seriously, 4 ppm?
If so, only here would there be ANY significance to that number!
If so, only here would there be ANY significance to that number!
06 Duramax, Amsoil 15W-40, 16,500 miles
- Thread starter yota4me
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
seriously, 4 ppm?
If so, only here would there be ANY significance to that number!
Here is my oil analysis: Duramax LBZ UOA 8800 Miles Amsoil DEO
seriously, 4 ppm?
If so, only here would there be ANY significance to that number!
Here is my oil analysis: Duramax LBZ UOA 8800 Miles Amsoil DEO
dnewton3
Staff member
that link does not work unless you're a member ...
dnewton3
Staff member
Start a new thread, and type it in ol' skool. Due to the different browsers and such, people will often have difficulty viewing links and some PDFs. Just type it in.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Yes, that Amsoil/Cu issue is well known.
It may not be an Amsoil thing per say but can happen anytime motor oil brands are changed.
For example, this from Cummins:
Quote:
Engine components containing copper and lead can become chemically active with a change in the additive chemicals in the oil that is often accompanied by switching to a different brand of oil. This often results in dramatically increased levels, often ten times, of copper or lead in used oil. Increased levels from this source is not reason for excessive concern. These components will become passive after a few oil changes with different oil. Wear metal levels will then slowly decline back into the normal range for the engine. - Cummins® Engine Oil and Oil Analysis Recommendations - link
Yes, that Amsoil/Cu issue is well known.
It may not be an Amsoil thing per say but can happen anytime motor oil brands are changed.
For example, this from Cummins:
Quote:
Engine components containing copper and lead can become chemically active with a change in the additive chemicals in the oil that is often accompanied by switching to a different brand of oil. This often results in dramatically increased levels, often ten times, of copper or lead in used oil. Increased levels from this source is not reason for excessive concern. These components will become passive after a few oil changes with different oil. Wear metal levels will then slowly decline back into the normal range for the engine. - Cummins® Engine Oil and Oil Analysis Recommendations - link
dnewton3
Staff member
Yes, any oil brand change can manifest itself in some skewed UOA results; that's true. But not on the level that can happen with Amsoil/Damx match-ups. Over the last few years the combination of high-end PAOs such as Amsoil (in particular) and a Dmax simply can send Cu through the roof. Seen it happen so many times.
Amsoil monitors UOAs, that’s how they alerted consumers to the fuel dilution issues found on 2007-to-2010 model year Ford, Chevy, and Dodge diesel pick-up trucks.
If GM Duramax diesel engines truly did exhibit excessive engine “wear” NOT caused by “chemical reaction”, Amsoil would find out quickly and take action to correct the issue as Amsoil does not knowingly produce and sell inferior products.
Seriously, is it any wonder that a lubricant that stands apart from other commonly available products in terms of how they are formulated actually do exhibit differences in a UOA report? Are these differences pause for concern? Or no “reason for excessive concern” as indicated by Cummins on this issue?
If GM Duramax diesel engines truly did exhibit excessive engine “wear” NOT caused by “chemical reaction”, Amsoil would find out quickly and take action to correct the issue as Amsoil does not knowingly produce and sell inferior products.
Seriously, is it any wonder that a lubricant that stands apart from other commonly available products in terms of how they are formulated actually do exhibit differences in a UOA report? Are these differences pause for concern? Or no “reason for excessive concern” as indicated by Cummins on this issue?
dnewton3
Staff member
I have a Dmax; I have used many different dino oils and even RTS. I NEVER saw Cu spikes like this when switching brands. I wholly and completly understand and agree with Cummins; it can be expected to see Cu spike (perhaps up to 10x - an extreme that is by no means typical) when swapping brands. But let's look at this for a moment. A "normal" universal average for a Dmax shows around 9 ppm of CU after 6.6k miles, according to Blackstone. So, the extreme case of 10x that would be around 99ppm. Lets be generous and even it up to 100ppm. But that does not even begin to approach some of the Dmax/Amoil UOAs I've seen that have hit 250ppm, 500ppm, 600ppm, and even one that approached 1000ppm!
Removal of Cu by friction or chemical stripping is still undesirable. The chemical stripping of Cu by Amsoil in some Dmax engines is frightening to some owners. It is not uncommon to see the Cu go to several hundred ppm, and at times (I have seen the UOA proof) approaches 1000ppm! That's nuts. Some Dmax owners have seen the Cu spike above 500ppm, and after several successive OCI/UOA cycles, not been happy with the results, and ultimately had to resort to dino oil to quiet things down. Strangely, this does not happen to all Dmax owners; some see very little "chemical reaction".
Two things to note:
1) that much Cu floating around, even when it's small in physical size, is detrimental and can most likely be abrasive in and of itself.
2) that much Cu floating around grossly skews UOAs and you cannot tell if there is a true problem elsewhere because the CU "noise" is so high that it masks other potential problems.
