I have used Schaeffers 7000 for years in many diesel engines an I will most likely keep using it but......With this new 15w-40 T6 I have been seeing, a guy gets to thinking, is saving nearly $12 a gallon worth the switch from Shaeffers 7000 to Rotella T6? $12 a gallon savings really starts to add up after buying 5 gallons.
15w-40....Rotella T6 Vs Schaeffer's 7000
- Thread starter highland512
- Start date
- Status
Throw in the $7 rebate for T6 that Kneegrinder posted and Bob's your Uncle.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
This would depend upon how you're using it.
Given that 99% of folks dump oil way before it's time, then it's safe to guess that even dino oil would be a safe bet.
If you see the value in using the T6, then you'll see even more in using the T4.
The most accurate way to know which is a good choice is to run some UOAs with each, and then find the one that offers the right level or protection for the least cost.
Given that 99% of folks dump oil way before it's time, then it's safe to guess that even dino oil would be a safe bet.
If you see the value in using the T6, then you'll see even more in using the T4.
The most accurate way to know which is a good choice is to run some UOAs with each, and then find the one that offers the right level or protection for the least cost.
Originally Posted by dnewton3
This would depend upon how you're using it.
Given that 99% of folks dump oil way before it's time, then it's safe to guess that even dino oil would be a safe bet.
If you see the value in using the T6, then you'll see even more in using the T4.
The most accurate way to know which is a good choice is to run some UOAs with each, and then find the one that offers the right level or protection for the least cost.
Didn't know UOAs provided information on piston deposits and ring and turbo coking. There's more to using synthetics than merely reducing metallic wear.
This would depend upon how you're using it.
Given that 99% of folks dump oil way before it's time, then it's safe to guess that even dino oil would be a safe bet.
If you see the value in using the T6, then you'll see even more in using the T4.
The most accurate way to know which is a good choice is to run some UOAs with each, and then find the one that offers the right level or protection for the least cost.
Didn't know UOAs provided information on piston deposits and ring and turbo coking. There's more to using synthetics than merely reducing metallic wear.
dnewton3
Staff member
UOAs won't do that; true.
But then there's no proof that conventional oils won't protect against those things either. To the contrary, most of the products that provide protection against those things are additives put into lubes; not inherent in lubes. Generally detergents are what keep and engine clean; Ca, Mg, esters, etc. Syns are not born with those; those are additives. And those very same additives can go into conventional lubes, too.
group IV and V lubes do resist oxidation to a higher temp, but as long as the engine does not get too hot, that's not a problem for any lube.
But then there's no proof that conventional oils won't protect against those things either. To the contrary, most of the products that provide protection against those things are additives put into lubes; not inherent in lubes. Generally detergents are what keep and engine clean; Ca, Mg, esters, etc. Syns are not born with those; those are additives. And those very same additives can go into conventional lubes, too.
group IV and V lubes do resist oxidation to a higher temp, but as long as the engine does not get too hot, that's not a problem for any lube.
Problem is a lot of times lubes getting hot is not an option.
dnewton3
Staff member
It would depend upon how you define "hot". What is hot to you is not necessarily hot to an engine, or the lube.
Many SAE studies that involve oil for diesel applications are run with the sump temps at 250F; this is to induce a scenario that would mimic heavy loading (say 80% throttle) in terms of a HALT (highly accelerated life test). That temp is well within the definition of "normal" for a sump temp.
Now - I suppose you're going to say "Yabut Dave .... turbos get really really hot; with EGTs up to 1600F ...."
Well, that is true. But the OIL does not get that hot. This is a topic of thermal energy transfer, in which temps are only one portion of the equation. Oil can do many things, and transferring thermal energy is one of them. They absorb/reject heat depending upon a temp delta and many other things. As long as the lube system is designed for the right volumetric flow rates and capacity, including absorption and rejection heat exchangers, then all will be fine.
Time for me to dust off an old example ...
