RLI 5w40, 4362mls, 07 MS6

[Nederlander75]

From left to right Factory Fill, MC 5w30 GC 0w30, Shell Rotella T Syn 5w40, Amsoil Euro 5w40, Bruce Blend 5w40, Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck, Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck, and RLI 5w40HD

Miles on Sample 1274 1750 4211 1376 4512 2936 3319 4051 4362
Iron 14 10 16 8 13 16 13 9 17 (ELEVATED FROM ESTER BASED OIL CLEANING)
Chrom 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1
Lead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Copper 187 75 114 40 13 6 4 4 98 (part of add pack, usually around 200 in VOA)
Tin 0 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Alum 5 6 6 0 3 2 4 2 3 (ELEVATED IN SYNCH WITH IRON, PISTON, CYLINDER, AND CHAIN CLEANING)
Nickel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Silver 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sil 59 19 10 5 3 3 4 3
Boron 6 154 28 5 52 18 47 36 5
Sodium 0 0 0 3 5 11 7 13 20
Magni 19 13 473 94 20 9 606 577 117
Calc 1706 2027 1931 3328 1843 1730 1282 1000 2726
Barium 0 0 0 0 0 85 15 1 0
Phos 944 935 1006 1425 753 1428 1008 1013 1390
Zinc 1044 1050 1115 1454 948 875 1102 1043 1600
Moly 100 48 9 2 0 1 2 3 0
Titan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Van 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Potas 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 1390
Antim 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 111
Fuel% Visc @100c cst 9.06 8.59 10.87 12.8 11.73 11.68 11.9 12.8 13.2
Water% NA NA NA Coolant NO NO NO NO NO Soot N/A N/A N/A TBN 4.84 5.14 6.04 9.48 3.25 4.79 3.83 6.1 7.4

Nitr N/A N/A N/A 15 NA 19 11 12
Oxid N/A N/A N/A 11 NA 20 20 138 (STARTS AT 154, COMMON WITH ESTER BASED OILS)
Flash 380 260 (STARTES AT 375 CLOSED CUP, 428 OPEN CUB)
TAN 3.24 NOT DETECTABLE DUE TO COLOR OF OIL FROM CLEANING
VI 166 (starts at 167) 189 (STARTS AT 189)

Dyson anlaysis. Fuel was no doubt from the excessively low temps this winter so far. Im rather impressed, thought FE would be higher from the cleaning. Will be sampling at 6K, but not draining unless directed from analysis.

 

[Pablo]

Cleaning? Your engine is probably VERY clean with those oils and the very short OCI's. I mean I understand the point you are trying to make, but really looks like metals levels are bouncing around (at a relatively low level other than Cu) without any regard to oil choice.

 

[dnewton3]

Some of that stuff is bouncing around so much you can't hardly make sense of it, statistically speaking.

If nothing else, it does show that a consistent approach of inconsistent lubricant choice probably means little to the engine; hence, the API certification statement that oils can be mixed with little to no concern for adverse effects.

One thing that this approach makes very clear, and the reason I'm not a fan of high-dollar expensive lubes, is the fact that some oils have add-packs that really muddy the waters, so to speak.

Look at the Cu; it's just one example, but let's focus on this for the sake of my point. Your Cu was initially high, but we can attribute that to break-in and cleaning of residual "loose stuff", shall we say. You were developing a nice downward trend, even though you were using different lubes each time. Eventually you were down into single digits for three consequtive UOAs. Then the RL goes in, and Cu goes through the roof. I do understand that it's part of the "add pack", but you've just masked any hope of seeing an "event". The Cu had settled down to nice low numbers; now they're greatly elevated again.

If something truly undesireable were to happen (some type of contamination that gouged a particle out and created damage in a bearing), how would you know? Your Cu WAS down in the single digits. If you experienced a catastrophic change, and went from 4ppm to 20ppm, that would be a 500% increase, and a signal that something was wrong. But now, that 20ppm is only 10% of your (presumed) new average. What would have been a very clear indication of change is now only a blip on the map, and likely will be dismissed as "noise".

