Everything is within acceptable limits. Viscosity shearing means absolutely nothing with wear this low. All it proves is he could probably go thinner.
2007 Honda Accord V6 Mobil 1 5w-20 EP 12,403 Mi
- Thread starter NO2
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FZ1 - how would you know where the 20% early mark was at, if you didn't spend the money to UOA? You stated the oil was "done" and 10k miles was your limit as suggested for this UOA. But without the UOA, you'd have idea. It's just an arbitrary number you picked from thin air.
I would counter with this: Mobil 1 EP assures 15k miles, and no UOA would even be necessary. I'm sure Mobil has a "safety margin" built into their 15k mile warranty plan for this product, and so 15k miles would be a minimum, not a max. And yet you are ready to grab the wrenches at 10k miles? That's 1/3 less value from the fluid. The fluid could likely go even further than 15k miles, but we'd need TBN/TAN to know. My point is this; anything under 15k miles really is a waste of a UOA, if you do nothing with the info to extend the OCI. Why pay for a UOA, see the excellent service, and then OCI at less than the lube limit? No UOA is even necessary for EP; why pay for that info, and then totally ignore it? To what end, to what purpose, does it serve to pay for stuff you'd artificially limit?
Either greatly extend the OCI with full pragmatic knowledge using all available tools, or just stick to a "normal" OCI plan with the least expensive qualified fluid.
Huh? I didn't say I wouldn't do a Uoa. I said I would dump this oil and pay $30 for fresh oil. You say you want to pay $35 to continue to moniter this old oil. Further,you continue to change positions,as pointed out by another poster. First you say that you need to moniter this fill to go further,now you flatly state you can go 15,000 with no UOA,with EP,on any engine. So which is it......this time? I made a,reasonable,fact based comment,on this run,re this engine. 10,000 miles is a long run,on this engine. Just to be clear,I prefer to run a "snapshot" UOA and adjust,my OCI,based on my assessment of that UOA. No need for me to "Moniter",ad infinitum,at $35 a pop. We can agree to disagree.
FZ1 - how would you know where the 20% early mark was at, if you didn't spend the money to UOA? You stated the oil was "done" and 10k miles was your limit as suggested for this UOA. But without the UOA, you'd have idea. It's just an arbitrary number you picked from thin air.
I would counter with this: Mobil 1 EP assures 15k miles, and no UOA would even be necessary. I'm sure Mobil has a "safety margin" built into their 15k mile warranty plan for this product, and so 15k miles would be a minimum, not a max. And yet you are ready to grab the wrenches at 10k miles? That's 1/3 less value from the fluid. The fluid could likely go even further than 15k miles, but we'd need TBN/TAN to know. My point is this; anything under 15k miles really is a waste of a UOA, if you do nothing with the info to extend the OCI. Why pay for a UOA, see the excellent service, and then OCI at less than the lube limit? No UOA is even necessary for EP; why pay for that info, and then totally ignore it? To what end, to what purpose, does it serve to pay for stuff you'd artificially limit?
Either greatly extend the OCI with full pragmatic knowledge using all available tools, or just stick to a "normal" OCI plan with the least expensive qualified fluid.
Huh? I didn't say I wouldn't do a Uoa. I said I would dump this oil and pay $30 for fresh oil. You say you want to pay $35 to continue to moniter this old oil. Further,you continue to change positions,as pointed out by another poster. First you say that you need to moniter this fill to go further,now you flatly state you can go 15,000 with no UOA,with EP,on any engine. So which is it......this time? I made a,reasonable,fact based comment,on this run,re this engine. 10,000 miles is a long run,on this engine. Just to be clear,I prefer to run a "snapshot" UOA and adjust,my OCI,based on my assessment of that UOA. No need for me to "Moniter",ad infinitum,at $35 a pop. We can agree to disagree.
dnewton3
Staff member
I apologize if my rationale is not clear. This is like a "decision tree" with a lot of "if ... then ..." points:
IF the OP intends to never venture past 10k miles with this engine and lube choice, running forever consistent 10k mile OCIs with M1EP, then I'd say to NEVER UOA ever again; it's wasted money. The lube is wasted and the UOA is wasted. There is no value whatsoever to a UOA that is 1/3 under the lube warranty OCI duration, and the UOA will never be used to make decisions about changing oil, because the little number counter on the dashboard is in control, and not the data. The lube maker warranty already implies plenty of safety margin; they would not warrant a product out to 100% degradation, because the risk is too high for fringe failure. There is probably already AT LEAST 20% margin in their 15k mile OCI limit, perhaps more. To OCI and UOA with a Honda engine and M1EP, with no intent to ever extend the OCI past 2/3 of the lube warranty, is a total waste. Your suggestion would fall into this category.
