Mobil 1 0W30 AFE 7014 Miles 06 Toyota Tacoma V6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: qnyla
Where is ANY data on this engine being run this long on dino oil?


In my database of UOAs, which numbers in the thousands upon many thousands. From sources such as Blackstone, Polaris, Cat, and others, as well as many local and regional analysis services. I have data from a LARGE multitude of applications; from gassers, diesels, nat-gas, propane, tractors, trucks, taxis, police cars, grocery-getters, gen-sets, gearboxes, motorcycles, compressors (reciprocating and scroll), transmissions, etc, etc.

Also, please read this. You'll get a much better understanding why I'm so adamant, (or as you call me, "condescending"):
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
As you can see, it is not an anomaly to find evidence that engines wear less as the OCI is pushed out. Further, there is plenty of evidence that shows it's done on dino fluids, by those who truly understand the whys and wherefores of the real pragmatic use of UOAs. While I didn't put your 4.0L engine in that article, I have the data to support my claims.


My apologies if I angered you; was not my intent. But that does not make me wrong.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3


Also, please read this. You'll get a much better understanding why I'm so adamant, (or as you call me, "condescending"):
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
As you can see, it is not an anomaly to find evidence that engines wear less as the OCI is pushed out. Further, there is plenty of evidence that shows it's done on dino fluids, by those who truly understand the whys and wherefores of the real pragmatic use of UOAs. While I didn't put your 4.0L engine in that article, I have the data to support my claims.


My apologies if I angered you; was not my intent. But that does not make me wrong.


You are condescending because of your use of offensive language, not because you are adamant.

You don't seem to get it. I did not say you were wrong. I am not arguing with you about OCI length, nor that engines wear less as the OCI is pushed out. I am quite aware of that. Despite being told more than once, you just can't seem to understand that the 7k OCI in the report was an unusually short OCI, done with intent to be able to quantify 1:1 a comparison to my normal oil at the same OCI, even though it was short. Furthermore, you don't seem to understand that I do not care about that trivial difference in cost of the synthetic vs dino oil. If you want to optimize the ROI on your oil, go ahead. I am trying to make the engine last as long as possible. I have seen people run dino for 10-12k OCI repeatedly, and they got a sludged up mess.

Show a report from a dino run copy of that engine at anywhere near that mileage with a 10k average OCI. Saying you have it in your files does not count for much.
 
Originally Posted By: qnyla
Show a report from a dino run copy of that engine at anywhere near that mileage with a 10k average OCI. Saying you have it in your files does not count for much.


Mr. Stark, of Blackstone Labs, routinely runs his Tacoma out to 9k miles. I quote him:
"Toyota engines don’t make much metal under any circumstances, and for the near 100,000-miles I have driven this truck, I’ve never seen as much as 1 ppm lead in the oil from the bearings. Typically I change oil every 9,000 miles."

He also ran a little experiment to see how much difference "severe" service made in real wear. Pulling a trailer all the way out to the west coast; running WOT for long uphill pulls; etc. " ... though I don’t hesitate to bump redline often...like nearly every time I drive."
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/Newsletters/Gas-Diesel/March-1-2011.php
The "severe" use made no difference whatsoever.

After almost 100k miles of 9k mile OCIs, and a "severe" trip that amounted to no shift whatsoever in wear, his engine is not sludged up, nor has it seized. His engine is not wearing adversely. All on dino oil.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: qnyla
Show a report from a dino run copy of that engine at anywhere near that mileage with a 10k average OCI. Saying you have it in your files does not count for much.


Mr. Stark, of Blackstone Labs, routinely runs his Tacoma out to 9k miles. I quote him:
"Toyota engines don’t make much metal under any circumstances, and for the near 100,000-miles I have driven this truck, I’ve never seen as much as 1 ppm lead in the oil from the bearings. Typically I change oil every 9,000 miles."

