Oil is Oil

[mr_boring]

And the wheels on the bus go round and round....

I kinda miss these threads, but then again, I kinda don't. Back to the general and off topic section I goes.

 

[OVERKILL]

Who has actually done that where we can all look at the data and the summary concussions of that data? Has anyone here actually done a long term UOA tracking history on one vehicle in a controlled manner as much as possible to look for any UOA wear metal ppm/1000 mile trends like discussed in post 168? It would take many 1000s of miles and a long time to see such trends and the effect of different oil viscosity and brands. It's going to take much more test control and effort than just comparing one UOA on Oil A to another UOA on Oil B, even on the same vehicle. It would have to be at least 5 UOAs on one oil compared to 5 UOAs on a different oil to see if there is a change in the wear metals trends. If the OCIs are 5000-7500 miles on Oil A then same on Oil B, then it would take a total of 50,000-75,000 miles and 10 UOAs (20 if sending each one to two different labs for cross-checks) total on the vehicle to see the wear metal trends. Not a short term test. And that would only be the testing to see if Oil A vs Oil B shows any difference. If you wanted to compare more oils, then the test would be going on for much longer.

And it would still have to be validated with random tear-downs, like @Doug Hillary did when he did the fleet testing for XOM.

 

[ZeeOSix]

And it would still have to be validated with random tear-downs, like @Doug Hillary did when he did the fleet testing for XOM.

And also oil filter dissection and debris analysis by a lab would help add to the wear debris analysis data and conclusions. The same oil filters should also be used to make that factor a constant. Even doing a "controlled" test by a DIYer isn't a small feat.

 

[TiGeo]

Who has actually done that where we can all look at the data and the summary concussions of that data? Has anyone here actually done a long term UOA tracking history on one vehicle in a controlled manner as much as possible to look for any UOA wear metal ppm/1000 mile trends like discussed in post 168? It would take many 1000s of miles and a long time to see such trends and the effect of different oil viscosity and brands. It's going to take much more test control and effort than just comparing one UOA on Oil A to another UOA on Oil B, even on the same vehicle. It would have to be at least 5 UOAs on one oil compared to 5 UOAs on a different oil to see if there is a change in the wear metals trends. If the OCIs are 5000-7500 miles on Oil A then same on Oil B, then it would take a total of 50,000-75,000 miles and 10 UOAs (20 if sending each one to two different labs for cross-checks) total on the vehicle to see the wear metal trends. Not a short term test. And that would only be the testing to see if Oil A vs Oil B shows any difference. If you wanted to compare more oils, then the test would be going on for much longer.

Best I can do. 5 years/100k miles. Multiple oils with several used multiple times. Of course variable control here is a challenge

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ I figured you'd post that up as you're the only guy I've ever seen here post this kind of historical UOA data in the past. So look at what was going on between 40,000 and 75,000 miles (before the timing chain broke point) that seems to show a ppm/1000 mile trend change in the Fe levels when you changed from LM to M1 and QS. So one could probably claim that the oil used made a difference in the Fe wear trend seen in the UOA. When the tensioner broke around 75,000, the Fe trends upwards again similar to when you switched from LM to M1 & QS, but it takes a lot of time for the Fe to set off red flags when it really spiked up at 100,000 miles. That's an example where a Blacksone type UOA is somewhat insensitive to the start of major wear action going on. And if I recall, when you cut open the oil filter(s) there was some pretty obvious metal debris in the filter ... yet, the UOA didn't intially show much of a blip (no worse than when switching oils) until the wear metals got really bad.

 

[TiGeo]

^^^ I figured you'd post that up as you're the only guy I've ever seen here post this kind of historical UOA data in the past. So look at what was going on between 40,000 and 75,000 miles (before the timing chain broke point) that seems to show a ppm/1000 mile trend change in the Fe levels when you changed from LM to M1 and QS. So one could probably claim that the oil used made a difference in the Fe wear trend seen in the UOA. When the tensioner broke around 75,000, the Fe trends upwards again similar to when you switched from LM to M1 & QS, but it takes a lot of time for the Fe to set off red flags when it really spiked up at 100,000 miles. That's an example where a Blacksone type UOA is somewhat insensitive to the start of major wear action going on. And if I recall, when you cut open the oil filter(s) there was some pretty obvious metal debris in the filter ... yet, the UOA didn't intially show much of a blip (no worse than when switching oils) until the wear metals got really bad.

That upward trend in Fe after ~40k is more likely related to installation of a brand new turbo.

Correct in the BS UOA not showing the major wear where I had aluminum glitter in my filter..it gave a sniff!

 

[ZeeOSix]

That upward trend in Fe after ~40k is more likely related to installation of a brand new turbo.

Correct in the BS UOA not showing the major wear where I had aluminum glitter in my filter..it gave a sniff!

If you had two UOAs with the LM 5W-40 after the new turbo, I don't think the Fe up trend when you went from LM to M1 & QS was all from the new turbo. At what mileage was the new turbo installed? Where would Fe be coming from due to a new turbo? Don't they typically have bronze of similar bearings, or does it have steel roller bearings?

 

[TiGeo]

If you had two UOAs with the LM 5W-40 after the new turbo, I don't think the Fe up trend when you went from LM to M1 & QS was all from the new turbo. At what mileage was the new turbo installed? Where would Fe be coming from due to a new turbo? Don't they typically have bronze of similar bearings, or does it have steel roller bearings?

It's annotated on the graph.

 

[TwoTires]

Can anyone here definitively state that one oil underperforms and one outperforms. Ater 23 years of reading BITOG I have yet to answer this question..

With a little further explanation, I am with you. The factors that can alter performance are your climate, type of vehicle, whether you tow a lot or exclusively drive in stop and go traffic, are you a rural open road guy or city dweller, or have a fuel consuming right foot. . If those factors are considered and the right weight old and type, plus drain interval are considered... Well they will just about all work well. I've owned old cars, classics, performance, trucks, race cars and motorcycles. I recently mentioned that I recently sold my '69 Buick Electra, 430 cu.in. x 365 HP at 55 yrs old it has never been repaired. 5w-30 earth juice and 1 qt. of synthetic Oil change every 3K. I have used all brands and types. My vehicle use no oil, looks clean and change at 4K miles and I buy the cheapest reputable brand I can find. That includes all the Warren oils of Walmart, Amazon, and Costco. I use a flex scope, have look inside, no deposits or varnish. With an oil drain valve and plastic drain tub, I am done in 12-15 min. at a cost of $25 and no mess. To answer your questions, frequency is the answer not how much you spend.

 

[ZeeOSix]

It's annotated on the graph.

The graph shows the new turbo at 45,836 miles (corresponds to 10/3/2020 in the table). So that means the two LM UOAs before switching to M1 & QS had the new turbo on them if I'm seeing it correctly. The first LM UOA after the new turbo basically had the same ppm/1000 miles of Fe as the two previous LM UOAs (5 and 6 ppm/1000). I'd think if the new turbo was going to increase the Fe rate, that it would have shown up on the first UOA after the turbo was installed. A difference of 1 ppm/1000 miles is in the noise. When you changed from LM to M1 & QS, the rate of Fe basically doubled (5-6 to 10-14 ppm/1000 miles). Then it went back down to 6-7 ppm/1000 for the next two LM runs before the timing chain tensioner issue started. So based on your data having some 2 or 3 runs of different oils in a row, it looks like there could be an effect due to the oil used. It would be more convincing and easier to see if someone did similar UOA tracking as you did on the same car that had a more consistent use profile and no mechanical issues, and used two or three oils consecutively at 5+ runs each to keep any UOA impact factors to a miniumum.

 

[DirectRejection]

Yes. These guys that boast about their “real world” experience are unfortunately the ones that are most often the furthest from it. What with the host of uncontrolled variables and inevitable biases their deeply held conclusions are generally misguided.

They don’t like to hear that, but it’s the truth.

And yet I sleep well at night.

I see you finally threw in a few up to date qualifiers, such as some engines being designed to manage heat better on such abhorrently thin oil.

This poster is looking forward to more and more lectures as constant skepticism is important.

 

[Kantaro]

Hate to say it but I agree for the most part. Unless your engine has specific requirements like Euro applications, I don't really see a benefit to running something fancier than Kirkland or Supertech oil in "normie" cars

 

[kayasandik]

Hi all,
I dont know if this is the right topic to ask but forgive me if it isn't.
I'd like ask you a question about these two oils. One is molygen with dpf symbol (purple and green sticker, sku 21225) and the other one also molygen without (dpf symbol and psa certification-acea c2, sku 9089)
My engine is a ehdi euro5, Citroen Grand Picasso 2015(b78). I realized this difference after I changed my oil with 9089.
Here are tech specs of this oils.

https://pim.liqui-moly.de/pdf/en_GB/liqui/76/P001757

https://pim.liqui-moly.de/pdf/en_GB/liqui/21/P004283

Now I wonder that do i have to change my oil to 21225 or LM suggestion of toptec4300? Is this situation creates a danger/malfunction for the engine? Thank you for your answer in advance.
@TiGeo I also send you a PM due to your rep. on LM.
Greetings.

 

[TiGeo]

Hi all,
I dont know if this is the right topic to ask but forgive me if it isn't.
I'd like ask you a question about these two oils. One is molygen with dpf symbol (purple and green sticker, sku 21225) and the other one also molygen without (dpf symbol and psa certification-acea c2, sku 9089)
My engine is a ehdi euro5, Citroen Grand Picasso 2015(b78). I realized this difference after I changed my oil with 9089.
Here are tech specs of this oils.

https://pim.liqui-moly.de/pdf/en_GB/liqui/76/P001757

https://pim.liqui-moly.de/pdf/en_GB/liqui/21/P004283

Now I wonder that do i have to change my oil to 21225 or LM suggestion of toptec4300? Is this situation creates a danger/malfunction for the engine? Thank you for your answer in advance.
@TiGeo I also send you a PM due to your rep. on LM.
Greetings.

Dm'd you back. Honest no clue on the Euro DPF oils here...best to just reach out to LM and ask them. Keep in mind that the Molygen line has no formal approvals only "recommend for" so they will only shoe the Top Tech you mention for your specific vehicle as it has the formal approvals.