2016 Dodge Charger 3.6L 66,000 total miles 11,000 miles on HPL 5w-30 HDEO CJ-4

[wwillson]

However, I wouldn't do 10k+ mile intervals without also having a TAN measurement to actually confirm the acids are being neutralized, especially if the oxidation measurement is not as useful because of a high-ester chemistry.

The TAN was 4.48, I'll start putting it in the tables when I post a UOA

 

[TiGeo]

I do not have a database, and I also stand by my statement. Even a large database such as yours is not conclusive. There are millions of engines that do not appear in your database. To use it, even though its large, as a representative sample of all the engines in use, everywhere, which I was using as an example, is likely going to net out as inaccurate, because the likelihood of the neglected or indifferently, and dealer maintained (the owner has no idea what a UOA is) engines showing up there is probably small. I believe even at 35K, your database is not representative of the real world, since even having knowledge of UOA and paying to have it done by default creates it's own group, that may only represent itself, but not be a sample that can reliably be extrapolated too far. It is interesting however, and I have heard that wear numbers trend down the longer the OCI.

Sometimes common sense trumps a large data set. It has in this case in my opinion.

"The best case to be made for a long OCI is that it doesn't do harm vs a shorter one, not that it is superior in some way. The reverse is true for a short OCI. The bias for a superior schedule lies with the shorter OCI, across all variables. I don't think that is arguable."

That is the extent of what I said.

Your arguement in some ways is simlar to that used by the oil "thickies" here that say in effect that there is never a downside to using a higher grade oil (similar to "there is never a bad thing about shorter OCIs") but there *may* be one using a lower grade oil w/r to wear etc. (similar to "longer OCIs aren't hurting anything with XYZ oil and ABC use blah blah blah". I wonder how many on each side of this dicussion hold the opposite view on the thick vs. thin discussion that is often played out ad-nauseum in posts here that does have a lot of similaraties....

 

[Stumpy]

Way to go. I switched my entire fleet of 5 cars/crossovers to 15W-40 HDEO with great results. Keep pushing those miles. I change at 14K miles just to do apples to apples comparison. I will move to 17.5K or 20K OCI's next.

 

[KEVINK0000]

Your arguement in some ways is simlar to that used by the oil "thickies" here that say in effect that there is never a downside to using a higher grade oil (similar to "there is never a bad thing about shorter OCIs") but there *may* be one using a lower grade oil w/r to wear etc. (similar to "longer OCIs aren't hurting anything with XYZ oil and ABC use blah blah blah". I wonder how many on each side of this dicussion hold the opposite view on the thick vs. thin discussion that is often played out ad-nauseum in posts here that does have a lot of similaraties....

Not really the same. I have a post on this I will hopefully finish today.

 

[KEVINK0000]

I hear what you're saying; I just find untennable. I don't understand it because it defys logic based on facts and instead relies on specious assumptions and flawed narative.

In a sense of fairness, I'd like to take another stab at this to try and understand your POV. Seriously - I'm not trying to pick on you here. I'm all ears if you can help me understand your position. But to do so, I don't want to rely on rhetoric or mythology. Let's stick to parameters which can be articulated, quantified and proven. If you insist on your claim being right, and that's fine by me for you to do so, then please help me understand what you are using to measure the success of shorter OCIs?
Here are the things most of us would accept as tangible proof:
* wear-metal rates
* fiscal conservancy
Note that contamination rates don't change over an OCI, so this is a "constant" that is not affected by OCI duration. Parameters not influenced by the variable do not exhibit correlation, therefore no causation is proven. Contamination rates are moot. So we're going to put this topic aside. The only thing that would alter a contamination rate is for some physical control system to develop a flaw; a head gasket leaks more coolant; an air filter intake tube gets a crack and leaks air; fuel injector leaks into combustion chamber; etc ... These can be detected by UOAs and then subsequently fixed. And, the OCI duration cannot stop any of these ruinous problems; only repairs can fix these issues. So OCI duration does not play into contamination rates.


I'm going to separate your statement out, so that we can try to find the basis for your claim:


The first "superior in some way" trait is that wear-rates for the main metals (Fe, Al, Cu, Pb, Cr) all go lower as the OCI matures out to 15k miles. This is proven in results of macro and micro analysis. Not only does a longer OCI not do harm, it is truly beneficial in this manner.
Q1- do you believe lower wear-rates associated with longer OCIs to be inferior? If so, how?