Go into the kitchen and light a small candle, and prepare to hold a paper napkin above it. The purpose of the exercise is to keep the flame from lighting the paper on fire.
- Now, pass your fingers quickly over the flame just an inch above the flame. No damage done to your fingers, because very little energy was absorbed by your fingers. Most of the energy goes right into the napkin and it burns.
- Next, pass your fingers at a moderate speed over the flame. You fingers will be warm, but not hurt. You pulled heat from the source and your skin/blood transferred that energy to a larger mass (your body). And some goes into the air towards the napkin. If you, and some friends, could pass fingers over the flame, you'd be able to protect the napkin from damage and yet not sustain finger burns.
- Now, hold your fingers steady at the flame and don't move them, if you dare. You'll get a 3rd degree burn, and either temporary or permanent flesh damage will result. While the napkin is fine, your fingers are not.
There would be a point of balance where you could carry away enough heat energy with enough fingers that no finger would ever be damaged, and no overheating of the napkin would take place. The challenge is to engineer the rate of thermal exchange so that the desired outcome happens without damage to the primary medium. If you had enough fingers, and the right velocity of passing your fingers over the flame, you can find a point where no damage happens to the fingers or the napkin.
Get the point?
Thermal energy exchange is a matter of using one mass to transfer energy to another mass. As long as the lube system is properly sized and designed, there should be an adequate flow of lube to carry the heat away to another place, and as long as those volumetric flow rates and exchange conditions are favorable, no harm is done. A lube system can easily sustain very high local temps as long as the exchange rate and rejection point are properly engineered. Whereas a turbo may see EGTS as high as 1600F, the oil won't get that hot. It will flow enough volume and velocity to only pick up a portion of that energy, in an ever-revolving exchange as each quart passes over the "hot spot". The oil then rejects the heat into another place (typically an air or liquid cooled exhanger). Further, as a generalization, both conventional lubes and synthetic lubes both absorb/reject energy at the same rate; it's not like syn lubes can transfer "heat" substantially quicker. Whereas there may exist a tiny, fractional benefit one way or another, it's absurdly small if it exists at all (well within any practical means of the error in measurement).
If you want to have a discussion about "hot" oil, then you'll need to define the temps, the sump size, the heat exchanger size, the secondary medium (air or coolant), the flow rate at the hot-spot, etc. Until you can do that, it's just silly banter. Suffice it to say that "hot" to you does not really equate to "hot" to the oil. A well designed system will avoid overheating the lube.
And I would note this as well ... any lube that gets damaged from thermal over-exposure is not a fault of the lube, but a flaw in the design of the lube system. It's not the oil's fault that the rate of thermal exchange was exceeded. If you have a system that absolutely requires syn lubes, so that the oil is not damaged in use, then I'd argue that you have a system that is not designed well. At some point, ANY lube can get to a thermal point that it gets compromised. It may just take longer to happen to a syn lube.
Many SAE studies that involve oil for diesel applications are run with the sump temps at 250F; this is to induce a scenario that would mimic heavy loading (say 80% throttle) in terms of a HALT (highly accelerated life test). That temp is well within the definition of "normal" for a sump temp.
Now - I suppose you're going to say "Yabut Dave .... turbos get really really hot; with EGTs up to 1600F ...."
Well, that is true. But the OIL does not get that hot. This is a topic of thermal energy transfer, in which temps are only one portion of the equation. Oil can do many things, and transferring thermal energy is one of them. They absorb/reject heat depending upon a temp delta and many other things. As long as the lube system is designed for the right volumetric flow rates and capacity, including absorption and rejection heat exchangers, then all will be fine.
Time for me to dust off an old example ...
Go into the kitchen and light a small candle, and prepare to hold a paper napkin above it. The purpose of the exercise is to keep the flame from lighting the paper on fire.
- Now, pass your fingers quickly over the flame just an inch above the flame. No damage done to your fingers, because very little energy was absorbed by your fingers. Most of the energy goes right into the napkin and it burns.
- Next, pass your fingers at a moderate speed over the flame. You fingers will be warm, but not hurt. You pulled heat from the source and your skin/blood transferred that energy to a larger mass (your body). And some goes into the air towards the napkin. If you, and some friends, could pass fingers over the flame, you'd be able to protect the napkin from damage and yet not sustain finger burns.
- Now, hold your fingers steady at the flame and don't move them, if you dare. You'll get a 3rd degree burn, and either temporary or permanent flesh damage will result. While the napkin is fine, your fingers are not.
There would be a point of balance where you could carry away enough heat energy with enough fingers that no finger would ever be damaged, and no overheating of the napkin would take place. The challenge is to engineer the rate of thermal exchange so that the desired outcome happens without damage to the primary medium. If you had enough fingers, and the right velocity of passing your fingers over the flame, you can find a point where no damage happens to the fingers or the napkin.
Get the point?
Thermal energy exchange is a matter of using one mass to transfer energy to another mass. As long as the lube system is properly sized and designed, there should be an adequate flow of lube to carry the heat away to another place, and as long as those volumetric flow rates and exchange conditions are favorable, no harm is done. A lube system can easily sustain very high local temps as long as the exchange rate and rejection point are properly engineered. Whereas a turbo may see EGTS as high as 1600F, the oil won't get that hot. It will flow enough volume and velocity to only pick up a portion of that energy, in an ever-revolving exchange as each quart passes over the "hot spot". The oil then rejects the heat into another place (typically an air or liquid cooled exhanger). Further, as a generalization, both conventional lubes and synthetic lubes both absorb/reject energy at the same rate; it's not like syn lubes can transfer "heat" substantially quicker. Whereas there may exist a tiny, fractional benefit one way or another, it's absurdly small if it exists at all (well within any practical means of the error in measurement).
If you want to have a discussion about "hot" oil, then you'll need to define the temps, the sump size, the heat exchanger size, the secondary medium (air or coolant), the flow rate at the hot-spot, etc. Until you can do that, it's just silly banter. Suffice it to say that "hot" to you does not really equate to "hot" to the oil. A well designed system will avoid overheating the lube.
And I would note this as well ... any lube that gets damaged from thermal over-exposure is not a fault of the lube, but a flaw in the design of the lube system. It's not the oil's fault that the rate of thermal exchange was exceeded. If you have a system that absolutely requires syn lubes, so that the oil is not damaged in use, then I'd argue that you have a system that is not designed well. At some point, ANY lube can get to a thermal point that it gets compromised. It may just take longer to happen to a syn lube.
Last edited:
As a point of reference, there are MANY reported cases of the oil filter standpipe melting on the Ford 6.0L engines. The issue was with the oil coolers (typically from solids in the coolant plugging the oil cooler, but some issues involved failed oil coolers as well). The plastic deforms at around 300 *F and melts at around 350*F. Bearing in mind that the oil in the filter is not the hottest point for the oil, then it is likely that internal engine oil temps could easily have reached the 350*F range before the plastic deformation began. On my engine, when it has fully warmed up, I have measured oil pan temps of "up-to" 50 degrees higher than the PCM reported oil temp (which is after the cooler).
I don't know the answer to this question, so hopefully there are some responses. At what temperature would you get concerned for common conventional oils (Rotella T4, Premium Blue Extreme, etc) and same question for the common synthetics (Rotella T6, Mibil Delvac 1, and the like)?
I do realize that the exposure time is an important factor in answering the question, but I am really more interested in short term exposure (say hours or maybe a few days of exposure, not many days or weeks). I believe that as oil temps start getting that hot, something will most likely cause the engine to run very poorly or even shut down before it exposes the oil to those temps for a long duration (specifically talking HEUI diesels with "water-cooled oil" in this case).
I don't know the answer to this question, so hopefully there are some responses. At what temperature would you get concerned for common conventional oils (Rotella T4, Premium Blue Extreme, etc) and same question for the common synthetics (Rotella T6, Mibil Delvac 1, and the like)?
I do realize that the exposure time is an important factor in answering the question, but I am really more interested in short term exposure (say hours or maybe a few days of exposure, not many days or weeks). I believe that as oil temps start getting that hot, something will most likely cause the engine to run very poorly or even shut down before it exposes the oil to those temps for a long duration (specifically talking HEUI diesels with "water-cooled oil" in this case).
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Conventional oils would perhaps be a concern at 275F or higher for long sustained periods. Shorter periods would be maybe up to 300F"ish"? Like I said, many SAE tests are run with the lube at 250F for hours upon hours on purpose; that's considered a "normal" allowable temp.
You example of the stand pipes is a good one. That's not the fault of any lube; it's the cooler malfunction which the 6.0L is infamous for. That condition causes the system to go out of balance; it cannot reject the heat as intended. Both the oil and the coolant end up getting way too hot, and those both have negative consequences down the road. In this case, using a syn isn't necessarily going to stop the problem from happening; it may one delay the onset of lube issues. Use a syn in these conditions, it likely will fail as well, albeit just a while later. This would also depend on the group type syn used.
You example of the stand pipes is a good one. That's not the fault of any lube; it's the cooler malfunction which the 6.0L is infamous for. That condition causes the system to go out of balance; it cannot reject the heat as intended. Both the oil and the coolant end up getting way too hot, and those both have negative consequences down the road. In this case, using a syn isn't necessarily going to stop the problem from happening; it may one delay the onset of lube issues. Use a syn in these conditions, it likely will fail as well, albeit just a while later. This would also depend on the group type syn used.
I run UOA's every change. Schaeffers oil scope has me up to 12,000 mile intervals. This is on a 6.0 powerstroke with 202,000 miles with Scheaffers for the last 145,000miles.
I have no problems with rotella T, I still run it in my 1997 7.3 powerstroke with 397,000 miles that runs great.
Im still debating this, it's hard to argue with the results we have had out of running Schaeffers in multiple semi's, ag tractors, pickups, and construction equipment. When we completed our last overhaul on a 6nz Cat with 1.65 million miles the bearings looked like they had half the age on them and there was 0 gunk build up anywhere in the engine, it was beautiful. The only reason for the rebuild was a crack in the head and it was just a good time for us to complete the work. It would take a long time of saving $100 per oil change to add up to the cost of a $15,000 overhaul. Part of me says we can sit here on this web site and talk brands all we want but If you nerd out this much on oil then chances are you keep up on maintenance of your equipment more than your wife. Religious maintenance is the key to longevity in my book.
I have no problems with rotella T, I still run it in my 1997 7.3 powerstroke with 397,000 miles that runs great.
Im still debating this, it's hard to argue with the results we have had out of running Schaeffers in multiple semi's, ag tractors, pickups, and construction equipment. When we completed our last overhaul on a 6nz Cat with 1.65 million miles the bearings looked like they had half the age on them and there was 0 gunk build up anywhere in the engine, it was beautiful. The only reason for the rebuild was a crack in the head and it was just a good time for us to complete the work. It would take a long time of saving $100 per oil change to add up to the cost of a $15,000 overhaul. Part of me says we can sit here on this web site and talk brands all we want but If you nerd out this much on oil then chances are you keep up on maintenance of your equipment more than your wife. Religious maintenance is the key to longevity in my book.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted by highland512
.... Part of me says we can sit here on this web site and talk brands all we want but If you nerd out this much on oil then chances are you keep up on maintenance of your equipment more than your wife. Religious maintenance is the key to longevity in my book.
Hence, my signature line.
.... Part of me says we can sit here on this web site and talk brands all we want but If you nerd out this much on oil then chances are you keep up on maintenance of your equipment more than your wife. Religious maintenance is the key to longevity in my book.
Hence, my signature line.
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Originally Posted by highland512
.... Part of me says we can sit here on this web site and talk brands all we want but If you nerd out this much on oil then chances are you keep up on maintenance of your equipment more than your wife. Religious maintenance is the key to longevity in my book.
Hence, my signature line.
It's nearly impossible to tell the exact instant to service your equipment without being too early or too late, and be able to service it at that instant. So that leaves you with a choice, either do your maintenance early or late. Doing it early gives piece of mind and I would argue it does not waste money because the alternative is to do your maintenance late a start damaging the equipment. I always do mine early and sleep well at night.
Originally Posted by highland512
.... Part of me says we can sit here on this web site and talk brands all we want but If you nerd out this much on oil then chances are you keep up on maintenance of your equipment more than your wife. Religious maintenance is the key to longevity in my book.
Hence, my signature line.
It's nearly impossible to tell the exact instant to service your equipment without being too early or too late, and be able to service it at that instant. So that leaves you with a choice, either do your maintenance early or late. Doing it early gives piece of mind and I would argue it does not waste money because the alternative is to do your maintenance late a start damaging the equipment. I always do mine early and sleep well at night.
dnewton3
Staff member
There are three types of "PM" ....
- Predictive Maintenance: this where inputs are screened, and outputs are tracked, to determine a likely failure point, and then address the item/component PRIOR to failure. This is a method of using any combination of many tools (UOAs, PCs, visual observations, audible observations, vibratory analysis, thermal analysis, etc, etc) to make practical, safe decisions regarding life-cycle issues from anything such as lubricants and filters to bearings, bushings, brake pads, etc, etc ...
- Preventative Maintenance: this is an approach where things are changed out on a predetermined schedule, typically based on overly conservative assumptions to cover worst case scenarios. While it may be "safe", it's often very wasteful. Just about any/every OEM schedule you'll ever come across has this approach.
- Panic Maintenance: this is where you ignore things and run them until they break, failure is imminent and performance has been compromised, or continued use is unsafe. Believe it or not, many companies and many people actually do this; probably not the BITOGer approach ... I can recall many, many frustrating days at Ford when they would run stuff into the ground, and then complain about downtime ... but that's another story for another day.
I practice Predictive Maintenance. I use tools and data to ascertain when it's prudent to change things prior to failure. I don't have to guess. I do agree that there is likely no perfect (down to the split second) prediction that can be made in a practical sense, but I can most certainly show how/why my decisions to OFCI are both safe AND fiscally sound. I set condemnation limits based on historically significant data and then track trends.
Preventative maintenance can be considered both wasteful and not wasteful, because it falls in-between the two other choices. So it's depends upon one's position as to the view across the options. Preventative maintenance is cheaper than Panic Maintenance, but is more expensive than Predictive Maintenance.
In very small sump engines, there are times may be cheaper to just OFCI then UOA (depending upon what oil analysis service you choose to use). However, that is ONLY if you choose to take the path of OEM OCIs. When nearly every single UOA points towards much longer OCIs being possible, the extension of the OCI typically will make the UOA worthwhile. Nearly every engine out there can typically go 15k miles with a wear rate that is getting BETTER as the miles pile on; this is true despite all the heretical gibberish and marketing blathering we see all around us. For large sump engines, it's pretty much always cheaper to UOA than OCI blindly.
There are scads of UOAs on this site where people not only waste oil, but they waste information. They will pay for the UOA, and then promptly ignore the data and go ahead and change oil at their predetermined mental limit, despite all manner of information telling them OFCI extensions are safe.
Again - one man's cheap insurance is another man's waste.
- Predictive Maintenance: this where inputs are screened, and outputs are tracked, to determine a likely failure point, and then address the item/component PRIOR to failure. This is a method of using any combination of many tools (UOAs, PCs, visual observations, audible observations, vibratory analysis, thermal analysis, etc, etc) to make practical, safe decisions regarding life-cycle issues from anything such as lubricants and filters to bearings, bushings, brake pads, etc, etc ...