IF the OP intends to never venture past 10k miles with this engine but goes with a dino lube choice, I'd say to UOA a few times to validate the result, and then never UOA again; it would be wasted money after successful validation. This would be my suggestion if he limits his OCI to 10k miles and does not see a significant change in his operational pattern or engine attributes. He could still use other non-cost monitoring methods (visual inspections, compression checks, etc) but not pay for the UOAs.
IF the OP intends to run his OCIs out to 15k miles with M1EP, but never any further, then I'd still say not to UOA; it's wasted money. Picking an arbitrary OCI duration (even if one that is supported by the lube maker warranty) means the odometer is controlling the OCI, not the data. UOAs are not needed, but other methods can still be employed that don't cost money.
IF the OP intends to use this as a stepping off point, for the purpose of greatly extending his OCIs past 15k miles, then this UOA has value to establish a baseline. Still at 10k miles, TBN and TAN are not needed. At 15k miles, I'd get TBN/TAN for the establishment of ranges. With this maintenance plan, many other tools will also need to be engaged including PCs, visual inspections, compression checks, etc; they are a necessity when venturing into long OCIs, if you intend to not go blindly into that dark night.
IF you still don't understand by now, then I don't know what else I can do to help you. You are probably more interested in picking an arugment about semantics than helping the OP make a rational decision.
I can understand your statement about the "snapshot" UOA. But what I disagree with is your blanket statement that this oil was "done" and 10k miles was a hard limit. As I stated before, the end-all/be-all use of lubes is to reduce wear. Yes - oil does other things like control temps and hold contaminants, but those are INPUTs to the OUTPUT of wear. WEAR RATES and WEAR TOTALS are the MOST important thing we should concern ourself with. In this UOA, the wear rates and wear totals are extremely low, and the contamination is low. Your concern for TBN is moot; the fluid is warranted out to 15k miles. My suggestion for TBN/TAN is ONLY applicable if the OP wants to learn/practice greatly extended OCIs. If not, then he should stop the UOAs. Either way, 10k miles in this application is an overly conservative waste.
IF the OP intends to never venture past 10k miles with this engine and lube choice, running forever consistent 10k mile OCIs with M1EP, then I'd say to NEVER UOA ever again; it's wasted money. The lube is wasted and the UOA is wasted. There is no value whatsoever to a UOA that is 1/3 under the lube warranty OCI duration, and the UOA will never be used to make decisions about changing oil, because the little number counter on the dashboard is in control, and not the data. The lube maker warranty already implies plenty of safety margin; they would not warrant a product out to 100% degradation, because the risk is too high for fringe failure. There is probably already AT LEAST 20% margin in their 15k mile OCI limit, perhaps more. To OCI and UOA with a Honda engine and M1EP, with no intent to ever extend the OCI past 2/3 of the lube warranty, is a total waste. Your suggestion would fall into this category.
IF the OP intends to never venture past 10k miles with this engine but goes with a dino lube choice, I'd say to UOA a few times to validate the result, and then never UOA again; it would be wasted money after successful validation. This would be my suggestion if he limits his OCI to 10k miles and does not see a significant change in his operational pattern or engine attributes. He could still use other non-cost monitoring methods (visual inspections, compression checks, etc) but not pay for the UOAs.
IF the OP intends to run his OCIs out to 15k miles with M1EP, but never any further, then I'd still say not to UOA; it's wasted money. Picking an arbitrary OCI duration (even if one that is supported by the lube maker warranty) means the odometer is controlling the OCI, not the data. UOAs are not needed, but other methods can still be employed that don't cost money.
IF the OP intends to use this as a stepping off point, for the purpose of greatly extending his OCIs past 15k miles, then this UOA has value to establish a baseline. Still at 10k miles, TBN and TAN are not needed. At 15k miles, I'd get TBN/TAN for the establishment of ranges. With this maintenance plan, many other tools will also need to be engaged including PCs, visual inspections, compression checks, etc; they are a necessity when venturing into long OCIs, if you intend to not go blindly into that dark night.
IF you still don't understand by now, then I don't know what else I can do to help you. You are probably more interested in picking an arugment about semantics than helping the OP make a rational decision.
I can understand your statement about the "snapshot" UOA. But what I disagree with is your blanket statement that this oil was "done" and 10k miles was a hard limit. As I stated before, the end-all/be-all use of lubes is to reduce wear. Yes - oil does other things like control temps and hold contaminants, but those are INPUTs to the OUTPUT of wear. WEAR RATES and WEAR TOTALS are the MOST important thing we should concern ourself with. In this UOA, the wear rates and wear totals are extremely low, and the contamination is low. Your concern for TBN is moot; the fluid is warranted out to 15k miles. My suggestion for TBN/TAN is ONLY applicable if the OP wants to learn/practice greatly extended OCIs. If not, then he should stop the UOAs. Either way, 10k miles in this application is an overly conservative waste.
