileage accumulation cars.

In the case of the supercharge Northstar, two things stand out...as hard as we have run our track cars at various tracks around the country and the Nurburgring we have never had any lubrication or oiling related issues. At that power level and at the oil temps we drove the engines to during cooling development that speaks well of the Mobil product. The other is the sound of over 100 Per/liter at a full throttle upshift 60 seconds after a cold start from an overnight soak at -40. Same oil.

[ April 20, 2005, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: bbobynski ]

 

[bbobynski]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nickmckinney:
I think we all know why Mobil 1 was picked, its everywhere and its about as Madison Avenue as synthetic oil can get.

GC may be the cats meow, but I can't find it readily, nor can I find the 10W30 Rotella I hear people talking about. 10W30 diesel spec sounds like what my 440 Mopar is requesting from the current menu. [/QB]

---

You forgot to mention the Mobil 1 stickers on the Cadillac LMP cars...and the Mobil 1 stickers on the Corvette Endurance cars....or the Mobil 1 stickers on the Cadillac SpeedVision Cup car...or the Mobil 1 stickers on the GTO...or....LOL

Why not use the common 15W40 in the 440. I would suspect that clearance wise it can easily accomodate the slightly heavier viscosity and I doubt that you are doing any cold ambient cold starts on it...

 

[1911]

Thanks bobbynski,

It's completely understandable that it would be tantamount to impossible to test every available option out there. But to at least run some of these torture tests with one common dyno oil in the same 5W-30 grade as a control sample would teach them how much of a benefit their choice was really providing.

Also, what happens with all this testing when Mobil has to change formulations from SL to SM for example? Some of the benefits of this highly specific testing now disappear as the old oils disappear of the shelves?

 

[Ugly3]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ugly3:
No, no, no. You have to blame big bad "bean counters" for the POS products coming out of industry because if the decisions were up to the Engineers no product would ever fail. It must be the bad "bean counters" who cause all the problems.

---

Wow! Upper management never overuled a proposed solution to a remedy a product shortcoming due to costs in the world you lived in? I never had an opportunity to work as an engineer at one of those places.

---

Gee, never is such a strong word, yes proposed solutions were turned down when they were worse than the problem. In general though, engineers handled the products and the Bean Counter kept track of the results.

 

[Drew99GT]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ugly3:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ugly3:
No, no, no. You have to blame big bad "bean counters" for the POS products coming out of industry because if the decisions were up to the Engineers no product would ever fail. It must be the bad "bean counters" who cause all the problems.

---

Wow! Upper management never overuled a proposed solution to a remedy a product shortcoming due to costs in the world you lived in? I never had an opportunity to work as an engineer at one of those places.

---

Gee, never is such a strong word, yes proposed solutions were turned down when they were worse than the problem. In general though, engineers handled the products and the Bean Counter kept track of the results.

---

Yea, they should just get rid of accounting. It's such a pointless, useless facet of business, economies, society, human nature...

 

[bbobynski]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1911:
Thanks bobbynski,

It's completely understandable that it would be tantamount to impossible to test every available option out there. But to at least run some of these torture tests with one common dyno oil in the same 5W-30 grade as a control sample would teach them how much of a benefit their choice was really providing.

Also, what happens with all this testing when Mobil has to change formulations from SL to SM for example? Some of the benefits of this highly specific testing now disappear as the old oils disappear of the shelves?

---

This would be a problem if the new oils on the shelf were worse...but...they are always better. Retrofitting with a higher quality product is seldom an issue.

Besides, there is some overlap in the testing usually. We run engine development programs for several years which tends to overlap the oil specification changes. The SC Northstar and the LS7 development programs both started with the older formulations for Mobil 1 and progressed into the SM/GF4 oils during the programs.

 

[Ugly3]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bbobynski:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1911:
Thanks bobbynski,

It's completely understandable that it would be tantamount to impossible to test every available option out there. But to at least run some of these torture tests with one common dyno oil in the same 5W-30 grade as a control sample would teach them how much of a benefit their choice was really providing.

Also, what happens with all this testing when Mobil has to change formulations from SL to SM for example? Some of the benefits of this highly specific testing now disappear as the old oils disappear of the shelves?

---

This would be a problem if the new oils on the shelf were worse...but...they are always better. Retrofitting with a higher quality product is seldom an issue.

Besides, there is some overlap in the testing usually. We run engine development programs for several years which tends to overlap the oil specification changes. The SC Northstar and the LS7 development programs both started with the older formulations for Mobil 1 and progressed into the SM/GF4 oils during the programs.

---

Vote: Who thinks it would be in the companies best interest to test a 5w30 dino oil in this program?

 

[bbobynski]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ugly3:
[/qb]

---

Vote: Who thinks it would be in the companies best interest to test a 5w30 dino oil in this program? [/QB][/QUOTE]


It has already been done many times. The conventional oil does fine. I repeat myself...but...the real reason the synthetic is in the engine is to protect it when the customer feels frisky and runs the oil up over 305 during high speed driving / track work.

