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 (carlprop, 928, avacado11, A_User55555, bdcardinal, BLND1, 1 invisible), 1,122 guests, and 31 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics296,864
Posts4,960,355
Members66,982
Most Online2,688
Jan 19th, 2019
Donate to BITOG
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles #4970043
01/04/19 08:06 PM
01/04/19 08:06 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,137
Michigan
A_Harman Offline OP
A_Harman  Offline OP
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,137
Michigan
Valvoline High Mileage Diesel 15w40.

From Polaris:
Truck Odometer: 502800 mi
Miles on oil: 21000
8 quarts of makeup oil added.
Fram Ultra filter.

Polaris Comments:
Flagged data does not indicate an immediate need for maintenance action. Continue to observe the trend and monitor
equipment and fluid conditions. LEAD is at a MINOR LEVEL and may be OVERLAY METAL from MAIN/ROD BEARINGS; Flagged
additives do not match current new lube reference for the specified product (this does not imply the lubricant does not meet
proper API, SAE, or ISO classifications); Lubricant and filter change acknowledged.

On the last UOA, I was fretting over high Cr and Si, but those have both dropped back to normal levels. I think the high Si was due to excess RTV from the oil pan change back in June.

Iron wear rate decreased from the first interval on VHMD to 2.1 ppm/kmile which is about as good as I've seen with this engine.
The other wear metals are really boring, which is good.


Dodge-UOA.PNG
Last edited by A_Harman; 01/04/19 08:07 PM.

1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck
Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: A_Harman] #4970090
01/04/19 09:06 PM
01/04/19 09:06 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,322
n.c.
gman2304 Offline
gman2304  Offline
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,322
n.c.
That trucks sump holds 12 qts. Even at 21,000 mile oci’s, that’s a lot of makeup oil. It seems to have a history of oil burning. There’s a lot of fresh oil being poured into it between oci’s that might be skewing the final numbers and masking the health of that engine.

Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: gman2304] #4970106
01/04/19 09:24 PM
01/04/19 09:24 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,137
Michigan
A_Harman Offline OP
A_Harman  Offline OP
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,137
Michigan
Originally Posted by gman2304
That trucks sump holds 12 qts. Even at 21,000 mile oci’s, that’s a lot of makeup oil. It seems to have a history of oil burning. There’s a lot of fresh oil being poured into it between oci’s that might be skewing the final numbers and masking the health of that engine.


This is why I correct the Iron concentration with a dilution factor that takes into account the makeup oil. The Iron wear rate is based on the corrected Iron concentration.


1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck
Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: A_Harman] #4970288
01/05/19 06:54 AM
01/05/19 06:54 AM
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 355
MD
claluja Offline
claluja  Offline
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 355
MD
Originally Posted by A_Harman
Originally Posted by gman2304
That trucks sump holds 12 qts. Even at 21,000 mile oci’s, that’s a lot of makeup oil. It seems to have a history of oil burning. There’s a lot of fresh oil being poured into it between oci’s that might be skewing the final numbers and masking the health of that engine.


This is why I correct the Iron concentration with a dilution factor that takes into account the makeup oil. The Iron wear rate is based on the corrected Iron concentration.


So what does happen to iron particles when oil in which they are suspended burns off? Do the iron particles stay in the sump, burn off with the oil, or something else?

Great data set! Love seeing 500K miles.

Last edited by claluja; 01/05/19 06:57 AM.

2014 F250 6.7L PSD
2006 Sequoia 4.7L
2005 E500 5.0L
2018 Jeep Rubicon, Pentastar 3.6L
Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: claluja] #4970328
01/05/19 08:37 AM
01/05/19 08:37 AM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,137
Michigan
A_Harman Offline OP
A_Harman  Offline OP
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,137
Michigan
Originally Posted by claluja
Originally Posted by A_Harman
Originally Posted by gman2304
That trucks sump holds 12 qts. Even at 21,000 mile oci’s, that’s a lot of makeup oil. It seems to have a history of oil burning. There’s a lot of fresh oil being poured into it between oci’s that might be skewing the final numbers and masking the health of that engine.


