40 mile 2007 Yukon oil change Amsoil
- Thread starter lazaro
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Oxidation and nitration, along with viscosity, are up there. No insolubles?
All I can say is, thank goodness it's not my truck!
For what you spent to do this oil change using the Amsoil filter, and getting a UOA, I would have done 5 oil changes with a conventional oil, or even less and followed the OLM so my warranty wouldn't have gone down the craaper. A 100,000 mile powertrain warranty isn't something you want to chance.
But to each their own I guess.
X2
Oxidation and nitration, along with viscosity, are up there. No insolubles?
All I can say is, thank goodness it's not my truck!
For what you spent to do this oil change using the Amsoil filter, and getting a UOA, I would have done 5 oil changes with a conventional oil, or even less and followed the OLM so my warranty wouldn't have gone down the craaper. A 100,000 mile powertrain warranty isn't something you want to chance.
But to each their own I guess.
X2
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
All I can say is, thank goodness it's not my truck!
For what you spent to do this oil change using the Amsoil filter, and getting a UOA, I would have done 5 oil changes with a conventional oil, or even less and followed the OLM so my warranty wouldn't have gone down the craaper. A 100,000 mile powertrain warranty isn't something you want to chance.
But to each their own I guess.
This has got to be one of the coolest UOA threads I have ever seen
(just look at the number of posts prior to the release of the actual UOA
) . Thanks for your brave experiment Laszaro; kind of like watching a train wreck
...and I can't help but gawk
.
All I can say is, thank goodness it's not my truck!
For what you spent to do this oil change using the Amsoil filter, and getting a UOA, I would have done 5 oil changes with a conventional oil, or even less and followed the OLM so my warranty wouldn't have gone down the craaper. A 100,000 mile powertrain warranty isn't something you want to chance.
But to each their own I guess.
This has got to be one of the coolest UOA threads I have ever seen
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Samilcar
I wonder if high levels if normal break-in copper would be abrasive enough to be the cause of the iron and lead levels? Does anyone know if this engine type normally throws off copper early in its life?
No. If anything, on the contrary. Cu can protect hard metals and Al. This engine is well known to throw huge copper numbers.
I wonder if high levels if normal break-in copper would be abrasive enough to be the cause of the iron and lead levels? Does anyone know if this engine type normally throws off copper early in its life?
No. If anything, on the contrary. Cu can protect hard metals and Al. This engine is well known to throw huge copper numbers.
Originally Posted By: lazaro
results are in as I promised, you guys should have a field day with this! 40 miles to 25,856 miles 5.3 gas engine.
I did cut open the oil filter and the pleats, after cutting away from filter and squeezing out excess oil, were free of any large pieces of metal or free of any sludge, but the results are significant
Aluminum 12
Chromium 4
Iron 132
Copper 332
Lead 141
Tin 10
Moly 79
Potassium 7
Silicon 70
Sodium 45
Calcium 307
Magnesium 18
Phosphorus 614
boron 30
Zinc 782
cST Viscosity @100 14.5
TBN 2.76
OXIDATION 57
NITRATION 45
Lazaro - Here's my interpretation. I think this is consistent with what I expected...which was that the results would be horrible and totally worthless for interpreting the oil itself.
What I will say is that I think you had alot of excess wear. Why do I think that? Well, it's not like I have a slew of oil analyses at 40 miles on this engine, and 3000 miles, and 5000 miles, and 10000 miles.
But I have seen a fair number of "factory fill" oil analyses done at 3000 miles (what most would consider the highest concentration of wear metals on a healthy engine). And if I am remembering correctly, those analyses typically showed about 1/10th to 1/15th the wear that your UOA showed. So let me interpret this out:
Typical factory fill UOAs at 3000 or 5000 miles would probably show about 1/10th the amount of wear, which then would trend downward sharply in subsequent UOAs.
You probably got rid of most of the "worst" wear at your 40 mile change, so we can assume you were probably already better off than a true "factory fill" UOA.
Your engine exhibited wear levels of Iron, Copper, and Lead that I would expect to be the sum of normal UOAs collected over about 75-100k of normal operation utilizing a high quality synthetic.
So I think you have prematurely aged your engine's wear, in some parts spitting off lead, iron, and copper, by at least 50,000 miles worth. I.e. I think your engine is probably at the same level of wear in those metals that an engine with 75,000 miles on it would exhibit.
I still think your engine will run to 200-300k with proper maintenance, but I think this exercise was neither useful from a data-gathering standpoint nor an engine healthiness standpoint.
Thanks for sharing your results though!
Joe
results are in as I promised, you guys should have a field day with this! 40 miles to 25,856 miles 5.3 gas engine.
I did cut open the oil filter and the pleats, after cutting away from filter and squeezing out excess oil, were free of any large pieces of metal or free of any sludge, but the results are significant
Aluminum 12
Chromium 4
Iron 132
Copper 332
Lead 141
Tin 10
Moly 79
Potassium 7
Silicon 70
Sodium 45
Calcium 307
Magnesium 18
Phosphorus 614
boron 30
Zinc 782
cST Viscosity @100 14.5
TBN 2.76
OXIDATION 57
NITRATION 45
Lazaro - Here's my interpretation. I think this is consistent with what I expected...which was that the results would be horrible and totally worthless for interpreting the oil itself.
