Recent Topics
Any Midweight Moto Guzzi Fans Here?
by Silverado12 - 08/20/19 08:31 AM
Central AC drain pump fail, flood
by LeakySeals - 08/20/19 06:38 AM
WiFi “bridge” to outbuilding
by dlundblad - 08/20/19 05:00 AM
Rental review : 2019 Dodge Charger
by FirstNissan - 08/20/19 12:14 AM
Truck diesel oil in Lawn mower (SAE30)
by Polyalphaolefin - 08/19/19 11:18 PM
Pinstripes Not Popular on Pickup Trucks?
by LoneRanger - 08/19/19 10:04 PM
More choices
by KeithS_NW_Ohio - 08/19/19 09:43 PM
INEOS to Surpass EXOM in PAO production.
by MolaKule - 08/19/19 09:17 PM
Need a miter saw
by JLawrence08648 - 08/19/19 09:01 PM
Using a 7.1 receiver with only 2 speakers
by Papa Bear - 08/19/19 08:44 PM
HD Sportster 5000 mi Red line PS 20w-50
by shanneba - 08/19/19 07:17 PM
College Football Time
by kstanf150 - 08/19/19 07:17 PM
Eco Plug oil drain plug
by passgas55 - 08/19/19 07:15 PM
Pep Boys Deals
by kstanf150 - 08/19/19 06:43 PM
MB229.5 and MB229.51
by Tikka - 08/19/19 06:35 PM
2019 Mazda 3 Recall....Wheels fall Off!
by Boomer - 08/19/19 05:43 PM
Rut Roh!😂
by Mad_Hatter - 08/19/19 04:40 PM
Oil for vintage Mopars
by 440Magnum - 08/19/19 04:37 PM
Newest Members
BigMike61, 80Boxcar, gangan, hoosiersupreme, Brandon86
69004 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
102 registered members (ARCOgraphite, 1nighttrain, Alfred_B, Aero540T, 3311, 1978elcamino, 10 invisible), 1,650 guests, and 23 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics293,551
Posts5,042,212
Members69,004
Most Online3,532
Jul 30th, 2019
Donate to BITOG
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles #4970043 01/04/19 09:06 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,452
A
A_Harman Offline OP
OP Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,452
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 09:07 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 10:06 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,758
G
gman2304 Online Content
Online Content
G
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,758
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 10:24 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,452
A
A_Harman Offline OP
OP Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,452
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 07:54 AM
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 472
C
claluja Offline
Offline
C
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 472
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 07:57 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 09:37 AM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,452
A
A_Harman Offline OP
OP Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,452
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 10:36 AM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,787
J
JC1 Offline
Offline
J
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,787
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-30 Valvoline White Bottle/Fram Ultra Filter
1997 Honda Civic CX 5w-30 Shell Conventional/Fram Ultra Filter
Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: JC1] #4970592 01/05/19 03:29 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,452
A
A_Harman Offline OP
OP Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,452
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 06:49 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,078
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,078
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 06:54 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 01:20 AM
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,405
M
m37charlie Offline
Offline
M
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,405
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 07:34 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,078
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,078
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 05:52 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 01:35 PM
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,229
D
dustyroads Offline
Offline
D
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,229
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 115k
Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: A_Harman] #4974792 01/10/19 06:18 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,078
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,078
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 06:41 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 06:53 AM
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 472
C
claluja Offline
Offline
C
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 472
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 11:40 PM
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,405
M
m37charlie Offline
Offline
M
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,405
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 05:23 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,078
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,078
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 05:44 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
Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: claluja] #4975740 01/11/19 05:43 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,078
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,078
Originally Posted by claluja
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.


The example of marbles was a topic of concentration ratio (particle count over volume), not suspended solids. The point of my example was to discuss insoluble things like metals vs. other soluble items like additives that would not show up in a UOA. The example was not meant to be one of what is suspended versus falls out. It was an example to illuminate the mathematical concepts, not the physical response of particulate. I would have thought that was obvious, but I stipulate this now just as clarification.

I agree that some manner of elements will leave the system. But how much? As I said to Charlie above, I don't think there's any credible data that leads us to a conclusion.

The DPF is there to catch soot; that's it's job. It's not there to catch wear metals, however it likely cannot discriminate. I agree it will catch essentially anything large enough to be snagged by it's pore structure; I doubt it has any ability to delineate other than size.