This is why I correct the Iron concentration with a dilution factor that takes into account the makeup oil. The Iron wear rate is based on the corrected Iron concentration.


So what does happen to iron particles when oil in which they are suspended burns off? Do the iron particles stay in the sump, burn off with the oil, or something else?

Great data set! Love seeing 500K miles.


I really don't know, but the calculation is based on the assumption that they stay in the sump. The oil wouldn't be gathering a concentration of Iron if it wasn't in the engine, and I guarantee I'm not pouring Iron into the sump with fresh oil!


1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck
Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: gman2304] #4970384
01/05/19 09:36 AM
01/05/19 09:36 AM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,371
Oshawa, Ontario Canada
JC1 Offline
JC1  Offline
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,371
Oshawa, Ontario Canada
Originally Posted by gman2304
That trucks sump holds 12 qts. Even at 21,000 mile oci’s, that’s a lot of makeup oil. It seems to have a history of oil burning. There’s a lot of fresh oil being poured into it between oci’s that might be skewing the final numbers and masking the health of that engine.



Yes and how often are you adding a quart of make up oil or do you add oil every few days?


2015 Grand Caravan SXT Plus 5w-20 Valvoline SynPower/Fram Ultra Filter
1997 Honda Civic CX 5w-30 PPPP/Fram Ultra Filter
Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: JC1] #4970592
01/05/19 02:29 PM
01/05/19 02:29 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,137
Michigan
A_Harman Offline OP
A_Harman  Offline OP
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,137
Michigan
Originally Posted by JC1
Originally Posted by gman2304
That trucks sump holds 12 qts. Even at 21,000 mile oci’s, that’s a lot of makeup oil. It seems to have a history of oil burning. There’s a lot of fresh oil being poured into it between oci’s that might be skewing the final numbers and masking the health of that engine.



Yes and how often are you adding a quart of make up oil or do you add oil every few days?


When I've got trailers to tow, I do about 500 miles per day, so I'm adding a quart about every 5-6 days.


1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck
Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: A_Harman] #4970776
01/05/19 05:49 PM
01/05/19 05:49 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,715
Indianapolis, IN
dnewton3 Offline
dnewton3  Offline
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,715
Indianapolis, IN
The Fe concentration would not change with oil additions. I don't believe the correction factors are necessary or even correct.

Things that will change with the addition of new oil are the additives in the add-pack; those elements will be bolstered and changed and should be corrected with oil top-offs. (eg ... Ca, Mg, Ti, etc). But Fe isn't in the new oil (maybe no more than 1ppm, anyway). The Fe ONLY comes from wear, generally, and if we presume it does not evaporate, then the concentration per quart won't change.

I'll make up an example here ...
If you had 12 quarts of water in your bath tub, and you placed a marble in the tub once every minute, after 12 minutes there would be 12 marbles in the tub of 12 quarts. You would have a ratio of 1marble/qrt. After 24 minutes, you'd have 24 marbles in 12 quarts; a ratio of 2m/qrt. After 36 minutes you'd have 3m/qrt. The marbles are going in at a steady rate.

If the tub leaks out a tiny bit of water past the seal on the stopper, you'd "add" water to keep the same 12 quart level. But that addition of water does not "dilute" the ratio of marbles to quarts! The only thing that changes the ratio is the marbles added, not the water added. This is because at any moment in time, the tub is still holding 12 quarts of water. The "concentration" of marbles in the tub is always measured against the ratio of marbles to capacity. This is because when you take the "sample" it's a ratio of what is present of the variable to what is present in the host volume. The addition of water does not alter the concentration because the volume is being held constant. If you allow the water to leak out, and not replace it, then you're "increasing" the concentration because your denominator is getting smaller. But if you hold the volume steady (even if you have to add some water along the way), the ratio is valid because you only have one variable in the ratio equation (numerator / denominator). Adding water does not alter the rate at which marbles are added. So it is improper to try and adjust the formula just because you add water. Do not confuse the two! The "contamination rate" is represented by the marbles being added, and they are measured against a constant volume.

