07.5 LMM duramax 5-40 Schaeffer's 60k miles on oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
58
Location
Tennessee
I kinda let this go longer than I meant to without getting a sample but it seems fine. These last few miles I have used it as a truck hauling and offroading much more than what is usual for this truck. I really did not know what to expect wen this sample came back.





I asked for tbn and tan numbers but for some reason they were not included
 
TBN going to be a waste with 4 qts of makeup oil, not going to be accurate measure of acids.

Other than that minor detail, report looks almost too good to be true at nearly 200k miles!
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Donald
I would ask again for TBN. They probably still have sample if you ask quickly.

Any special filter like a bypass?


No I usually just run either wix or mobile 1 filters. No fram, but usually just a good filter I can get a good deal on at the time. I try to change them out around 15-20k miles which also goes toward my makeup oil

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
TBN going to be a waste with 4 qts of makeup oil, not going to be accurate measure of acids.



I hadnt added oil in over 6k miles and needed to add a qt but waited till I pulled the sample as I always try to do.

Originally Posted By: PiperOne
Am I reading it right...every 20,000 miles or so it is using 4 quarts of oil? Nice numbers, esp the iron.


Historically it had been about 1 qt every 4k miles averaged in with the filter changes, but after changing the thermostats (was not warming up enough basically as long as I have owned it) it seems to consume less oil. I feel like with the make up qts being less the oil might not last as long as it normally does.



Anyways I was ready to change it about 20k miles ago and didn't. One of the main things that attracted me to Schaeffers oil was how much moly it had vs many others. It was not to run it forever, it was to have great oil always. I have had low moly numbers (but low wear as well) for about 50k miles. I am really interested in changing my oil and pulling a sample somewhere between 4-7k miles before any makup oil is needed to see where the numbers fall at that low because that is data I am missing.

I really don't like that for the money in makup oil and filters and what my wear results are it would be cheaper and about the same engine wear wise to just run rotella.
 
After looking at the sample report again, paying attention to the dates and miles a bit more (after realizing I read it backwards) I don't see the benefit of leaving this oil in, especially with all the make up oil. Based on the low amount of miles you put on the truck..a yearly oil/filter change with a decent syn or a 6 month change with conv oil would likely be cheaper and simpler...and, not that your numbers are bad, but I'd bet the wear numbers would improve slightly as well. Agree on the thermostats...we had a "cool" Duramax and it consumed more oil than the rest (that use less than a qt in 20,000).
 
Originally Posted By: PiperOne
After looking at the sample report again, paying attention to the dates and miles a bit more (after realizing I read it backwards) I don't see the benefit of leaving this oil in, especially with all the make up oil. Based on the low amount of miles you put on the truck..a yearly oil/filter change with a decent syn or a 6 month change with conv oil would likely be cheaper and simpler...and, not that your numbers are bad, but I'd bet the wear numbers would improve slightly as well. Agree on the thermostats...we had a "cool" Duramax and it consumed more oil than the rest (that use less than a qt in 20,000).


Yea, honestly my intention was never to see how long I can go without an oil change. I used to do non diesel work at a diesel shop and it was the holy juice to everyone there. I gave it a try in my old 7.3 ford with 400k miles and as soon as I started it up its idle started getting better and smoother than I had ever heard it. When I took it out on the road it felt it had more power which may make since due to how its injectors operated. I was kinda hooked.
They give me free sample kits so I decided to send some oil off from my d-max, and they said it was good, keep going.... Well they keep saying that lol, but I mostly want really really good oil all the time, not ok oil all the time which is what I get with these really extended intervals. It probably is still cheaper than running rotella every 6k and probably still better oil than new rotella.

This extended interval has pretty much shown me that as long as I grab a good filter that can last 20k miles I should be good to do a 20k mile oci with this oil and not sweat anything. The only thing is I kinda want to change my filter and go another 10-15k to see how things track since I did change the t stats and it consumes less oil.
 
This is really neat to see! I've used schaeffer's for 13 years now and have been hooked to it. I don't put the miles or hours on equipment like you are getting but nice to know that it's good for a lot longer! Best stuff out there in my opinion.
 
I tried the series 9000 5w40 for a fill.

Valve clatter on initial cold startup.

Never happened with Premium Blue or Amsoil HDD using the same oil filters.

Go figure.
 
That's because there is no friction and the oil hasn't gotten to the lifters yet. It's so slippery the lifters move so easily they "slap" until oil has reached them. It's the micron moly!
"Micron Moly and Penetro" the 2 magic additives.

After choosing the finest base stock they start adding two friction modifiers; Micron Moly and Penetro. Micron moly is oxidized molybdenum that is magnetically attracted to ferrous metals. It is five times stronger than steel and has a melting point that is twice as high as steel. Even under the heaviest loads Micron Moly will not pound out. And Schaeffer has the highest content of molybdenum among all major brands. Along with Moly Schaeffer adds a proprietary product that is exclusive to Schaeffer oil called Penetro. Penetro reduces friction by adding what is like microscopic ball bearings in the oil. This is especially good since most engine parts contain metals that are non-ferrous along with ferrous metals. Non-ferrous metals do not attract magnetically so they need lubrication to protect the surface other than metal alloys, such as molybdenum. Penetro and Micron Moly stay on the parts even during cold starts to offer the best protection at all times.
 
