Recent Topics
SnapOn Line Wrench
by George7941
Today at 01:11 AM
Be your own chauffeur for 10 cents on the dollar
by OneEyeJack
Today at 12:39 AM
looking for a crusier
by bowlofturtle
Today at 12:16 AM
Two month mini-review of my MacBook Pro
by redhat
Today at 12:06 AM
Redline 5W-40 vs 5W-30 for 2014 Infiniti Q50 3.7
by Patrick_C
Yesterday at 11:39 PM
Do you think Toyota is on to something?
by OneEyeJack
Yesterday at 11:17 PM
Is this Vinyl siding crack dangerous?
by maverickfhs
Yesterday at 09:56 PM
Thoughts on MS HM and M1 HM
by car51
Yesterday at 09:27 PM
E85 affects on Oil
by Mathew_Boss
Yesterday at 09:27 PM
Why would anyone use 10w-30 when 5w-30 same price?
by EscapeVelocity
Yesterday at 08:52 PM
540 Rat Blog - QSUD better than Mobil 1
by CapitalTruck
Yesterday at 07:53 PM
Recommendations for atf fluid in '02 Focus ZX5.
by D Hill
Yesterday at 07:51 PM
New Mobil 1 at Wal-Mart 20k Mile
by CapitalTruck
Yesterday at 07:45 PM
MC FL-400S $2.77 Wal Mart
by car51
Yesterday at 07:43 PM
Is oil getting worse? Did we reach peak oil?
by EscapeVelocity
Yesterday at 06:31 PM
ATF smelled like fish
by arakele
Yesterday at 06:21 PM
Viscosity Index
by RedOak
Yesterday at 06:15 PM
HVAC Actuator Fix...
by Warstud
Yesterday at 06:11 PM
Cut Open - Fram TG3614
by Big Smoke
Yesterday at 05:33 PM
Mazda3 oil drain plug
by Kira
Yesterday at 05:17 PM
Newest Members
coolcars, CorvusCorax, DecaturPure, Goatflogger, Fordson
60572 Registered Users
Who's Online
33 registered (bourne, CharlieBauer, bbhero, 4WD, czbrian, car51, 5 invisible), 1022 Guests and 15 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
60572 Members
66 Forums
261290 Topics
4310123 Posts

Max Online: 3590 @ 01/24/17 08:07 PM
Donate to BITOG
Topic Options
#3261496 - 01/27/14 12:15 PM Wear comparison for differing OCI - theoretical
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
In the discussion about wear rates for differing oci's, many statements were made about why mathematically you might see certain results.

I thought I would simulate what happens if you do 5000 mile vs 10000 mile oci's and sample at the end of the oci's. Break in wear is assumed to be 200ppm and completed at 5000 miles. Ongoing wear is assumed to be 10ppm per 1000 miles and residual oil in the system is assumed to be 20%.

With these assumptions, the conclusion is that a UOA performed at the end of a 5000 mile oci should show lower wear per 1000 mile than those performed at 10000 mile intervals. The reasoning is simple. More oci's mean more flushing of the break in wear that remains in the system as part of 20% oil leftover after an oil change.

If I recall correctly, dnewtons UOA trending across the same engines showed longer oci's had less wear per thousand miles in longer oci's.


Top
#3261517 - 01/27/14 12:43 PM Re: Wear comparison for differing OCI - theoretical [Re: TrevorS]
Quattro Pete Offline


Registered: 10/30/02
Posts: 32925
Loc: Great Lakes
Did you see these two real life examples?

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...ysi#Post3256034

Granted, top up oil has to be factored in, in such cases...
_________________________
'02 530i (Edge HM 10W-40)
'15 Q5 3.0T (Edge 5W-40)

Top
#3261528 - 01/27/14 12:51 PM Re: Wear comparison for differing OCI - theoretical [Re: TrevorS]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 9782
Loc: Saskatoon canada
You're making assumptions. When doing that results may be skewed and unreliable.
Get a few hundred used oil analysis then pick an engine with the most examples and extrapolate from there.
Not that those results will mean much anyways since every person drives differently and their maintenance plans differ too.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3261540 - 01/27/14 01:08 PM Re: Wear comparison for differing OCI - theoretical [Re: TrevorS]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
Ah, I think I have understood Clevys comment as thinking I was saying dnewtons results were incorrect.

No what is meant is that theoretically the result should be shorter oci's exhibit lower wear rates and this is due to more frequent flushing of break in wear (and to a lesser extent regular wear), but the fact that dnewtons statistical analysis shows longer oci's have lower wear rates suggests that longer oci's do in fact provide more protection.

