2006 Accord 2.4 - PU 5w20 Honda A01 - 3000 mi.

[KCJeep]

I get uncomfortable when TBN gets under 2, I am not interested in going further without a TAN at that point.

My Jeep for example had a TBN of 1.8 last UOA at only 3,500 miles, with "wear" number double to triple what they should have been to boot. Since it is also filthy inside the engine due to PO neglect, I am at 3,500 mile OCI's on it right now.

Will be doing a UOA on the current run though to see if there is any improvement.

 

[gregk24]

Originally Posted By: bigt61
So basically the OP, who is changing out PU (one of the elite synthetics) at 3k miles, is increasing his engine wear by doing so. Not to mention pistol whipping his wallet. Nice, the double whammy of futility. Plus, the local landfill is giving him a round of applause, it needs as many used oil filters as it can get. They're having a contest or something.


How is changing oil at 3000 miles increasing wear? If YOU drove your car for 1 mile 5 or more times a day how often would YOU change the oil?

 

[FZ1]

You're doing it right,for your application. Illustrated by great numbers on your report.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: FZ1
I can't speak for KC,but,I will,lol. We are not dumping the Rate of Wear metals and Rate of Contaminantion.......We are dumping the AGGREGATE of the Wear Metals and Contamininants ACCUMULATED during the oci.

That may be true, but for very extended OCIs, there are ways to attack that issue, such as bypass filtration and controlled, intentional consumption of a lube combined with top ups. Fleet operators didn't get out to 90,000+ km OCIs just by throwing synthetic and a high end FF filter at the engine.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: gregk24
How is changing oil at 3000 miles increasing wear? If YOU drove your car for 1 mile 5 or more times a day how often would YOU change the oil?



You'd have to do a more thorough job of defining the question before we could fairly answer that. But I'll take a stab at it.


If you are asking how is an OCI increasing wear at 3k miles, versus 2k miles, then I'd say it's not.

If you're following along and asking about wear rates at 3k OCI intervals versus wear rates at 7.5k mile OCIs, then by all means and by every measure, I can 100% assure you this is the mass-market response across the VAST majory of applications, including by not limited to: dinos, semis, syns; air and water and oil cooled ICEs; cars, trucks, tractors, gen-sets, pumps, motorcycles, etc.

I have over 10,000 UOAs in my database, and the data is totally clear. Longer OCIs reduce wear because of the tribochemical barrier developed as the oil ages and oxidizes. Read my normalcy article to get a good basis for understanding, and also purchase and read SAE 2007-01-4133.

 

[bigt61]

Originally Posted By: gregk24
How is changing oil at 3000 miles increasing wear? If YOU drove your car for 1 mile 5 or more times a day how often would YOU change the oil?

Re-read the stuff dnewton3 posted on the previous pages as well as his reply to you. You are over applying and under utilizing a lubricant for you particular application. You have a 4 cylinder Honda engine - notoriously easy on oil - and you're using a very expensive lubricant and throwing it away early. Let's say you were hunting rabbits. A single shot 22 caliber would get the job done easy - one shot dead. But you're using a 30-06 with a 10 round magazine. You shoot him once - he's dead. But you shoot him again "just to make sure". Then you throw away the clip with 8 rounds in it "because ammo is cheap". Load a new clip and go find another rabbit. How often would I change oil on a mostly short trip 2006 Accord? Probably every 2 years or 6000 miles using SuperTech dino. Unless I could find something cheaper on sale.

 

[Errtt]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

I have over 10,000 UOAs in my database, and the data is totally clear. Longer OCIs reduce wear because of the tribochemical barrier developed as the oil ages and oxidizes. Read my normalcy article to get a good basis for understanding, and also purchase and read SAE 2007-01-4133.



^ This ^
The barrier layer isn't instant. At least the way I understand it. It gets better up to a point. Having (i.e. ZDDP) doesn't build thicker layers if ZDDP is higher ppm, just may provide the barrier longer. Once certain elements are used up, insoluble's build up, dilution sets in etc., then it's time the oil should be changed. Again, they way I understood it.

 

[FZ1]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: FZ1
I can't speak for KC,but,I will,lol. We are not dumping the Rate of Wear metals and Rate of Contaminantion.......We are dumping the AGGREGATE of the Wear Metals and Contamininants ACCUMULATED during the oci.