If we accept AHarmon's math, then the conclusion would be that ALL particulate wear metals are leaving the system; that's patently untrue. For that 8 qrts of make up, you' cannot honestly believe that it's correct to account for all the metals in that missing volume to also be missing from the UOA count. If we have a sump that hold 12 quarts, and the make-up volume is 8 quarts, that represents 66% of the initial volume. But we cannot fairly and honestly believe that 66% of the metals left with that 8 quarts! I purport that most of the metals will stay in the host sump. Not all of them, but most of them. Some unknown % will leave via the leaks or tailpipe; I agree. But none of us have any true idea of the percent that stays and the percent that leaves. If it's getting burned in the tailpipe, then that missing particle count would be some ratio of the total. If the volume is leaving due to evaporation, then I suspect there's little if any of the particulate leaving. I don't know much about this engine; does it have an open PCV system? I converted my Dmax to have an open PCV, because I didn't want it venting into the charge air cooler and coating the inside of the heat exchanger. Generally, PCV vapors will carry some oil out, but we have no idea how much of that oil is laden with wear metal elements. I've not seen a UOA done on lube from a catch can; that might be an experiment someone could help us with? We know from NOACK testing that all lubes will express some volume out due to heat; it varies depending upon base stock and additives. What we don't know is how much of that evaporation effect carries out certain portions of the host lube.

I would agree that some portion may be leaving via the tailpipe, but I suspect it's not a large percentage overall. However, in Aharmons formula, he presumes ALL of it is leaving. I seriously doubt that is the case.

We have to draw a line here, even if the line is somewhat fuzzy and not fully black and white. I suggest that it's more accurate to not adjust for the metals, only because I suspect what portion of them are leaving is a minority portion of the host. Whereas I cannot tell you how much that is by a %, it surely isn't all of it, or even a majority of it.

Last edited by dnewton3; 01/11/19 10:18 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] #4976690 01/12/19 05:22 AM
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,405
M
m37charlie Offline
Offline
M
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,405
Do you really understand mass spectroscopy and what is being measured? My daughter has a Ph.D in geology, accepted a job at a prestigious institution as a professor and does mass spec for a living. I have a degree in physics and math. I am my daughter’s part time informal “consultant”.
Mass spec is accurate only when elements are in SOLUTION. If you can’t accept that the Fe in used oil is atomic size or nearly so you need to shut down the oil analysis section permanently right now. Do you know how small am atom is compared to the ring gap? Like a person trying to squeeze between Indianapolis and Atlanta. IOW the Fe atoms have no problem getting easly burned.
As far as the mathematical solution to the mixing problem. It involves exponentials which are hard to post on a cell phone. I have previously posted it on this forum.
You just need to realize that there are a few people out there that know as much as you do, maybe more about certain subjects. It seems occasionally your desire “to have the last word “ is counterproductive.


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] #4977012 01/12/19 01:25 PM
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,405
M
m37charlie Offline
Offline
M
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,405
Creditable data? What about the fact that my oil showed 1 ppm Pb after 25k mi? If the particles were as enormous as you say they would big time score soft babbit bearings, quickly. Sure, shards 10nm long would settle- in a century or 2 or in an ultracentrifuge, but for ALL practical purposes they are effectively in solution
But not if they are 4-5 orders of magnitude bigger and 12-15 orders of magnitude heavier.


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] #4977697 01/13/19 08:10 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,078
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,078
I don't claim to know everything, especially when it comes to chemistry. And I don't know that your degree is any more or less credible than my engineering degree and decades of using UOAs, PC, vibration analysis, thermo analysis, etc to maintain all manner of engines, gearboxes, etc. This really wasn't supposed to be about squaring off about one's credentials, is it?