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
TBN going to be a waste with 4 qts of makeup oil, not going to be accurate measure of acids.

Other than that minor detail, report looks almost too good to be true at nearly 200k miles!
smile.gif



On vehicles with a fuel consumption of 100 km an oil consumption of 0.5 liters/1000 km is acceptable.
On vehicles with a fuel consumption of >40 liters/100 km an oil consumption of 0.25 % relative to fuel consumption is acceptable.
Limit values for the engine:
An oil consumption of 0.5 % relative to fuel consumption is acceptable.

Quotation from workshop manual for my Unimog U500.
Re oil consumption it is what it is. Mine has been 1L/2500mi since new, no changes, 0.09% of fuel consumption. It is still valuable to do a UOA to monitor if the oil is still serviceable; a higher rate of consumption allows the oil to stay serviceable much longer, all other factors held equal. As far as monitoring for unusual wear patterns, a change in elemental concentration is still detectable. I really do not understand the assertion that consumption/replacement of oil makes acid measurement "not accurate", Naturally acidity will rise and alkalinity drop more slowly with oil consumption and replacement - a good thing, right?
On my last UOA at 25000 mi I determined that I could try for 40k mi next time. TBN was 11.5, Fe 36, viscosity still 13.0 with 5W40.
Basically, engines with larger sumps and higher rates of oil consumption NOT due to wear (i.e. since new) con tolerate very long OCIs.
 
Oil consumption for the Dmax is typically related to fuel consumption, as Charlie points out.

GM once had a statement out that the Dmax was having acceptable consumption if the use was no greater than 1 qrt/100 gallons of fuel used.

My Dmax was very easy on oil if unloaded, and even when harangued heavily and mercilessly flogged pulling my RV into day-long headwinds, it still fell below that GM stated limit. But it's consumption rate of oil did change with loading, and loading changes the fuel consumption. Hence, it's tied to fuel use. Each engine will be a slight bit different, and lubes with higher HTHS values will do a bit better as well.
 
Part of your good results are due to deletion, especially EGR.
The math works out that with 13L of makeup oil in 60k miles probably only 40% of your oil molecules have been in for the full 60k miles. That said, a synthetic like Schaeffer or Rotella T6 5W40 will be slower to break down than a 15W40 (dnewton will jump on me) which is otherwise fine for Tennessee. Remember that oil breakdown ultimately leads to an INCREASE in viscosity, after shearing causes a (usually harmless) decrease. When viscosity goes UP it is definitely time to change.
Charlie
 
I'll not jump, but I will disagree.

Vis is not unlike TBN/TAN. Vis is an indicator that things may change; watch for wear markers to shift. Vis is not in any manner a sole reason to change.

In the Ford/Conoco SAE study (2007-01-4133) they noted a significant shift in vis as the OCI on GF-3 5w-20 increased, and yet wear DECREASED. The conclusion (a correct one) is that vis didn't have the effect on wear rates that folks believe. Vis was steady at a 20 grade, then it went down (shearing), then it increased into a 30 grade. Yes wear acted independently and continued downward, almost to a nil state, and stayed there for the 15k mile OCI duration tests. Also, significant evidence exists that the TBC may well control wear far more than vis. The wear trends directly correlated to the TCB layer thickness.

I agree that vis is something to watch. As is TBN/TAN. But ONLY if you're going to run greatly extended OCIs. And the vis is NOT, in and of itself, a reason to OCI. It's only a precursor to a potential for a wear trend shift (as is TBN/TAN).

The point is that inputs often do not show correlation to outputs. Whereas the TCB has not only shown correlation, but also reasonable info exists to believe causation.

Folks should not be changing lubes just because an input changes. They should paying closer attention when inputs change; look for wear to be altered. If not, all is still OK. Let's remember that wear rates are not suddenly just going to shoot to the moon in a thousand miles. Wear rates drop in nearly all engines out to 15k miles, regardless of what grade/base stock is used. At some point, the wear rates will start to rise. But things must be kept in perspective. Some examples ...
3k miles = Fe at 3ppm/1k miles
5k miles = Fe at 2.7ppm/1k miles
10k miles = Fe at 2.3ppm / 1k miles
15k miles = Fe at 2.2ppm / 1k miles
At what point do we say it's time to change oil?
If the ppm hits 2.5/1k miles, at 25k miles why is that any "worse" than the 3ppm at 3k miles??????????? If you tolerate 3ppm/1k miles at the front of an OCI, then why are you afraid of that same wear rate as it climbs with maturity??? Safe limits are safe limits. Just because wear goes up a tick, does NOT mean things are simply going to implode and leave con rods on the side of the road. Many engines exhibit wear rates of Fe around 5ppm/1k miles at the front of an OCI; there is plenty of room to see it drop, and then rise slightly, and not panic over wear.

What is important is to set safe, reliable condemnation limits, while also monitoring things like soot/insolubles, coolant, Si, etc. Contamination is far more important to track than is Vis or TBN. Contamination has far more profound and direct affect on wear than does a minor vis or TBN change.