That may be true, but for very extended OCIs, there are ways to attack that issue, such as bypass filtration and controlled, intentional consumption of a lube combined with top ups. Fleet operators didn't get out to 90,000+ km OCIs just by throwing synthetic and a high end FF filter at the engine.
Sure those bypass filter setups seem to extend ocis but 99.9 of passenger cars don't use a bypass set up. My point is,simply,that the reason to dump your oil is to Remove the Contaminants. I don't agree with blanket,blind,statements that every person can extend ocis: OCI is unique to the specific unit based on the observations by that specific driver. The "rate of wear opinion" ignores the TOTAL ACCUMULATATED wear metals and contaminants in the oil. I dump my oil to GET THE TOTAL ACCUMULATED CONTAMINANTS OUT. Caps are for emphasis:Not yelling in my posts.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: FZ1
... I don't agree with blanket,blind,statements that every person can extend ocis:

I don't know of anyone here who made that type of claim.
Here is what I've repeatedly said many different ways over the years I've been here:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I have NEVER said that one can just ignore other concerns and blindly extend an OCI based upon wear alone. One should monitor a whole host of issues, and make solid decisions when the totality of the circumstances are considered. That is paramount.

If somehow you, or anyone, got the impression that I encourage blind OCI extension, then you've not read my posts well.





Originally Posted By: FZ1
... The "rate of wear opinion" ignores the TOTAL ACCUMULATATED wear metals and contaminants in the oil. I dump my oil to GET THE TOTAL ACCUMULATED CONTAMINANTS OUT.

I don't disagree with that. This is what I call "condemnation limits" and I've preached ad nauseum about those before as well. I have never said to ignore total wear numbers; in fact, I bang the "condemnation limit" gong more than anyone else here, probably.


One must pay attention to both wear rates, and wear totals (using terms such as aggregate, magnitude, etc).

Wear rates allow one to compare and contrast different products and plans, to find the best ROI.
Wear totals can indicate to us when an OCI is due, but only if you set an upper condemnation limit.


Most BITOGers set a fixed OCI duration, then play a game to see who can get the lowest wear numbers. That's not good maintenance practice, and it's fiscally wasteful. And, it's easy to "cheat" by just shortening up an OCI to get ever lower numbers.

The correct methodology is to fix the upper acceptable limits, and then see who can stretch out the longest OCI before having to dump the sump, taking into account ALL criteria (wear numbers, vis, fuel, TBN/TAN, soot/insols, etc). Some parameters are cautionary markers which indicate closer scrutiny is due; others are hard limits that are not pragmatic to cross.


BTW - I, too, often use caps for emphasis and not yelling; comes from my experiences way back in journalism oration. CAPS, bold and underlined text were means of differentiating tonal inflections and emphasis projection in debates. Just an old habit that hasn't died in me yet I guess ...

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: gregk24
... If YOU drove your car for 1 mile 5 or more times a day how often would YOU change the oil?



Sorry - I forgot to answer this directly ...

When mutiple inspection methods and the UOAs that I pay good money for indicate that continued lube service is unwarranted. I would ignore the odometer.


I will quote myself from the previous page:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3

OCIs can really be broken down into a few groups of people who do them:
a) the folks that ignore OCI adivce and just do it when they feel like it or happen to remember it; there is no hope for these engines
b) the folks that follow OEM advice and OCI when told to do so by some far-removed corporate entity worried only about their bottom line warranty risk which results in an ultra-conservative OCI plan for the owner and stress on his wallet; this play is very safe for the equipment, but has no regard for fiscal savings. There is a high degree of probable engine health and equally high degree of monetary waste. There is zero sense in these folks doing UOAs; that is a waste of money because the end result is information that is ignored.
c) the folks that play with UOAs, hopping from brand/grade to brand/grade, and self-determine some arbitrary OCI plan based upon (often denied) emotional decisions; these are the "cheap insurance" folks who believe that even 1ppm of wear is too much and if they just OCI a bit sooner, it can be eliminated. Again, UOAs are wasted money because the information is ignored.
d) the precious few folks who understand how UOAs are tools and not toys, make informed decisions about OCIs only AFTER the data is revealed, analyzed, and disseminated, and use addtional tools (PCs, visual inspections, statistical analysis, compression checks, etc) to formulate a maintenance plan that offers an excellent balance betweeen equipment life and wallet heft. The goal here is to find a postive ROI, where the costs of close monitoring are overtaken by the savings of the plan.


I am a type D BITOGer.

Which type BITOGer are you?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: FZ1
Sure those bypass filter setups seem to extend ocis but 99.9 of passenger cars don't use a bypass set up. My point is,simply,that the reason to dump your oil is to Remove the Contaminants.