There is a big difference between what is "expected" and what is "normal" (I am using "normal" in the statistical sense here). I do understand that some of the PAO premium products (RL, RP, Amsoil) tend to manifest themselves in high Cu, and that it's not uncommon to see this phenomanon. But that does NOT mean it's "normal" or something you should desire.
Removal of Cu by friction or chemical stripping is still undesirable. The chemical stripping of Cu by Amsoil in some Dmax engines is frightening to some owners. It is not uncommon to see the Cu go to several hundred ppm, and at times (I have seen the UOA proof) approaches 1000ppm! That's nuts. Some Dmax owners have seen the Cu spike above 500ppm, and after several successive OCI/UOA cycles, not been happy with the results, and ultimately had to resort to dino oil to quiet things down. Strangely, this does not happen to all Dmax owners; some see very little "chemical reaction".
Two things to note:
1) that much Cu floating around, even when it's small in physical size, is detrimental and can most likely be abrasive in and of itself.
2) that much Cu floating around grossly skews UOAs and you cannot tell if there is a true problem elsewhere because the CU "noise" is so high that it masks other potential problems.
There is a big difference between what is "expected" and what is "normal" (I am using "normal" in the statistical sense here). I do understand that some of the PAO premium products (RL, RP, Amsoil) tend to manifest themselves in high Cu, and that it's not uncommon to see this phenomanon. But that does NOT mean it's "normal" or something you should desire.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
I have been challenged (rightfully so) to support my position about high Cu in Dmax's with the use of Amsoil. I offer these (a very small sample of the great many examples; others can be found on this site as well):
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=343472&highlight=amsoil+uoa
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=334132&highlight=amsoil+uoa
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=319683&highlight=amsoil+uoa
Compare/contrast those to a typical RTS:
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=312777
Here is a dino Delo:
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=319363&highlight=amsoil+uoa
Here is a dino Delvac:
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=272289&highlight=used+oil
Here is a dino Rotella 10w-30 (mine):
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=333728&highlight=rotella+10w-30
Plus all the ones we have on this site. There are plenty of Amsoil UOAs that show stellar performance; I do not descredit them in any way. But there are plenty of examples both here and at other sites that show Amsoil can and will occasionally skew the Cu sky high, and often will affect the Fe as well. While some may say that higher mileage will accumlate Fe (and they would be right) what you cannot ignore is that the UOAs with really high Cu have much higher Fe as well. At some level, even though really small particles are often "harmless", enough of them can be detrimental.
Amsoil would call these circumstances harmless and "normal". But it's not "normal" from a statistical perspective. It might be expected, but it's not desireable. If one gets punched in the gut each morning by your sibling for the last seven years, one would expect to wake up and get punched again tomorrow. It would seem "normal"; but that does not make it right, nor does the rest of the world experience this phenomenon. When viewed over the entire industry, high Cu readings are "abnormal" and may have other side effects. They most certainly do skew readings and make the statistical analysis difficult.
Amsoil is not the kiss of death. I do not hate Amsoil. I recognize Amsoil as a fine product line with market solutions for those that seek the product. But they are not a miracle, one-size-solves-all-problems, solution. They do occasionally create issues that are hard to ignore, and cannot be brushed off as "normal".
Food for thought.
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=343472&highlight=amsoil+uoa
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=334132&highlight=amsoil+uoa
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=319683&highlight=amsoil+uoa
Compare/contrast those to a typical RTS:
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=312777
Here is a dino Delo:
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=319363&highlight=amsoil+uoa
Here is a dino Delvac:
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=272289&highlight=used+oil
Here is a dino Rotella 10w-30 (mine):
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=333728&highlight=rotella+10w-30
Plus all the ones we have on this site. There are plenty of Amsoil UOAs that show stellar performance; I do not descredit them in any way. But there are plenty of examples both here and at other sites that show Amsoil can and will occasionally skew the Cu sky high, and often will affect the Fe as well. While some may say that higher mileage will accumlate Fe (and they would be right) what you cannot ignore is that the UOAs with really high Cu have much higher Fe as well. At some level, even though really small particles are often "harmless", enough of them can be detrimental.
Amsoil would call these circumstances harmless and "normal". But it's not "normal" from a statistical perspective. It might be expected, but it's not desireable. If one gets punched in the gut each morning by your sibling for the last seven years, one would expect to wake up and get punched again tomorrow. It would seem "normal"; but that does not make it right, nor does the rest of the world experience this phenomenon. When viewed over the entire industry, high Cu readings are "abnormal" and may have other side effects. They most certainly do skew readings and make the statistical analysis difficult.
Amsoil is not the kiss of death. I do not hate Amsoil. I recognize Amsoil as a fine product line with market solutions for those that seek the product. But they are not a miracle, one-size-solves-all-problems, solution. They do occasionally create issues that are hard to ignore, and cannot be brushed off as "normal".