What I will say is that I think you had alot of excess wear. Why do I think that? Well, it's not like I have a slew of oil analyses at 40 miles on this engine, and 3000 miles, and 5000 miles, and 10000 miles.
But I have seen a fair number of "factory fill" oil analyses done at 3000 miles (what most would consider the highest concentration of wear metals on a healthy engine). And if I am remembering correctly, those analyses typically showed about 1/10th to 1/15th the wear that your UOA showed. So let me interpret this out:
Typical factory fill UOAs at 3000 or 5000 miles would probably show about 1/10th the amount of wear, which then would trend downward sharply in subsequent UOAs.
You probably got rid of most of the "worst" wear at your 40 mile change, so we can assume you were probably already better off than a true "factory fill" UOA.
Your engine exhibited wear levels of Iron, Copper, and Lead that I would expect to be the sum of normal UOAs collected over about 75-100k of normal operation utilizing a high quality synthetic.
So I think you have prematurely aged your engine's wear, in some parts spitting off lead, iron, and copper, by at least 50,000 miles worth. I.e. I think your engine is probably at the same level of wear in those metals that an engine with 75,000 miles on it would exhibit.
I still think your engine will run to 200-300k with proper maintenance, but I think this exercise was neither useful from a data-gathering standpoint nor an engine healthiness standpoint.
Thanks for sharing your results though!
Joe
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
Lazaro - Here's my interpretation. ...
What I will say is that I think you had alot of excess wear.
Actually this logic is based on a flawed assumption.
Lazaro - Here's my interpretation. ...
What I will say is that I think you had alot of excess wear.
Actually this logic is based on a flawed assumption.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
Lazaro - Here's my interpretation. ...
What I will say is that I think you had alot of excess wear.
Actually this logic is based on a flawed assumption.
Wouldn't the appropriate thing then be to give us the correct analysis of the results? You've asserted the interpretation was flawed, but provided nothing to substantiate the claim.
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
Lazaro - Here's my interpretation. ...
What I will say is that I think you had alot of excess wear.
Actually this logic is based on a flawed assumption.
Wouldn't the appropriate thing then be to give us the correct analysis of the results? You've asserted the interpretation was flawed, but provided nothing to substantiate the claim.
There is no alternative analysis.. there's no question this is a terrible report. Leaving the FF in for 2-3k would of done a world of good before a 25k amsoil run. Ideally you'd run a few short oci's on a new engine when breaking it in. Then start extended oci's if that's your goal.
Pablo - Could you point out the flaw in my logic? I've freely admitted that I have no true baseline for my assumptions. I don't know how much wear metals he got out at his 40 mile oil change. I don't have a grouping of FF UOAs on this engine.
In truth, you quoted me saying "My interpretation is that you had excess wear" and you said there's a flaw in that logic. By default, there is no flaw in the logic of a statement that's purely my thoughts, couched in a basis that I lack evidence. It's actually a fairly logical assessment, freely admitting a lack of objectivism
If I were to infer from your statements, here's what I would get:
1. All that copper should've protected the iron
2. You think the iron represents a reasonable level of PPM in this UOA.
Is that logical inference sound?
In truth, you quoted me saying "My interpretation is that you had excess wear" and you said there's a flaw in that logic. By default, there is no flaw in the logic of a statement that's purely my thoughts, couched in a basis that I lack evidence. It's actually a fairly logical assessment, freely admitting a lack of objectivism
If I were to infer from your statements, here's what I would get:
1. All that copper should've protected the iron
2. You think the iron represents a reasonable level of PPM in this UOA.
Is that logical inference sound?
Here's my take:
1) I would never advise this routine for any Amsoil customer. As mentioned by others, a few oil changes before an initial extended oil change interval is smart and frankly has always been my contribution to BITOG. Please do some level of searching, if you doubt me.
2) A couple oil changes prior to 10K, then this run from 10K to 35K, for example, would probably shown a much lower level of the metals indicated.
3) That said, we don't actually know with complete certainty where the lead came from. Remember, it's a single sample ~ the lead could be initially from an ill fitted crank bearing, gasoline, etc. A trend may help…..maybe.
4) Copper won't necessarily lower other wear metals, but it's just not abrasive, that's all.
5) The conclusion "no question this is a terrible report" comes from what? The oil did terribly? The engine is toast? Methinks some should read Doug Hillary's article.
6) Lazzaro's engine will continue on. His car will in all probability die of rust, a fire or a rear ender from a drunken cigar sucking CEO before the engine fizzles to a smoking , chucking extended OCI death.
1) I would never advise this routine for any Amsoil customer. As mentioned by others, a few oil changes before an initial extended oil change interval is smart and frankly has always been my contribution to BITOG. Please do some level of searching, if you doubt me.
2) A couple oil changes prior to 10K, then this run from 10K to 35K, for example, would probably shown a much lower level of the metals indicated.
