Some extra highway driving got the latest results in a bit early.
http://oilstudy.spacebears.com
Check out the wacko TBN data.
Cheers, 3MP
http://oilstudy.spacebears.com
Check out the wacko TBN data.
Cheers, 3MP
14,000-mile results are in!
- Thread starter 3 Mad Ponchos
- Start date
- Status
Patman
Staff member
That TBN is wacky! One of those two tests they did was wrong for sure. I bet they ran the new test twice, instead of running both the old and new.
It's also interesting to see that the wear jumped up quite a bit, now the wear levels are close to where it was at 12k just before the big addition of oil with the new filter. It's probably going to thicken up rapidly now too I bet. It's almost time for Amsoil!
It's also interesting to see that the wear jumped up quite a bit, now the wear levels are close to where it was at 12k just before the big addition of oil with the new filter. It's probably going to thicken up rapidly now too I bet. It's almost time for Amsoil!
Finally, the 14,000 mile results
. Keep up the good work Brian!!! -Joe
Patman
Staff member
And that was the interval you sponsored too, so thanks go out to you too Joe!quote:
Originally posted by joee12:
Finally, the 14,000 mile results. Keep up the good work Brian!!! -Joe
Patman, I know the test results are weird. We did not accidentally run the new test twice. We ran the TBN the new way (2.5) and the old way (3.0). Then, we retested with both methods, because it didn't look right. Same results.
It certainly will keep the conversion process between the two methods interesting eh?
Cheers, 3MP
Cheers, 3MP
Wow - live input from Blackstone. I am TOTALLY impressed!! I love this site.
Kristin (and maybe Mr. Dyson can pop in) - any speculation as to the reaction(s) going on here?
Thank you!
Kristin (and maybe Mr. Dyson can pop in) - any speculation as to the reaction(s) going on here?
Thank you!
Patman
Staff member
Thanks for the input Kristen! It's interesting because it shows there isn't a direct relationship between the new test method and the old test method. We can't just subtract a certain amount to figure out the old method from the new method.
errr?
hard to come up with an intelligent statement on the TBN, other than does anyone know whats going on?
the vis may put paid to this oil in the end, are we going for 10% or 15%? am a little concerned about the lead, iron looks good still.
this test keeps generating more questions.
hard to come up with an intelligent statement on the TBN, other than does anyone know whats going on?
the vis may put paid to this oil in the end, are we going for 10% or 15%? am a little concerned about the lead, iron looks good still.
this test keeps generating more questions.
Hi,
I am not sure what the issue is with TBN but ExxonMobil in Australia changed their TBN testing process some time ago
They now DO NOT report TBN and only report the TAN value
Detroit Diesel provide two TBN test methods D4739 and D2896
Their minimum D4739 value of 1, is half that of their D2896 (2) value
Perhaps this helps understanding but I wonder why the TAN is not used in your UOAs. I find it a good "balancing" figure against the TBN
It is a pity you have not been able to obtain the maximum/minimum wear metal/other values permitted by GM with that engine for comparison
It is still a grest result - please keep it going
If this is ONLY AN OIL DURABILITY TEST then your original measuring parameters have still NOT REACHED the change point!
Regards
I am not sure what the issue is with TBN but ExxonMobil in Australia changed their TBN testing process some time ago
They now DO NOT report TBN and only report the TAN value
Detroit Diesel provide two TBN test methods D4739 and D2896
Their minimum D4739 value of 1, is half that of their D2896 (2) value
Perhaps this helps understanding but I wonder why the TAN is not used in your UOAs. I find it a good "balancing" figure against the TBN
It is a pity you have not been able to obtain the maximum/minimum wear metal/other values permitted by GM with that engine for comparison
It is still a grest result - please keep it going
If this is ONLY AN OIL DURABILITY TEST then your original measuring parameters have still NOT REACHED the change point!
Regards
We changed the TBN method because this new method should be more reliable than the old. A machine, not a human, is determining the end point. Also, we knew the numbers were mildly high in the "old" method. The new method is used by other labs so we're hoping to help standardize the TBN results you'll get from the various labs on your oil samples.
One of the problems with TBN testing is there are no standards other than virgin oil samples, so we try to match those. We have tested the TBN of many virgin oils with the new method, including Red Line 10W/30, Pennzoil Long Life 15W/40, Mobil 1 5W/30 and 10W/30, and others. We have compared our results with the oil manufacturers' "should be" TBNs, and our results have generally matched. When we tested Red Line, we had to call them to get a verbal statement of what the TBN should be. They said 10. We got 8.2. We re-ran it and got 8.3. So...is it our machine? Is it Red Line? I don't know.