Food for thought.
Last edited:
Has anyone asked Amsoil for their official stance on this topic?
Early this morning, I sent an e-mail off to Amsoil and got a prompt response from their Heavy Duty/ Off Road-Product Specialist and Vice President Technical Development, Technical Department.
I got them up to speed on our discussion found in this thread.
They requested the following information:
Quote:
I am asking for some additional information to provide a complete response to your inquiry. I was wondering if you could supply me with:
1. Vehicle Specifics (if more than one truck please provide as much information as possible for each one)
a. Year
b. Mileage
c. Type of service
d. Oil drain intervals
2. Oil analysis
a. Copies of the oil analysis reports in question-if available
dnewton3, others, here is your chance to get specific answers to this topic. If you can further help with the research and gather the "specific" information Amsoil has asked for, that would be appreciated.
Early this morning, I sent an e-mail off to Amsoil and got a prompt response from their Heavy Duty/ Off Road-Product Specialist and Vice President Technical Development, Technical Department.
I got them up to speed on our discussion found in this thread.
They requested the following information:
Quote:
I am asking for some additional information to provide a complete response to your inquiry. I was wondering if you could supply me with:
1. Vehicle Specifics (if more than one truck please provide as much information as possible for each one)
a. Year
b. Mileage
c. Type of service
d. Oil drain intervals
2. Oil analysis
a. Copies of the oil analysis reports in question-if available
dnewton3, others, here is your chance to get specific answers to this topic. If you can further help with the research and gather the "specific" information Amsoil has asked for, that would be appreciated.
I believe dnewton3 doesn't care one way or the other. He's just reporting facts/results as told by Amsoil customers. Amsoil customers are the ones that need the answers, not people who don't or won't use their products...
CompSyn, why don't you follow through and get the answers you are interested in obtaining from Amsoil.
CompSyn, why don't you follow through and get the answers you are interested in obtaining from Amsoil.
I typed this up this morning. We all are entitled to our opinions, but it's my opinion that moderators of forums should not use alarmist words when attempting to address the subject at hand:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Removal of Cu by friction or chemical stripping is still undesirable.
Assumption. Harsh words. Poor word choice, at best. Do you actually know where the copper is coming from?
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The chemical stripping of Cu by Amsoil in some Dmax engines is frightening to some owners.
I agree, some folks are frightened when words like “chemical stripping” are used by moderators of an oil forum, when said moderator really doesn’t know the root cause of the elevated copper in only some D-max engines using Amsoil AME 15W-40 and Redline.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
It is not uncommon to see the Cu go to several hundred ppm, and at times (I have seen the UOA proof) approaches 1000ppm! That's nuts. Some Dmax owners have seen the Cu spike above 500ppm, and after several successive OCI/UOA cycles, not been happy with the results, and ultimately had to resort to dino oil to quiet things down. Strangly, this does not happen to all Dmax owners; some see very little "chemical reaction".
Yet, interestingly the copper will come down with continued use of Amsoil or Redline. Yet they are discouraged from doing so and encouraged to use conventional oils suggested…....
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Two things to note:
1) that much Cu floating around, even when it's small in physical size, is detrimental and can most likely be abrasive in and of itself.
2) that much Cu floating around grossly skews UOAs and you cannot tell if there is a true problem elsewhere because the CU "noise" is so high that it masks other potential problems.
1) Wow first you say with some certainty that the copper is “detrimental” and then you throw in some weasel words before the word “abrasive”. This is the height of totally irresponsible posting from a person people may look up to as knowledgeable. You have no proof of these things – why post such statements?
2) I will agree it could mask other copper, from bearings for example – but how is the UOA “grossly skewed” and how does it “mask other problems”?
Copper as detected in solution by a UOA can be chelated by esters, amines and other additives in motor oil. Heck, copper is used by RLI as an additive!
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
There is a big difference between what is "expected" and what is "normal" (I am using "normal" in the statistical sense here). I do understand that some of the PAO premium products (RL, RP, Amsoil) tend to manifest themselves in high Cu, and that it's not uncommon to see this phenomanon. But that does NOT mean it's "normal" or something you desire.
Perhaps, but until a causative factor is identified, perhaps speculation should be kept to a minimum. Amsoil HDEO’s are being used by many diesel engine owners and have been in poured in many, if not all, diesel engines on the market. Suffice to say, many of these users are logically choosing long OCI’s. Amazingly – no off the chart copper in other engines. So why isn’t Amsoil “attacking” copper in these engines? Indeed – we are only talking about one engine type – oops - we are really only talking about a subset of that. Some D-max engines, but not all. Probably you should, as a moderator, spend a little more time on that, rather than attacking one type of oil that performs across a wide spectrum of engines.