- As you must be fully aware, the plasma stream cannot delineate the size of particles except that around 5um it loses the ability to see (for a lack of a better term). One 4um particle of Cu will appear the same as four 1um particles of CU to a UOA. As the size of the particles decreases, it still is a function of "ppm". The mass spec plasma gas does not give us any ability to understand sizing, but it will assign a quantification based on a presence of the element relative to the sample host, right? If that's not how it works, then please tell me your understanding of it.
- I'd also hope that you're willing to agree that particles come in many sizes, from nano-micron soot all the way up to stuff that's 20um and larger. PCs see size, but not composition. UOAs see composition, but cannot delineate size other than the inability to see stuff larger than 5um or so. It's not like a sump has ONLY UOA-sized particles in it.
- I never said ALL particles are "enormous"; where'd that come from ?
- I agree that some of the particulate will leave out the exhaust, but I also state that you, I, AHarmon and no one else really knows what percentage factor is relating to how much leaves and how much stays. I've not seen any SAE study data on this, nor heard any credible discussion to this topic.

Typically, I've been interested in what you have to say because you're often very thorough in explaining your position. Seems like that's not in the cards this time around, eh? Even if I disagree with you, I often find your position of interest. You're welcome to have the last word. Maybe this time you could actually help me out here; if you think you know more about this than I, then at least put the effort into the explanation. I've never said that I cannot learn new things.

In this thread, I'm not convinced that adjusting the volumetric denominator for a variable in the numerator that is absent in the make-up fluid. New oil does not carry in significant amounts of wear metals. You've said nothing to convince me otherwise. When you'd like to have a real conversation about that, let me know.


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] #4977756 01/13/19 09:16 AM
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 472
C
claluja Offline
Offline
C
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 472
Any iron particles that reach the combustion chamber in the oil within which they are suspended are going out the tailpipe. No reasonable dispute there.

Any iron particles that leak out of the vehicle in the oil within which they are suspended are exiting the vehicle. No reasonable dispute there.

The iron particles in the oil measured by Polaris are smaller than both ring gaps and ring clearances. Its reasonable to assume that the vast majority of any particles over 10 or 15 microns will have been caught by the oil filter. No reasonable dispute there.

OP lost eight (8) quarts of oil. That's a lot (there must be some pretty big gaps somewhere!). No dispute there.

How can anyone seriously dispute A-Harman's calculation? Answer: can't be reasonably disputed. Any good engineer will calculate the worst-case scenario, because that is the most important number. That's what the OP did, and that's certainly what I would do. I want those guys designing bridges, cars, boats, and skyscrapers.




Last edited by claluja; 01/13/19 09:35 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: A_Harman] #4977948 01/13/19 01:13 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 20,296
MolaKule Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 20,296
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.


Just asking for a clarification A_Harmon:

In the above chart/table is this the raw data from Polaris or a spreadsheet which contains the calculations with your corrections?

Last edited by MolaKule; 01/14/19 12:47 PM.

The value of a scientific theory is its ability to prompt further study, not that it has any relation to the established facts of scientific reality.
Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: dnewton3] #4977951 01/13/19 01:16 PM
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,405
M
m37charlie Offline
Offline
M
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,405
This is the last post I am going to make in this thread. Mass spec does not detect “particles “. It detects atoms . You may or may know that the spark that forms the plasma is high temperature (6000K the same as the surface of the sun) but short duration and low total power (a lot of volts but milliamperes at the most). Not enough to vaporize and ionize particles of more than a few millimicrons in size. This has been confirmed by my daughter who uses mass spec for isotope geochemistry. She says it is not really reliable unless everything is in solution. She uses the second strongest acid in existence, HF. You can win this argument if you prove to me oil analysis outfits use HF on samples before mass spec. For $29 I doubt they would use this exceedingly corrosive substance. Otherwise, I allege that the Fe is virtually in solution already ( particles at most millimicron size) that do NOT “settle” and easily fit between the outer edge of the rings and the cylinders to be burned, go out the tailpipe and removed from the sump. If YOUR allegations are true it invalidates UOAs and you need to delete the section.
Do I need to have my daughter contact you or join the forum? She is a multiply published world expert on how mass spec works, she has read most of this thread and disagrees with you.


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] #4977971 01/13/19 01:36 PM
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,405
M
m37charlie Offline
Offline
M
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,405
One last thing. I’m sure you know that an engine will shed Fe in a Gaussian distribution with total mass(not number of particles) on the y axis and size or mass per particles on the x axis. A healthy engine produces most particles in the small regime, a sick engine is skewed to the right and might real macroscopic pieces. This can’t be measured by MS but the number of millimicron particles and actual Fe atoms goes up drastically. Another way of phrasing my point is that if it can be measured by MS it’s small and enough to get past the rings and be burned.


