Recent Topics
2018 Mazda 3 SkyActive 2.0
by wolf_06. 01/20/19 12:41 AM
Kendall nitro 70
by Bullwinkle007. 01/19/19 11:11 PM
Dexron HP
by Snagglefoot. 01/19/19 11:11 PM
Ruger American 22 Mag
by TiredTrucker. 01/19/19 11:06 PM
Prestone Dex Cool vs Carquest Dexcool
by A_User55555. 01/19/19 11:05 PM
FRAM end cap differences EG and TG vs XG
by wemay. 01/19/19 09:25 PM
Valvoline modern Engine
by Pinoak. 01/19/19 09:02 PM
30 Vintage Photos
by StevieC. 01/19/19 08:23 PM
Low mileage, when to change oil?
by Metfanant. 01/19/19 08:05 PM
Filter with bypass when OEM has built-in bypass
by rubberchicken. 01/19/19 07:43 PM
Barrett Jackson 2019 Pics
by Nick1994. 01/19/19 05:41 PM
What do y'all do with old car parts?
by qdeezie. 01/19/19 05:11 PM
Diagnosing catalytic converters.
by Tlhfirelion. 01/19/19 04:20 PM
Oil recommendations for GM Vortec 8100
by Dudemanmaximus. 01/19/19 04:14 PM
Leaf Spring Questions- Lots of Questions
by George7941. 01/19/19 04:02 PM
Am I being out of line?
by Chris142. 01/19/19 04:00 PM
Some good modern rock songs
by 53' Stude. 01/19/19 03:51 PM
06 Pathfinder O2 sensor voltage sensor 1
by Bluestream. 01/19/19 03:50 PM
Newest Members
dougway, Jetsfan421, Fordman420, 72sbc, ejmiller
66982 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
43 registered members (928, avacado11, A_User55555, clinebarger, bdcardinal, BLND1, 1 invisible), 1,117 guests, and 31 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics296,863
Posts4,960,353
Members66,982
Most Online2,688
Jan 19th, 2019
Donate to BITOG
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: HTSS_TR] #2783154
10/25/12 08:47 AM
10/25/12 08:47 AM
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 121
Winnipeg Manitoba
DanMiller Offline
DanMiller  Offline
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 121
Winnipeg Manitoba
Interesting, I would have thought changing the filter would be good. I have never heard that the filters become more efficient
I would assume you guys are taking about a higher quality filter.

Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3] #2783166
10/25/12 08:56 AM
10/25/12 08:56 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,715
Indianapolis, IN
dnewton3 Offline OP
dnewton3  Offline OP
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,715
Indianapolis, IN
Actually, just about any filter will become "better" with age.

Now - first we have to exclude situations where filters are used TOO far, or are WAY too old.

But in "normal" use, just about any filter increases it's efficiency. Simple explanation; as the media loads up, it closes down the pore size to ever tighter openings, thus reducing the size of particle that can pass through the next time. It's a self-fulfilling prophesey; the more it traps, the smaller particle it can trap, which goes round and round ...

Only if the media were to become blinded off to a point where th bypass were to open frequnelty/always, would there be an issue. That is typcially much further out than folks think.

Ironically, we are programmed as a society to always think that "new" is "better". In some examples, I would completely agree with that. "Newer" engine designs certainly are "better"; they run cleaner, get better fuel economy, and have more power density per displacement. And "newer" oils are also "better"; oils that are made today have stronger add-packs, and more robust base stocks due to refining and manufacturing capabilities.

But dumping in "new" engine oil and putting on a "new" filter (say every 3k miles versus every 7.5k miles) really does not achieve what folks think it does. As oil ages in the crankcase, and filters catch more particulate, they both actually improve as the miles pass.

And that is particularlly what this article shows. Between the SAE studies, and my data bank evidence of many thousands of UOAs, wear rates actually do go down as the lube system matures. It is beneficial to leave the oil in place as long as practical; there is litte benefit to changing oil often on some blind-obedience schedule.

Last edited by dnewton3; 10/25/12 08:59 AM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3] #2783583
10/25/12 03:26 PM
10/25/12 03:26 PM
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 121
Winnipeg Manitoba
DanMiller Offline
DanMiller  Offline
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 121
Winnipeg Manitoba
Interesting your explaination makes alot of sense, have there been any studies that back this up ? I would be interested to read them ( not that I don't believe you ).

Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3] #2784008
10/26/12 03:39 AM
10/26/12 03:39 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,715
Indianapolis, IN
dnewton3 Offline OP
dnewton3  Offline OP
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,715
Indianapolis, IN
Plenty of studies in the SAE catalog; go to their site and buy what you will. I have purchased many over the years.