If the water leaked out and was not replaced, the concentration would be artificially "high" because you'd have X marbles in 11 qrts, then only 10 qrts, then 9 ... The concentration goes abnormally high because not only are you adding marbles, but also decreasing the tub volume.

The correct thing to do is hold the host volume steady, and let the "variable" (marbles, or Fe) accumulate as they may. But because the host volume does not add nor subtract the variable (contamination elements), there is no need for correction factors.

Hence, adding oil to a sump does not alter the wear rate concentration.

Adding oil does alter the "additives" (Ca, Mg, etc). Those would need correction factors. Adding top off oil DOES change both the numerator and denominator.


Last edited by dnewton3; 01/05/19 05:54 PM.

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: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: A_Harman] #4971023
01/06/19 12:20 AM
01/06/19 12:20 AM
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,389
Alaska
m37charlie Offline
m37charlie  Offline
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,389
Alaska
I don't think you are correct in saying Mg, Ca and Zn/P get "used up". We have seen some UOAs with very low TBNs and yet alkaline earth metal levels stay intact. To take a simple example, the detergent Ca sulfonate (Ca phenate, sulfonate and salicylate are the main compounds containing Ca in oil - all alkaline detergents) when exposed to H2SO4, the oxidation product of sulfur in diesel fuel, gets converted to sulfonic acid and CaSO4 (calcium sulfate). The calcium does not disappear. Likewise ZDDPs get converted into inactive compounds as far as antiwear but the elements stay the same in the used oil, even highly used oils.
OTOH if oil is BURNED and the Fe particles are small enough to slip past the rings and also get burned and the oil is replaced with fresh oil with no Fe, then Fe levels WOULD drop.
I'd love to believe you because if so on my last run of 25K mi my Fe was only 44ppm (1.76ppm/Kmi) but I did add 10L into a 30L sump.


05 Unimog U500/Unicat camper/Delvac 1 SHC ACEA E4/E5
09 BMW X5 35d/Delvac1 LE 5W30
88 Toyota OJ50LV OM314 motor D1 SHC
52 Dodge M37/Hercules diesel

Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: A_Harman] #4971102
01/06/19 06:34 AM
01/06/19 06:34 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,715
Indianapolis, IN
dnewton3 Offline
dnewton3  Offline
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,715
Indianapolis, IN
You are correct, Charlie. I chose a poor description.

It would have been more accurate for me to say those additive elements are not consumed, but they are degraded by alteration in some form. They don't necessarily leave the system, but they become occupied or altered so as to be ineffective. Ca and Mg in particular are multi-function additives that can be overwhelmed, or even simply altered in effect, as the soot loading increases, insolubles gain in concentration, the TBN/TAN ratio changes, fuel dilution increases, etc. Ca and Mg are, among other things, detergents. As your system becomes more and more laden with soot and such, the initial load will become ever more burdened and at some point, would be "overwhelmed" to where they could not longer provide the desired effect. But adding top off introduces more virgin Ca and Mg (and others as well), that are now fresh fighters in the war. They don't "replace" things in a true sense because the initial additives didn't leave; the top-off "increases" the total count.

My point is that when you add make-up oil, you're generally not adding "contamination"; you're not adding Fe, Al, Cr, Cu, Pb (not above perhaps 1ppm anyway). So we do not need to correct for the addition of lube in those categories, because the added lube does not alter the contamination concentration. In fact, it is wholly proper to do our best to keep the sump reasonably level, so as to keep the concentration formula reasonably consistent. Again ... variable over constant (numerator over denominator). When we see " 17ppm of Fe" that is telling us there are 17 counts of iron for every one-million counts of the host medium. That is a concentration measurement.

