28,147+ miles on Schaeffers 15w40 Cummings 5.9L turbo

[Terry]

GW, The data speaks for itself and Johnny is right on target. The test was designed as a Schaeffers oil/ diesel engine run.

Amsoil happened to be the oil in the test engine prior to the Schaeffers. I dove-tailed the tests for one very important reason; I have recommended AME for years to my analysis customers and bench testing of Schaeffers got my attention as a possible lower cost substitute. Instead of guessing I took 13+ months to test the product.

AME is one of Amsoils best products but a primarily petroleum base oil is as good or better in performance at a lower cost. Also without the MLM crap.I would not have believed the results without seeing them. Disclaimer I do not sell either product,or any for that matter.Note I used OAI for the trend analysis to preclude that being a angle to discredit a very straight forward test.

Finally you question the Amsoil not being taken to longer interval as the Schaeffers, Bob didn't pay for the Amsoil testing I did and I chose to share it because of my respect for Amsoils formulation.
I have tested Amsoil out to 23000 miles+ and it does fabulously in the cummins engines.

So does Schaeffers 7000 blend at 1/2 the retail cost.

[ July 17, 2002, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

 

[GW]

Terry,

Johnny is right on target and so are you - Schaeffer is a very good product, no question. Where you both are not on target is in saying that this is an oil "war" between competitors - it is not. What I talking about is the way this has been hyped. It wouldn't matter to me if the other oil was Rotella or Delo or anything else, the same principle would apply. Maybe Schaeffer really is a better product and for half the price but, have you put your best test results forward?

Let's say you held a horse race and in that race were two horses, one an expensive fancy race horse, (favored to win) the other a quick solid farm horse. The race starts, and at a 100 yds. the fancy expensive horse gets taken out. The race continues and the farm horse wins. Can you say that farm horse is just as much race horse as the other because at 100 yards they were even?

[ July 17, 2002, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

GW

quote:

---

I still do not think it is correct to present it as proof that Schaeffer can hold up as well as the synthetic in this case. The fact is that while you can show us now and into the future that the Schaeffer is doing a great job as an extended-drain oil, we will never know how the Amsoil would have compared over time.

---

Well, Here's one I used to base my statement on. Posted it awhile back but looks like you missed it.
Had mobil vs Schaeffers
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000008

here is another sample comparison done by Dyson Analysis.. we have a gasoline engine, 350cid, in a chevrolet 1500, yr 2000. using a fram oil filter,with 5w30. had 2 analysis done. first one was mobil's full synth 5w30 with 4,263 miles on it. the second one was schaeffers 5w30 blend with 9,000 miles. here are the numbers direct from the report.

code:

---

miles on oil 4,263 9,000

item......mobil's.... schaeffers



h2o.......0.11..........05

fuel.....01.........01

visc......11.4........11.8

solids.....TR..........TR

oxd.......32.2........32.2

nox.......40.0........30.0

tbn......base=12. 5.6.. base=8.3...3.6

Fe.........54..........41

Cr.........1............1

lead.......32..........18

copper.....40..........44

tin.........3...........3

alum........6...........7

nickel......1...........1

manganese...1...........1

silicon.....15..........20

boron.......44..........36

sodium......16..........198

magnesium..1369.........383

cal.........378.........1540

barium......0............0

phos........960..........932

zinc........1187........1290

mo..........5............95

---

This is a gas engine with mobil

[ July 17, 2002, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

 

[Tommy]

Now Bob, with zinc and phosphorous levels as high as they are in the Shaeffer 5W30, it is no wonder that the API-leaned Mobil does not compare favorably!

code:

---

701 703 700

5w30 10w30 15w40

Mo 179 171 169

Ph 1435 1431 1429

Zinc 1374 1440 1405

Calc 3308 3320 3703

Silcon 6 9 10

Cst 10.07 10.51 14.64

---

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

oh come on Tommy, You trying to say that the "film strength" provided by the full synth isn't as good as they claim and now it needs more barrier additive to compete with a simple blend???? Hmmm, I keep getting hammered that full synth's have better film strength, so if that is the case, then it should out perform or at worst compare with a blend... wouldn't you think?????