Further, you comment on the "cleaning" of the add pack in regard to Fe, but look at the numbers as a whole trend. You have no ability to rightly call the 17ppm a "cleaning"; that magnitude does not represent any statistically meaningful shift in the range. Six of your nine samples were in the "teens"; I don't know that you can fairly claim any more "cleaning" of Fe than those preceeding samples. The magnitude is reasonbly within conceptual probability (even though there are only 9 samples total). The shift in Fe went down, up, down, up, up, down, down, up; all with no huge change. If you had eight UOA Fe readings of single digits, and then went to 17ppm, I'd say "yes" there was a range shift. But your AVERAGE is almost 13ppm, and you're almost within one standard deviation at 17ppm. (Again, 9 samples is too small to make an honest trend/range analysis, but it's at least more than most people start with ...). You cannot fairly claim that the RL is doing any great "ester based oil cleaning" job; the data just does not support that conclusion.

This is why I'm not a fan of ultra expensive lubes with huge, odd-ball add-packs. They greatly mask unforseen events, and by the time you might actually discover them, it's probably too late.

Not that this engine is in trouble; probably far from it. But my point is that, with this approach, how would you know if it was??????

 

[addyguy]

Potassium = 1390???

Wouldn't that indicate a major A/F leak???

Agree with Pablo - with the oils you've used, there is no 'cleaning' going on here. RLi just explains away bad wear numbers by saying the oil is 'cleaning' - very clever tactic!

Still, love the add-pack in that oil - 1600 Zn!

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
Agree with Pablo - with the oils you've used, there is no 'cleaning' going on here. RLi just explains away bad wear numbers by saying the oil is 'cleaning' - very clever tactic!


This is the same concern as arose time and again in this long thread this past September. This is a UOA of RLI 0W30 on Built Well's Camry.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/1604931/

Playing devil's advocate in defense of RLI maybe 'cleaning' isnt the best word to use, maybe something like...chemical leaching is more applicable?. And often isn't the advice when using such an oil with lots of esters is too stick with it for at least 2 OCIs to get a 'true' picture? But the problems is 'we' chicken out after seeing the UOA of the fist run.

 

[benjamming]

Were all UOAs from Dyson or were other labs such as Blackstone involved in prior UOAs? It would appear other labs did the earlier UOAs from the fuel % data. You can't (easily) compare wear numbers from Dyson's lab to most other labs due to Rotrode spectroscopy detecting ~ 2x particle size. For this reason, I don't post analysis from Dyson & other labs (Blackstone is my choice) together even on the same vehicle and/or oil as it can be very misleading.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Some of that stuff is bouncing around so much you can't hardly make sense of it, statistically speaking.

If nothing else, it does show that a consistent approach of inconsistent lubricant choice probably means little to the engine; hence, the API certification statement that oils can be mixed with little to no concern for adverse effects.

One thing that this approach makes very clear, and the reason I'm not a fan of high-dollar expensive lubes, is the fact that some oils have add-packs that really muddy the waters, so to speak.

Look at the Cu; it's just one example, but let's focus on this for the sake of my point. Your Cu was initially high, but we can attribute that to break-in and cleaning of residual "loose stuff", shall we say. You were developing a nice downward trend, even though you were using different lubes each time. Eventually you were down into single digits for three consequtive UOAs. Then the RL goes in, and Cu goes through the roof. I do understand that it's part of the "add pack", but you've just masked any hope of seeing an "event". The Cu had settled down to nice low numbers; now they're greatly elevated again.

If something truly undesireable were to happen (some type of contamination that gouged a particle out and created damage in a bearing), how would you know? Your Cu WAS down in the single digits. If you experienced a catastrophic change, and went from 4ppm to 20ppm, that would be a 500% increase, and a signal that something was wrong. But now, that 20ppm is only 10% of your (presumed) new average. What would have been a very clear indication of change is now only a blip on the map, and likely will be dismissed as "noise".

Further, you comment on the "cleaning" of the add pack in regard to Fe, but look at the numbers as a whole trend. You have no ability to rightly call the 17ppm a "cleaning"; that magnitude does not represent any statistically meaningful shift in the range. Six of your nine samples were in the "teens"; I don't know that you can fairly claim any more "cleaning" of Fe than those preceeding samples. The magnitude is reasonbly within conceptual probability (even though there are only 9 samples total). The shift in Fe went down, up, down, up, up, down, down, up; all with no huge change. If you had eight UOA Fe readings of single digits, and then went to 17ppm, I'd say "yes" there was a range shift. But your AVERAGE is almost 13ppm, and you're almost within one standard deviation at 17ppm. (Again, 9 samples is too small to make an honest trend/range analysis, but it's at least more than most people start with ...). You cannot fairly claim that the RL is doing any great "ester based oil cleaning" job; the data just does not support that conclusion.

This is why I'm not a fan of ultra expensive lubes with huge, odd-ball add-packs. They greatly mask unforseen events, and by the time you might actually discover them, it's probably too late.

Not that this engine is in trouble; probably far from it. But my point is that, with this approach, how would you know if it was??????


I agree with what you're saying. No disrespect to the OP but I see no value in the RLI oils. Each time I see one of their reports I just backs up my opinion of the product. I think Amsoil and Red Line would give more bang for the buck and for less money. JMO

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I do understand that it's part of the "add pack"


It's a trait of the highly polar ester base oils, and will stabilize if given the chance. Esters compete with the oxidation layer.

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT

It's a trait of the highly polar ester base oils, and will stabilize if given the chance.


And there's the rub. How long to reach a steady state given say...one has previously used quality 'conventional' synthetics in the engine in question? 2 or 3 or 4 OCIs?

 

[Gator]

Is it just me being a rookie or did the Rotella t syn look the best. It had the highest TBN even though it was ran the shortest still a very high #. The roteela also had more Phos and Zinc and more cleaning. The red line had a little more zinc but for the cost to me the rotella syn gets you the most for your dollar.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: Gator
Is it just me being a rookie or did the Rotella t syn look the best. It had the highest TBN even though it was ran the shortest still a very high #. The roteela also had more Phos and Zinc and more cleaning. The red line had a little more zinc but for the cost to me the rotella syn gets you the most for your dollar.


Comparing UOAs back-to-back without trending tells you nothing.

This isn't Redline oil, it's Renewable Lubricants Inc.

http://www.renewablelube.com/

 

[dnewton3]

I'll admit I made the mental jump to Red Line, versus Renewable Lubricant's, probably in haste.

OTOH, it does not change my comments about the results. The Cu is heavily masked; the Fe isn't being "cleaned" compared to the other UOAs.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The Cu is heavily masked; the Fe isn't being "cleaned" compared to the other UOAs.


Fe isn't being cleaned compared to the other UOAs? Based on what?

 

[Gator]

about every post I have been in on the same thoery's always comes up, my opinion on oils and here again I am a rookie, I feel like a name brand oil with a good long reputation has to be doing something right meaning a good base oil and a good additiive package, well the diesel oils, dello, rotella, delvac all have more zinc, phos, and more cleaning additives which results in a higher tbn for longer OCI or just plain better oil at the end of 7,500 miles. The only downfall to these HDEO oils to me is the higher viscosity which can be avoided with synthetic or if you are like me and you have older vehicles that is well worn i dont think there is alot of difference in a 10w40 or a 15w40. I have collected data on just about every UOA posted here unless it is a oil that I no is too expensive or is not sold in my local stores and the HDEO oils always show better additive packs, I no there is way more to it that so can someone tell me what I need to looking at since I get the idea from this site that I my opinion is wrong.

 

[Nederlander75]

Keep in mind these are the interpretations of a well known professional. Only the last 2 UOAs are Dyson, however, there will still be value in the previous UOAs even if not from the same lab. All previous are OAI and all labs appear consistent under a due diligence test for reasonableness. I do agree at this time that the wear prevention alone does not justify the cost of this oil. I am also looking at max extended drains along with max mitigation of intake deposits. As much as I love changing oil and working on the cars I dont have time anymore with my career, family, social life, dogs, etc. I am also tired waisting money on cars every 2 years and love this car.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The Cu is heavily masked; the Fe isn't being "cleaned" compared to the other UOAs.


Fe isn't being cleaned compared to the other UOAs? Based on what?


Based upon the statistical analysis of the numbers, as I previously explained.

Granted, 9 samples is small for a true statistical review, but at least there is some amount of data to work with. The mean is nearly 13ppm. The last data point of 17ppm is very near one standard deviation. That is WELL within a control concept, and shows that that nothing is "new" to the process. There is no more cleaning of Fe going on that any other sample in the data. There were two data points of magnitude 16 a few samples back. Six of the nine samples were in the magnitude of "-teens". But somehow 17 is a magical number and should be attributed to the lube doing a wonderful cleaning job? I don't think so!

I do feel qualified (as a statistical process quality control engineer) to challenge the rationale of the "ester based oil cleaning" comment, based upon the data. It's unclear to me whether the OP made the "ester based oil cleaning" comment via his own assumption, or did Terry supplant the information? I'd like to know just who made the actual statement. Nederlander75, did Dyson tell you that there is specific cleaning going on, or did you make an assumption? Either way, it does not dissuade me from my comments; just curious about the origin of the statement.

There is no statistically significant, special Fe cleaning going on in that last sample, attributed to the lube, more than the other lubes previously used, period.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT

It's a trait of the highly polar ester base oils, and will stabilize if given the chance.


And there's the rub. How long to reach a steady state given say...one has previously used quality 'conventional' synthetics in the engine in question? 2 or 3 or 4 OCIs?


We've seen this before with some engine when a switch is made to something like Redline. It will kick off any free copper or Pb ..anything really. It can last an OCI or two. It didn't happen in every engine, but enough to validate the reaction to the way over additized AW package.

That's why you don't "switch hit" on oils if you're expecting to glean much in terms of metal numbers on UOA. At least not from our end of the knowledge bank scale. You're looking for trends. I imagine that Terry can factor the +/- of things a bit better than any of us.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
It's unclear to me whether the OP made the "ester based oil cleaning" comment via his own assumption, or did Terry supplant the information?


I thought it was pretty clear it was based on Terry's comments, and a known variable regarding the nature of ester-based lubricants.

In reality, the ester cleaning could have elevated wear numbers above the mean, and once settled off, could provide the lowest wear numbers yet. There are factors I believe you are overlooking here.

 

[dnewton3]

I'd like to hear from the OP directly regarding the "cleaning" comment.

I don't disagree that the RLI could be cleaning. But it's certainly not cleaning any "better" than many of the previous loads.

One of two likely scenarios exist (or a blend of these two):
1) The RLI just does not clean that much better than the other brands used
2) There isn't much to clean up, because there wasn't much to start with, showing how well the other brands did before it.

Either way, I didn't overlook anything.

Again, there is not near as much data as I would like, but you can't "overlook" the fact that the highest magnitude data (17ppm) is basically only one standard deviation outside of the mean. It takes three standard deviations to be considered "abnormal" or "out of control". Therefore, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that the RLI is doing anything significantly different (ie - it's not "cleaning" any "better" than the other products). At this point, anything around one standard deviation is WELL WITHIN "normal" variation.

 

[Nederlander75]

The interpretation would have been from the analyst. Not much to clean probably do to the constant change in add packs stripping each other from the internals. The spike could have been anomalous.