Rates are measures not of concentration but the shift in movement from one point of perspective relative to some other measurable. Miles / hour, for example would be velocity. Whereas acceleration is a rate of velocity change over a denominator of chronology. Feet/sec/sec (or Feet per second squared would also be accurate).

"PPM" is a measurement of concentration (we think of this as contamination when speak of wear metals).
"Wear rates" are a measure of the PPM against some other standard (hours, miles, etc).
It is improper to attempt to adjust for a variable in the denominator, especially when the introduction of an input does not induce the variable being measured.
We should not try to adjust for added lube volume when the topic is wear metals, because those wear metals are not induced by the variable being added.
My point is that adding fresh oil does not alter the rate of wear metals being induced into the sump; new oil does not bring in contamination so you don't need to correct for it. And, it is proper to hold that sump volume as steady as practical (within reasonable efforts) so that the denominator in the equation stays consistent.

New oil does bring in new additives, and therefore you'd want to account for that effect because adding volume to "make up" for lost host oil does indeed alter the concentration of the additive elements; the added fluid is bringing in more "stuff" to the host sump. And while the measured elements don't really leave the system for the most part, they do get their effects altered by other items such as combustion byproducts. Additionally, there is at least some escape of additive elements from the sump, or we'd not have issues like phosphorus, and sulfur as well, reduced by the EPA from our fuel and oil as an attempt to protect the cat converters. How much of this escapes? I have zero idea. Again - it's a worm hole I'm not sure we can quantify; maybe someone can shed some light?

I am, for the purpose of simplifying the discussion, ignoring the topic of TCB effect in early OCI applications. There's no real way to know how much of the uptick in wear after a fresh OCI is due to the TCB degradation, versus residual metals count. Let's just leave this alone, as it's all theory and there's no SAE study that addresses this specific topic of TCB to residual concentration. This is so far into the weeds that we cannot make any reasonable delineation between the two; so we'll just leave this alone.


Others are welcome to disagree, but you'd have to explain to me in a mathematical sense why you're attempting to adjust a formula for something that does not induce a change in the measured variable in the first place. Mathematically, you want a measured variable over a constant, holding that constant as steady as possible. If we add more of something that does NOT bring into the equation a change to the numerator, then why the heck are we trying to adjust the denominator?



Last edited by dnewton3; 01/07/19 04:52 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: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: A_Harman] #4974208
01/09/19 12:35 PM
01/09/19 12:35 PM
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,131
upstate NY
dustyroads Offline
dustyroads  Offline
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,131
upstate NY
I wanted to at least compliment your presentation A_Harman. It's not the first time you posted that way but I don't think I said anything about it last time.

I thought your dilution factor was neat, but dnewton makes a good case against it, too. I can't make an argument against either of you, so I dunno... shrug Something good to think about, anyway.


2013 F150 XLT 5.0 4X4 104k miles
Edge 5W-30 / Fram 10575
Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: A_Harman] #4974792
01/10/19 05:18 AM
01/10/19 05:18 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,715
Indianapolis, IN
dnewton3 Offline
dnewton3  Offline
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,715
Indianapolis, IN
Let me go back to my analogy and enhance a bit of it.
Same scenario; marbles into water in the bathtub. But we're going to add a component of bleach to represent degradable additives. Marbles represent contamination; they go in at reasonably consistent rate (1 marble/min) and the bleach represents additives that will degrade over time. (I chose bleach for two reasons for this example: 1) it degrades in strength with time, so it will alter it's presence and 2) it's fully soluble in water, unlike the marbles).