Further, another "superior in some way" trait is that fewer oil changes saves money for the user.
Q2- do you believe that money savings inherrent with longer OCIs to be inferior? If so, how?

Also, longer OCIs are "superior in some manner" because less oil is consumed in a macro manner; less raw natural resources extracted from the earth, lower energy requirements for lube refinement, fewer production needs (packaging and shipping), and less recycling efforts needed at disposal time. For every OCI that is extended from 5k to 10k miles, that cuts in half the total effort needed to replace and recycle that same quantity of lube.
Q3- do you believe that less demand on oil and energy in a global format is a bad thing? If so, how?



What is it that is true here? A shorter OCI is to be considered superior? How so?
Q4- are the higher wear-rates present in shorter OCIs are desirable?
Q5- is spending more money than necessary for acceptable engine protection is desirable? (aka ... wasting money is somehow attractive?)
Q6- is using more natural resources and higher energy consumption in producing more lubes is a good thing?



You clearly have a "bias", but I fail to understand how you see this to be true. What quantifiable measure are you relying on to make this assertion? Wear rates and fiscal ROI all point to longer OCIs being favorable. So is there some other means of measuring the value of an OCI that you are using for your "bias"? The variables are listed above; how is it you see using more oil and more money to get higher wear rates as a postive bias?



Let's set aside the word "arguable" and call it debate. I believe that debate clearly shows your position as lacking substantive logic thus far. But I'm open to hear about anything you can add IF you can find credible sources of attribution.

I see two opportunities to have you prove your point:

1) you need to find proof that counters my facts of lower wear rates and money savings being desirable. The problem is, you've already admitted you don't have data to back up your claim. You said this:

If you cannot come up with data that counters mine, then what is the basis for your position? You have an opinion. OK - fine. But opinions are usurped by tangible facts.

2) you need to come up with some other means of objectively (not subjectively) assessing OCI duration not already identified above. If wear rates and financial considerations are already covered, and contamination is moot, what else can be used to judge the viability of an OCI?


I will summarize my position here ...
The following statements are generalizations which would exclude known "problem-child" engines (aka sludge engines, poorly maintained engines, etc):
- Short OCIs won't hurt an engine, but they will hurt your wallet
- Long OCIs won't hurt an engine, and can in fact reduce wear rates, and they will also help your wallet, and lessen global resource draws

Conceptually, any OCI can be too short or too long; the right way to select a lube is to identify the quantifiable parameters, define and decide condemnation limits, and then monitor the results and make decisions after all data is reviewed.


If you want folks, including me, to take you seriously, then please bring something objective (not subjective) to the discussion.

First,
I don't care if anyone here takes me seriously. That is not why I say what I say.

I will restate what I said.

"The best case to be made for a long OCI is that it doesn't do harm vs a shorter one, not that it is superior in some way. The reverse is true for a short OCI. The bias for a superior schedule lies with the shorter OCI, across all variables. I don't think that is arguable."

I said "all variables".

You have a large data set, but my assertion is it is not a representative group of all engines, in use everywhere. It is a large sample of engines that have had OA done. That alone, at minimum selects a group of owners/maintainers that will be likely be generally biased to a greater understanding of mechanics, and vehicle maintenance. You said it is impossible to get data on all engines everywhere, and I agree, but it is not impossible to reckon that all the engines in use everywhere are not all in perfect operating condition, and not all are of quality design, or execution by the manufacturer.

You said this:

"I will summarize my position here ...
The following statements are generalizations which would exclude known "problem-child" engines (aka sludge engines, poorly maintained engines, etc):

- Short OCIs won't hurt an engine, but they will hurt your wallet
- Long OCIs won't hurt an engine, and can in fact reduce wear rates, and they will also help your wallet, and lessen global resource draws."

The main reason I disagree with you, is that really, your own statements prove my point. Your position, based on the data you have, is stated above. I choose not to exclude what you call "problem child" engines or situations. These are very common, probably much more common than the reverse.

Here's more:

"Further, the data I have also indicates that contamination (soot, oxidation, coolant, silica, fuel) are parameters which must be monitored, but they do not become obscenely invasive as long as the systems are operating properly. When some form of contamination is present in an undesirable level, then that system needs addressed."

