17,000-mile results are in!

[TooSlick]

I'd still recommend doing any follow on testing with Amsoil and Redline @ 3000 mile intervals. I think this makes it easier to look at the trends in wear numbers and oil degradation. When you test every 1000 miles, there is enough variabily in the wear numbers and TBN's that the values can jump up and down.
This is particuarly true if you are adding fresh oil and/or changing oil filters after taking the samples. It is only when you compare samples taken several thousand miles apart that you can make any decent assessment of the data. If you gave me this data set, I'd plot the 3k/6k/9k/12k/15k numbers for wear, viscosity, TBN, etc and use that to do an assessment. Doing a test after only 1000 miles is particularly misleading as there are always residual oil and wear metals remaining in the engine. You'd be better off testing 50-100 miles after putting the new oil in so you can better assess these levels of residuals.

Testing every 3000 miles also allow you to test 3 additional oils for the price of one - I'd suggest Amsoil, Redline and the German Syntec or perhaps RP. Anyway, it's just a thought ....

Tooslick

 

[TooSlick]

I wanted to add, one of the most interesting things about this analysis are the copper levels, which have remained the same for about the last 9000 miles. That would almost indicate this is some sort of gasket and/or seal leaching and that copper levels in the oil have reached some sort of equilibrium level with copper content in the seals and gaskets.

The rate of copper accumulation seems too non-linear to be a conventional wear mechanism ....Look at the copper level after only 3000 miles, compared to the latest @ 17,000 miles. It's very odd, to say the least.

TS

 

[Patman]

I know Terry was looking into why the LS1 engine shows high copper at first, but then trails off as the miles go by, but I don't think he has come to any conclusion yet.

From what I've observed, it starts out extremely high, at about 200ppm in a 3k interval at first, but by the time you hit 50,000 miles that level is down into the single digits in a 3k interval. Eventually copper is almost non existant in their UOAs. But one thing is for certain, this high copper level does not seem to hurt the overall engine wear, as iron and lead can still be very low even with high copper, as evidenced by Vettenuts UOA using Amsoil in his low mileage 2002 Corvette.

One more thing, I'm sure Brian would love to be doing 3k samples, but I know he wants to maintain consistency otherwise people won't trust his future results. I bet if he knew Mobil 1 would make it to 18k, he would've done 3k samples instead of 1k samples.

[ September 28, 2003, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Patman ]

 

[TooSlick]

patman,

As long as you made sure you were adding the same amount of makeup oil, the test results would be consistent. You might have to simply drain some additional oil when you took samples if you didn't take them as often.

As for the copper, I know that "Permatex" makes a high temp form-a-gasket material that contains copper. This seems more reasonable than bushing or bearing wear to me ....

Ted

 

[buster]

I agree with TS, but I think it's important to keep it the same. If we started the TS suggested, it would have been better, but we didn't so we have to continue the way the others were done.

 

[TooSlick]

Buster,

I've been doing oil analysis for about ten years, and I fail to see how testing every 1000 miles gets you any useful data, expect perhaps with respect to viscosity change.

Of course if we had been testing the Mobil 1 every 3000 miles, it probably would have been changed by now due to the low TBN.

TED

 

[buster]

TS, I completly agree with you and you know much more about this then I do, I'm just saying that we need to keep everthing the same because if it's not, questions will be raised as to the fairness of the test etc. The 1k mile samples were a major flaw in this test but to change it now wouldn't be fair unless he wanted to run M1 again in the end of the test or take out the makeup oil per 3k mile drain as you suggested.

 

[Robbie Alexander]

quote:

---

Originally posted by medic:

Originally posted by Robbie Alexander:
[qb]

Originally posted by medic:
[qb]---***--- Instead we have seen this oil find an occational, small foutain of youth. With the way the TBN was dropping initially, I expected this oil to die around 10k miles. instead, it leveled out, and even managed to somewhat better itself. ---***---

---

Yup. I would guess all things being equal though, that if this test were done in 100 comparable Auto's over a dozen samples from each, that there would be a trend that is plot-able.
And Some oils have additives that will boost the TBN, yes, they can boost the TBN at pre selected levels. that bay be is what "Saved" this oil.

 

[3 Mad Ponchos]

A major reason for the 1k sample is a hedge against calamity: post office loses a sample, lab screws up, or just plain got a bad draw. For example: I'm suspicious of the 9k sample, which seems inconsistent for several of its elements.