Last edited:
Perhaps tig1 can answer this.
Is it usual for viscosity to drop to about 7cSt at about 10k miles on M1?
If so it makes a strong case for shear stable 0w16 oil.
Is it usual for viscosity to drop to about 7cSt at about 10k miles on M1?
If so it makes a strong case for shear stable 0w16 oil.
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Perhaps tig1 can answer this.
Is it usual for viscosity to drop to about 7cSt at about 10k miles on M1?
If so it makes a strong case for shear stable 0w16 oil.
I would like to be able to answer that, but since I don't do UOAs I can't. However it is better for an oil the shear a bit that oxidize. When an oil oxidizes it begines to form varnish that can lead the ring coking.
Perhaps tig1 can answer this.
Is it usual for viscosity to drop to about 7cSt at about 10k miles on M1?
If so it makes a strong case for shear stable 0w16 oil.
I would like to be able to answer that, but since I don't do UOAs I can't. However it is better for an oil the shear a bit that oxidize. When an oil oxidizes it begines to form varnish that can lead the ring coking.
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Oil is done. 10k max.
What leads you to say that?
I see nothing in this report that indicates oil is "done". To the contrary, everything looks good. Wear rates are low, contamination low, vis OK. TBN is low, but that is to be expected. We would need to know the TAN also, before having a better view of the lube. Without knowing TAN, I cannot assure you that it's safe to go further, but then again neither can anyone assure this lube is "done" either. What we do know is that the wear rates are admirably low, and therefore we can presume acid is not acting on parts yet.
Nice to see someone actually extend a syn OCI, rather than run 4k miles and dump it.
I will note that for contrast, you might consider a conventional lube to see how well it would also perform. Your driving style is very tame and probably isn't going to really harm any lube, regardless of base stock.
The oil has thinned from 8.9 to 7.12...The flashpoint is down from 446 to 360...The tbn is low... The insoluables,probably,soot is .4...So I would leave a little margin for error and dump it at 10,000.
This is how this discussion started. I made a 1 line comment,then answered your comment. I have been defending my position from the beginning. So don't accuse me of arguing. People that have a different opinion are not "the devil".....They just have a different opinion. I'm not the only person on here that does not share your opinion.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Oil is done. 10k max.
What leads you to say that?
I see nothing in this report that indicates oil is "done". To the contrary, everything looks good. Wear rates are low, contamination low, vis OK. TBN is low, but that is to be expected. We would need to know the TAN also, before having a better view of the lube. Without knowing TAN, I cannot assure you that it's safe to go further, but then again neither can anyone assure this lube is "done" either. What we do know is that the wear rates are admirably low, and therefore we can presume acid is not acting on parts yet.
Nice to see someone actually extend a syn OCI, rather than run 4k miles and dump it.
I will note that for contrast, you might consider a conventional lube to see how well it would also perform. Your driving style is very tame and probably isn't going to really harm any lube, regardless of base stock.
The oil has thinned from 8.9 to 7.12...The flashpoint is down from 446 to 360...The tbn is low... The insoluables,probably,soot is .4...So I would leave a little margin for error and dump it at 10,000.
This is how this discussion started. I made a 1 line comment,then answered your comment. I have been defending my position from the beginning. So don't accuse me of arguing. People that have a different opinion are not "the devil".....They just have a different opinion. I'm not the only person on here that does not share your opinion.
dnewton3
Staff member
Vis, FP, TBN/TAN, ox, etc are all INPUTS.
The output is wear control.
There is nothing in this UOA to show that, despite the attributes you take exception to, wear is effected. In spite of the lower vis, TBN w/o TAN, FP, etc, wear is not only "OK", but actually very desirable.
This is what I call the "yabut" syndrome (yeah, but ....)
Wear rates are low and totals are low.
Yabut the FP is is out of spec.
Wear rates are low and totals are low.
Yatbut the vis is too thin.
Wear rates are low and totals are low.
Yabut the TBN is approaching bottom.
Wear rates are low and totals are low.
Yabut the insols are inching up.
Etc, etc.
Do you see a pattern? Some folks just want to dump fluid, and look for any reason they can find to blame a lube, and send it into the drain pan, despite the fact that WEAR RATES and WEAR TOTALS are desireable. Those attributes are merely indicators that the fluid might be approaching a point of condemnation. But the wear indicators are what tells you that point is actually upon you. The former are only predictors, the latter a physical marker of an event atually occuring. You would predict that the attibutes are worthy of dumping the fluid, but the engine begs to differ; it is completely happy with oil in that condition. Don't take my word for it, look at the wear data.
