Originally Posted By: Ponch
Now,...something tells me that if I ran Amsoil afterwards that I would get a copper spike? My question is why?
Simple. Some premium synthetics use additive pacakges that encourage and promote chemical reaction of the package with Cu alloys in the lube system.
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/646/copper-diesel-engine-oil
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/1290/synthetic-conventional-oils
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/2021/synthetic-oil
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/23715/conventional-vs-synthetic-oil
And so on, and so on ... Each of those articles will link to yet more interesting articles. I would freely admit that Noria and their Machinery Lubrication publication are not the only source of info, and I don't always agree with 100% of their info, but I do find myself in agreement with them almost all the time. They take a very balanced, "total maintenance program" approach. Fitch, in particular, does a good job of describing items in small, consumable articles. And typically they will address both the pros and cons of any topic.
Why would you likely get a Cu spike if switching to Amsoil?
1) there is apprently enough Cu based alloys in the system to offer up enough surface area
2) Amsoil (and others) have chemistry packages that react with that available material surface area
Further, if you read in some of those articles, once the reaction "normalizes" and comes down, any other change in brand/chemistry will probably set off the Cu spike yet again after the "varnish" is challenged by another chemistry change. To quote Fitch:
"...
Even after the varnish coating forms, a change in oil chemistry can lead to its sudden removal and a return to high copper readings."
So, in effect, you might get a "double dose" of Cu spikes if you ever choose to move away from the fluid. Use Amsoil/RL/RP and you'll likely see a spike in the Dmax Cu, and then if you choose to stop using them, you may see a spike yet again. I will note that this is a risk with ANY product change, and it's been noted by Cummins in some of their articles as well. However, the issue is "David vs Goliath" changes. Switching from one dino oil to another dino oil make spike the Cu by 25% or 50% for one OCI. Switching from a dino to Amsoil might show ppm counts elevate on a factor of 30x, 50x, 100x. Yikes! I once saw a Dmax UOA with more than 900ppm of Cu from the "chemistry" change. For reference, the typical average is 10ppm according to Blackstone ...
Also, there is an article that explains how Fe and Cu will at times be sympathetic. If the Cu spikes 100x (600ppm versus 6ppm), Fe might see a spike of 5x or 10x. This is a lower percentage of events, but it does happen, and indicates that there are times when Cu is not the only metal to be in play. The data is unclear if the Fe reaction is directly related to the chemistry, or a byproduct of high Cu counts (which is why Fitch states that high Cu cannot be considered "benign"). Fitch points out that a UOA only sees about 7% of the metals in the visible spectrum.
What I'm saying, and what Fitch confirms with his 30,000 UOAs in diesel applications, is that high Cu has not been proven to be benign, and almost will certainly mask other actual wear events that would otherwise be evident.
I'm not saying now, nor have I ever, that Amsoil (or RL or RP) will result in assured engine destruction. I don't believe that for a second. There are plenty of Dmax users that have many multiple thousands of miles with successful use of Amsoil and great UOAs. But they may have endured a lot of "risk" on the way to get to that point. "Risks" are not an assurance of terrible things happening, but an acknowledgement of potential for undesirable events.
* there is no proof that this Cu reaction is benign, or detrimental (the risk is that data does not show this to be desirable)
* there is very high likelyhood that high Cu spikes will mask other wear events, should they occur, because of the magnitude of many of these "reactions" (the risk is you won't see other problems develop)
* these reactions often take several OCIs to "normalize" (the risk is the cost of several expensive OCIs before data returns to "average" range)
* the "reaction" may also occur when moving away from these fluids, exposing your UOAs to yet another onslaught of skewed data (repeated risk of potential for masked data)
* there are times when these high Cu counts are also seen with elevated Fe counts (risk of sympathetic wear metal counts, which may also mask other wear events)
If one has a Dmax, is that worth the risk of using Amsoil/RL/RP? That is up to the individual.