Certainly. But no one is advocating to blindly extend an OCI. Dave certainly is not. There are tools for extending OCIs, and every vehicle is different. There are UOAs. There are maintenance minders on newer vehicles. There are extended drain oils. There are extended drain specifications. There are long life type filters (i.e. Fram Ultra, D+, RP, M1, and so forth). Of course, very few people are going to be using M1 EP or Amsoil SS in conjunction with UOAs, bypass filtration, and an Amsoil filter to get every last mile out of the oil.

The important point is that the factory recommended OCIs, particularly with severe service, tend to be conservative. Now, that's not always the case - there are exceptions. The automakers are looking at minimizing their costs under warranty, not yours. People who don't follow the factory OCIs under warranty could find themselves facing a dispute if there were a problem, and that has nothing to do with the OCI being too long, per se.

No one is ignoring total accrued contaminants, either, nor should they be. First, one shouldn't be worried about dealing with the contaminants until necessary. If they're not at a level to be even close to being a problem at point X, why address the issue? If wear rates are dropping or still under control, then the contaminants are obviously not a problem.

But, we can assume that a certain level of contaminants is a problem. You can deal with that in a few ways. Changing the oil isn't the only way to do that, though.

 

[FZ1]

I didn't mean to sound accusatory.I just wanted to point out that the oil can be,otherwise,in good condition,but contaminated with soot,etc. The only way to get the soot out is to get the oil out.

 

[Garak]

No, you're quite right. But, that's why people use condemnation limits when appropriate. I have no idea how much soot is in my oil when I change it, unless I get a UOA done. I trust that the manufacturer's interval is conservative and that the oils I use are up to the task. Many are more than up to the task, and that can be demonstrated. Of course, no one here is recommended that they extend their OCIs blindly.

Soot level is one metric, too, but only one metric. Certain things would require an oil change without question, but some aren't so clear cut. If I had a milkshake thing going on and massive coolant intrusion, well, the oil is coming out. A bit high on the soot but reasonable on everything else is worth noting, but not panicking.

In cases like those two examples, the coolant intrusion isn't the oil's fault. You still want it out of there right now, but you're not shortening your OCI plan. It was an unrelated failure, and you're not thinking, gee, I can't go 10,000 miles any longer because I found sodium and potassium in the UOA when the HG blew. But, if certain metrics, like soot, are reading a bit high consistently, it's something to consider.

 

[gregk24]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
My point is simply when I beleive an oil is beyond its ability to handle contaminants and keep an engine clean I am done with it. I believe this likely occurs prior to the oil's lubricating ability breaking down to the point that wear starts to accelerate.



I would generally agree with that statement.

But where is that limit? Is it an arbitrary number in your head, or a researched and supported number from experience and technical resources?

In regard to "clean" oil, we have some reasonable condemnation limits:
Blackstone lists insolubles at max .6
Polaris and others use oxidation and nitration (dependent upon lube for numbers)
Others use soot expressed as a percent value (3.0% or more; Doug Hillary uses 3.5% IIRC).


So show me where this UOA, of PU at 3k miles of .2 insol, was really any "better" than my two recent UOAs of 10k miles on dino ST at .4 insols? I went WAY further on a much cheaper fluid, and yet the UOA measurable is still WELL in control per Blackstone. How is it that I'm at risk? I'm no where near the limit. Additionally, I pop off the cover for inspections, and see nothing to note.


I think you and I are in agreement as to the concepts, but where we differ is on the OCI duration. I think you have yet to realize how much wasted potential there is in any lube. You are not alone; most folks are in the same place as you. Heck - I was there too for many years as well. It took quite some time for me to grasp the reality of lube program management; I got into it when I worked at Ford, and I've never looked backwards since.



I don't disagree with your comments I've quoted here. I just ask this of you: please define a tangible manner to establish your OCI. Don't guess from the bottom upwards; tell me what would trigger an OCI in your world, if wear metals were good, the soot/insolubles/oxidation were all in control, and there was no visible intrusion of sludge?

Q: why OCI when all manner of measurables are within limits?
A: emotion



Maybe so, I just know that the 1 mile trips I am doing are literally THE worst driving a car could see. And I want fresh oil in there for all of those miles. I dont have money to throw at a new car right now, or later for that matter. Need this one to last me another 5 years 60,000 miles at least! So to ensure there is always fresh oil in there I like to change every 3000 miles. Always fresh, always clean.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The good news: engine and oil are in fine shape.