BTW, you have to remember those test were old formulations. I'm sure m1's new SS will do much better than the old tri, or atleast the one that has the mo in it.

[ October 07, 2002, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

 

[Terry]

Just for those of you who thought I was through attempting to kill the 7000 blend 15w-40.... We decided to sample the test oil after another 5000+ miles and should have that data soon to share here.

Final miles on the oil was 28,147 miles here in Sunny hotter than heck Texas. Oil had been in use and monitored for 15 months by Dyson Analysis.

Changed filter(fleetguard microglass) once and added 2 3/4 qts makeup for filter.

Engine NEVER used any oil at all,0. Way to go Schaeffers and Cummins!

[ November 02, 2002, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Terry ]

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

Here is the report on the 28,147 miles on schaeffers 15w40 and the cumming 5.9 ltr engine

As stated above, replaced 2.75 qts of oil during last filter change. No oil consumption whatsoever on this engine.

Terry will be on shortly to give you explainations on these numbers and how they relate to wear trends.

code:

---

WEAR METALS

copper 57

iron 101

chrom 5

alum 6

lead 5



ADDITIVES

mo 116

ph 1159

zinc 1340

mag 26

cal 3841



CONTAMINANTS

si 9



OIL PROPERTIES

cST 13.61

Sae 40wt

sulf 10% (1-100%scale)

oxidation 4% same scale

nitration 8% same scale

soot 7%

---

 

[Terry]

The only questionable # on this last run of the Schaeffer Blend is that that Iron popped above the average of about 73 ppm. I want Schaeffer's lab to rerun that and confirm.

Cummins average is 75 ppm Iron for this engine/mileage on a 15000 mile drain interval. The design drain interval by Cummins, adjusted by Chrysler to 6000.

All the other tests were run by non Schaeffer labs.

The official test was stopped at 23000 miles but we decided to see the results after another 5000+ miles and 3 months.

The truck has 55,371 miles on it and only 3 oil changes; factory oil, Amsoil AME 15w-40, Schaeffers 7000 Blend 15w-40. Last oil filter change was at 41087 mileson 12/19/01. I love that microglass filter from fleetguard.

Copper has always been high in this engine and my cummins engineering friends tell me they don't know why. It has stabilized at 57 ppm on last 2 tests and is not an issue.

All other wear values are exceptionally low with the oil properties like new.

The engine is using NO fuel treatment at all.

No oil consumption in 55,371 miles.

This last test was a freebie for the board members.

If someone wants to send another brand of oil for a similar test see my address in the oil analysis add. Currently we are running Oil Extreme 15w-40 in this test bed.

 

[RC]

Thanks for the continued follow-up. As I am a Cummins driver these results are of special interest. If I didn't live in a colder climate, Schaeffers would probably be my first choice of oil. Unfortunately I am in search of a 5w40 for those cold winter starts when I am unable to plug in the block heater.

Terry,
Just to clear something up, was this test run using the LF3894 Stratapore filter or the LF3552 Microglass filter (which actually is not supposed to be used on a 24 valve engine).

Thanks again.

 

[Bror Jace]

RC: "Unfortunately I am in search of a 5w40 for those cold winter starts when I am unable to plug in the block heater."

Um, how about the Shell Rotella synthetic 5W40?

--- Bror Jace

 

[RC]

Bror,
Thanks for the suggestion.

Acutally I think I am going to try the Petro Canada 5w40. It has better cold weather characteristics than the Rotella. The Rotella was nice because I can get it at Wally World, but that became a moot point. I talked with the Petro Canada dist. and they had no problem delivering the oil right to my place of work.

Thanks again for the suggestion.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

It's a good thing all of our farmers and such in wisconson and mich that use our 15w40 don't think like that. Although I seriously doubt that you'd ever put that oil past it's limits for cold weather flow, obviously this is a prime example of how you select an oil based on only one aspect... cold weather flow in this case. Since this is the main concern, why not go with Amsoil, they have one of the best flowing oils for cold weather and it too can be delievered directly to your doorstep.