He also ran a little experiment to see how much difference "severe" service made in real wear. Pulling a trailer all the way out to the west coast; running WOT for long uphill pulls; etc. " ... though I don’t hesitate to bump redline often...like nearly every time I drive."
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/Newsletters/Gas-Diesel/March-1-2011.php
The "severe" use made no difference whatsoever.

After almost 100k miles of 9k mile OCIs, and a "severe" trip that amounted to no shift whatsoever in wear, his engine is not sludged up, nor has it seized. His engine is not wearing adversely. All on dino oil.





Is it varnish-free under the valve cover though?
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: qnyla
Show a report from a dino run copy of that engine at anywhere near that mileage with a 10k average OCI. Saying you have it in your files does not count for much.


Mr. Stark, of Blackstone Labs, routinely runs his Tacoma out to 9k miles. I quote him:
"Toyota engines don’t make much metal under any circumstances, and for the near 100,000-miles I have driven this truck, I’ve never seen as much as 1 ppm lead in the oil from the bearings. Typically I change oil every 9,000 miles."

He also ran a little experiment to see how much difference "severe" service made in real wear. Pulling a trailer all the way out to the west coast; running WOT for long uphill pulls; etc. " ... though I don’t hesitate to bump redline often...like nearly every time I drive."
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/Newsletters/Gas-Diesel/March-1-2011.php
The "severe" use made no difference whatsoever.

After almost 100k miles of 9k mile OCIs, and a "severe" trip that amounted to no shift whatsoever in wear, his engine is not sludged up, nor has it seized. His engine is not wearing adversely. All on dino oil.





I didn't see where the author in the link said what oil he was using.
 
They use dino oil. I don't think they are really brand loyal, other than what they might find on sale. But you should confirm that with them.
 
All that massive data and that is what we got?

crackmeup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
They use dino oil. I don't think they are really brand loyal, other than what they might find on sale. But you should confirm that with them.


The article didn't say whether the oil was conventional or synthetic.
 
I have personally spoken with Blackstone many times. It is my understanding they use conventional lubes. Ryan has inferred the use of a particular brand at times, but as a lab service, they do not outwardly mention product names. And in fact, when I wrote my UOA testing article, he specifically asked me to remove any/all direct brand product references. That is understandable. I suspect this is true for two reasons:
1) they don't want to endorse or berate any particular brand, and get into all the legal issues thereof
2) they probably realize that there is really very little difference in performance between most brands, and therefore the minutia of such debate is moot
I say that because here is just one of many statements they make to this topic:
"It has been our experience that oil is oil."


Also, as far as what's in "print" I offer this link and quotes:
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/faq.php
"Come on, you're holding out on me. I should use synthetic, right?
Buddy, you should use whatever you want. Synthetic oil won't guarantee a longer engine life any more than my eating organic food will guarantee I'll live until I'm 90. We here at Blackstone generally use regular petroleum-based oil because honestly, it works just as well for us
." (underlined by dnewton3 for emphasis)
and this ....
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/Newsletters/Gas-Diesel/April-1-2010.php
"but then I realized that big chain stores don’t really make oil, they just buy it from a major oil company and repackage it as their own. This revelation sold my father on Wal-Mart’s Super Tech oil ... Since then I have never really settled on one brand. ... so I switch on a regular basis and I mostly go with what's on sale."
(underlined by dnewton3 for emphasis; referring to Jim, Ryan's father)

Let me ask you this: how many of you have actually toured their facility? How many of you have written two articles in collaboration with Blackstone? In no way am I an expert in Blackstone trivia, nor am I a Blackstone representative. But I think I've gathered enough info in direct work with them to understand the general nature of position. If you doubt me, then by all means, call them up and ask Ryan!



As for my proof, I offer the expansive data in my "normalcy" article. I have tens of thousands of UOAs in my entire database. I also get many PMs each day asking "Hey - what about this engine ....". Frankly, I don't have the time or inclination to be the personal UOA consultant for every BITOG member. I do statistical process modeling and analysis for a living. My data and methodology is sound.