The bad news: your wallet is taking a POUNDING!


This is about as perfect an example of complete and total waste of good oil/filter that I've ever seen. 3k miles on PU in a Honda 4-cyl? The OEM OCI is 10k miles, on "normal" oil, and you OCI at 3k on PU?

Take it from a guy who has run a few 10k mile OCIs on ST dino fluid, and had totally "normal" results. You are not getting "cheap insurance" from your practice; you're getting hosed by the evil entity Muda (Japanese term for waste and futility).

In fact, even using PU, you are actually accelerating your wear rates by changing oil so frequently. Wear rates actually DROP as the oil ages. (Proven in SAE paper 2007-01-4133 and thousands of UOAs in my database).

Allow me to throw down the gauntlet in a happy BITOG manner; a friendly challenge if you will ...
You're well out of warranty, so how about accepting a bet? I'll pay for a 7.5k mile OCI of ST or some other decent house brand dino, and you pay for the next UOA. If the results are "normal" (as defined by true statistical analysis with Blackstone data) then you pay me back for the oil. If they are not normal, then the cost of the oil is on me. This challenge is presumed upon a mechanically healthy engine with no undue outside influences, and that you post the factual results. I am even willing to put the money in escrow with a third-party member here; I truly believe in putting my money where my mouth is.

My challenge is simply this: I bet your wear rate would be LESS than your current PU rate at 3k miles, by utilizing a decent house brand dino oil at 7.5k miles.

How about it?

If up to the challenge, then PM me and we'll work out the details.


Nice.
Op take him up on it. Its a no lose deal. Worst case scenario is you gotta pay for your oil change.
Best case is you have hard data that shows you can run a cheaper oil longer saving you money on every oil change for the life of your vehicle.
And we get to smash another oil myth here at bitog,that cheaper oils are junk.

 

[gregk24]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The good news: engine and oil are in fine shape.

The bad news: your wallet is taking a POUNDING!


This is about as perfect an example of complete and total waste of good oil/filter that I've ever seen. 3k miles on PU in a Honda 4-cyl? The OEM OCI is 10k miles, on "normal" oil, and you OCI at 3k on PU?

Take it from a guy who has run a few 10k mile OCIs on ST dino fluid, and had totally "normal" results. You are not getting "cheap insurance" from your practice; you're getting hosed by the evil entity Muda (Japanese term for waste and futility).

In fact, even using PU, you are actually accelerating your wear rates by changing oil so frequently. Wear rates actually DROP as the oil ages. (Proven in SAE paper 2007-01-4133 and thousands of UOAs in my database).

Allow me to throw down the gauntlet in a happy BITOG manner; a friendly challenge if you will ...
You're well out of warranty, so how about accepting a bet? I'll pay for a 7.5k mile OCI of ST or some other decent house brand dino, and you pay for the next UOA. If the results are "normal" (as defined by true statistical analysis with Blackstone data) then you pay me back for the oil. If they are not normal, then the cost of the oil is on me. This challenge is presumed upon a mechanically healthy engine with no undue outside influences, and that you post the factual results. I am even willing to put the money in escrow with a third-party member here; I truly believe in putting my money where my mouth is.

My challenge is simply this: I bet your wear rate would be LESS than your current PU rate at 3k miles, by utilizing a decent house brand dino oil at 7.5k miles.

How about it?

If up to the challenge, then PM me and we'll work out the details.


Nice.
Op take him up on it. Its a no lose deal. Worst case scenario is you gotta pay for your oil change.
Best case is you have hard data that shows you can run a cheaper oil longer saving you money on every oil change for the life of your vehicle.
And we get to smash another oil myth here at bitog,that cheaper oils are junk.


I dont believe cheaper oil is junk, I DO believe that dino CAN go 10,000 miles, but in my application, I want oil to get to all the parts ASAP, and synthetic does a better job at it hands down. Sure, may not be much of a difference but it is a difference. And I dont believe having fresh engine oil in an engine is ever a bad thing. So ill just stick to my guns thanks. I do appreciate the offer though. Really.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
But a thin layer of oxidation byproduct on the metal surfaces (cyl walls, cam lobes, bearing journals, etc) means the metal-to-metal contact is reduced and essentially eliminated. When you OCI, that "fresh" add-pack, with strong detergent and anti-agglomerate components, actually attacks and degrades the tribochemical barrier. In short, some additives have an "antagonistic effect" on the very layer that provides the greatest protection.


Thank you for your reply, and for this passage in particular.