Just because an oil can exceed in one area over another, doesn't make it a better choice. Look at the whole picture of the oils performance as once the oil is running, it now is no different than any other 40wt, so now what do you consider the main thing that makes it better worse or equal to at operating temps? You'll find that you are running this oil at operating temps longer than at cold startups.

 

[dragboat]

Out of curiosity I went to the Petro Canada site to compare cold weather performance with their HD oils to some others through use of their data sheet which I could not find on the HD Duron oils,only the PCMO oils.

I did find they use a group III oil as their synthetic and the XL blend is a group III with another cracked base.

I know little about Petro Canada. Are they a division of Esso? Or are they there own deal?

 

[Terry]

RC, It was the LF 3894 stratapore brand name, similar media, but layered the way I understand it.
The Microglass term is the old brand name for their fiberglass media.

Cummins part # is 3865405 and I think cummins still calls it microglass for the 24 valve engine which is confusing.

As far as cold weather ops the Schaeffer Blend 20 % PAO will be a big help for cold starts and I for one would not be afraid to run it anywhere in the 48 states.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dragboat:
Out of curiosity I went to the Petro Canada site to compare cold weather performance with their HD oils to some others through use of their data sheet which I could not find on the HD Duron oils,only the PCMO oils.

I did find they use a group III oil as their synthetic and the XL blend is a group III with another cracked base.

I know little about Petro Canada. Are they a division of Esso? Or are they there own deal?

---

Petro Canada is a totally different company up here. Esso is part of Imperial Oil, and their US counterpart is Exxon. Petro Canada used to be owned by the government up here, which is why a lot of people avoid going to those gas stations, even today. What they did was basically force all the little independants out of business. They would put up a huge Petro Canada station right beside a little independant. Then they'd force them out of business and take over. Sad but true. Just another reason I'll never buy a Petro Canada product of any kind. Plus their gas sucks. The highest octane they have is only 91, while Sunocos up here sell 94 and Esso sells 92.

 

[RC]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BOBISTHEOILGUY:
It's a good thing all of our farmers and such in wisconson and mich that use our 15w40 don't think like that.

Although I seriously doubt that you'd ever put that oil past it's limits for cold weather flow,

obviously this is a prime example of how you select an oil based on only one aspect... cold weather flow in this case.

Just because an oil can exceed in one area over another, doesn't make it a better choice. Look at the whole picture of the oils performance as once the oil is running, it now is no different than any other 40wt,

You'll find that you are running this oil at operating temps longer than at cold startups.

---

Bob,

There were a few points from your comments above that did not sit well with me so I will address them.

Farmers and OTR truck drivers will continue to use 15w40 even though there may be better alternatives for their given situation. There is another thread discussing the Schaffeurs 15w40 and how it could be marketed at a 10w40. Your guess was "that marketing/common viscosity has a lot to do with it." I think you are exactly right. To get OTR drivers and farmers to change their way of thinking is pretty difficult.

In most cases, especially OTR trucks and tractors, the oil is operated warm all day so the benefits of a better flowing cold oil is moot. I do not fall in this category. My trucks, we have two in the family, both Cummins powered Dodges are daily drivers and will be started and shut down several times a day. In the cold months it takes several miles for the coolant temps to rise, and because I have an oil temp gauge, I also know the oil does not warm up very quickly either. I have taken measures to increase warm up, blocked radiator, plug in the block heater when I can, and in one truck I have an electric fan installed that almost never runs all winter long. These particular motors have very, very efficient cooling systems and it is hard to get them up to operating temp in the winter time unless on longer (10 or more miles) trips.

I take offense to the fact that you assumed I select an oil based on only one aspect. My comment was in regards to the PC comparision to Rotella T Syn. I do not know how you read that to assuming I choose my oil based on one aspect. I look at several aspects of the oil when choosing one that will work best for my needs, and cold weather flow is just one of them. I am not so close minded to think that an oil that performs well in one area will perform well in all others. There are other variables that went into my decision including a conversation with one gentleman, who lives in cold norther MI climate, that has been running this oil for the last 65k miles at 10k mile drain intervals in a Cummins powered Dodge.