BTW I can’t see those pdf’s, but I’m sure you searched out and found Amsoil examples with high copper. They probably are the first Amsoil run in most of them. But again – we all can see the phenomenon......
Later today I emailed Amsoil and go this response:
Originally Posted By: Amsoil
Paul,
When diesel engines show elevated Copper levels without elevated readings of Lead and Tin, the Copper is usually coming from the oil cooler tubing. The copper cooler tubes will form an internal oxide coating with the original oil. Changing the brand or formulation of the oil can remove this coating, allowing Copper to leach from the tubing into the oil. This is not a cause for concern. Over time, the oxide coating will re-form on the tubing and the Copper levels will begin to fall. The Copper from this source is not a wear metal and is not detrimental to the engine.
If the Copper also has elevated levels of Lead and Tin, that is the indication of bearing wear, since bearings have layers of all three metals.
Not all diesels will show elevated Copper levels. Why some do and some don’t is not clear at this time.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Removal of Cu by friction or chemical stripping is still undesirable.
Assumption. Harsh words. Poor word choice, at best. Do you actually know where the copper is coming from?
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The chemical stripping of Cu by Amsoil in some Dmax engines is frightening to some owners.
I agree, some folks are frightened when words like “chemical stripping” are used by moderators of an oil forum, when said moderator really doesn’t know the root cause of the elevated copper in only some D-max engines using Amsoil AME 15W-40 and Redline.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
It is not uncommon to see the Cu go to several hundred ppm, and at times (I have seen the UOA proof) approaches 1000ppm! That's nuts. Some Dmax owners have seen the Cu spike above 500ppm, and after several successive OCI/UOA cycles, not been happy with the results, and ultimately had to resort to dino oil to quiet things down. Strangly, this does not happen to all Dmax owners; some see very little "chemical reaction".
Yet, interestingly the copper will come down with continued use of Amsoil or Redline. Yet they are discouraged from doing so and encouraged to use conventional oils suggested…....
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Two things to note:
1) that much Cu floating around, even when it's small in physical size, is detrimental and can most likely be abrasive in and of itself.
2) that much Cu floating around grossly skews UOAs and you cannot tell if there is a true problem elsewhere because the CU "noise" is so high that it masks other potential problems.
1) Wow first you say with some certainty that the copper is “detrimental” and then you throw in some weasel words before the word “abrasive”. This is the height of totally irresponsible posting from a person people may look up to as knowledgeable. You have no proof of these things – why post such statements?
2) I will agree it could mask other copper, from bearings for example – but how is the UOA “grossly skewed” and how does it “mask other problems”?
Copper as detected in solution by a UOA can be chelated by esters, amines and other additives in motor oil. Heck, copper is used by RLI as an additive!
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
There is a big difference between what is "expected" and what is "normal" (I am using "normal" in the statistical sense here). I do understand that some of the PAO premium products (RL, RP, Amsoil) tend to manifest themselves in high Cu, and that it's not uncommon to see this phenomanon. But that does NOT mean it's "normal" or something you desire.
Perhaps, but until a causative factor is identified, perhaps speculation should be kept to a minimum. Amsoil HDEO’s are being used by many diesel engine owners and have been in poured in many, if not all, diesel engines on the market. Suffice to say, many of these users are logically choosing long OCI’s. Amazingly – no off the chart copper in other engines. So why isn’t Amsoil “attacking” copper in these engines? Indeed – we are only talking about one engine type – oops - we are really only talking about a subset of that. Some D-max engines, but not all. Probably you should, as a moderator, spend a little more time on that, rather than attacking one type of oil that performs across a wide spectrum of engines.
BTW I can’t see those pdf’s, but I’m sure you searched out and found Amsoil examples with high copper. They probably are the first Amsoil run in most of them. But again – we all can see the phenomenon......
Later today I emailed Amsoil and go this response:
Originally Posted By: Amsoil
Paul,
When diesel engines show elevated Copper levels without elevated readings of Lead and Tin, the Copper is usually coming from the oil cooler tubing. The copper cooler tubes will form an internal oxide coating with the original oil. Changing the brand or formulation of the oil can remove this coating, allowing Copper to leach from the tubing into the oil. This is not a cause for concern. Over time, the oxide coating will re-form on the tubing and the Copper levels will begin to fall. The Copper from this source is not a wear metal and is not detrimental to the engine.
If the Copper also has elevated levels of Lead and Tin, that is the indication of bearing wear, since bearings have layers of all three metals.
Not all diesels will show elevated Copper levels. Why some do and some don’t is not clear at this time.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
dnewton3
Staff member
I stand by my claims, and offered the factual UOAs. Further, as a Dmax owner that has used several brands of dino and synthetic oils, I have my own perosnal experience. I do statistical process quality control for a living; I have hundreds of UOAs compiled from other owners posts on this site and others. I know how to collect raw data, analyze it, compile it, and report it. That is obviously enough evidence for some, and not others. Reporting facts does not make me an "alarmist". And even if I was so, does that somehow negate the facts? No. I put up the evidence, and the individual members may either believe me or ignore me.