We lose 1 sample out of a dozen, no big deal; we lose 1 sample out of 4, big problem, the test is just about useless.

Cheers, 3MP

 

[Eiron]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 3 Mad Ponchos:
A major reason for the 1k sample is a hedge against calamity: post office loses a sample, lab screws up, or just plain got a bad draw. For example: I'm suspicious of the 9k sample, which seems inconsistent for several of its elements.

We lose 1 sample out of a dozen, no big deal; we lose 1 sample out of 4, big problem, the test is just about useless.

---

So fill two sample bottles each time. That way, you can hold onto the second sample until you find out what happens with the first one.

I agree with Too Slick & buster. Now's the time to change your procedure to 3k mi intervals for all the remaining oils. If there's squawking about M1, then rerun it after everything else. But for now it makes a great "benchmark" ("garagemark"?) for everything that follows.

[ September 29, 2003, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Eiron ]

 

[Drstressor]

From the perspective of experimental design, you can't change the sampling interval if you intend to compare the M1 results with any other oil. You have to add approximately the same amount of replacement oil at approximately the same intervals for each oil to be tested. Adding replacement oil at 3K intervals doesn't provide the same amount of "help" as adding at 1K intervals.

With hindsight, we now see that 3K intervals would have been fine. But you can't change the protocol in the middle of an experiment. If you do, you are doing a different experiment.

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

If it was Permatex, why wouldn't GM just answer inquiries, instead of being secretive?

I don't believe it is, but that would be relieving if it was. I believe Terry has observed a few things that indicated it's from wear? Don't remember.

 

[javacontour]

You can't pull two samples of the next each interval because you are changing the amount of makeup oil between samples. (Well, at least the makeup oil that was required by sampling and not "consumption")

How long is a sample good for. As I sit here and think about it, you could continue to pull samples at every 1k, but perhaps only send them every 3k. If a sample were to get lost, send the next or previous???

I'm not sure what that buys you as you are still distrubing the oil at the same rate.

I really think you have to continue the basic procedure with all oils to keep some measure of consistency in the testing.

I think another thing to consider is that you almost have to go year to year with an oil so you see it operate under the same basic climate conditions.

For example, if you operate one oil and only test it in the winter, and never test it during summer months, you may not have the complete story.

So it is fortunate that the M1 seems close to going a full year. Just food for thought.

TB

 

[Eiron]

Well, keeping it identical is all very "academic," but none of us have to crawl under the car every 1k. And none of us have to worry about an oil pan with stripped threads from over-use. And none of us have to worry about four to six years (or more) of on-going expense & sampling "burnout."

What if you were faced with the prospect of all of this & more (which we can't foresee)? I mean, sure, it's great that Brian's taken on this project voluntarily; but jeez, give the guy a break! He never expected the first oil to go this long; what's in store for the rest of'em?

Considering what we've learned from this one oil alone, if I were looking at all of these variables I'd make these changes now:
1) install a Fumoto valve
2) sample less (2k? 2.5k? 3k?)
3) plan on rerunning M1 after everything else was done
4) let those unhappy with the decision run their own tests

It's better to make any changes now, rather than later when he's worked thru half the oils. Or worse, giving up all together 'cuz he's sick & tired of the hassle. It's better if Brian's still happy to do it another two years from now.

[ September 30, 2003, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Eiron ]

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,

Eiron - good one!!

Regards

 

[pscholte]

I don't see any reason to rerun the M1. For those who favor that oil, it lasts and it works, so let's leave it at that. Yeah, changing the protocol by a bit will no doubt create a "difference," but if I am a real M1 fan (at the price/performance/availability level) and Amsoil, Redline, GC does marginally better with a different protocol, I'm not switching. If there is a major difference that our resident scientists can't account for due to a protocol change, AND it is in a performance area that is really important to me, then I might switch. Let's not make this a competition per se, but more an endorsement that oils we use perform up to or exceed our expectations. If one does prove unquestionably superior, so be it.

[ September 30, 2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: pscholte ]

 

[MolaKule]

I have to agree with the good Dr. Stressor and Buster. Hindsight is always great, but keeping the sampling interval at 1k says you're following through with the original, designed protocol.

We have enough variables as it is, so if cost isn't prohibitive, keep the number of variables low and continue sampling at 1k.