"There are always exceptions to the rule. Some infamous engines such as the Toyota's which sludged up; the Saturn SL2s which had no drain-back relief in the piston rings. But those are isolated in grand scheme of things."

So, yes you have data, and you cite some few situations that you are aware of, where there might be exceptions to the rule presented in your data. My assertion is that you don't know what you don't know, and it indeed seems that you and others here find it difficult to imagine all the various situations where this data set would not apply. That is my point in the main. If your data requires exceptions to be true, based on your own statements, then you actually agree with what I have stated, tangentially. Yes?


There are many more problem engines and usage patterns than either you or I know about, and your dataset does not represent completely or properly. Can you not imagine that this is true?


This also:

"Note that contamination rates don't change over an OCI, so this is a "constant" that is not affected by OCI duration."

The rate may not change, but the contaminant load in the sump, and all over the engine definitely changes. I assert that this is a big problem for many engines. It may not show up immediately, but it shows up. How many manufacturers with long drains, re-spec'ed to longer drains, once those engines in large numbers, were in the field? How many re-spec'ed to shorter drains?

In summary, I hope I clarified my points. And, I don't need data to state what I state, again. Some may see this and agree, and some may not. So be it. Hopefully people will think before they post. Most didn't after my previous post.

 

[dnewton3]

The main reason I disagree with you, is that really, your own statements prove my point. Your position, based on the data you have, is stated above.

None of my statements prove your point; not one of them. All of my points counter yours, not compliment them.

I see no logic to your assumptions and assertions, and you've not once put up any data or study that would back your claims.

I have tens of thousands of UOAs which back up my claim, there are SAE studies which echo my claim, and there are anecdotal examples which back up my claim, not the least of which would be my UOAs:

Ford 3.5L at 50k mi / HPL 5w-30 at 10k mi

My most recent extended run in my 2018 Taurus n/a 3.5L. Typical mixed use; city and highway. To help this make sense, here is an OCI history: - at 1k miles, the oil/filter was changed with dino ST (first "break in" flush of the OEM machining remnants) - at 5k miles, the oil/filter was changed...

bobistheoilguy.com

5w-20; Ford 4.6L engines; UOA testing

Originally Posted By: JLTD Guess I need to run the Amsoil OE I just bought for MUCH longer than 5000 miles! Make it 10k at least....and sample and leave it in. If you do a lot of highway miles.... you might be good for 20k

bobistheoilguy.com

To be clear, I do NOT advocate for blindly extending OCIs. OCI extension should be done using many tools available, and only if one understands the benefits and limitations of those tools, and further understands the concerns unique to the operational parameters. Extended OCIs can work in many situations, but they cannot work in all situations.


We shall agree to disagree.

 

[KEVINK0000]

None of my statements prove your point; not one of them. All of my points counter yours, not compliment them.

I see no logic to your assumptions and assertions, and you've not once put up any data or study that would back your claims.

I have tens of thousands of UOAs which back up my claim, there are SAE studies which echo my claim, and there are anecdotal examples which back up my claim, not the least of which would be my UOAs:

Ford 3.5L at 50k mi / HPL 5w-30 at 10k mi

My most recent extended run in my 2018 Taurus n/a 3.5L. Typical mixed use; city and highway. To help this make sense, here is an OCI history: - at 1k miles, the oil/filter was changed with dino ST (first "break in" flush of the OEM machining remnants) - at 5k miles, the oil/filter was changed...

bobistheoilguy.com

5w-20; Ford 4.6L engines; UOA testing

Originally Posted By: JLTD Guess I need to run the Amsoil OE I just bought for MUCH longer than 5000 miles! Make it 10k at least....and sample and leave it in. If you do a lot of highway miles.... you might be good for 20k

bobistheoilguy.com

To be clear, I do NOT advocate for blindly extending OCIs. OCI extension should be done using many tools available, and only if one understands the benefits and limitations of those tools, and further understands the concerns unique to the operational parameters. Extended OCIs can work in many situations, but they cannot work in all situations.


We shall agree to disagree.

Again, you made my point for me:

You said:

"To be clear, I do NOT advocate for blindly extending OCIs. OCI extension should be done using many tools available, and only if one understands the benefits and limitations of those tools, and further understands the concerns unique to the operational parameters. Extended OCIs can work in many situations, but they cannot work in all situations."