Yes, I stated that removal of Cu by either friction or chemical means is undesirable, and you said that is an "assumption". I stand by that "assumption"; I doubt anyone actually preferrs their Cu to spike sky high, and wants metal to shed in super high numbers. Anyone reading this post please post up your acknowledgement if you actually WANT to shed copper. Let your voice be heard.
Additionally, folks are not "frightened" by my choice of words, but rather they are scared when they see their UOA Cu spike to 200ppm, 300ppm, 500ppm after the use of Amsoil. My choice of words is just and fair. You are picking on the verbiage and ignoring the context of the complaints of many, many Dmax owners.
"1) Wow first you say with some certainty that the copper is “detrimental” and then you throw in some weasel words before the word “abrasive”. This is the height of totally irresponsible posting from a person people may look up to as knowledgeable. You have no proof of these things – why post such statements?"
I'll tell you why. For a few years I ran a machining operation at Ford where I oversaw 45 turning operations. We had a collective coolant/lubricant cutting oil system that totaled nearly 100,000 gallons. As metal was "shed" into the system, we would filter it out. But there were also metals too small to filter (coloidial metals). These metals would affect the quality of the cutting operations. Even though they were sub-micron, and we could not filter them out, their eventual magnitude of quantity became such that they would be detrimental to the final quality of the process. This is exactly what I mean when I say that large quantities of small particles can still be detrimental. Just because the "ants are small" does not mean they can't do damage. When a UOA has 500ppm of Cu, (and that's only what the UOA can see) there is the ability of that material to be abrasive on other elements of the system or host. I put up the Amsoil UOAs to show how really high Cu is accompanied by spikes in Fe. The facts are there; if you don't like them, don't look ... but your act of ignoring them, or "blah blahing" them does not make the factual data any less credible, nor does it make it disapper. You cannot avert the existence of the coincidence simply by saying "so what" ... Really high Cu is often accomanied by higher Fe counts. Not always, but often. I put up some UOAs as proof. What would be your proof that I'm wrong????????????????
" ...we are really only talking about a subset of that. Some D-max engines, but not all. Probably you should, as a moderator, spend a little more time on that, rather than attacking one type of oil that performs across a wide spectrum of engines."
I clearly have kept my comments in this thread to Dmax engines. But I will not ignore the experiences of some of that "sub-set" just because Amsoil says it's OK to do so. I so very clearly praise Amsoil in circumstances where it shows proof of concept. But you seem to want to brush off the negative experiences of many Dmax owners.
Most of us understand where the Cu comes from; that is not "news". After reading the response Amsoil gave you, it's clear that they have no idea why some engines are affected and not others. That completely echoes my comments. Here is a quote that I said in regard to that: "Strangely, this does not happen to all Dmax owners; some see very little "chemical reaction"." So, your source at corporate actually agrees with me.
Look - I never said this happens to all Dmax engines that use Amsoil. I never said that the use of Amsoil is assuance of bad things happening. But data is data; these events are real, and of sufficient quanity to warrant notice and comment. Even corporate Amsoil acknowledges their existence, and cannot explain the inconsistent events. Further, Amsoils only prescription is to continue the use of its product. That's not at all comforting to someone who's experiencing a very 'abnormal' event. Kind of like telling a person with a knife in their side to keep turning it, and the pain will eventually go away ...
On a separate note:
My opportunities to post as a member do not contradict my obligations as a moderator; I can be both at the same time. I am open and subject to all challenges as a member. When I'm wrong, I have apologized. I have taken no actions in this thread as a "moderator"; I am posting as a member. If anyone feels that I have mis-used or otherwise flexed "moderator" muscle, I encourage them to notify the staff and owner immediately. But I would ask that you not be so short-sighted as to confuse dnewton3 the member with dnewton3 the moderator. You don't like the position I take as a member? Fine, debate me; I'm up for it.
I do not ever want to be thought of as a "bully" in my moderator status; the credibility of this site is at stake. OTOH, I do not cower to sponsor pressure.
Yes, I stated that removal of Cu by either friction or chemical means is undesirable, and you said that is an "assumption". I stand by that "assumption"; I doubt anyone actually preferrs their Cu to spike sky high, and wants metal to shed in super high numbers. Anyone reading this post please post up your acknowledgement if you actually WANT to shed copper. Let your voice be heard.
Additionally, folks are not "frightened" by my choice of words, but rather they are scared when they see their UOA Cu spike to 200ppm, 300ppm, 500ppm after the use of Amsoil. My choice of words is just and fair. You are picking on the verbiage and ignoring the context of the complaints of many, many Dmax owners.