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: claluja] #4978648 01/14/19 07:09 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,078
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,078
Originally Posted by claluja
Any iron particles that reach the combustion chamber in the oil within which they are suspended are going out the tailpipe. No reasonable dispute there.
I would reasonably agree with this.

Any iron particles that leak out of the vehicle in the oil within which they are suspended are exiting the vehicle. No reasonable dispute there.
I would reasonably agree with this.

The iron particles in the oil measured by Polaris are smaller than both ring gaps and ring clearances. Its reasonable to assume that the vast majority of any particles over 10 or 15 microns will have been caught by the oil filter. No reasonable dispute there.
I would reasonably agree with this.

OP lost eight (8) quarts of oil. That's a lot (there must be some pretty big gaps somewhere!). No dispute there.
I would reasonably agree with this.

How can anyone seriously dispute A-Harman's calculation? Answer: can't be reasonably disputed. Any good engineer will calculate the worst-case scenario, because that is the most important number. That's what the OP did, and that's certainly what I would do. I want those guys designing bridges, cars, boats, and skyscrapers.


But are we assuming that the routes of exit (exhaust, or external leaks) are the ONLY means of oil volume exit?
As we know, lubes are volatile and we score them on a NOACK scale. Lube volume loss due to evaporation is to be accounted for also, right?
Does the evap portion of the volume loss carry 100% of it's solids out? Or maybe none of them? Or some portion of them?
Has anyone ever used a "catch-can" for the PCV and then taken that oil collected and had it analyzed? Can we quantify what remains in the vapor condensed lube in terms of elements? What's the ppm of metals and additive elements of the remainder? Even if we did do a UOA on the catch can contents, how do we really know if 100% of the vapors are condensed, or only a portion of them? Do we still burn "some" portion that escapes even the catch can? And if so, what portion of the vapors moving past the catch can have elemental wear particles?

Further, if we presume for a moment that 100% of what leaves a system (regardless of the method) carries with it 100% of it's elemental contamination and additives, then why are we adjusting the formula? In a manner, you're making my argument for me, I believe. Here's why ....

If we take into account that you and Charlie believe that 100% of the lost volume essentially carries out 100% of it's encapsulated holdings, then what remains must be no more or less contaminated than what left. Given that wear rates are reasonably steady (past 3k miles) in OCIs, all the way out to 15k miles, then we can essentially say that what goes "in" the oil in terms of wear metals is a constant, steady input. For every 1k miles, you'll get "X.y" ppm of Fe, Cu, etc. At any given time in the life of the sump, let's say you have drips coming out of a seal. That drip would be no more or less laden with wear metals that what remains in the sump. It's not like leaks are going to preference metals for exit. What leaves a system (via leaks or exhaust) is very likely to be extremely close, essentially identical, to what remains in the sump in terms of concentration.

And if there's some major loss of fluid, two things are happening; you're adding more lube that's (reasonably) clean with no contamination to speak of, and you're loosing lube that is contaminated.
So if the lost volume takes with it 100% of your elements it's holds in suspension, and the incoming lube carries in nothing with it in terms of wear metals, then why would the current sump volume at any given time not represent a reasonably accurate concentration irrespective of the volume added???
In short, what leave the system via different routes should carry out "X" ppm of Fe, "Y"ppm of Cu, "Z" ppm of Al .... etcetera. And that loss would represent what was "current" at the time of loss, right?
And, what remains in the system would continue to be contaminated with wear metals at the same rate as what left.

- If we were to allow a sump to drop 30% below it's marked level, then do a massive top off, and then take a UOA immediately 5 miles afterward, I'd have to agree that there's some error being induced because we've diluted the oil and taken an immediate measurement for such a large volume change.
- If we only allow a sump that holds 12 quarts to drop perhaps a quart and then get topped off (only about 8% loss), and then we top off keeping the loss to around 8% or so, AND we take a UOA perhaps 1k or 2k miles into the refreshed top-off, then it's reasonable to think we've allowed the system to normalize again; the input of wear metals has reasonably been allowed to stabilize. AND, since 8% loss is well within the NOACK score of many lubes, it's also reasonable to think that the oil loss may (not will as an assurance, but "may" as a possibility) be leaving some manner of metals behind (to a degree that I think none of us have data for).

