Engine Wear and Long Oil Change Intervals

[Ugly3]

I have seen several studies which indiacte that engine wear per 1,000 miles is the greatest in the first 3,000 of oil use. Beyond 3,000 miles the engine wear per 1,000 miles seems to decline and stays at the lower levels until the oil is changed.

The only thing I have though of (and it is pretty lame) is that it takes 3,000 or so miles for the oil filter to collect enough material to "improve" filtration enough to collect the smaller wear particles in the filter. So it looks like the wear is down but in fact it is just not showing in the oil. As I said, pretty lame.

All thoughts on the topic will be appreciated.

 

[salesrep]

Interesting.. I would be interested in reading those studies. Did they use the same oil? if not that is a possibilty.

 

[Terry]

Lube condition and wear rates in a controlled environment would show a variable rate of wear due to mettalurgy and design. Most wear rates and severity are not linear in automotive engines.That and the variability of automotive applications make interpreting the elemental wear data difficult at best.

Add a on the road car engine and all that gets more complex to track.


Ugly, the full flow filters are poor at controlling wear no matter how efficient they become from increased comtaminate levels.

Frankly depending on the bypass filter setup, in gasoline and smaller diesels the wear reduction is nominal at best and difficult to cost justify.

Once a lube chemistry is mated to a engine you should see a decline in wear rates over the drain if nothing else changes. Of course combustion efficiency or laack thereof, affects the host oil and here we go again messing up wear rate theories..

Unless you are Vetteman and you just blow off full flow filtration all together!

 

[Bio-T]

But you are correct. Any FF over $2 is a waste of money.

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

I have seen several studies which indiacte that engine wear per 1,000 miles is the greatest in the first 3,000 of oil use. Beyond 3,000 miles the engine wear per 1,000 miles seems to decline and stays at the lower levels until the oil is changed.

---

I think we hashed this topic before. Detergents in new oil are simply picking up crud left over by dirty oil.

You are not seeing wear from new oil, but from old.

What possible mechanism would even allow this to be remotely true?

 

[Ugly3]

MolaKule - What possible mechanism would even allow this to be remotely true?

You hit my delima right on the head, it does not make sense to me. But in looking at the data there sure seems to be less wear after 3,000 miles.

Then Terry comes in and posts:

Once a lube chemistry is mated to a engine you should see a decline in wear rates over the drain if nothing else changes.

So he is suggesting that the reduced wear is a natural result of the process.

There are a whole lot of people in the world smarter than I am, so I just continue to "live and learn".

 

[crashz]

Terry -

This may be a little off topic, but have you finished your study with AutoRX as a "liquid" filter?

 

[radiometer]

Vetteman, OK, I've taken Terry's bait. Are you really running without a FF filter? Just gotta know. Thanks.

 

[Robbie Alexander]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry:

Frankly depending on the bypass filter setup, in gasoline and smaller diesels the wear reduction is nominal at best and difficult to cost justify.

---

I would have to Disagree with wear reduction... well lets say I'll say that it will and can be seen to reduce the numbers a lot but yet not that much to cost justify in a normal application.

In fact I doubt that many here would (other than a handfull) be able to justify using one (cost to oil or whateverwise)....

Well the fethers are wet, stirred and ready for tar.

 

[Eddie]

VW & Crystler and others? did oil filter studies years ago and determined that indeed oil filtration improved as oil filters aged. That is the reason that the recomendation to change the filter every other oil change was recomended by several manufactures. I personelly did filter studies on medical filters at a national lab and we also didcovered that filtering improved with age up to a point. We discovered why and it was related to the pore size distribution AND the particule size distrabution. It can be expressed mathematicly (SP). ed

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddie:
VW & Crystler and others? did oil filter studies years ago and determined that indeed oil filtration improved as oil filters aged. That is the reason that the recomendation to change the filter every other oil change was recomended by several manufactures. I personelly did filter studies on medical filters at a national lab and we also didcovered that filtering improved with age up to a point. We discovered why and it was related to the pore size distribution AND the particule size distrabution. It can be expressed mathematicly (SP). ed

---

Were they measuring efficiency, flow rates or both? If you're saying that filters get more efficient and flow more as they age, it goes everything I ever read, experienced and can deduce with what feeble brains cells I have left.

[ August 20, 2004, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]

 

[Bio-T]

quote:

---

Originally posted by krholm:
Vetteman, OK, I've taken Terry's bait. Are you really running without a FF filter? Just gotta know. Thanks.

---

krholm, Right now I have 2 diesels and a Mazda and a Caddy. None of the block off plates that I have will fit, so I am forced to use a FF on all of them.

From about 1978 to 2000 any vehicle that I ran had a block off plate and a Frantz bypass filter. In my Business I had 3 GM 350's that ran this way from new, plus one Ford 460. Two of the GM's and the Ford were on Propane. After the initial drain, I removed the FF, installed a block off plate for pressure to the Frantz and returned through the intake manifold with a hollow bolt on the GM's. Pan return on the Ford. I only used Mobil I 10W30 or Amsoil 15W40 Marine/Diesel oil.

My son is now using one of the trucks, minus the Frantz. (don't mind giving the truck, but not my Frantz filter or block off plate)

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 59 Vetteman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by krholm:
Vetteman, OK, I've taken Terry's bait. Are you really running without a FF filter? Just gotta know. Thanks.

---

krholm, Right now I have 2 diesels and a Mazda and a Caddy. None of the block off plates that I have will fit, so I am forced to use a FF on all of them.

From about 1978 to 2000 any vehicle that I ran had a block off plate and a Frantz bypass filter. In my Business I had 3 GM 350's that ran this way from new, plus one Ford 460. Two of the GM's and the Ford were on Propane. After the initial drain, I removed the FF, installed a block off plate for pressure to the Frantz and returned through the intake manifold with a hollow bolt on the GM's. Pan return on the Ford. I only used Mobil I 10W30 or Amsoil 15W40 Marine/Diesel oil.

My son is now using one of the trucks, minus the Frantz. (don't mind giving the truck, but not my Frantz filter or block off plate)

---

Hey...using a BF is cheating!

 

[Ugly3]

Here are the wear numbers from the Paradise Garage test using Amsoil. I added the Aluminum, Chrome, Iron, Copper, Lead, and Tin values together. The engine has 30,000+ miles on it so I would guess "breakin" would be a minor influence.

miles / value

1 - 44
2 - 76
3 - 79
4 - 91
5 - 84
6 - 91
7 - 98
8 - 95
9 - 103
10 - 93

MolaKule - if I read your theory correctly you would suggest the 44, 76, and 79 wear readings for the first 3,000 miles is not really the wear during that period but is the new oil cleaning up prior wear particles that were laying in the engine. If that is the case what is going on from mile 4,000 to 10,000? There appears to be very few wear particles being added to the oil, where are the wear particles physically going if there is a relativly constant level of wear going on?

Terry, you indicated: Once a lube chemistry is mated to a engine you should see a decline in wear rates over the drain if nothing else changes. While the data seems to fit your theory (or maybe vice versa), do you have a theory on what is going on in the engine to allow the wear reduction? For instance, do the existing microscopic wear particles act as an additional lubricant to reduce future wear? If wear rates are not linear (across miles driven, I assume) what causes that to be the case?

Living and learning.

 

[Blue99]

Ugly3,

Don't know if adding up the total ppm for wear metals creates a significant number for analysis. With the 1K sampling methods, the trends are more important than any couple of samples.

Molakule probably made his "I think we hashed this topic before" statement due to the fact that the "oil gets better with age" theory was tossed around last year during the M1 portion of 3MP's study.

BTW, if you check out some of the 2003 contributor's to the M1 study, you will notice BITOG names.

Every month the latest study results are posted at the top of the UOA forum. Why don't you search 3MP in the UOA to see the comments from past months on the amounts of wear metals?

10,000 mile results

 

[Ugly3]

Blue99 - Every month the latest study results are posted at the top of the UOA forum. Why don't you search 3MP in the UOA to see the comments from past months on the amounts of wear metals?

I have read the threads till my eyes hurt. I see a lot of subjective speculation and different opinions on what the numbers "mean". Simply adds to my confusion.

One thing I forgot about was that before the oil life test was started the engine was run for 3,000 miles on the oil to be tested next. This indicates to me that there would not excessive residual "crud" in the engine when the test was started.

I selected the 10 Amsoil 1,000 mile particulate values because the Amsoil test was run later in the engines life and seemed to me to be more indicitive of a "real world" situtation. The Mobil 1 test was started earlier in the engines life and there would probably be more "break-in" impact in the Mobil 1 wear numbers.

A quote from Paradise Garage:

While the wear metals all accumulated steadily over the course of the test, the highest concentrations of accumulation per mile occurred in the first 3,000 miles of the test! From the 3,000-mile mark all the way to 18,000 miles, only lead showed an increase in per-mile wear beyond 3,000 miles. Yet even with an increased wear rate, lead wore the least in terms of absolute wear. For iron and copper, the longer the oil remained in service, the lower the wear rate got.

In case it isn't obvious yet, this means that the most wear occurs in the first 3,000 miles.

This is counter to what my "common sense" tells me should happen. I can't imagine what physical or chemical action would allow this to happen. However, the numbers suggest it may be happening.

One very knowledgable guy says it is not possible and is an anolomy of the testing method and another very knowledgable guy says it is a normal and expected result of the process.

Maybe this will be one of those things that will remain a mystery.

 

[Drstressor]

You guys really need to read Gao et al, SAE 2003-01-3119. ConocoPhillips and Ford engineers tested 5W-20 oils with different levels of ZDDP using a laboratory valve train bench test that employed constant monitoring of a radioactive tracer embedded in the metal as well as wear scar measurements. In a number of tests, they compared fresh oil with the same oil after 12,000 of engine service using both fresh and broken in metal surfaces. Their results show pretty conclusively that the anti-wear properties of an oil improve with age. They speculate that the increase performance could be due to accumulation of high MW oxidation products of the base oil or intermediate reaction products of the anti-wear compounds. Nobody understands why this happens, but a reduction in wear rates as oil ages seems to be an empirical reality. As I have mentioned elsewhere on this board, neat little models that try to explain anti-wear surface chemistry and the interaction of various boundary lubricants, friction modifiers, and metal surfaces are just speculation. These chemistries are complex and not well understood.

 

[Ed]

If it's really true that used oil promotes a slower wear rate, I have about 20 quarts of used mobil-1 that I would be happy to sell anyone for 20 bux a quart. Hey your engine will last longer if you use it RIGHT?

 

[Ugly3]

Ed - If it's really true that used oil promotes a slower wear rate, I have about 20 quarts of used mobil-1 that I would be happy to sell anyone for 20 bux a quart. Hey your engine will last longer if you use it RIGHT?

I didn't think about that. I bet I have 40 gallons of used oil in 4 and 5 quart containers sitting between the wall studs of the garage.

Maybe a "garage sale" is the ticket.

 

[Mickey_M]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drstressor:
You guys really need to read Gao et al, SAE 2003-01-3119. ConocoPhillips and Ford engineers tested 5W-20 oils with different levels of ZDDP using a laboratory valve train bench test that employed constant monitoring of a radioactive tracer embedded in the metal as well as wear scar measurements. In a number of tests, they compared fresh oil with the same oil after 12,000 of engine service using both fresh and broken in metal surfaces. Their results show pretty conclusively that the anti-wear properties of an oil improve with age. They speculate that the increase performance could be due to accumulation of high MW oxidation products of the base oil or intermediate reaction products of the anti-wear compounds.

---

What kind of fresh oil and used oil?

This kind of reaction could explain some of the reports from bypass and centrifugal filter users of very low wear in extremely extended oil change intervals.

This is how new things are discovered - a test is made that has no explanation in the current model. The current model is updated or a new model developed.

Didn't Red Line at one time say that their anti-wear additive package improved with use?