Yes there are more factors to consider.

I actually meant to model the spike theory when UOAs are taken during an oci. Will do that when I have more time but right now my conclusion is that more oci's mean more flushing and less wear to be left behind for spikes so shorter oci's should show a benefit in wear terms regardless of when UOAs are performed.

Top
#3261602 - 01/27/14 02:04 PM Re: Wear comparison for differing OCI - theoretical [Re: TrevorS]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 9782
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Ah, I think I have understood Clevys comment as thinking I was saying dnewtons results were incorrect.

No what is meant is that theoretically the result should be shorter oci's exhibit lower wear rates and this is due to more frequent flushing of break in wear (and to a lesser extent regular wear), but the fact that dnewtons statistical analysis shows longer oci's have lower wear rates suggests that longer oci's do in fact provide more protection.

Yes there are more factors to consider.

I actually meant to model the spike theory when UOAs are taken during an oci. Will do that when I have more time but right now my conclusion is that more oci's mean more flushing and less wear to be left behind for spikes so shorter oci's should show a benefit in wear terms regardless of when UOAs are performed.


More frequent flushing of contaminants wouldn't do anything in respect to wear because the oil filter traps anything big enough to cause wear,and what the filter misses is too small to do any harm.
So the extra flushing really wouldn't have much effect in relation to wear.
There has to be another reason why longer oil change intervals end up creating less wear over time.
I can't say why with any certainty,only assumptions.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3261605 - 01/27/14 02:08 PM Re: Wear comparison for differing OCI - theoretical [Re: TrevorS]
Burt Offline


Registered: 01/08/09
Posts: 1276
Loc: texas
Doesn't the validity of your analysis depend on the assumption that the oil filter does not trap wear particles or at least traps them in a manner(over time or relative to particle size) such that it doesn't skew the results?
_________________________
2011 RX350 41k miles
2015 Fiesta SFE eco-boost 13k miles

Top
#3261656 - 01/27/14 02:58 PM Re: Wear comparison for differing OCI - theoretical [Re: Clevy]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: Clevy
More frequent flushing of contaminants wouldn't do anything in respect to wear because the oil filter traps anything big enough to cause wear,and what the filter misses is too small to do any harm.
So the extra flushing really wouldn't have much effect in relation to wear.
There has to be another reason why longer oil change intervals end up creating less wear over time.
I can't say why with any certainty,only assumptions.


It's not about extra flushing reducing wear, it's to do with more frequent oci's flushing out wear particles more often which should lead to lower ppm per thousand mile readings in UOAs (if wear is linear).

Check out the spreadsheet to understand the logic.

The explanation for lower wear for longer oci's is thought to be the anti wear layer.

Top
#3261665 - 01/27/14 03:07 PM Re: Wear comparison for differing OCI - theoretical [Re: Burt]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: Burt
Doesn't the validity of your analysis depend on the assumption that the oil filter does not trap wear particles or at least traps them in a manner(over time or relative to particle size) such that it doesn't skew the results?


Yes

But I understand that oil analysis is on particles smaller than a micron.

However, apart from the anti wear layer theory, perhaps more efficient filtering of particles in general as time goes on contributes to less wear seen in actual longer oci's.

And of course, some particles of a size below the filters rating are captured by the filter and more so as it loads up.

Top
#3261668 - 01/27/14 03:10 PM Re: Wear comparison for differing OCI - theoretical [Re: TrevorS]
OVERKILL Offline


Registered: 04/28/08
Posts: 33057
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: TrevorS

But I understand that oil analysis is on particles smaller than a micron.


No, IIRC, they only pick up particles smaller than 10 microns.
_________________________
2016 Durango Limited
2016 Grand Cherokee SRT

Top
#3261670 - 01/27/14 03:15 PM Re: Wear comparison for differing OCI - theoretical [Re: TrevorS]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
The other thing that the spreadsheet shows is that residual oil has no impact on particle count after 20-30 thousand miles ie the high particle count from break in is flushed out by then and we are reaching a steady state with respect to particle counts from residual oil.

Top
#3261673 - 01/27/14 03:17 PM Re: Wear comparison for differing OCI - theoretical [Re: OVERKILL]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: TrevorS

But I understand that oil analysis is on particles smaller than a micron.


No, IIRC, they only pick up particles smaller than 10 microns.


Ok I shouldn't have used a couple of BITOG posts as my source!

In which case, I wonder if dnewton considered if his statistical difference could have been explained by more efficient oil filtering? I have seen him say in several threads that oil filter efficiency ratings don't matter much.

Top