2016 Traverse 6350mi Schaeffers 9000 5W30

Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
251
Location
Houston, TX
2016 Chevy Traverse, 32500mi at time of OC Second run of the 9000 5W30 and also added a pint of Schaeffers #132(had one laying around and thought what the heck). OLM was down to 20%, driving style is 60%/40% hwy/city. No make up oil was added. I feel like the Zn and P are off, other UOAs show it higher. The #132 really thickened the oil but overall I'm happy with the results. Previous UOA was M1 0W40. I have another case of the 9000 laying around so refilled with that. I was able to get a good price on it. Not sure if I will continue with the Schaeffers or not. I think I could have easily gone 7,000 mi. Not sure how much more though. <[Linked Image]>
 
Last edited:

chevman4life

Thread starter
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
251
Location
Houston, TX
Originally Posted by Gubkin
Oil is dead Schaeffers 9000 5W30 is bottom
Blackstone wouldn't say the oil is Dead. On another UOA they suggest anything above a 1 on TBN has some more life in it. I could have easily gone 7k.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2018
Messages
947
Location
N.A.
Antimony is missing? It's in the 132. Or it was. That was one of the best things about Schaeffer's. Guess not any more. Like the Moly though. Although; I realize there may be esters and or other additives not on a UOA. Thanks for sharing. Love to see Schaeffer's.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
148
Location
Samara, Russia
Originally Posted by chevman4life
Blackstone wouldn't say the oil is Dead. On another UOA they suggest anything above a 1 on TBN has some more life in it. I could have easily gone 7k.
Oil is dead if: 1) TBN used oil down on 50% from VOA 2) TAN > TBN 3) TBN < 2.5 But you never see 1.0 TBN in research. It's artifice of blackstone only
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
8,742
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted by Gubkin
Oil is dead if: 1) TBN used oil down on 50% from VOA 2) TAN > TBN 3) TBN < 2.5 But you never see 1.0 TBN in research. It's artifice of blackstone only
I disagree with your assessment. The oil is still serviceable. Your basis for saying the oil is dead is predicated on old-school thoughts; using inputs as a reason to change oil. Despite the TBN, the wear control is well behaved. The entire topic of TBN/TAN is so grossly misunderstood by most people. It is a predictor used to be as a marker for paying closer heed; it's a tool within a tool and nothing more. - If "crossover" happens, there is no proof that wear is affected. - If TBN drops below some arbitrary threshold, there is no proof that wear is affected. TBN/TAN used to be very important in the States because of two reasons: 1) our fuel used to have much more sulphur in it (especially the diesel) 2) our crankcase vent systems used to be open to atmosphere Neither of those is true any longer, and therefor the conditions that contribute to the rapid degradation of the lube (which thereby caused a near-panic recommendation for an OCI) simply don't exist with any basis today. When moisture in the crankcase was high, and it combined with sulphur, the result was sulphuric acid. Both those contributory conditions are gone, and actually have been for some time. I have no idea what type fuels and lubes are present in Russia, but your advice is not salient here. The TBN (total base number) is a vague attempt to quantify the ability of the lube to process acid (TAN). But the UOAs also have clear indications of the amount of many of those individual elemental contributors to the base; Ca, Mg, etc. The TBN value is attempting to make an estimate of how much of the base remains to fight the battle against acid. But, if there's no acid present (very low sulphur and practically no moisture assure this), then the "need" for a high TBN value is moot. Even if acid is present, until it's eating at the soft metals, it's still moot. This happens when the acids sit in a static condition for weeks upon weeks; your engine does not run for a month or more. There are many, many UOAs posted with the conditions you warn against, and yet the wear rates of the equipment go totally unaffected. We've seen this time and time again. TBN/TAN isn't an issue until you get into really long extended OCIs. It can matter in that regard; still only as a predictor. In short-to-moderate OCIs, TBN/TAN is a fools errand; there's no proof whatsoever that the level of TBN/TAN has any correlation to wear rates ... none whatsoever. And if you can find an example, by all means post it up. Folks - I advise we quit focusing on inputs and pay heed to the outputs. If the wear rates are going unaffected, then the inputs you're concerned about are not important (yet). There can be no causation without correlation. Because there is no evidence in "normal" OCIs that TBN affects wear, it's a moot item. It's not the oil that's dead here ... it's the antiquated concept you are hanging on to.
 
Last edited:

chevman4life

Thread starter
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
251
Location
Houston, TX
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Originally Posted by Gubkin
Oil is dead if: 1) TBN used oil down on 50% from VOA 2) TAN > TBN 3) TBN < 2.5 But you never see 1.0 TBN in research. It's artifice of blackstone only
I disagree with your assessment. The oil is still serviceable. Your basis for saying the oil is dead is predicated on old-school thoughts; using inputs as a reason to change oil. Despite the TBN, the wear control is well behaved. The entire topic of TBN/TAN is so grossly misunderstood by most people. It is a predictor used to be as a marker for paying closer heed; it's a tool within a tool and nothing more. - If "crossover" happens, there is no proof that wear is affected. - If TBN drops below some arbitrary threshold, there is no proof that wear is affected. TBN/TAN used to be very important in the States because of two reasons: 1) our fuel used to have much more sulphur in it (especially the diesel) 2) our crankcase vent systems used to be open to atmosphere Neither of those is true any longer, and therefor the conditions that contribute to the rapid degradation of the lube (which thereby caused a near-panic recommendation for an OCI) simply don't exist with any basis today. When moisture in the crankcase was high, and it combined with sulphur, the result was sulphuric acid. Both those contributory conditions are gone, and actually have been for some time. I have no idea what type fuels and lubes are present in Russia, but your advice is not salient here. The TBN (total base number) is a vague attempt to quantify the ability of the lube to process acid (TAN). But the UOAs also have clear indications of the amount of many of those individual elemental contributors to the base; Ca, Mg, etc. The TBN value is attempting to make an estimate of how much of the base remains to fight the battle against acid. But, if there's no acid present (very low sulphur and practically no moisture assure this), then the "need" for a high TBN value is moot. Even if acid is present, until it's eating at the soft metals, it's still moot. This happens when the acids sit in a static condition for weeks upon weeks; your engine does not run for a month or more. There are many, many UOAs posted with the conditions you warn against, and yet the wear rates of the equipment go totally unaffected. We've seen this time and time again. TBN/TAN isn't an issue until you get into really long extended OCIs. It can matter in that regard; still only as a predictor. In short-to-moderate OCIs, TBN/TAN is a fools errand; there's no proof whatsoever that the level of TBN/TAN has any correlation to wear rates ... none whatsoever. And if you can find an example, by all means post it up. Folks - I advise we quit focusing on inputs and pay heed to the outputs. If the wear rates are going unaffected, then the inputs you're concerned about are not important (yet). There can be no causation without correlation. Because there is no evidence in "normal" OCIs that TBN affects wear, it's a moot item. It's not the oil that's dead here ... it's the antiquated concept you are hanging on to.
Thanks for the info!
 
Top