OK - after 24 minutes, there would be 24 marbles in the tub. If you are keeping the water level consistent (at 12 quarts), then you'd have 2 marbles / quart at that 24 minute mark. (aka 2m/qrt for shorthand).
Because you're using bleach water in this example, the bleach has a lifespan that degrades with time; it looses it's ability to "clean" (disinfect) as the chlorine oxidizes. The marbles will increase in count, because they do not degrade. Bleach (a product that typically uses a form of chlorine) will loose it's function with time as it degrades, so it must be replenished to have the same effect of killing germs.

There are three situations that are possible here regarding the tub volume:
1) volume is increased
2) volume stays consistent
3) volume decreases

In #1, you would be adding bleach water to the tub, and because there was no water loss, the volume would go up. That increase in total volume does have an effect on the contamination ratio. Perhaps you add 1 quart every 12 minutes, so after 24 minutes you'd have 24 marbles and 14 quarts. Your contamination ratio is 24/14 = 1.7m/qrt. (it also increases the chlorine count; we've not defined a rate though for this example).
In #2, you would be not adding or subtracting any water; simple formula as it's 24/12 = 2m/qrt. (bleach will degrade over time; we've not defined it's rate, but the effect is lesser as time goes on).
In #3, you are losing water and not replacing it. Perhaps you've lost 2 qrts, and so now your ratio is now 24/10 = 2.4m/qrt. (bleach still degrades, and has the double effect of volume loss and degradation over time).

The bleach-water added to the system will affect the ratio of the main sump's bleach to water, because the bleach will change it's presence and effect with time. That is not true of the contamination; it's there for the full life of the sump until it's either filtered out or drained out. It's completely appropriate for AHarmon to adjust his formula for certain additives that are present not only in the sump, but also present in the amount of lube being added. But it is not needed or even correct to try to adjust the aspects that are not directly affected by the addition of the new lube. Because we hold our engine sumps at a reasonably consistent level, and because the input of more lube does not bring in more contamination, the correct mathematical methodology is to adjust the numerator with the measured presence of the contamination element (Fe, Al, Pb, etc) and hold the denominator steady as the constant. As long as we hold the volume steady in the sump, the effort to calculate a concentration of contaminants and metals is pretty simple; it's variable over constant (changing numerator / steady denominator).

In the tub water and marble example, it's really hard to know your bleach effectiveness of the chlorine because you have to know the "at the moment" concentration, plus a rate of time-effect degradation, plus the amount added in make-up water. So, when we turn to oils, the additives in lubes (those that can be detected by elemental analysis, and those that are present but cannot been seen in a UOA) all have different reactions in the crankcase. Some will degrade in effect due to contamination, some by consumption, some by evaporation, etc. Some will be affected in a greater sense, others less so. I would have to divert the conversation to a chemist or lube engineer (like Mola) to let us know how each additive changes with time/distance exposure; that's way past my bailiwick. But the point to know is that they see their concentration ratio always altered not only by the simple operation of the engine, but also the addition of lube. It's much harder to know how to calculate a correction factor for things like Ca and Mg, because although they are present and seen in a UOA, we have a difficult time knowing how much of the Ca and Mg are free to work, versus busy already engaged with soot and other insolubles, and then we throw in the topic of "fresh" oil? You can see the difficulty here in how the math must be worked. You not only have to know what you have a minute "x", but also how much is no longer free to do work even though it's present, versus how much left the system out the tailpipe, and then how much more you're putting in. Gets VERY difficult to calculate. A UOA can tell us how much Ca and Mg are in the sample, but they cannot tell us how much of those amounts are actually free to work, or busy already engaged with contamination such as soot and insolubles. When we measure TBN/TAN, that would generally tell us how much has be taken from the available mass, but as we've all seen before, the degradation of TBN, and/or the inversion of TBN/TAN in ratio, does not in most cases have any correlation to wear rates. So using that TBN/TAN count really does not mean you'd see a shift in wear; it's only a predictor that the sump may change in the future and so you should pay closer attention to subsequent UOAs and maybe even UOA more often. But in and of itself, we've go no proof that the presence of something in a UOA has any ability to help us define an effect, because no correlation exists. Without correlation, there can be no causation. Additionally, things like Ca and Mg are multi-purpose; they are detergents and yet also help with lubricity and other desirable characteristics. Really gets complicated in how to define an effect that you, at best, can only hope for secondary or tertiary links in correlation.