This is like saying the following:
"This game is over. It's the seventh inning and my team is behind by 3 runs. I'm calling this a loss". Well, until the FINAL results are in, then nothing is a lost cause. And so, with a UOA, until you see wear shifted, the oil is still viable. The oil game is not done until the wear is greatly effected. That is the "end" of the OCI game.
And let's not forget that it is proven in thousands of UOAs, and SAE study 2007-01-4133, that wear rates continue to DROP as you approach 15k miles, in a healthy engine. The longer you run oil, the less wear you get, and 15k miles is easily attainable, even for dino fluids. No amount of "yabut"s can change these facts.
On a personal note, if I've offended you, then I publically offer this apology; that was not my intent. Although we seem to certianly disagree, I respet the fact that this has not become ugly.
The output is wear control.
There is nothing in this UOA to show that, despite the attributes you take exception to, wear is effected. In spite of the lower vis, TBN w/o TAN, FP, etc, wear is not only "OK", but actually very desirable.
This is what I call the "yabut" syndrome (yeah, but ....)
Wear rates are low and totals are low.
Yabut the FP is is out of spec.
Wear rates are low and totals are low.
Yatbut the vis is too thin.
Wear rates are low and totals are low.
Yabut the TBN is approaching bottom.
Wear rates are low and totals are low.
Yabut the insols are inching up.
Etc, etc.
Do you see a pattern? Some folks just want to dump fluid, and look for any reason they can find to blame a lube, and send it into the drain pan, despite the fact that WEAR RATES and WEAR TOTALS are desireable. Those attributes are merely indicators that the fluid might be approaching a point of condemnation. But the wear indicators are what tells you that point is actually upon you. The former are only predictors, the latter a physical marker of an event atually occuring. You would predict that the attibutes are worthy of dumping the fluid, but the engine begs to differ; it is completely happy with oil in that condition. Don't take my word for it, look at the wear data.
This is like saying the following:
"This game is over. It's the seventh inning and my team is behind by 3 runs. I'm calling this a loss". Well, until the FINAL results are in, then nothing is a lost cause. And so, with a UOA, until you see wear shifted, the oil is still viable. The oil game is not done until the wear is greatly effected. That is the "end" of the OCI game.
And let's not forget that it is proven in thousands of UOAs, and SAE study 2007-01-4133, that wear rates continue to DROP as you approach 15k miles, in a healthy engine. The longer you run oil, the less wear you get, and 15k miles is easily attainable, even for dino fluids. No amount of "yabut"s can change these facts.
On a personal note, if I've offended you, then I publically offer this apology; that was not my intent. Although we seem to certianly disagree, I respet the fact that this has not become ugly.
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Everything is within acceptable limits. Viscosity shearing means absolutely nothing with wear this low. All it proves is he could probably go thinner.
This
Everything is within acceptable limits. Viscosity shearing means absolutely nothing with wear this low. All it proves is he could probably go thinner.
This
The mystery to me is why Mobil 1 EP seems to have such low market share compared to regular Mobil 1. This run is interesting because the poster actually used the oil as intended.
What is it about the OCD constellation that causes people to pay a premium price for Mobil 1 which they drain after a few thousand miles time after time, but balk at the extra 69 cents per quart for what is demonstrably a better oil?
What is it about the OCD constellation that causes people to pay a premium price for Mobil 1 which they drain after a few thousand miles time after time, but balk at the extra 69 cents per quart for what is demonstrably a better oil?
I'm with FZ1. I'm not going to state the oil is 'done', but I wouldn't be comfortable going longer with the low visc, low FP, high insols, and 1.4 TBN.
There's no doubt you *could* go further. It's a choice between what's possible and what's ideal.
To be fair I've seen varied responses to UOAs. There's the camp that states wear metals mean nothing, and there's the camp that states they indicate "low wear". The problem is that it's usually the same people in both camps depending on the oil/OCI/brand.
Yes, excellent report if the 'wear metals' actually mean 'low wear'. not so good otherwise. I care more about the other indicators. Agreed, TAN would be handy in this discussion.
There's no doubt you *could* go further. It's a choice between what's possible and what's ideal.
To be fair I've seen varied responses to UOAs. There's the camp that states wear metals mean nothing, and there's the camp that states they indicate "low wear". The problem is that it's usually the same people in both camps depending on the oil/OCI/brand.
Yes, excellent report if the 'wear metals' actually mean 'low wear'. not so good otherwise. I care more about the other indicators. Agreed, TAN would be handy in this discussion.
Last edited:
Well, there is this: 10,000 is a nice round number. If you change every 13K because that's optimal, and that's about once a year, its easier to forget completely. That's not a concern for people like us. Its a concern for normal people. OP clearly got the lion's share of the value out of his stuff.
I thank OP for actually posting a result that provides useful information.
I thank OP for actually posting a result that provides useful information.
- Status
Similar threads