"1) Wow first you say with some certainty that the copper is “detrimental” and then you throw in some weasel words before the word “abrasive”. This is the height of totally irresponsible posting from a person people may look up to as knowledgeable. You have no proof of these things – why post such statements?"
I'll tell you why. For a few years I ran a machining operation at Ford where I oversaw 45 turning operations. We had a collective coolant/lubricant cutting oil system that totaled nearly 100,000 gallons. As metal was "shed" into the system, we would filter it out. But there were also metals too small to filter (coloidial metals). These metals would affect the quality of the cutting operations. Even though they were sub-micron, and we could not filter them out, their eventual magnitude of quantity became such that they would be detrimental to the final quality of the process. This is exactly what I mean when I say that large quantities of small particles can still be detrimental. Just because the "ants are small" does not mean they can't do damage. When a UOA has 500ppm of Cu, (and that's only what the UOA can see) there is the ability of that material to be abrasive on other elements of the system or host. I put up the Amsoil UOAs to show how really high Cu is accompanied by spikes in Fe. The facts are there; if you don't like them, don't look ... but your act of ignoring them, or "blah blahing" them does not make the factual data any less credible, nor does it make it disapper. You cannot avert the existence of the coincidence simply by saying "so what" ... Really high Cu is often accomanied by higher Fe counts. Not always, but often. I put up some UOAs as proof. What would be your proof that I'm wrong????????????????
" ...we are really only talking about a subset of that. Some D-max engines, but not all. Probably you should, as a moderator, spend a little more time on that, rather than attacking one type of oil that performs across a wide spectrum of engines."
I clearly have kept my comments in this thread to Dmax engines. But I will not ignore the experiences of some of that "sub-set" just because Amsoil says it's OK to do so. I so very clearly praise Amsoil in circumstances where it shows proof of concept. But you seem to want to brush off the negative experiences of many Dmax owners.
Most of us understand where the Cu comes from; that is not "news". After reading the response Amsoil gave you, it's clear that they have no idea why some engines are affected and not others. That completely echoes my comments. Here is a quote that I said in regard to that: "Strangely, this does not happen to all Dmax owners; some see very little "chemical reaction"." So, your source at corporate actually agrees with me.
Look - I never said this happens to all Dmax engines that use Amsoil. I never said that the use of Amsoil is assuance of bad things happening. But data is data; these events are real, and of sufficient quanity to warrant notice and comment. Even corporate Amsoil acknowledges their existence, and cannot explain the inconsistent events. Further, Amsoils only prescription is to continue the use of its product. That's not at all comforting to someone who's experiencing a very 'abnormal' event. Kind of like telling a person with a knife in their side to keep turning it, and the pain will eventually go away ...
On a separate note:
My opportunities to post as a member do not contradict my obligations as a moderator; I can be both at the same time. I am open and subject to all challenges as a member. When I'm wrong, I have apologized. I have taken no actions in this thread as a "moderator"; I am posting as a member. If anyone feels that I have mis-used or otherwise flexed "moderator" muscle, I encourage them to notify the staff and owner immediately. But I would ask that you not be so short-sighted as to confuse dnewton3 the member with dnewton3 the moderator. You don't like the position I take as a member? Fine, debate me; I'm up for it.
I do not ever want to be thought of as a "bully" in my moderator status; the credibility of this site is at stake. OTOH, I do not cower to sponsor pressure.
Last edited:
I have been doing SPC as a CQE for 30 years. So I have you on that one. You go beyond reporting facts, you attach words that are overly harsh - with absolutely NO PROOF.
Here and NOW prove to us with statistical certainty that the copper in solution is abrasive. Using a machining operation as an example is not relevant. We are not talking about colloids - we are talking about solutions. You seem to skip these points. Please re-read my post. Look at some RLI VOA's.
I don't think I said anywhere that the copper isn't there, or your word choice "blah blahing" the results. You used the words like "abrasive" - how is this agreeing with Amsoil corporate?
You have yet to address why, if you understand the issue so well, you don't actually use your moderator power and opinion to calm people down and assure them that indeed the copper level will drop after the 2nd or 3rd oil change.
As a BITOG sponsor I also am allowed to express my opinions. However, those opinions are well bounded. I am not allowed to hype or "oversell", because people instantly run to Helen. I am not about to run to Helen for you expressing your opinion, but I will never, ever shun from contacting you in a PM and discussing a situation - which I clearly did. After my first PM, you just went back and posted again! (More UOA's). Clearly showing you did not understand my point (I never denied the Cu was there, but somehow you keep thinking I'm not seeing it).
You say you have no bias - so what's with the signature? I don't think of you a "bully". I am NOT pressuring you, so I don't know why you wrote that last sentence. Again - I am not saying you are a bully, but I am saying you come off as an expert, and you guide people to oil choices similar as your own, just as some (but not all) of the mods do. I think that's OK, but in every case? If you have written somewhere that people using Redline will see the copper levels drop after 2-3 oil changes and I missed it, then I apologize. But pretty much you tell people to change to "dino" and that just isn't correct from someone with a moderator title. We all know Bill in Utah does the same thing and people joke about that too.