I can self-identify with those who strive to be able to look into the oil fill cap and see nothing but "spotless" inside. I want those camshaft bearing towers to look like new! I want the underside of the cylinder head cover to sparkle! Objectively, I know this has little--no--nothing to do with engine performance, but as an OCD human being, I strive for cleanliness.

However, it simply stands to reason that if new and clean oil will attack that discolored oxidation on non-bearing surfaces, it will also attack any protective layer that has been formed on load-bearing surfaces. Stuff like that helps keep OCD clean freaks like myself in check!


Its also why oils are balanced. Each formulation is chemically balanced as to keep the detergent and dispersants from competing with the anti-wear and friction modifiers.
I was always adding this and that to my oil as though something was missing. And for the most part I got no actual measurable improvement in fuel efficiency or anything tangible.
Now I've found mos2. Over the years it has proven itself to me as far as saving me fuel.
I have countless examples of where there was a significant decrease of fuel consumption using mos2 in my crankcase.
I still use it,albeit fas less than I used to since I'm acquiring top notch oils on sale so instead of using a full can I'm down to half,and I've torn down engines where I've used it for over 50000kms and not only is the engine spotless,no sludge or varnish,the cam lobes are very slick to the tough. Even after wiping them off with a rag I'm amazed at how slick the lobes are.
And there is no downside to its use,unlike elevated amounts of zddp which is corrosive unless a compound is added to combat the corrosivity.
And liqui-moly mos2 contains boron as well. Which everyone seems to like.

 

[KCJeep]

Don't think I'd be horribly short tripping any dino 7,500 miles.

That said, IMO your concern about getting 60k more miles out of your engine is simply unfounded. I'd wager you'd easily get another 60k out of it even if you maintained it horribly.

Now your transmission....

 

[gregk24]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Don't think I'd be horribly short tripping any dino 7,500 miles.

That said, IMO your concern about getting 60k more miles out of your engine is simply unfounded. I'd wager you'd easily get another 60k out of it even if you maintained it horribly.

Now your transmission....


Hopefully the transmission should be fine, as it was replaced at the Honda dealer right after 100K miles with a brand new unit. Fluid is changed yearly with Hondas own ATF DW-1 drain and refill.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: gregk24
I dont have money to throw at a new car right now, or later for that matter. Need this one to last me another 5 years 60,000 miles at least! So to ensure there is always fresh oil in there I like to change every 3000 miles. Always fresh, always clean.

You don't have the money to throw at a new car now, or later, but you have the money to dump PU after 3k miles? I presume it is your assertion that anything less will not make the car last? And then, as if that's not enough, you throw money away on a UOA, because you ignore the very information you're paying for. For a person that's so concerned about the vehicle expense, you seem to have an arbitray method of picking your battles.


Originally Posted By: gregk24
I just know that the 1 mile trips I am doing are literally THE worst driving a car could see.

And I doubt that your short-tripping miles are any harder on oil than my wife's minivan, which runs all about town as the quintesential soccor-mom bus ... She will FREQUENTLY start her van many times in well less than one mile, because the bank she's at, the grocery store across the street, the library, and the school are ALL in an area about 1/2 mile radius! Dino oil is proven, in my specific application, to be every bit as good as syns. And I have both personal UOAs and about 400 other UOAs of the engine family to back it up.


Originally Posted By: gregk24
... but in my application, I want oil to get to all the parts ASAP, and synthetic does a better job at it hands down.

In you application, in FL, the start-up flow of any decent oil, regardless of brand or base stock, is moot! As I've already stated, and shown with data and SAE articles, it is the tribochemical barrier that is the MOST effective portion of wear control. The base stock flow is not the number-one thing that controls wear, even at start-up. And, I would ask, how you toss out such a statement? Do you have a series of statistical experimentation efforts PROVING how much better your syn choice is, in your engine, over any other alternative? How about handing over that "hands down" proof, please? If you were in the artic in winter, I'd tend to agree that syns will flow better. In FL, regardless of season, oil flow is moot.


It does not bother me that you thrown away your oil too soon. So be it; it's your money to waste. You are 100% caught up in the hype and mythology of syns. You may not recognize it, but that does not make it any less so.

You apparenly don't want to take me up on my previous offer of the dino oil challenge, so I have another ...
I'll take your used oil and run it for 12k miles AFTER you're done with it! You drain and UOA the next load of 3k mile PU oil, then send the oil to me; if it comes out this pristine, I'll run it. How about it?