The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3] #2793295
11/05/12 04:56 AM
11/05/12 04:56 AM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 555
MA
fpracha Offline
fpracha  Offline
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 555
MA
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
But dumping in "new" engine oil and putting on a "new" filter (say every 3k miles versus every 7.5k miles) really does not achieve what folks think it does. As oil ages in the crankcase, and filters catch more particulate, they both actually improve as the miles pass.

And that is particularlly what this article shows. Between the SAE studies, and my data bank evidence of many thousands of UOAs, wear rates actually do go down as the lube system matures. It is beneficial to leave the oil in place as long as practical; there is litte benefit to changing oil often on some blind-obedience schedule.
Incredible revelations and thanks for your scientific writeup!
So for the sake of an engine's operating efficiency, in your experience, is your article also proving that "as thin as possible" is the best oil to use in an engine ?
or is it so that such a conclusion cannot be drawn from your collective data and SAE research papers?

Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3] #2793326
11/05/12 06:17 AM
11/05/12 06:17 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,715
Indianapolis, IN
dnewton3 Offline OP
dnewton3  Offline OP
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,715
Indianapolis, IN
The SAE paper (2007-01-4133) specifically notes that there is a vis increase, and that increase is non-detrimental at the valve train. However, it also acknowledges the concerns of fuel economy from parasitic drag in the cylinder, where surface area affected by vis is much greater than at the valve train.

In short, it's a balancing act.

The thing I'm trying to get across to people is that shorter OCIs generally are a total waste of money. You don't "gain" any wear reduction; you actually increase wear in shorter OCIs. While it may be counter-intuitive to the layman, it makes sense when you see the studies and data.

There are certainly times when shorter OCIs are warranted; heavy contamination or sludge. But those are not nearly as common as some believe, and I have always excluded such examples from my generalizations. I would NEVER suggest extending an OCI when there is a known problem that cannot be mitigated without phsical intervention, or stalling with OCI frequency. And that is really what it's all about; you have to KNOW your equipment, and your lubes, to really understand what is good/bad decision wise. Too many people here blindly take a "kitchen sink" approach; they throw everything at the lube interval (short OCIs, syns) and call it "good" and they have no idea how define acceptable condemnation limits, and are unaware of how far out even conventional lubes can successfully go.

As I've said (and it's in my signature line) ...
ANY lube can be over or under utilized.

Last edited by dnewton3; 11/05/12 06:18 AM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3] #2795488
11/07/12 10:41 AM
11/07/12 10:41 AM
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,032
Kendall, FL
wemay Offline
wemay  Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,032
Kendall, FL
Fantastic article, thanks for sharing.

This is why i use Mobil Super 5000 or PYB 5W30 conventional in my Mitsu Lancer Ralliart Turbo. The vehicle is a daily driver (no modifications, no track use, very rare spirited drive). Now, because it is a turbo, and under powertrain warranty, i subscribe to a 3750 f/oci. There are huge battles on the Turbo forums between conventional vs synthetic oil users. I am not saying that conventional is better, it isn't. But also isnt neccesary for my application, oci or driving style. Mitsubishi and all the major oil giants list conventional 5w30 as the requied oil. I just make sure it meets API SN, GF-5 ILSAC.


Again, thanks for sharing.

Last edited by wemay; 11/07/12 10:45 AM.

18 Sportage 2.4L AWD:
Now: M1AP 5/20 + M1
Next: QSUD 5/30

13 Santa Fe Sport 2.0T:
Now: PPEuroL 5/30 + OEM
Next: EDGE 5/40
Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3] #2796242
11/08/12 02:24 AM
11/08/12 02:24 AM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 26,367
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Garak Offline
Garak  Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 26,367
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Dave, I was doing some thinking about the deposition of anti-wear films with respect to the oils we see now compared to what was seen a couple decades ago. Now we see that the anti-wear protection does better much further into the OCI. I'm wondering how much of that is due to the lower ZDDP oils we see. Also, we certainly see some very high ZDDP applications for break in lubes. I'm just wondering how things might have compared back in the day, with, of course, some consideration of the fact that oils were much poorer back then, too.

As an aside, I do think we place too much stock into how much ZDDP was in the older oils. Some certainly had some high levels, but a lot of them (check Blackstone's articles) had the same as PCMOs today, or even much less. Back then, ZDDP content was a bit of a gamble, even with the top brand oils. Today, at least, you know you're going to get in the neighbourhood of 750 ppm, with few exceptions.

Just because the phosphorous limits didn't exist back then didn't mean oil companies made sure all oils had 1400 ppm ZDDP, either.


Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 - Shell ROTELLA T6 Multi-Vehicle 5w-30, NAPA Gold 7356
1984 F-150 4.9L - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515
Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3] #2796282
11/08/12 05:13 AM
11/08/12 05:13 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,715
Indianapolis, IN
dnewton3 Offline OP
dnewton3  Offline OP
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,715
Indianapolis, IN
When reading the SAE study they mention there are actually several different types of ZDDP compounds that can be used. The chemical make-up of the ZDDP does indeed affect the anti-wear layers. It also disucsses the affects of detergent packages reacting with the ZDDP and having a negative affect on the anti-wear layer.