The "other" versions of the LS1 style engine in other cars and all the trucks run conventional oil and the parts are very similar if not the same exact pieces and they do fine.

The synthetic is spec'd in some of the high performance engines for what it does best....live at temps above 305 to avoid having to put an oil cooler on the car and/or to avoid having to put a HUGE oil cooler on the car as the STS-V has an oil cooler with the synthetic, too.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ugly3:
Gee, never is such a strong word, yes proposed solutions were turned down when they were worse than the problem. In general though, engineers handled the products and the Bean Counter kept track of the results.

---

Sounds like a "Perfect World". What did you guys make, clothespins.

 

[MolaKule]

I think the OLM is a good step forward for the majority of the population that doesn't keep PM schedules.

It is also most likely a good way for GM to attempt stay out of court when it comes to warranty claims, I suspect.

I think too much emphasis is placed on ZDDP (lubrication literature designation for zinc dialkyldithiophosphate).

For example, unless you have a satellite downlink/uplink, there is no way the OLM algorithm could accomodate say Boron AW, increased calcium detergents, increased Magnesium content detergent/dispersant, and especially organic AW and FM's.

Since the OLM is not a chemical analyzer, but is a predictor, it CANNOT be accurate for new formulations that come out AFTER the software is loaded.

A best, the OLM is a "rule of thumb" system that is an excellent first step for the industry.

Shirley Schwartz is a great person, a great scientist, and is to be commended for heading up the OLM project and for coming up with a feasible product.

However, more work needs to done.

For now, UOA's are still the best way to monitor the health of my engine.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

I have personally NEVER seen a failure root cause overlooked because of timing, cost or anything else. It is addressed if there is failure. Product engineering has an equal say in design/material/part changes with the "bean counters" and they cannot be overruled by the bean counters. In fact....I haven't seen many "bean counters" around any of the engineering reviews and parts release discussions in a long time....LOL

---

Hmmm ..but surely bean counters are the types that shorten wiring harnesses by .24" and prolly choose the supplier of the fastener and are only spec'd the grade and stuff like that.

Perhaps "buyers" would be a more appropriate label.

 

[bbobynski]

There are always efforts to reduce cost wherever possible. The post was not about cost saving. It was about a problem being overlooked because of bean counters.

Let me be brutally honest...even in a large company like GM there is accountability for what you do and NO ONE is ever going to volunteer to NOT fix an identified problem because of cost...beancounter, purchasing agent, buyer, engineer, NO ONE. Doesn't happen. If a problem shows up in testing it is fixed. NO ONE stands up and says no. Period. I have never seen the opposite happen. I have never heard anyone say it costs too much to fix that. There is always pressure to fix it at the most reasonable cost...but fix it regardless. The closer to production the problem occurs, the less interest in cost there is. If a problem stops production it gets VERY expensive VERY fast so the effort is to fix it at all costs and get the cost out later.

 

[bbobynski]

The oil life monitor will always accomodate the latest GF? standards as published for gasoline engines so it will always be updated and current per the current standards.

Certainly the oil life monitor cannot be recalibrated for previous model cars but, given that oil specifications and performance will hopefully do nothing but get better, this would just add more safety factor to earlier model cars using more current lubricants.

The GF4 standards are THE auto industry agreed upon standards for engine oil to maintain consistency with the auto companies, the oil companies and the EPA for fuel economy testing purposes. Having the oil life monitor performance predictions tied to this standard makes perfect sense for the 99 percent of the public that simply put oil in and drive....

There is obviously no way that the oil life monitor can predict or account for modified, specialty or otherwise user concocted crankcase fills so for those that are frustrated oil chemists and blenders they can chose to ignore the oil life monitor or simply use it as a guideline or whatever since they probably didn't believe in it in the beginning and probably still don't....LOL

For everyone else out there driving cars the oil life monitor serves as an excellent way to minimize waste oil generation and needless maintenance expense, maximize oil change intervals, protect their engines and forget worrying about when to change their oil or who to believe as to when they should be changing it.

 

[427Z06]

bbobynski, when you guys start a new engine development program, how do you and/or your team decide what API grade you're going to use? For example, even if you choose to use the latest GF-x specifications, it now comes in several grades, 5w20, 5w30, 10w30. Do you guys select 5w30 for any particular reason? Or is it because it's worked well so far so you start from there?

 

[Ugly3]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ugly3:
Gee, never is such a strong word, yes proposed solutions were turned down when they were worse than the problem. In general though, engineers handled the products and the Bean Counter kept track of the results.

---

Sounds like a "Perfect World". What did you guys make, clothespins.

---

Actually we made precision metal stampings primarily for the electronics industry. Our profitabily was "world class", we were ISO certified, had minimum employee turnover, and in general it was a fun place to work. Everyone should be so fortunate.