What we know easily is how much lube it lost.
What we don't know is the manner of it's loss (leaks, burning in combustion, evap) and how much is carried out via these methods.
I would agree that external leaks and burning are likely going to take a large portion of the holdings.
But we cannot ignore loss due to vapors, and we have no data to know how much of the metals are being carried out.

Further, if what is being lost has 100% of it's wear metals going out with the host lube, then what remains should be reasonably representative of the "as current" contamination concentration, (as long as you don't do a massive sump refill and then immediately UOA; that would distort the concentrations).

We know from UOA data that wear rates are actually very consistent, barring any catastrophic event occurring. We can see engines that don't have much lube volume loss exhibit very consistent wear rates after the first few thousand miles after an OCI. Typically these rates only vary by a few tenths of ppm. Very consistent wear. And so, even if we have an engine that sees large volume loss (and subsequent make-up), there's no reason to think the wear rate of the engine changes substantially. We could debate the merit of the TCB being altered by the fresh detergents, but again, there's no study data that addresses PARTIAL OCI volume shifts, and it would be further complicated by the topic of what would be "residual" from a previous OCI ... Into the weeds we go.
What we can accept is that the engine will wear at a fairly steady rate. So the make-up oil, if replace at fairly frequent intervals, in small volumes, will not cause a condition to greatly alter the "as current" contamination concentration value.


So again I'm asking why you all are trying to adjust a mathematical formula for a condition that does not have proven data as to where ALL the wear metals go (does the evap carry or drop elements?), and the make up volume carries in nothing to the equation.


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: m37charlie] #4978672 01/14/19 08:19 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,078
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,078
Originally Posted by m37charlie
This is the last post I am going to make in this thread. Mass spec does not detect “particles “. It detects atoms . You may or may know that the spark that forms the plasma is high temperature (6000K the same as the surface of the sun) but short duration and low total power (a lot of volts but milliamperes at the most). Not enough to vaporize and ionize particles of more than a few millimicrons in size. This has been confirmed by my daughter who uses mass spec for isotope geochemistry. She says it is not really reliable unless everything is in solution. She uses the second strongest acid in existence, HF. You can win this argument if you prove to me oil analysis outfits use HF on samples before mass spec. For $29 I doubt they would use this exceedingly corrosive substance. Otherwise, I allege that the Fe is virtually in solution already ( particles at most millimicron size) that do NOT “settle” and easily fit between the outer edge of the rings and the cylinders to be burned, go out the tailpipe and removed from the sump. If YOUR allegations are true it invalidates UOAs and you need to delete the section.
Do I need to have my daughter contact you or join the forum? She is a multiply published world expert on how mass spec works, she has read most of this thread and disagrees with you.


1) Thank you for explaining your viewpoint; this is what I'm looking for.

2) This is not the way I've had it explained to be previously. However, I'm not convinced you are wrong; only in opposition to what I've heard in the past. It may well be that you are correct and my basis for understanding the MS process is wrong. I need to do some more research. At least you've given me a place to start other than what I already have preconceived from other sources. I would welcome a contact from your daughter; if you'll PM me I can give you my contact info.

3) If we assume that the loss of volume carries with it the vast majority (if not all) of the elements, then would not my vision of the "as current" volume concentration be correct? (see my thread above and continuation below)

We cannot really know (at least not yet) what portion of the vapor loss does or does not contribute to residual concentrations. I've not seen data on this, nor any study. Does the vapor loss carry 100% of it's holdings? None? Some portion?

What I disagree with is how the AHarmon method is attempting to adjust for a condition that is likely not really in need of adjustment.
I will, for the sake of the conversation, acquiesce to your position; 100% of the lost volume takes with it essentially 100% of the elements held in suspension.
So if we are introducing new volume that carries in near-pure (no wear metals) lube, and we allow for that lube to be contaminated for 1k or 2k miles by an engine that has very steady wear rates, then why in the world would we try to adjust a formula? It should be this simple:
- make all your top-offs reasonably frequent; this will decrease dilution effects and also greatly reduce any TCB shift
- take your UOA samples perhaps 1k or 2k miles after the top-off
- what remains in the sump would be very representative of the true nature of the wear trends; the ppm concentration should be very near "true"