I said:

""The best case to be made for a long OCI is that it doesn't do harm vs a shorter one, not that it is superior in some way. The reverse is true for a short OCI. The bias for a superior schedule lies with the shorter OCI, across all variables. I don't think that is arguable."

 

[dnewton3]

I said:

""The best case to be made for a long OCI is that it doesn't do harm vs a shorter one, not that it is superior in some way.

Simply put ... Longer OCIs are superior these ways:
- lower wear rates as the OCI matures (proven via multiple tests and data streams)
- less cost for the user
- less strain on global resources and recycling

The reverse is true for a short OCI. The bias for a superior schedule lies with the shorter OCI, across all variables.

All variables being what?
- wear rates?
- costs?
- drain on resources?
See my comments above.

I don't think that is arguable.

Sir -You clearly just want to argue; that's all you've been doing. Certainly you don't want to stick to facts which can be proven by verifiable methodology from credible sources.



If you want to pontificate about your presumed assumptions, while not substantiating anyting with data or SAE studies, then go start your own thread; don't litter this one with your baseless hyperbole and biased rhetoric.

 

[wwillson]

Feelings ≠ Facts

 

[Bjornviken]

Way to go. I switched my entire fleet of 5 cars/crossovers to 15W-40 HDEO with great results. Keep pushing those miles. I change at 14K miles just to do apples to apples comparison. I will move to 17.5K or 20K OCI's next.

goes well as long as you don't have extreme winter temperatures. I also like 15w-40 oils, especially delvac. Over 20k towing hours on a JCB-417.

 

[TiGeo]

- lower wear rates as the OCI matures (proven via multiple tests and data streams)

Do you have any links here on these that show lower wear the longer the OCI goes/older the oil is? Just doesn't seem intuitive to me.

Nevermind. Found some posts.

 

[kevperro]

Do you have any links here on these that show lower wear the longer the OCI goes/older the oil is? Just doesn't seem intuitive to me.

Nevermind. Found some posts.

There are studies showing it but I'm not convinced it is a meaningful difference in the life of an engine. It is another chasing margin of error type of difference.

 

[Lavrishevo]

The iron and copper are off the charts on the UOA. Isn’t this a sign of significant wear?

 

[Astro14]

The iron and copper are off the charts on the UOA. Isn’t this a sign of significant wear?

No.

 

[Lavrishevo]

No.

Can you be more specific or direct me to a link to understand how high iron levels would not be indicative? I was under the assumption that metal to metal contact produces these elevated levels.

 

[fantastic]

Can you be more specific or direct me to a link to understand how high iron levels would not be indicative? I was under the assumption that metal to metal contact produces these elevated levels.

Trends is the difference

 

[Astro14]

Can you be more specific or direct me to a link to understand how high iron levels would not be indicative? I was under the assumption that metal to metal contact produces these elevated levels.

Several dozen posts in this thread explain why that’s not true. I don’t have the time to repost everything, but I encourage you to go back and read them. Simply, those levels are a product of miles in service, they’re not directly related to wear, and you’re reading too much into a UOA.

 

[tnt_motorsports]

Several dozen posts in this thread explain why that’s not true. I don’t have the time to repost everything, but I encourage you to go back and read them. Simply, those levels are a product of miles in service, they’re not directly related to wear, and you’re reading too much into a UOA.

Can you be more specific or direct me to a link to understand how high iron levels would not be indicative? I was under the assumption that metal to metal contact produces these elevated levels.

@Astro14 is correct, lots of info in this thread.

Maybe the easiest way to think about is amount of iron / 1000 miles. This oil in @wwillson Durango has several thousand miles on it. He is working on very long extended OCI's. So in summary if he's gone 3 times the normal OCI and the iron is equal to or less then 3 times the iron than he is in good shape.

Make sense @Lavrishevo ?

Just my $0.02

 

[wpod]

The HPL is blended with high quality base oils and additives . Excellent !

 

[Titan]

Maintenance Minder followed, changing at 10-15%. Mileage range from 7500 to 9500 miles, now at 122,000+ miles. Mostly Pennzoil Platinum. Recently have put HPL 0w20 in it. Took off valve cover to replace gasket and check valves...#1 cylinder exhausts were a bit tight so adjusted those two...all other valves were fine. So, here's what following the MM looks like on this Honda engine using a very yellow shop bulb light: