GC 0w30, 4300 miles, 2000 Honda Civic

[Patman]

I've got a question for you guys. Since it's probably not possible for an oil lab to be as precise as this one appears, do you think I should continue reporting my results right to the exact decimal point or should I round it to a whole number from now on? In other words, instead of me reporting the lead at 1.8, chromium at 0.6, and aluminum at 3.7, would it be better if I just kept it simple and reported the lead at 2, chromium at 1 and aluminum at 4? I almost feel kinda silly reporting it at exact decimals like that, since I'm sure if they tested the same oil three times it would not be so precise each time.

I already rounded some of them down to zero, as I had a report on silver at 0.1 for instance. But if it said 0.2 I kept it there, such as with barium.

Sometimes rounding things off makes it easier to read, for instance the actual miles on this oil were 4280, but I rounded it off to 4300.

 

[TR3-2001SE]

I think now this decimal point accuracy means nothing. In the furture I would think labs would become more accurate over all and then this accuracy could become important. Excellent report with GC but we have come to expect that.

I wonder why the fuel is a little high. Lots of idelling at stop lights etc? Excellent report other than the fuel and that is not a serious problem I would think.

 

[Patman]

Fuel is probably from a bit more idling during this winter than usual (sometimes 2min of idling on a cold start) and shorter trips, plus Terry Dyson did suspect previously that this engine might have a leaky injector as well, due to it's poor gas mileage (it only gets about 20-22MPG in the winter, and not much more than 24 in the summer unless we drive on the highway more often)

This engine has never shown anything higher than 0% fuel before though, even through last winter, so I'll definitely be keeping an eye on that one on the next report (which won't be until mid to late October, I'm not going to change the oil again until the temperatures regularily dip close to the freezing mark again in the fall)

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by haley10:


Great report, by the way. Regardless of what is said in the other threads, I like to see lead come down.

---

If we really are to believe the accuracy of the testing from this lab, then we need to remember that the virgin sample of this batch of GC showed 0.5ppm of lead in it, so my 1.8 ppm in this report could've actually been 1.3. So if I rounded it down, it becomes 1.

 

[Bror Jace]

These are either good results ... or great results if this oil is the batch pre-contaminated with iron.

As for the precision thing, I'd rather you post the data exactly as reported to you. If you want to make fun of the overly-precise way they report the numbers, then feel free to do so.

--- Bror Jace

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bror Jace:
These are either good results ... or great results if this oil is the batch pre-contaminated with iron.

As for the precision thing, I'd rather you post the data exactly as reported to you. If you want to make fun of the overly-precise way they report the numbers, then feel free to do so.

--- Bror Jace

---

OK, I will continue reporting it the way I have been doing, with the only change being that I will now round down any result that is 0.1 down to 0, like I started doing with this report.

The batch of oil that was in this report is the exact batch I had the VOA done on and it showed the following results:

Iron....3.4
Lead...0.5
Aluminum....1.7
Copper....0.4
Nickel....0
Chromium....0
Titanium....0
Tin......0
Silver....3.4 (lab error for sure, someone probably dropped a dime into the machine)

Viscosity at 40C....67.6
Viscosity at 100C...12.2
TBN.....9.39
Calcium....3544
Phos...896
Zinc....1116
Magnesium....144
Silicon....7.8


I have newer batches of GC in both my car and this car right now, so it'll be interesting to see if the results are even lower. I'm tempted to get a VOA on that batch too, to see if it's any cleaner from the get go, but I don't want to get into the pattern of getting VOAs on every single different batch of this oil. I'm just going to assume that the starting point is zero on all wear metals with the newest batches.

[ April 21, 2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Patman ]

 

[Primus]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:

Canadian gas still seems to contain a lot of sulfur in it and still has MMT too, which is why the rates for sulfur and manganese are higher than you guys in the US are used to seeing.

---

How about ferrocenes ?

 

[rg144]

quote:

---

Originally posted by cryptokid:
why do you awalys change the oil so early in the cars you service? you run top of the line synthetic oils and change them at basically dino oil intervals.

---

Obviously Patman is looking for the "Perfect Analysis" and is getting very close. Do we need a 'Hall of Fame"? I think though you should save the bottles, refill them and sell under 'Items for Sale' (TBN 5.38

). To improve the numbers: install a bypass filter, magnetic oil plug, treat dose of LC.
And this is a hobby. My wife is glad to know where I'm at on weekends (under the car usually! - last weekend was new struts for the Buick).

[ April 21, 2004, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: rg144 ]

 

[Brett Miller]

"I'd die for a lead number that low". I think we need to remember this is only motor oil. What a ridiculous statement!

 

[haley10]

I was always taught in Physics class that if your answer implies more accuracy than is attainable, then the answer is wrong, i.e. if the answer is 3.2 and you give 3.233 then it is wrong, because you have implied more accuracy than there actually is (significant digits), in the test setup.

Great report, by the way. Regardless of what is said in the other threads, I like to see lead come down.

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

I wouldn't die for a lead number that low either, that is ridiculous. But I would kill for it.

 

[Patman]

I don't think anyone on here would seriously believe I was literally saying I'd die (or kill) for a low lead number. It sure is nice to finally see it though!

 

[haley10]

By the way, weak additive package.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. T:
Patman, can you re-explain the flush procedure.

You drain the oil completely and refill with only 2.5L OR drain 2.5L out and mix-in the new stuff before draining?

---

What I did at the beginning of this particular interval was to drain out all the oil (but I left on the filter since it was only a few days old, remember I had just put in fresh RP 10w30 at that time but was unhappy with the loud valvetrain noise in the cold weather) and then I put in 2.5L of fresh GC and ran the engine for 2min. Then I drained that oil completely and put in the fresh stuff.

 

[novadude]

The "flush" procedure sounds like a waste of precious green oil to me, but that is just my opinion.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by novadude:
The "flush" procedure sounds like a waste of precious green oil to me, but that is just my opinion.

---

The only reason I did it was to get a better idea on the very first UOA as to how the oil did on it's own, without having been mixed with any of the previous oil. I do that anytime I change brands of oil with my cars. It's a waste of oil, but it allows for a bit more accurate test results (in terms of viscosity retention, TBN, etc).

Besides, there is no shortage of the green oil in the Patcave!

 

[Dr. T]

Patman, can you re-explain the flush procedure.

You drain the oil completely and refill with only 2.5L OR drain 2.5L out and mix-in the new stuff before draining?