Could I get away with quality 15w40 like Schaffers? I do not doubt the Schaffers would have done an excellent job in my motor. For that matter, the analysis I have done on the Delo 400 15w40 have looked very good too. I was in search of something a little bit better. I did't like the thought of starting the truck with a 15w in the motor on a -10 degree morning (or colder) while I was on a snowmobiling trip to the UP of Michigan.

Sorry for the long post, but I did not apprecaite being sterotyped as an ignortant person who does not research his decisions wisely. I am sorry if you do not agree with my comments, but we are all entiled to our own opinons.

And FTR I am still considering Schaffers products for my gasoline engines.

Terry,
Thanks for the clarification on the oil filters. I know buying filters at Cummins can get a little tricky, especially since the introduction of the 24v.

dragboat,
I agree the PC site is a little tricky to navigate, and when I talked to their regional sales rep last week and he asked my thoughts of their site, I expressed that to him.

Here is a link to the PC Duron 5w40 Specs:
http://www.cst.cmich.edu/users/willi1gl/vw/pdf/PC5W40spec.pdf

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RC:
Bob,

I take offense to the fact that you assumed I select an oil based on only one aspect. My comment was in regards to the PC comparision to Rotella T Syn. I do not know how you read that to assuming I choose my oil based on one aspect. I look at several aspects of the oil when choosing one that will work best for my needs, and cold weather flow is just one of them. I am not so close minded to think that an oil that performs well in one area will perform well in all others. There are other variables that went into my decision including a conversation with one gentleman, who lives in cold norther MI climate, that has been running this oil for the last 65k miles at 10k mile drain intervals in a Cummins powered Dodge.

Sorry for the long post, but I did not appreciate being sterotyped as an ignortant person who does not research his decisions wisely. I am sorry if you do not agree with my comments, but we are all entiled to our own opinons.

---

Please let me explain...
And I quote...
RC: "Unfortunately I am in search of a 5w40 for those cold winter starts when I am unable to plug in the block heater."

Actually I think I am going to try the Petro Canada 5w40. It has better cold weather characteristics than the Rotella. The Rotella was nice because I can get it at Wally World, but that became a moot point

Just based on your whole conversation, in no area where you using an inclusion of this being one factor that you're concerned with, but by excluding all other points, I saw nothing that indicated your interest in anything but pump-ability. Based on your comments, I was showing how this isn't a relative way to make a choice on oils. I in no way would mean to insult your intelligence or even want to stereotype you and I guess it is my fault for not reading more into your comments but I only go with what I see and obviously you are more read up on the subject than what you lead me to believe in your comments. I did want to point out that if your main concern was based on pour point, that amsoil was one of the best for that, but also was trying to help others understand not to get hung up on just one aspect of the oil but look at a much broader picture.

As for opinions, I agree, everyone is entitled to their opinions and that is why this is an open discussion board, not to insult anyone but to hopefully broaden the wide spectrum of intelligent ways to decide on what is best for your particular application, Which in your case, you have come to a point that certain oils do meet your interests and that based along those lines the only other thing that you feel to look at more because of your situation is the pour-point. Given that information, I definitely would have never even opened my mouth.

I sincerely apologize and hope you understand I wasn't picking on you as such but trying to make a point for others to hopefully understand in this.

 

[RC]

Thanks Bob.

I apologize the lack of detail in my original post has caused some confusion. I can apprecaite your intent to make a valid point, as teaching and learning is a big part of why we all enjoy these informative discussion groups.

Again I apologize for the confusion.

Take care.

 

[Terry]

I asked the lab to rerun the Copper and Iron values on this test.

I used Schaeffers lab to correlate our test results and Karen of Schaeffers analysis lab was very helpful and professional in dealing with this test.

Copper and Iron after 28,000+ miles was 49/77 ppm which is consistant with this test engines string of data.

Those wanting a high quality oil at a reasonable cost and the ability to extend drains this is it.

 

[davidc]

Hey guys, how many of you commenting actually "own" a Cummins Turbo Diesel?

I do and have since 1990.
Those Iron numbers are high compared to my 13 year experience with my two trucks.
I averaged 20-25 ppm iron on 12000 drains intervals on my first truck and now 35-45 ppm on my current truck with 147K on it. This was using standrad full flow filters.

I think those iron numbers are high.