2001 GMC Sierra 5.3L 147k, QSUD 5w-30 17,271miles

[dnewton3]

I see some common ground, perhaps, in our views!

I am learning to release my preconcieved notions of sump size and fitler size. I long ago learned to release my prejudices of base stock and OCI duration.

My 2010 Fusion has a 5 qrt sump and a tiny filter. And yet, the UOAs are outstanding in regard to wear and contamination, with an OEM 7.5k mile OCI. After warranty is over, I could concievably see 10k miles doable, safely, on dino oil and that tiny filter.

Long, long ago, in the infancy of my lube-world exposure, I knew only of the OEM recommendations. Then, I was introduced to synthetics. AHA! What miracle fluid is this? Why does everyone not use these every 3k miles? Then, reality set in.

I got a job at Ford where I had to run a large maintennce program for a 2 million square foot facility, including production machines and building equipment. Gearboxes and bearings were my life for several years. I started using UOAs and understanding the relationship of lube/filter performance to ROIs.

Now, I know "better". I don't judge any situation on the surface; I let the data talk and I try to listen.

 

[wog]

universal aver

• universal averages ages al-3 chr-1 fe-19 cu-29 lead-8 tin-1 moly-73 ni-1 man-3 sil-0 titanium-0 pot-3 boron-49 sil-12 sod-41cal-2196 mag-130 phos-692 zinc-832 barium-o

 

[wog]

universal mileage average oci is 5600 .

 

[dnewton3]

I am going to update Volk's initial post with the UA universal avg data listed above so it's a bit more clear.
MOD.

 

[dnewton3]

WOW!

OK - now with the UA data installed, the story is much more clear.


This is a very good report!

He went more than 3x the UA exposure, and yet his wear rates were well below average. The wear rates are clearly in control, and he's very safe as far as any reasonable condemnation limits.

The top off helped a bit I suspect, but it "normal" in my mind to top off a bit after 17k+ miles. That is not at all unexpected, and the top off consumption is only about 2/3 of a quart per 5k miles, which represents a "normal" universal average OCI duration. That is very controlled and not at all undesirable.

This is an EXCELLENT example of how to extend the OCI, and approach or even surpass the ROI!

Kudos to this approach!


I would suggest that longer OCIs be examined as possible, but would also contend that TBN be included. I see 20-22k miles as easily doable if the TBN and wear stay in check. That would put the OCI at approximately 4x! Outstanding, if it can be reached.



This is not "insane". To the contrary, it's very smart!

 

[hattaresguy]

Oil changes are cheap for a truck like that, I'd just follow the OLM or cut back to 10k and forget about it.

 

[dnewton3]

hattaresguy - your logic (or lack of it) astounds me. And, to be accurate, it's reasonable to say that 10k mile OCIs would be a total waste of money in this specific situation.

He's paying good money for the UOA data, why ignore it?

If one is just going to OCI with the OLM (which I'm not saying is wrong), then just use any qualified dino oil and don't UOA.

If using syns and doing UOAs, then why not actually utilize the data? Yes, OCIs are cheap, relative to buing a reman'd engine. But money isn't free. Why throw away a lube that is still serviceable, and ignore data one paid for???

 

[ARCOgraphite]

My concern would be we dont have ENOUGH data. Have the ccs or mrv # degraded to where the engine would have poor cold flow in the Massachusetts winters? How is the fuel mileage affected if at all? You might counter that we see reasonable wear/mi so it is not a concern. But what wear particulate are in the filter that dont show in the UOA and make a more complete picture.

 

[dnewton3]

You have reasonable points. Perhaps extension past this is not an assurance.

I will say that he's already been through one winter; from March last year into July this year. The cold pumping and mrv would have already reared their ugly head during that time frame, would they not?

Do another round or two of this 17k mile OCIs and UOAs. See if things are steady. I can see logic to that approach. Again - get TBN with it the next time. Then if things are this promising, extend to 20k miles.

But I SURELY don't agree with going backwards to 10k miles, just because it doesn't feel good to someone because OCIs are "cheap insurance".

 

[R2d2]

I dont see any problem with his UOA, wear metals were great. I'd be more comfortable with another UOA with a TBN/TAN if it was me.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
hattaresguy - your logic (or lack of it) astounds me. And, to be accurate, it's reasonable to say that 10k mile OCIs would be a total waste of money in this specific situation.

He's paying good money for the UOA data, why ignore it?

If one is just going to OCI with the OLM (which I'm not saying is wrong), then just use any qualified dino oil and don't UOA.

If using syns and doing UOAs, then why not actually utilize the data? Yes, OCIs are cheap, relative to buing a reman'd engine. But money isn't free. Why throw away a lube that is still serviceable, and ignore data one paid for???



This kind of analysis only really makes sense when your running a fleet of trucks and equipment. For a little 5 quart sump its more trouble than its worth, and the money spent sending it off to the lab would be better spent changing it and moving on with something more productive.

Also if you really want to extend drain intervals you run bypass filtration.

All in all a fun little experiment, but meaningless data and a waste of time. But I guess if you enjoy it as a hobby.