As for specifics to this engine, the performance of this lube is WELL WITHIN statistical performance of "normal" (dino) oils. This UOA was nothing special, and any dino oil can (and has) done this for far less money. Dino oils can easily go 15k miles in this application, including towing, as long as they are monitored for contaminant intrusion, soot, etc. If you cannot accept that, then I really can't do much to help you.


qnyla did this OCI/UOA at 7k miles for the sake of consistency; that makes sense from a perspective of attributing numbers to a common base. I cannot find fault in that. In the future, it probably would be wiser to simply sample, and keep the oil in, and only OCI if the data warranted.

But my comments are not so much directed to him but the membership at large. The lesson to learn here is that short-to-moderate OCIs almost never see tangible benefit from the use of synthetics, and there is a HUGE amount of data to prove that. This is just one more brick in the wall, so to speak.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
The lesson to learn here is that short-to-moderate OCIs almost never see tangible benefit from the use of synthetics, and there is a HUGE amount of data to prove that.


I do agree with this. Look it's not that hard to understand. Synthetic oil's main advantage is extreme temperatures - high or low. That is where they excel.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
The lesson to learn here is that short-to-moderate OCIs almost never see tangible benefit from the use of synthetics, and there is a HUGE amount of data to prove that.


I do agree with this. Look it's not that hard to understand. Synthetic oil's main advantage is extreme temperatures - high or low. That is where they excel.



I would agree with that completely. Thing is, very few folks actually operate where those temps really amount to much of a difference. It should not be stated as "extreme" but "E-X-T-R-E-M-E" temps! Cold oil temps are not adequately defined as "when the snow flies", but much more accurately such as "below -20F" where the cold flow and pumping properties really begin to show significant differences that are tangible enough to merit discussion. Further, what is really the "advantage" is simply the ability to start (turn the engine over). Wear data really doesn't show a great divergence in extreme cold. The "benefit" is in the simple ability to crank the engine, especially if it's a diesel!

And I'll add that extreme OCI extension is also a place where synthetics can excel past a dino. However, that has to be cautiously monitored, as with any OCI extension.


Which is why I state that most use of syns is a waste. Most folks don't push the oil out far enough to show a divergence in wear disparity, and they don't operate in a place e-x-t-r-e-m-e enought to make any real differnce. The data does not lie.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3


For a vehicle that has over 300+k miles on it, if he could cut his OCI costs in half, that would be a LARGE savings by now, even if only "a few cents per week".


Let's do the math to figure out the size of those savings. I'll assume that conventional oil costs $2.50 per quart, and synthetic costs $5 per quart. I'll further assume that the conventional oil is changed on a 10,000 mile basis, and the synthetic is changed on a 15,000 mile basis. That gives an oil price per mile (at 5 quarts per oil change) of $0.00125 for the conventional, and $0.001667 for the synthetic. Over a 300,000 mile vehicle lifetime, this gives a total oil cost of $375 for conventional, and $500.10 for synthetic.

Is the $125.10 total savings over the 300,000 mile life of that vehicle "LARGE"? Perhaps to some. Personally, I'm willing to pay the extra $0.0004 per mile to run synthetic, for reasons already put forth by others (extra flexibility in oil change length, extra performance margin at the hot and cold extremes, etc.)
 
The numbers are all a swag until real data is run ...
But your math is messed up ...

Using your chosen figures, here's how it worked out.
We have to add a couple of items to make it "real" in a sense.
First, any decent filter could do the 10k miles in your example, but I'm not sure if they could do a 15k mile run, so you'd probalby have to "upgrade" to a premium filter for the syn OCI. Also, we have to assign a quantity of lube; let's presmum 5 qrts sump capacity. We'll ignore make up oil; too hard to guess.


dino oil: would be 30 oil changes over that 300k miles, plus 30 filters at $4 each. Each OCI is $16.50 (represents 5 qrts oil and a filter) x 30 OCIs is total cost of $495 over that 300k miles.

syn oil: would be 20 OCIs, plus 20 filters at $8 each. Each OCI costs $33 x 20 OCIs. Total cost of $660 over the 300k miles.

The real difference would be $165 dollars. While not overtly more than yours, it is more realistic.

And I'll ask this ...

What is that $165 "more" money getting you? It's not "more" protection. UOAs prove this beyond any doubt. If you do not usurp the dino capabilities, then what are you paying for?????? You're paying for emotional satisfaction. The engine isn't "better" protected; no less wear or more dirt is accumulating.

Your money is wasted. Like it or not, you own example (while a bit shy of the real costs), does NOTHING to show how it wasn't a waste.

To break even, you'd have to stretch out the syn OCI to close to 20k miles, instead of 15k miles. And, are you 100% confident that your premium filter would go that 20k miles? Or, are you going to have to FCI before you OCI?


ROI is a game of numbers when it comes to lubes. It can aid or detract from any lube choice, regardless of base stock. Folks waste dino oils, they way syn oils. Waste is waste, regardless of the base stock.


And I'll remind you that there is ton's of data that shows 15k miles has wear rates still doing down using dino. Just because PEOPLE don't like doing it, does not make it wrong or unsafe. so you'd have to push the syn OCI out to 30k miles, JUST TO BREAK EVEN! If you choose to set an artificial limit of 10k miles on dino oil, you essentially DO HAVE a "safety margin" already in there!


Now, this is all hypothetical until it's really run. And you have to make sure you watch for other contaminants, and not just wear metals. But those limits might stall the syn before it ever gets to it's ROI ...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The numbers are all a swag until real data is run ...
But your math is messed up ...

Using your chosen figures, here's how it worked out.
We have to add a couple of items to make it "real" in a sense.
First, any decent filter could do the 10k miles in your example, but I'm not sure if they could do a 15k mile run, so you'd probalby have to "upgrade" to a premium filter for the syn OCI. Also, we have to assign a quantity of lube; let's presmum 5 qrts sump capacity. We'll ignore make up oil; too hard to guess.


dino oil: would be 30 oil changes over that 300k miles, plus 30 filters at $4 each. Each OCI is $16.50 (represents 5 qrts oil and a filter) x 30 OCIs is total cost of $495 over that 300k miles.

syn oil: would be 20 OCIs, plus 20 filters at $8 each. Each OCI costs $33 x 20 OCIs. Total cost of $660 over the 300k miles.

The real difference would be $165 dollars. While not overtly more than yours, it is more realistic.

And I'll ask this ...

What is that $165 "more" money getting you? It's not "more" protection. UOAs prove this beyond any doubt. If you do not usurp the dino capabilities, then what are you paying for?????? You're paying for emotional satisfaction. The engine isn't "better" protected; no less wear or more dirt is accumulating.

Your money is wasted. Like it or not, you own example (while a bit shy of the real costs), does NOTHING to show how it wasn't a waste.

To break even, you'd have to stretch out the syn OCI to close to 20k miles, instead of 15k miles. And, are you 100% confident that your premium filter would go that 20k miles? Or, are you going to have to FCI before you OCI?


ROI is a game of numbers when it comes to lubes. It can aid or detract from any lube choice, regardless of base stock. Folks waste dino oils, they way syn oils. Waste is waste, regardless of the base stock.


And I'll remind you that there is ton's of data that shows 15k miles has wear rates still doing down using dino. Just because PEOPLE don't like doing it, does not make it wrong or unsafe. so you'd have to push the syn OCI out to 30k miles, JUST TO BREAK EVEN! If you choose to set an artificial limit of 10k miles on dino oil, you essentially DO HAVE a "safety margin" already in there!


Now, this is all hypothetical until it's really run. And you have to make sure you watch for other contaminants, and not just wear metals. But those limits might stall the syn before it ever gets to it's ROI ...





When oil companies or auto makers research their recommended OCI's, do they rely on assumptions about anecdotal evidence and $25 UOA's or is their research more in depth?
 
Can anyone besides the original poster produce a similar 4.0l Toyota with 300,000 (plus) miles with known oil, history and intervals?
 
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
When oil companies or auto makers research their recommended OCI's, do they rely on assumptions about anecdotal evidence and $25 UOA's or is their research more in depth?


I think the engine makers, and often the lube makers, do fairly good in-depth research.

And then they promptly get over-run by lawyers and marketing folks ...

You see, the corporations actually don't care about our issues at all; none whatsoever. Rather, they care about protecting their risk exposure during warranty coverage, and nothing more. Hence the incredibly short OCIs from a few decades ago, and even the "moderate" OCIs today (out to 7.5k miles, or further with IOLM).

Think this through ...

If you have an engine that has a bit of a fuel or coolant leak, and that can be avoided by frequent OCIs, they it is MUCH easier for the OEM to require US to pay for an OCI, then for them to repair something. Right?

First of all, UOAs on warranted vehicles represent a VERY small portion of the total market. We BITOGers, while adamant in our own little world, are NOT the "norm" of society. Therefore, the vast majority of vehicles under warranty simply plunder down the road with "normal" folks using "normal" fluids, in "normal" OCIs. So the OEM goes ultra-conservative on the OCI because it costs them NOTHING for the owner to change oil.

Even if there is a fuel injector leaking, or a coolant leak, etc, they only want the potential problem flushed out so that the risk stays low. When the OCI is short enough, the flushing of the contaminant keeps the oil in a condition safe enough for continued use. It's a "fail safe" concept. And, it's grossly expensive to the owner, but not the OEM (who only has to pay for repairs during warranty).

Only if the problem were grotesquely large would they have to address it with warranty repairs. And again, since most folks in the market don't get UOAs, they'll only find these problems after a major issues is already in place.

We BITOGers are supposed to be using UOAs as tools to establish ranges and determine trends. (Although most play with them as toys and don't understand how to use them properly). Therefore, we should be able to see a problem long before it manifests into a horrendous catastrophe.

So, to counter your point, the OEMs simply do not care about your OCI costs; why would they? They ONLY care about making the product get through the warranty period with minimum risk to exposure.

Are short to moderate OCIs safe? Yes.
Are they wasteful? Yes.


Here's just one perfect example of my claims:
buy and read SAE 2007-01-4133
You can see that Ford/Conoco showed that wear was actually decreasing all the way out to 15k miles. There was nothing alarming in the lubes that prohibited the safe extension out that far. This was done with a small fleet of taxis in Las Vegas (very hot and presumably lots of idling). If there were a potential for heat-related lube failure, this would have been it. And these were run on normal Ford spec'd fluids; no super-duper syns were used. As long as the engine is healthy (no leaks or contamination, etc) then the OCIs can be extended very safely out to 15k miles. And that study is now 6 years old, and done with some oil specs that were more than 10 years old!

And yet, still to this day, the OLM limit for most Ford applications is 7.5k miles. So, do they not trust their own research? Do they not trust their own ability to manufacture good engines? Or, do you suppose, just maybe, that they simply want to protect their warranty risks (no matter how remote) because WE have to pay for the OCIs. If they had to pay for the OCIs, do you think they'd still have such conservatives OCIs when all the data shows longer ones are very safe?

And, think about UOAs from a dealer/warrantor point of view ...
What do you think would be said if you walked into the dealership service department and said this:
Sir, my 2011 Focus is experiencing an escalation of Cu and Pb by about 40% over the last two UOA samples, and I want you to pull the motor, do a tear-down analysis and find the root cause, and replace the bearings before they are totally destroyed, while it's still in warranty, please.
What do you think their answer is going to be?

What of the worst case scenario? You actually have a bearing failure significant enough that the engine seizes. The ONLY thing they are going to insist upon is checking your service records; to assure you've changed oil as frequently as they required. And did that "frequent" overly-conservative OEM OCI schedule do anything to avoid the failure? Nope.



OEM OCIs are predicated on one thing:
They are stop-gap measures put forth by lawyers and marking folks to avoid issues until warranty expires and nothing more.

While OEM and lube research suggests MUCH longer OCIs are safe, and even beneficial, the actual vehicles are still governed by ultra-conservative methods of covering one's fiscal posterior.

Today's OCIs are getting longer; that is true. That's probably an acknowledgement to the use of worldly resources. But they are still only 50% of where they could be, so there is still PLENTY of conservative waste built in.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
We BITOGers are supposed to be using UOAs as tools to establish ranges and determine trends. (Although most play with them as toys and don't understand how to use them properly). Therefore, we should be able to see a problem long before it manifests into a horrendous catastrophe.


Very true; Emphasis mine.

Quote:
...or is their research more in depth?


Their research is more much more in-depth, even to extent of using radioactive tracers to determine wear.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
When oil companies or auto makers research their recommended OCI's, do they rely on assumptions about anecdotal evidence and $25 UOA's or is their research more in depth?


I think the engine makers, and often the lube makers, do fairly good in-depth research.

And then they promptly get over-run by lawyers and marketing folks ...

You see, the corporations actually don't care about our issues at all; none whatsoever. Rather, they care about protecting their risk exposure during warranty coverage, and nothing more. Hence the incredibly short OCIs from a few decades ago, and even the "moderate" OCIs today (out to 7.5k miles, or further with IOLM).

Think this through ...

If you have an engine that has a bit of a fuel or coolant leak, and that can be avoided by frequent OCIs, they it is MUCH easier for the OEM to require US to pay for an OCI, then for them to repair something. Right?

First of all, UOAs on warranted vehicles represent a VERY small portion of the total market. We BITOGers, while adamant in our own little world, are NOT the "norm" of society. Therefore, the vast majority of vehicles under warranty simply plunder down the road with "normal" folks using "normal" fluids, in "normal" OCIs. So the OEM goes ultra-conservative on the OCI because it costs them NOTHING for the owner to change oil.

Even if there is a fuel injector leaking, or a coolant leak, etc, they only want the potential problem flushed out so that the risk stays low. When the OCI is short enough, the flushing of the contaminant keeps the oil in a condition safe enough for continued use. It's a "fail safe" concept. And, it's grossly expensive to the owner, but not the OEM (who only has to pay for repairs during warranty).

Only if the problem were grotesquely large would they have to address it with warranty repairs. And again, since most folks in the market don't get UOAs, they'll only find these problems after a major issues is already in place.

We BITOGers are supposed to be using UOAs as tools to establish ranges and determine trends. (Although most play with them as toys and don't understand how to use them properly). Therefore, we should be able to see a problem long before it manifests into a horrendous catastrophe.

So, to counter your point, the OEMs simply do not care about your OCI costs; why would they? They ONLY care about making the product get through the warranty period with minimum risk to exposure.

Are short to moderate OCIs safe? Yes.
Are they wasteful? Yes.


Here's just one perfect example of my claims:
buy and read SAE 2007-01-4133
You can see that Ford/Conoco showed that wear was actually decreasing all the way out to 15k miles. There was nothing alarming in the lubes that prohibited the safe extension out that far. This was done with a small fleet of taxis in Las Vegas (very hot and presumably lots of idling). If there were a potential for heat-related lube failure, this would have been it. And these were run on normal Ford spec'd fluids; no super-duper syns were used. As long as the engine is healthy (no leaks or contamination, etc) then the OCIs can be extended very safely out to 15k miles. And that study is now 6 years old, and done with some oil specs that were more than 10 years old!

And yet, still to this day, the OLM limit for most Ford applications is 7.5k miles. So, do they not trust their own research? Do they not trust their own ability to manufacture good engines? Or, do you suppose, just maybe, that they simply want to protect their warranty risks (no matter how remote) because WE have to pay for the OCIs. If they had to pay for the OCIs, do you think they'd still have such conservatives OCIs when all the data shows longer ones are very safe?

And, think about UOAs from a dealer/warrantor point of view ...
What do you think would be said if you walked into the dealership service department and said this:
Sir, my 2011 Focus is experiencing an escalation of Cu and Pb by about 40% over the last two UOA samples, and I want you to pull the motor, do a tear-down analysis and find the root cause, and replace the bearings before they are totally destroyed, while it's still in warranty, please.
What do you think their answer is going to be?

What of the worst case scenario? You actually have a bearing failure significant enough that the engine seizes. The ONLY thing they are going to insist upon is checking your service records; to assure you've changed oil as frequently as they required. And did that "frequent" overly-conservative OEM OCI schedule do anything to avoid the failure? Nope.



OEM OCIs are predicated on one thing:
They are stop-gap measures put forth by lawyers and marking folks to avoid issues until warranty expires and nothing more.

While OEM and lube research suggests MUCH longer OCIs are safe, and even beneficial, the actual vehicles are still governed by ultra-conservative methods of covering one's fiscal posterior.

Today's OCIs are getting longer; that is true. That's probably an acknowledgement to the use of worldly resources. But they are still only 50% of where they could be, so there is still PLENTY of conservative waste built in.


How much shorter would this post be if you took out the opinion, assumption and speculation?

So the bottom line is that it is perfectly safe to run 15k OCI's with conventional oil, and the auto makers and oil companies know this, but the CEO's of each and every one of these companies choose to side with the attorneys and marketing people (none of whom actually run a company) who don't want to let them do it despite the huge coup it would be for any auto maker or oil company. And it was all discovered and exposed by some guy on the internet who didn't do any actual research.

Whether to take advice from automotive engineers and tribologists or a guy who read some $25 UOA's is like deciding whether to have surgery performed by an actual surgeon or a guy who thinks he has read enough junior high level anatomy texts to declare himself a surgeon.
 
Originally Posted By: Samilcar
Originally Posted By: dnewton3


For a vehicle that has over 300+k miles on it, if he could cut his OCI costs in half, that would be a LARGE savings by now, even if only "a few cents per week".


Let's do the math to figure out the size of those savings. I'll assume that conventional oil costs $2.50 per quart, and synthetic costs $5 per quart. I'll further assume that the conventional oil is changed on a 10,000 mile basis, and the synthetic is changed on a 15,000 mile basis. That gives an oil price per mile (at 5 quarts per oil change) of $0.00125 for the conventional, and $0.001667 for the synthetic. Over a 300,000 mile vehicle lifetime, this gives a total oil cost of $375 for conventional, and $500.10 for synthetic.

Is the $125.10 total savings over the 300,000 mile life of that vehicle "LARGE"? Perhaps to some. Personally, I'm willing to pay the extra $0.0004 per mile to run synthetic, for reasons already put forth by others (extra flexibility in oil change length, extra performance margin at the hot and cold extremes, etc.)
You forgot to add in the fuel savings of 2% to 5% with the synthetic oil over the conventional. Hope you like apples.
 
dnewton,
I used to think that you were crazy in your ascertions that dino oils are as good as synthetics for most engines as most of us use them.
You have provided data to back this claim up, though, and you have also run your own engines on extended drains on cheap dino oils with good results.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that your point is that syns perform no better in most engines on even fairly long drain intervals than do dino oils, so the extra expense of synthetic oil is typically money down the drain.
You also have the data to show that much longer drain intervals are both possible and safe with any current spec dino, so shorter drain intervals are neither better nor necessary and may be counterproductive at least with an eye toward iron wear metals as seen in a UOA.
I am coming to the point that I really understand what you've been writing for years, and you have both practiced what you've preached and provided the data to support your points.
There is no virtue in changing serviceable oil early and there is no point in buying a more expensive oil that does nothing a cheaper oil can't do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top