Sometimes we're asked to redo a TBN to verfiy a low number, and on only one occasion was the number off by more than 0.2 or 0.3. In that instance, the number actually did read higher by 0.7 or 0.8, so we redid the report. When TBN results look wrong but we get the same results the second time, we've usually found that the oil was contaminated with a solvent or something else that brought the TBN down.
We are confident the results we are getting are accurate and repetable within a few tenths of a point. We are not saying that we never make mistakes, or that our data is always perfect. But if results look strange, we generally will redo the analysis before sending it to the client to make sure something didn't go haywire in the lab. Since we're a small company and there are only three of us who write reports, it's pretty easy to see when things look weird.
We strive to obtain accurate, repeatable results, and although the TBN transition hasn't been easy, we apprecaite the support of the people who read this forum. Please feel free to call me, Ryan, or Jim any time (260-744-2380) if you have quesitons about our methodology or results.
Thanks!
One of the problems with TBN testing is there are no standards other than virgin oil samples, so we try to match those. We have tested the TBN of many virgin oils with the new method, including Red Line 10W/30, Pennzoil Long Life 15W/40, Mobil 1 5W/30 and 10W/30, and others. We have compared our results with the oil manufacturers' "should be" TBNs, and our results have generally matched. When we tested Red Line, we had to call them to get a verbal statement of what the TBN should be. They said 10. We got 8.2. We re-ran it and got 8.3. So...is it our machine? Is it Red Line? I don't know.
Sometimes we're asked to redo a TBN to verfiy a low number, and on only one occasion was the number off by more than 0.2 or 0.3. In that instance, the number actually did read higher by 0.7 or 0.8, so we redid the report. When TBN results look wrong but we get the same results the second time, we've usually found that the oil was contaminated with a solvent or something else that brought the TBN down.
We are confident the results we are getting are accurate and repetable within a few tenths of a point. We are not saying that we never make mistakes, or that our data is always perfect. But if results look strange, we generally will redo the analysis before sending it to the client to make sure something didn't go haywire in the lab. Since we're a small company and there are only three of us who write reports, it's pretty easy to see when things look weird.
We strive to obtain accurate, repeatable results, and although the TBN transition hasn't been easy, we apprecaite the support of the people who read this forum. Please feel free to call me, Ryan, or Jim any time (260-744-2380) if you have quesitons about our methodology or results.
Thanks!
TAN, or total acid number, is not as useful for combustion engine oil analysis as it is for gear lubes. Motor oils contain larger amounts of overbased detergents that "buffer" the effects of accumulated acids. So knowing the total amount of acid that has accumulated in the oil is less useful than knowing how much extra base is still available to continue neutralizing acids.
The most significant difference between D4739 and D2896 is the strength of the acid used to determine the remaining amount of free base available. If you remember how buffers work from high school chemistry, you should understand why the two tests give different results.
The most significant difference between D4739 and D2896 is the strength of the acid used to determine the remaining amount of free base available. If you remember how buffers work from high school chemistry, you should understand why the two tests give different results.
3MP,
I have to wonder about the repeatability of these TBN results ....
At 12k miles, you had a TBN of 3.2 ....You then added 1.5 qts of fresh oil and ran the car out to 13k miles, at which time the TBN tested out @ 2.5. From 13k to 14k miles no fresh oil was added, yet the TBN @ 14k miles also tested out @ 2.5. This isn't a knock on Blackstone, but I wonder how accurate the titration is when you start to get down to the endpoint of the neutralization curve? I personally would not go lower than a TBN of 2.0, even using the conservative ASTM D-4739 method. I don't see any evidence of abnormal bearing wear in this last test, but you really don' t want to run until you do.
TooSlick
Dixie Synthetics
I have to wonder about the repeatability of these TBN results ....
At 12k miles, you had a TBN of 3.2 ....You then added 1.5 qts of fresh oil and ran the car out to 13k miles, at which time the TBN tested out @ 2.5. From 13k to 14k miles no fresh oil was added, yet the TBN @ 14k miles also tested out @ 2.5. This isn't a knock on Blackstone, but I wonder how accurate the titration is when you start to get down to the endpoint of the neutralization curve? I personally would not go lower than a TBN of 2.0, even using the conservative ASTM D-4739 method. I don't see any evidence of abnormal bearing wear in this last test, but you really don' t want to run until you do.
TooSlick
Dixie Synthetics
- Status
Similar threads