I'm perfectly logical, I'm practical. In my truck since GM already did the work for me, I just follow the OLM. If I was running a fleet of 500 Silverado's, well than I would have an interest in reducing maintenance costs and service time, but I only have one.

The only other time a UOA is really useful is when your purchasing a high dollar value piece of equipment and your looking for specific things, like say coolant, or if they were lying about changing it.

Other than that what do they tell you? Nothing that the manufactures haven't already figured out. So what if copper or lead is high? If the motor is going to blow you'll know about it, I'm not and I don't think anyone else is going to replace a motor based on elevated metal, which may or may not mean anything. Besides I have seen tired motors shred their bearings, the oil looks like glitter, you don't need a UAO to tell you what's wrong.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
This kind of analysis only really makes sense when your running a fleet of trucks and equipment.


Again - I would disagree.

There are two reasons to use a UOA:
1) to confirm or deny a suspected condition
2) to develop data streams supporting a maintenance plan

For item #1, I'll show this:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2705537&page=1
Perfect example of a undesirable condition that would have not been discovered without a UOA, and continued OCIs would not have fixed.

For item #2, I'll show this:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2664064&page=1
Perfect example of using data to support choices in an overall maintenance plan. Here, the OP is likely to confirm that using syn's for OEM OCIs is not cost effective (does not meet the ROI).

I completely agree with you that in small sump applications, when no problem is suspected, that simple conventional oil OCIs are hard to beat. Especially with today's well made equipment and high quality lubes/filters.

But ...

That does not negate the opportunity to use other OCI plans.

This kind of analysis makes sense when it can meet or exceed the ROI. If one runs a synthetic, the OCI must be pushed out to gain ROI. If one uses UOAs, that also adds cost, which also pushes out the ROI break point. Add in premium filtration, and the ROI pushes out further.

ANY lube/filter combination can be over or under utilized. The concept of ROI is blind to what is used; it only speaks to the opportunity to denote a fiscal condition, and then judge the ability to approach, meet or exceed that marker. In short, how much did you spend, and did you gain the relative value back in some manner, whether individually or combined. It most certainly can work in "fleet" operations, but that does not mean it also cannot be used in individual situations; it most certainly can.

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
... All in all a fun little experiment, but meaningless data and a waste of time.

This data is not meaningless. The data is credible. More data is needed to extend out the OCIs. In this particular UOA, it is possible to extend future OCIs with more data, and reach out for that ROI.

It seems your valuation of UOAs is based large, macro-only analysis. While that is a pragmatic use of UOAs, you are excluding other potential uses, which is an unfair and false presumption. Micro analysis can also be well served with UOAs. IOW - I'm not saying you're wrong about using UOAs in large fleets; that is a good tool to use. I'm saying you're wrong in that UOAs are only useful in large fleets; that is false and they can succeed or fail at any point, based upon the ROI. Small fleets and singular equipment can benefit from the very advantages gleaned that would also apply to large fleet data.

Like everything else in life, having a product is only half the battle; the other half is knowing how to use it to gain the best ROI.

 

[azsynthetic]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy


I'm perfectly logical, I'm practical. In my truck since GM already did the work for me, I just follow the OLM.


Then why are you here on this forum? You are only somewhat logical (see dnewton3 post above) and not really practical. OEMs only recommend/require an oil to meet specs but they do not recommend a brand name. Not all oils that claim to meet specs are equal and VOA/UOA is one way to find out. Give me any car and any oil and I will wear out that oil before the OLM can get to 50%. The OLM is only a suggestion for people that are clueless about car maintenance.

 

[wog]

I am posting my previous uoa for this thread for intrpretation.
Code:


al- 6

chr- 2

fe- 52

lead- 6

tin- 2

moly- 65

nickel- 2

man- 1

sil- 0

titanium- 0

potassium- 1

boron- 17

sil- 17

sodium- 20

cal- 2626

mag- 14

phos- 714

zinc- 871

barium- 0

[email protected]

[email protected]

flash- 410

fuel
insoles- 0.4

TBN- 1.3.

13409 mileage on oil. qsud 5w/30. i have 4 more uoa s on this truck i could add if needed. may be hatteras will enjoy , this was a 1 yr run 3/10-3/11.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Not all oils that claim to meet specs are equal and VOA/UOA is one way to find out.


I think this is a common misconception here. VOAs may help compare certain aspects of given oils. As for trying to compare oils by using UOAs, that is a bit of a fool's errand. Among the few things one can compare between two totally different oil in UOAs in one application are OCI (i.e. TBN depletion over time) and possibly shear (does one choice of oil shear more over an OCI in a certain application).

Too many engage in a vain attempt at trying to obtain useful information in UOAs by hopping from oil to oil. The point is trending - not a single data point.

 

[azsynthetic]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Not all oils that claim to meet specs are equal and VOA/UOA is one way to find out.


I think this is a common misconception here. VOAs may help compare certain aspects of given oils. As for trying to compare oils by using UOAs, that is a bit of a fool's errand.


VOAs can certainly tell you if an oil meet a certain specs or not with respect to additives contents, viscosity, etc. UOAs can also do the same under certain conditions. So, where is the misconception in saying "VOA/UOA is one way to find out"?

Your vain attempt to read too much into my post is highly atypical for a season poster.