In all my data (over 15k UOAs of all manner of engines), I can find essentially no correlation between oil consumption and wear rates. (There are a precious few examples, but they are known to be from engines with high failure issues and do not represent the vast majority of reliable engines). UOAs that have high consumption (say 50% sump volume or even more) over the OCI duration, do not have wear rates much different than those which have very low oil consumption (say 20% or less over the OCI). I have UOAs from engines that have high consumption and those with low consumption. In OCIs where there was no volume added, the perceived shift in wear rates is lower than the standard deviation. IOW, in engines that do have higher consumption, but don't get volume added (the OCI was short enough that the net sump level was not to a danger point prior to the OCI), the wear rates were not appreciably different than engines with low consumption. Real data does not exhibit statistical difference between engines with high and low consumption, even when there is no volume topped off.
Example: Several UOAs taken from the same engine, at different times, under different conditions
- UOA sample has an Fe wear rate of 1.8ppm/1k miles. It has low consumption over a 7k mile OCI (the level on the dipstick goes down very little; less than 10% change in volume and no oil added).
- Next UOA sample taken later has an Fe wear rate of 1.9ppm/1k miles. It has higher consumption over a 7k mile OCI (the level goes from "full" to "add"; perhaps a 20% volume shift; volume added incrementally).
- Later yet again, another UOA sample taken indicates 2.7ppm/1k miles of Fe. There was a volume loss of that same 20%, but no oil was added. This higher wear rate was due to extremely heavy loading; throttle at 75% or more most all the time, with EGTs at 1200-1300F all the time (max of 1350F by OEM design).
Macro data shows that this engine family will have an average of 2.3ppm/1k miles at 7k miles exposure, with a normal distribution variation sigma of .4ppm; hence anything up to 2.7ppm/1k miles is "normal" for the first standard deviation. The UOA sample where 20% volume was added contrasted to the UOA where 20% volume was not added is not appreciably different because of oil added; it's because of the extreme use factor applied in one of the OCI cycles. And yet ALL of the wear rates were within "normal" distribution. My point is that wear rates really don't change much, regardless if you add oil or not; certainly not in a manner that can be credibly discerned by statistical analysis. The potential changes in wear rates due to oil volume addition is smaller than the natural variation, and therefore we cannot claim to have an "ah-ha!" moment that would make us believe we can attribute an output to an input. Regardless of the make-up factor, wear rates don't change much, even in examples where the same volume loss may or may not have enjoyed the addition of make-up oil. Much of this depends upon the nature of the individual engine performance (micro data). Since no one here has proven to me that they indeed have solid micro data, we rely on macro data for proof.

You've not convinced me that a correction factor should exist and be implemented. If we accept that what leaves a sump carries out 100% of it's holdings, then we can presume that there is no increase in concentration. And if we're careful not to be taking samples after large sump top-off additions, the wear rates will be very steady. So why adjust a formula for concentration when what you claim takes all the stuff with it, and what remains is not altered to any statistical degree by the wear rates?


Charlie - I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to debate this from a point of logic. Whereas I don't agree with you at this point, I do respect your opinions and knowledge. If you want to convince me you're right (and you may well be), then show me the math and help me understand why it's necessary to adjust a formula for concentration of a metal when the "as current" sample should be very true to the overall condition. If you wish to exit the conversation, that would be a loss, but I'll offer the apology if I've made you mad. I have no intent to irritate you; only challenge you to defend your position. My position is that it is unnecessary to adjust for sump volume loss (presuming the conditions I state for the sample methodology) in terms of wear metals.

My position is that, as long as you top-off reasonably frequently, and do so in smaller quantities, and take your UOA sample after the sump is given a change of homogenize, then the natural variation of wear trends will far outpace any wear induced by the top-off. And if you grossly alter your formula (as you and AHarmon suggest), then you're falsely accrediting a shift in wear trends when no adjustment is necessary in the first place. Even if you do this, you have very little likelihood to be able to "prove" your formula is needed when a typical 3-sigma distribution will be far larger than the correction you put in.

I believe you are correcting unnecessarily, and even when you do, your correction cannot be discerned from the typical variation of normal everyday expectations.


Last edited by dnewton3; 01/16/19 07:00 AM. Reason: spelling corrections

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] #4978944 01/14/19 01:32 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 20,296
MolaKule Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 20,296
Very interesting discussion.

One comment: Modern engine oil additives contain a thiadiazole-type chemistry, a multi-functional component which acts as an Ashless-High Temperature Antioxidant, Antiwear/Antiscuff, Friction Reducer,Corrosion Inhibitor, Extreme Pressure, and Metal Deactivator. that contributes anywhere from 1 to 3 ppm of iron alone.

I have proven this when I was making my own additive formulae. I had pondered why I was getting 1-3 ppm of iron in a clean HDPE mixing drum and the thiadiazole-type compound came in 5-liter brown glass bottles.

The base oils were PAO's, esters and other oils which came in 55 gallon steel drums, but when those virgin oils were analyzed, there was zero ppm of iron found. The prevailing theory at the time was that the iron came from the steel drums. I could never accept this because the drums were lined with a thin protective film to keep base oils from reacting with the steel.

I made up a number of finished 100mLiter lubricants with and without various compounds including the thiadiazole chemistry, and wola! Analyses showed the samples without the thiadiazole chemistry had zero ppm of iron but the samples with thiadiazole chemistry showed 1-3 ppm of iron.

So this chemistry may skew any computations involving ferrous analyses.




Last edited by MolaKule; 01/14/19 01:36 PM.

The value of a scientific theory is its ability to prompt further study, not that it has any relation to the established facts of scientific reality.
Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: MolaKule] #4978971 01/14/19 01:58 PM
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 472
C
claluja Offline
Offline
C
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 472
Originally Posted by MolaKule
Very interesting discussion.

One comment: Modern engine oil additives contain a thiadiazole-type chemistry, a multi-functional component which acts as an Ashless-High Temperature Antioxidant, Antiwear/Antiscuff, Friction Reducer,Corrosion Inhibitor, Extreme Pressure, and Metal Deactivator. that contributes anywhere from 1 to 3 ppm of iron alone.

I have proven this when I was making my own additive formulae. I had pondered why I was getting 1-3 ppm of iron in a clean HDPE mixing drum and the thiadiazole-type compound came in 5-liter brown glass bottles.

The base oils were PAO's, esters and other oils which came in 55 gallon steel drums, but when those virgin oils were analyzed, there was zero ppm of iron found. The prevailing theory at the time was that the iron came from the steel drums. I could never accept this because the drums were lined with a thin protective film to keep base oils from reacting with the steel.

I made up a number of finished 100mLiter lubricants with and without various compounds including the thiadiazole chemistry, and wola! Analyses showed the samples without the thiadiazole chemistry had zero ppm of iron but the samples with thiadiazole chemistry showed 1-3 ppm of iron.

So this chemistry may skew any computations involving ferrous analyses.





Did you ever try using a thiadiazole-type compound that came in a container other than a glass bottle? Lots of iron in the glass.


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] #4979165 01/14/19 05:02 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 20,296
MolaKule Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 20,296
Originally Posted by claluja



Did you ever try using a thiadiazole-type compound that came in a container other than a glass bottle? Lots of iron in the glass.


I appreciate your "cause-affect" question and yes as a matter of fact, I did have a 1-Liter bottle delivered from a different chemistry house in a HDP2 bottle with the same showing.

But then we have to look at the atoms of iron sulfide in terms of diffusion theory in tightly-bound atoms in glass crystals. It is mainly iron sulfide that gives rise to the amber color of glass. So if iron sulfide atoms could diffuse into the thiadiazole compound, it should have also raised the sulfur content in the analysis as well, which it didn't.

Besides, these thiadiazole molecules are very large and would have to diffuse into and in between the very small crystal lattices of glass in order to exchange any other atoms.





Last edited by MolaKule; 01/14/19 05:03 PM.

The value of a scientific theory is its ability to prompt further study, not that it has any relation to the established facts of scientific reality.
Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: MolaKule] #4979184 01/14/19 05:17 PM
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 472
C
claluja Offline
Offline
C
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 472
Originally Posted by MolaKule
Originally Posted by claluja



Did you ever try using a thiadiazole-type compound that came in a container other than a glass bottle? Lots of iron in the glass.


I appreciate your "cause-affect" question and yes as a matter of fact, I did have a 1-Liter bottle delivered from a different chemistry house in a HDP2 bottle with the same showing.