Here and NOW prove to us with statistical certainty that the copper in solution is abrasive. Using a machining operation as an example is not relevant. We are not talking about colloids - we are talking about solutions. You seem to skip these points. Please re-read my post. Look at some RLI VOA's.
I don't think I said anywhere that the copper isn't there, or your word choice "blah blahing" the results. You used the words like "abrasive" - how is this agreeing with Amsoil corporate?
You have yet to address why, if you understand the issue so well, you don't actually use your moderator power and opinion to calm people down and assure them that indeed the copper level will drop after the 2nd or 3rd oil change.
As a BITOG sponsor I also am allowed to express my opinions. However, those opinions are well bounded. I am not allowed to hype or "oversell", because people instantly run to Helen. I am not about to run to Helen for you expressing your opinion, but I will never, ever shun from contacting you in a PM and discussing a situation - which I clearly did. After my first PM, you just went back and posted again! (More UOA's). Clearly showing you did not understand my point (I never denied the Cu was there, but somehow you keep thinking I'm not seeing it).
You say you have no bias - so what's with the signature? I don't think of you a "bully". I am NOT pressuring you, so I don't know why you wrote that last sentence. Again - I am not saying you are a bully, but I am saying you come off as an expert, and you guide people to oil choices similar as your own, just as some (but not all) of the mods do. I think that's OK, but in every case? If you have written somewhere that people using Redline will see the copper levels drop after 2-3 oil changes and I missed it, then I apologize. But pretty much you tell people to change to "dino" and that just isn't correct from someone with a moderator title. We all know Bill in Utah does the same thing and people joke about that too.
Gentlemen: Might I suggest discussing some means of determining the causes and effects of these copper spikes? Each of you may have some available resource that could contribute towards answering the question. Two great minds working together can accomplish more than two at odds. You both seem to agree on the occurrence of the spikes. You haven't argued on the cause because it's unknown but you are at odds over the effect. I think both of you are open minded enough to accept whatever answer was derived from a collaboration.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Bambam
Pablo, too much kool-aid?
Not at all. Just trying to keep it rational.
Let's look at a theme in this thread. What is the very first post from a moderator?
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I'll bet you a dollar that if you got away from the Amsoil and the additive, that the Cu would come down in just a few short OCI flushes.
Originally Posted By: yota4me
This is first run with Amsoil.
Now if the owner has a coolant leak or other issues, then switching away from Amsoil until those issue are solved is a very prudent thing. I have been making similar statements since my day one on BITOG. But let's set that aside - what is the very first statement from a moderator in this thread? Oh he does mention later.....
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Also, I've heard that the Cu will come down after continued use of the Amsoil. That also might be true, but I've seen this go on for thousands upon thousands of miles in some Dmax engines, and the owners finally get tired of it, and go back to dino.
But it's the same passive-aggressive sentence structure and word choice. The truth is that the copper levels do drop with Amsoil use or going to a dino.
Jim - just saw your post. I do believe Amsoil is correct. But even they admit they are stymied. I would love to have a real answer to why some D-max and not others. I think a couple things:
Could be the copper alloy is different - maybe these cooler aren't pure copper.
Could be some previous oils don't form the same "cleanable" (for lack of a better word) coating inside the cooler.
Would love to see the actual form the copper is in solution.
Brainstorming with an open mind is an excellent idea. No poo-pooing other folk's ideas - no just change to x-brand dino ideas excluded.....
Pablo, too much kool-aid?
Not at all. Just trying to keep it rational.
Let's look at a theme in this thread. What is the very first post from a moderator?
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I'll bet you a dollar that if you got away from the Amsoil and the additive, that the Cu would come down in just a few short OCI flushes.
Originally Posted By: yota4me
This is first run with Amsoil.
Now if the owner has a coolant leak or other issues, then switching away from Amsoil until those issue are solved is a very prudent thing. I have been making similar statements since my day one on BITOG. But let's set that aside - what is the very first statement from a moderator in this thread? Oh he does mention later.....
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Also, I've heard that the Cu will come down after continued use of the Amsoil. That also might be true, but I've seen this go on for thousands upon thousands of miles in some Dmax engines, and the owners finally get tired of it, and go back to dino.
But it's the same passive-aggressive sentence structure and word choice. The truth is that the copper levels do drop with Amsoil use or going to a dino.
Jim - just saw your post. I do believe Amsoil is correct. But even they admit they are stymied. I would love to have a real answer to why some D-max and not others. I think a couple things:
Could be the copper alloy is different - maybe these cooler aren't pure copper.
Could be some previous oils don't form the same "cleanable" (for lack of a better word) coating inside the cooler.