Ryan Start (Blackstone) ran an oil in his truck that had zero ZDDP whatsoever; the package was formulated in alternative ways. I think it was an aero-oil, IIRC. Anyway - after a couple short OCIs, there was no abnormal wear due to the lack of ZDDP. The wear that was present was due to two things:
1) the old 350 GM simply is a high-wear engine to begin with (see proof in my article)
2) the engine was a new rebuild - break in was occuring

So the "need" for ZDDP is greatly overblown in his opinion, and in mine. Wear can be attenuated by a large multitude of methods; ZDDP is just one of them. And while "ZDDP" is a description of an anti-wear additive, it tells us nothing of the actual sub-chemical composition. The nuiances really matter, as to the formation (or destruction) of the anti-wear layer.


Of course, getting the bulk of BITOGers to acknowledge this is difficult. And getting them to actually agree to it is nearly impossible. Regardless of how much proof (SAE study and Stark's example) one lays down. The oil bigotry runs deep here; long, wide and deep. Despite the facts.

Last edited by dnewton3; 11/08/12 05:16 AM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3] #2796466
11/08/12 09:42 AM
11/08/12 09:42 AM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 26,367
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Garak Offline
Garak  Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 26,367
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Well, one thing about the old small blocks, you could throw all the ZDDP at them you wanted to, of whatever chemical makeup, and it would eat cams anyhow. wink

As for detergent packages, I suppose that's one reason why certain racing oils have little to no detergent and a boat load of zinc. As for me, I'd rather run an oil with some ZDDP (as opposed to some aero oil), but I'm not seeing the ZDDP levels of older oils with rose tinted glasses, either. The only "dated" oils I can think of that would have guaranteed high levels of ZDDP were some of the older spec dual rated HDEOs. For the rest, oil companies figured out long ago they could cut phosphorous from the oil and save some cash without API/ILSAC telling them to do so.


Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 - Shell ROTELLA T6 Multi-Vehicle 5w-30, NAPA Gold 7356
1984 F-150 4.9L - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515
Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3] #2819033
11/30/12 09:37 AM
11/30/12 09:37 AM
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 504
Connecticut
Sam_Julier Offline
Sam_Julier  Offline
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 504
Connecticut
David, My sincere appreciation for your efforts in preparing this article. Would it be possible to post a pdf of this article? Printing from the home page of the site produces screened typeface which is difficult to read. Thank you.


2013 Toyota Avalon Hybrid TGMO 0W20, 66k
1993 Volvo 245 M1 HM 10W30, 153k
1993 Volvo 244 T6 5W40, 160k

Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3] #2875734
01/18/13 06:07 PM
01/18/13 06:07 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,328
Omaha, NE
zerosoma Offline
zerosoma  Offline
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,328
Omaha, NE
So, barring any problems with the engine - and I KNOW each case is different, but just for the sake of a blanket statement, a guy could run a conventional out to typical synthetic oci's (~10k range) without much cause for concern, pending that his engine was in good shape and the oil was a name brand...?


2002 Toyota Solara 3.0L V6 (227k) - Havoline DS 10w30
2002 Lexus RX300 (183K) - Havoline Synthetic 5w30
Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3] #2912295
02/19/13 01:18 PM
02/19/13 01:18 PM
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 18
CA, USA
Stubb Offline
Stubb  Offline
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 18
CA, USA
I am very interested in the "wear versus miles" analysis you performed, as a misunderstanding of this can be the basis for claims about oil quality and wear. From looking at your data presented, it seems that you could perform a regression analysis on your data to model the slope. This may provide a "wear rate" that is informative and distinguishing among oils or applications. This might also define an endpoint for an oil by identifying an inversion point on the slope. Further, examination of short-interval data across multiple changes (a paired analysis of data) may show an average initial rate due to tribochemical reaction with the new material. If this is truly wear (the metal has to come from somewhere) it would seem that a goal of lubricant design would be to reduce that initial wear rate.

Re: UOA article - what is "normal" [Re: dnewton3] #3139690
09/29/13 05:23 PM
09/29/13 05:23 PM
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,131
upstate NY
dustyroads Offline
dustyroads  Offline
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,131
upstate NY
I read your article late last year when I had just found this site and knew very little about the things we discuss on bitog. I just read it again and have much more appreciation for it now. I plan to make use of the info (the best I can), although I still have a lot to learn.

Thanks Dave !


2013 F150 XLT 5.0 4X4 104k miles
Edge 5W-30 / Fram 10575
Page 2 of 2 1 2

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™