In all my UOAs (about 15k of them now), I see ZERO correlation in short to moderate OCIs that vis or TBN have any affect on wear whatsoever. AS the OCIs get into much longer maturity, when the vis and TBN shift, it's not a reason to OCI. It's a reason to start watching the wear rates a bit closer (perhaps UOA a bit more frequently), and see when the wear rate at the end crests over that of where it began.

Don't change oil based on inputs. Let the wear data talk, and listen to what it has to say. Don't buy a lube for what it has in the bottle; buy it based on how well your engine does with it.
 
Originally Posted by dnewton3
I'll not jump, but I will disagree.

Vis is not unlike TBN/TAN. Vis is an indicator that things may change; watch for wear markers to shift. Vis is not in any manner a sole reason to change.

In the Ford/Conoco SAE study (2007-01-4133) they noted a significant shift in vis as the OCI on GF-3 5w-20 increased, and yet wear DECREASED. The conclusion (a correct one) is that vis didn't have the effect on wear rates that folks believe. Vis was steady at a 20 grade, then it went down (shearing), then it increased into a 30 grade. Yes wear acted independently and continued downward, almost to a nil state, and stayed there for the 15k mile OCI duration tests.



Sound like self-reforming oil.

It KNEW that, due to the unfortunate dictates of fashion, it'd been made too skinny, so it put on some weight.

Perhaps it would make a good character in the next "Cars" animation. Feminist sub-text optional.

Originally Posted by dnewton3


Also, significant evidence exists that the TBC may well control wear far more than vis. The wear trends directly correlated to the TCB layer thickness.



Daresay they would, but outside of a rather well funded research programme, one has no knowledge of one's TCB layer thickness.

Originally Posted by dnewton3

Don't change oil based on inputs. Let the wear data talk, and listen to what it has to say. Don't buy a lube for what it has in the bottle; buy it based on how well your engine does with it.


I can read the bottle for free

I can't get a UOA for free, and in any case its questionable( and has been questioned on here in the past) whether the "wear data" provided by a standard UOA elemental analysis accurately represents wear.
 
Last edited:
I thought I'd heard it all, but this made my day.

If oil hasn't reached my valve train for the first minute of "frictionless slapping", no thanks.

Originally Posted by Schaefferbest
That's because there is no friction and the oil hasn't gotten to the lifters yet. It's so slippery the lifters move so easily they "slap" until oil has reached them. It's the micron moly!
"Micron Moly and Penetro" the 2 magic additives.
 
Originally Posted by Ducked

Originally Posted by dnewton3


Also, significant evidence exists that the TBC may well control wear far more than vis. The wear trends directly correlated to the TCB layer thickness.



Daresay they would, but outside of a rather well funded research programme, one has no knowledge of one's TCB layer thickness.

Originally Posted by dnewton3

Don't change oil based on inputs. Let the wear data talk, and listen to what it has to say. Don't buy a lube for what it has in the bottle; buy it based on how well your engine does with it.


I can read the bottle for free

I can't get a UOA for free, and in any case its questionable( and has been questioned on here in the past) whether the "wear data" provided by a standard UOA elemental analysis accurately represents wear.


As for the TCB, there are manners in which it can indeed be measured. I believe there are 7 or 8 SAE studies on this very topic of TCB. The study I quoted (2007-01-4133) refers to several previous ones and builds on the info therein.

As for the bottle vs. UOA comment, I think you're a bit lost. You cannot understand TBN or Vis of USED oil from a bottle label. One must UOA to get that kind of info. However, my point is that those are INPUTS to an equation, whereas wear metals are a result. My comments previously are sound; there's no evidence that directly links TBN/TAN and/or Vis to wear data; there is no correlation. And without correlation, there can be no causation; that is an immutable fact. We can see countless hundreds of UOAs that show TBN low, or TBN crossed over by TAN, and yet the wear data goes completely unaffected. I do acknowledge that if the OCI were run long enough, then the escalation of these attributes would at some point, take control and be a problem. But that is the ENTIRE POINT OF DOING UOAs. UOAs are a tool to manage the OCI via the relationship between inputs and outputs. You track the inputs and manage the outputs. Just because TBN drops to some arbitrary level, if there is no shift in wear data, there is no cause for an OCI. The shift in the input (drop of TBN or increase in vis) is only catalyst that should cause one to pay closer attention to wear, in that a change MIGHT be coming in the future. But the input change is NOT, in and of itself, a reason to OCI.

The topic of UOAs and wear metals has been covered ad nausea-um. UOAs are not perfect, but neither are other means of measuring wear such as tear downs, component weight measurement, etc; all have pros and cons. UOAs, however, are by far the quickest, cheapest method over the alternatives, and UOAs have been shown to have wear data correlation to PCs as well as TBC formation and wear layers. No matter how much you would object, UOAs are reasonably accurate, cheap, quick and (most of the time) very trustworthy. UOAs are a good way to known how well things are wearing in otherwise healthy equipment. UOAs can also at times be used to determine the onset of major catastrophes, but are not an assurance that they can catch all preeminent doom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top