But then we have to look at the atoms of iron sulfide in terms of diffusion theory in tightly-bound atoms in glass crystals. It is mainly iron sulfide that gives rise to the amber color of glass. So if iron sulfide atoms could diffuse into the thiadiazole compound, it should have also raised the sulfur content in the analysis as well, which it didn't.

Besides, these thiadiazole molecules are very large and would have to diffuse into and in between the very small crystal lattices of glass in order to exchange any other atoms.






Sounds like you've got that covered. Btw, guessing about half the iron in that glass is bonded to O, both ferric and ferrous. Other half to S. Rough estimates.
Not sure if that matters, as I'm not familiar with your compounds. Materials leach out from glass quite a bit depending in circumstances, with Na being the most well known culprit.


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] #4981166 01/16/19 02:18 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,351
R
racin4ds Offline
Offline
R
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,351
So let me see if I have this straight... you run Synthetic RT6 for many years with much shorter OCI's and then switch to a conventional oil (VHMD) and go 21,000 miles on it?

I guess it really doesn't matter because at the rate that truck is using oil, you're constantly replenishing the sump! Does it leak or burn oil? both?


Just say NO to thin oils and M1!
05 F350 Powerstroke
05 Hyundai Tucson
08 Legacy GT
Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: MolaKule] #5085135 04/24/19 07:19 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,452
A
A_Harman Offline OP
OP Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,452
Originally Posted by MolaKule
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.


Just asking for a clarification A_Harmon:

In the above chart/table is this the raw data from Polaris or a spreadsheet which contains the calculations with your corrections?


Sorry about taking a few months off of this thread. The image is a snip of the Excel spreadsheet where I have entered the raw data from Polaris, then embellished on it by adding my own calculations in the rows titled "Dilution Factor", "Iron (corrected)", and "Iron wear rate".


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: racin4ds] #5085175 04/24/19 07:42 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,452
A
A_Harman Offline OP
OP Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,452
Originally Posted by racin4ds
So let me see if I have this straight... you run Synthetic RT6 for many years with much shorter OCI's and then switch to a conventional oil (VHMD) and go 21,000 miles on it?

I guess it really doesn't matter because at the rate that truck is using oil, you're constantly replenishing the sump! Does it leak or burn oil? both?


No, the chart requires some explanation. In the "Truck Miles" row, if the cell fill from column to column is the same color, that means I took an oil sample without changing the oil. The first samples I was taking in the 2012-2013 time frame was when I was trying to find an OCI that was long enough to take advantage of the long-drain intervals of synthetic without getting crazy. The shortest OCI I ever ran on RT6 is 24K miles. In the pre-history of UOA's on this truck, I ran VPBC faithfully on 1-year oil changes from 2003 to 20012. In those years, that was about 18k mile OCI's.

Then I fell in with the BITOG crowd, and started getting UOA's...

The truck both leaks and burns oil, but it probably leaks more than it burns. It's always been pretty leaky, and I have tried to dry it up over the years, but let's just say the frame is still rust-free because of oil leakage, not because I was taking it to Krown. The main culprit is the oil breather on the gearcase cover. It also sends some oil out the exhaust if it idles for more than an hour. The first couple of runs through the gears generates blue smoke out the exhaust, I think because of a leaky turbine seal.


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] #5106406 05/15/19 10:25 PM
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 758
S
SavagePatch Offline
Offline
S
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 758
Is this the oil you used? Did it help with oil consumption?

The PCMO Maxlife oils state that they have seal conditioners. The Heavy Duty Maxlife does not. I wonder what makes it "high mileage". My only guess is its thicker viscosity and possibly higher HTHS.

Screenshot_20190515-202015.jpgScreenshot_20190511-075942.jpg
Re: 2001 Dodge Ram 2500, Valvoline High Mileage Diesel, 21k miles [Re: SavagePatch] #5129492 06/09/19 05:01 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,452
A
A_Harman Offline OP
OP Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,452
Originally Posted by SavagePatch
Is this the oil you used? Did it help with oil consumption?

The PCMO Maxlife oils state that they have seal conditioners. The Heavy Duty Maxlife does not. I wonder what makes it "high mileage". My only guess is its thicker viscosity and possibly higher HTHS.


Yeah, that was the stuff. It didn't help out with the oil consumption rate.


1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

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