Would love to see the actual form the copper is in solution.
Brainstorming with an open mind is an excellent idea. No poo-pooing other folk's ideas - no just change to x-brand dino ideas excluded.....
dnewton3
Staff member
Want to know more about colloidal metals and abrasive solutions? Take some of the metalurgy classes I've had. Use Google, go to the library. There are mounds of articles showing these facts. I don't mind debating you, but I'm not here to be your personal teacher. Is it such a stretch to believe that one element in small form can be of such quantity that over time it errods the surroundings? Ever see the Grand Canyon? I stand by my education, my training, and my experinces; colliodial metals and solutions most certainly can abrade other things.
Further, you ask for proof, but ignore the UOAs I linked? I don't even know how to respond to that. I would link more, but I suspect you'd ignore them as well.
As for using "overly harsh" words, then I guess I'm just blessed with the ability to understand the technical world, and speak in the common man's tongue. When Cu is "normal" at 9ppm, but we see numbers at 200ppm, 300ppm, 500ppm and above, it is not "alarming" or "harsh" to say these are capable of skewing data ranges and trends. I use words like "grossly", "extreme", "undesireable" and such because some people don't understand what "third order standard deviation", "benign limited coincidence", "corelated numeric order of magnitude" mean. I try not to talk over people's head. I don't like it when people talk about computers in a technical sense; I'm very slow in the computer world and stuggle to keep up; I am a grown man and can acknowledge my limits - computers are not my "thing" in life. So, I try to extend the same courtesy when I speak of statistics; I use words people understand. I don't know what else to call a Cu count when the mean is 9ppm, the std dev is 1ppm, and a reading is 100 times greater (at 900ppm). I call that "grossly" large; "frighteningly" high. If you cannot accpet these terms, offer some others that fairly and accurately convey the right meaning, without hiding or smothering the extreme nature of the 'abnormality'. I didn't realize that in addition to debating the merits of lubricants, we BITOGERS had to bring a thesaurus along so we would not offend other members with our "alarming" comments.
Here is where I end my participation in this matter. I believe that synthetics and bypass filtration are great, fantastic tools for fiscal decisions into extending the life of lubricants. Period. They are not a one-size fits all answer for everything. I see plenty of data that convinces me that, at times (but not always), Amsoil may not be the "best" choice for some Dmax owners who do not understand the world of statistics and UOAs, and experience "abnormal" wear metals that even Amsoil itself admits it does not fully understand.
Further, you ask for proof, but ignore the UOAs I linked? I don't even know how to respond to that. I would link more, but I suspect you'd ignore them as well.
As for using "overly harsh" words, then I guess I'm just blessed with the ability to understand the technical world, and speak in the common man's tongue. When Cu is "normal" at 9ppm, but we see numbers at 200ppm, 300ppm, 500ppm and above, it is not "alarming" or "harsh" to say these are capable of skewing data ranges and trends. I use words like "grossly", "extreme", "undesireable" and such because some people don't understand what "third order standard deviation", "benign limited coincidence", "corelated numeric order of magnitude" mean. I try not to talk over people's head. I don't like it when people talk about computers in a technical sense; I'm very slow in the computer world and stuggle to keep up; I am a grown man and can acknowledge my limits - computers are not my "thing" in life. So, I try to extend the same courtesy when I speak of statistics; I use words people understand. I don't know what else to call a Cu count when the mean is 9ppm, the std dev is 1ppm, and a reading is 100 times greater (at 900ppm). I call that "grossly" large; "frighteningly" high. If you cannot accpet these terms, offer some others that fairly and accurately convey the right meaning, without hiding or smothering the extreme nature of the 'abnormality'. I didn't realize that in addition to debating the merits of lubricants, we BITOGERS had to bring a thesaurus along so we would not offend other members with our "alarming" comments.
Here is where I end my participation in this matter. I believe that synthetics and bypass filtration are great, fantastic tools for fiscal decisions into extending the life of lubricants. Period. They are not a one-size fits all answer for everything. I see plenty of data that convinces me that, at times (but not always), Amsoil may not be the "best" choice for some Dmax owners who do not understand the world of statistics and UOAs, and experience "abnormal" wear metals that even Amsoil itself admits it does not fully understand.
Last edited:
I have used Amsoil AME 15w-40 for 100,000mi now in my 06 LBZ Dmax. I do not believe the oil has anything to do with the high copper. On my UOA's CU has never been higher than 5ppm. However I did run RT dino 15w-40 for the first 25,000mi to break the motor in. I believe this has something to do with my low copper. I am curious Dave if on all the UOA's you have in your data base how many with the high CU have run Amoil from day 1 . Or if the can be any corelation between a break in period with dino before switching to a synthetic
ps i believe you have all my uoa's in your data base
I
ps i believe you have all my uoa's in your data base
I
- Status
Similar threads