But it all sums up this way ....

- If you hold your sump at a reasonably consistent level, then you don't adjust the ratio with the denominator, if the measurable you're tracking does not present more of the variable in the make-up volume.
Adding lube does not induce more contaminants (Fe, Al, Cr, Pb, Cu, Si etc). Do not adjust your formula. Just keep the sump reasonably level and take your UOA samples when the sump is near the desired level.

- If the make-up volume does bring in more of the measured variable, then AHarmon's general math is as reasonable as any other.
Adding lube does bring in more additives (Ca, Mg, Ti, Boron, etc). Adjust your formula. How you adjust it depends upon known (and presumed, if unknown) degradation rates and mathematical model chosen.


Make sense?

Last edited by dnewton3; 01/10/19 05:41 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: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: A_Harman] #4974804
01/10/19 05:53 AM
01/10/19 05:53 AM
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 355
MD
claluja Offline
claluja  Offline
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 355
MD
DNewton - you make some great points on here, but not sure I agree with you this time. Iron particles in the oil are suspended in the oil during operation when A_Harman's vehicle is losing oil - unlike your marbles which are planted at the bottom of the bathtub.

Eight (8) quarts of make-up oil is a lot. If he is losing 8 quarts of oil (e.g., via leaking, burning off, or something else), I'm betting that some of the iron particulate suspended in that oil is leaving the engine also along with the 8 quarts of oil. Iron particulate would certainly leak out with the 8 quarts of oil if it were leaking. And I assume that particulate does exit the exhaust of a vehicle - thus, we have diesel "particulate" filters. The purpose of a dpf is to catch small solids (I think?). Anyway, I certainly cannot provide a clear explanation on "how" iron particulate may be exiting his engine, but if he's losing 8 quarts of oil I'm guessing some of the iron particulate is leaving also along with the oil. So I'm thinking some type of correction factor may be warranted with such a large amount of oil loss during an OCI.


My 2 cents.


2014 F250 6.7L PSD
2006 Sequoia 4.7L
2005 E500 5.0L
2018 Jeep Rubicon, Pentastar 3.6L
Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: A_Harman] #4975657
01/10/19 10:40 PM
01/10/19 10:40 PM
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,389
Alaska
m37charlie Offline
m37charlie  Offline
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,389
Alaska
I agree. The Fe particles get burned and go out the tailpipe. You have gone too far this time.


05 Unimog U500/Unicat camper/Delvac 1 SHC ACEA E4/E5
09 BMW X5 35d/Delvac1 LE 5W30
88 Toyota OJ50LV OM314 motor D1 SHC
52 Dodge M37/Hercules diesel

Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: m37charlie] #4975739
01/11/19 04:23 AM
01/11/19 04:23 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,715
Indianapolis, IN
dnewton3 Offline
dnewton3  Offline
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,715
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted by m37charlie
I agree. The Fe particles get burned and go out the tailpipe. You have gone too far this time.

Too far regarding what?
I don't think any of us have any credible data to know exactly how much of any element leaves out the tailpipe. Does some of it leave that way? Sure. Does all of it? No way. What percent stays in the sump, versus out the pipe? I cannot tell you.

Just exactly where is it that you think I went off the rails here, Charlie?
And be specific, please.
How is it that you think we should adjust the denominator of a ratio for an input that brings in, essentially, none of the variable you're tracking (in this case, wear metals we're talking about)?
Could you describe in detail the mathematical model you'd use to justify not holding the denominator as constant?

Last edited by dnewton3; 01/11/19 04:44 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
Page 1 of 2 1 2

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