- Preventative Maintenance: this is an approach where things are changed out on a predetermined schedule, typically based on overly conservative assumptions to cover worst case scenarios. While it may be "safe", it's often very wasteful. Just about any/every OEM schedule you'll ever come across has this approach.
- Panic Maintenance: this is where you ignore things and run them until they break, failure is imminent and performance has been compromised, or continued use is unsafe. Believe it or not, many companies and many people actually do this; probably not the BITOGer approach ... I can recall many, many frustrating days at Ford when they would run stuff into the ground, and then complain about downtime ... but that's another story for another day.
I practice Predictive Maintenance. I use tools and data to ascertain when it's prudent to change things prior to failure. I don't have to guess. I do agree that there is likely no perfect (down to the split second) prediction that can be made in a practical sense, but I can most certainly show how/why my decisions to OFCI are both safe AND fiscally sound. I set condemnation limits based on historically significant data and then track trends.
Preventative maintenance can be considered both wasteful and not wasteful, because it falls in-between the two other choices. So it's depends upon one's position as to the view across the options. Preventative maintenance is cheaper than Panic Maintenance, but is more expensive than Predictive Maintenance.
In very small sump engines, there are times may be cheaper to just OFCI then UOA (depending upon what oil analysis service you choose to use). However, that is ONLY if you choose to take the path of OEM OCIs. When nearly every single UOA points towards much longer OCIs being possible, the extension of the OCI typically will make the UOA worthwhile. Nearly every engine out there can typically go 15k miles with a wear rate that is getting BETTER as the miles pile on; this is true despite all the heretical gibberish and marketing blathering we see all around us. For large sump engines, it's pretty much always cheaper to UOA than OCI blindly.
There are scads of UOAs on this site where people not only waste oil, but they waste information. They will pay for the UOA, and then promptly ignore the data and go ahead and change oil at their predetermined mental limit, despite all manner of information telling them OFCI extensions are safe.
Again - one man's cheap insurance is another man's waste.
Last edited:
Good info!
I've been researching oil temps for awhile now as I too am a beloved ford 6.0 owner and it cracks me up to see all these guys on the 6.0 forums panic when they see oil temps get around 215-220* That is not hot! But now reading this, I realize that is measured AFTER the cooler so sump temps are likely 260-275* and that is getting into dangerous territory....
I plan to install a sending unit and gauge in my truck (If I keep the darn thing) to monitor actual sump temps. Would be very interesting to compare to the factory temp readings from the OBDII port.
I'm a NASCAR fan and love seeing the in car shots showing oil temps of 270-280* and they spin 8500rpm all day for 500 miles. I know these are passenger car, off the shelf oils but still!
I hear nothing but good about the Schaeffer's oils in the Ford HEUI systems, I've just had a hard time with the whole AMSOIL philosophy of paying a premium, plus shipping and then having to wait. If I could walk into WalMart and buy it off the shelf I'd likely run it.
I've been researching oil temps for awhile now as I too am a beloved ford 6.0 owner and it cracks me up to see all these guys on the 6.0 forums panic when they see oil temps get around 215-220* That is not hot! But now reading this, I realize that is measured AFTER the cooler so sump temps are likely 260-275* and that is getting into dangerous territory....
I plan to install a sending unit and gauge in my truck (If I keep the darn thing) to monitor actual sump temps. Would be very interesting to compare to the factory temp readings from the OBDII port.
I'm a NASCAR fan and love seeing the in car shots showing oil temps of 270-280* and they spin 8500rpm all day for 500 miles. I know these are passenger car, off the shelf oils but still!
I hear nothing but good about the Schaeffer's oils in the Ford HEUI systems, I've just had a hard time with the whole AMSOIL philosophy of paying a premium, plus shipping and then having to wait. If I could walk into WalMart and buy it off the shelf I'd likely run it.
- Status