3) That said, we don't actually know with complete certainty where the lead came from. Remember, it's a single sample ~ the lead could be initially from an ill fitted crank bearing, gasoline, etc. A trend may help…..maybe.
4) Copper won't necessarily lower other wear metals, but it's just not abrasive, that's all.
5) The conclusion "no question this is a terrible report" comes from what? The oil did terribly? The engine is toast? Methinks some should read Doug Hillary's article.
6) Lazzaro's engine will continue on. His car will in all probability die of rust, a fire or a rear ender from a drunken cigar sucking CEO before the engine fizzles to a smoking , chucking extended OCI death.
Pablo -
I think you just agreed with just about everything I wrote. And, just FYI, I wrote my last post in good spirits
Re: #4 - Didn't you write that all that copper could protect the hard metals? Are you withdrawing that?
Re: #5 - I don't think anyone has asserted that the engine is toast or the oil did terribly. We have absolutely no baseline…
But let me ask this: If this car had the following UOAs, what would you think:
1st UOA - FF Oil 5000 miles - 40 Iron, 80 Copper, 30 Lead
2nd UOA - 5k-10k synthetic oil - 30 Iron, 60 Copper, 27 Lead
3rd UOA – 10k-15k synthetic oil – 20 Iron, 60 Copper, 27 Lead
4th UOA – 15-20k synthetic oil – 20 Iron, 60 Copper, 27 Lead
5th UOA -20-25k synthetic oil – 20 Iron, 60 Copper, 27 Lead
I think by most standards on here, that would be considered a “normal” break-in and then very heavy wear for the oil used and the 5k intervals given. And bearing in mind that he dumped his factory fill at 40 miles, which most likely removed a lot of the metals that we’d normally see in a factory fill.
I’m building a completely subjective case here. But, bearing that in mind, I think I’m being fair about it.
Joe
I think you just agreed with just about everything I wrote. And, just FYI, I wrote my last post in good spirits
Re: #4 - Didn't you write that all that copper could protect the hard metals? Are you withdrawing that?
Re: #5 - I don't think anyone has asserted that the engine is toast or the oil did terribly. We have absolutely no baseline…
But let me ask this: If this car had the following UOAs, what would you think:
1st UOA - FF Oil 5000 miles - 40 Iron, 80 Copper, 30 Lead
2nd UOA - 5k-10k synthetic oil - 30 Iron, 60 Copper, 27 Lead
3rd UOA – 10k-15k synthetic oil – 20 Iron, 60 Copper, 27 Lead
4th UOA – 15-20k synthetic oil – 20 Iron, 60 Copper, 27 Lead
5th UOA -20-25k synthetic oil – 20 Iron, 60 Copper, 27 Lead
I think by most standards on here, that would be considered a “normal” break-in and then very heavy wear for the oil used and the 5k intervals given. And bearing in mind that he dumped his factory fill at 40 miles, which most likely removed a lot of the metals that we’d normally see in a factory fill.
I’m building a completely subjective case here. But, bearing that in mind, I think I’m being fair about it.
Joe
Originally Posted By: Pablo
6) Lazzaro's engine will continue on. His car will in all probability die of rust, a fire or a rear ender from a drunken cigar sucking CEO before the engine fizzles to a smoking , chucking extended OCI death.
Exactly. Most people just want their engine to run. With proper maintenance in other areas, I see no reason why Lazaro's engine will die prematurely due to an oil-related failure.
I look at it the same way. As long as my engine is running OK at 200,000 miles, I could care less as to what the UOA reports say.
6) Lazzaro's engine will continue on. His car will in all probability die of rust, a fire or a rear ender from a drunken cigar sucking CEO before the engine fizzles to a smoking , chucking extended OCI death.
Exactly. Most people just want their engine to run. With proper maintenance in other areas, I see no reason why Lazaro's engine will die prematurely due to an oil-related failure.
I look at it the same way. As long as my engine is running OK at 200,000 miles, I could care less as to what the UOA reports say.
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
Pablo -
I think you just agreed with just about everything I wrote. And, just FYI, I wrote my last post in good spirits
Re: #4 - Didn't you write that all that copper could protect the hard metals? Are you withdrawing that?
Re: #5 - I don't think anyone has asserted that the engine is toast or the oil did terribly. We have absolutely no baseline…
Actually I'm in good spirits as well - I'm specifically disagreeing with the logic along the line that all the metals come from wear and others who indicate the engine will die prematurely because of this wear (you didn't say that, I know)
RLI uses copper solutions in some of their oils. I said it can or could protect other metals. I have zero idea as to the effect on the other metals in this UOA, but I highly doubt it was abrasive - that's why I said it in the first place.
Some actually did write that, read above.
I won't speculate right now on your example - in a bit of a hurry.
Pablo -
I think you just agreed with just about everything I wrote. And, just FYI, I wrote my last post in good spirits
Re: #4 - Didn't you write that all that copper could protect the hard metals? Are you withdrawing that?
Re: #5 - I don't think anyone has asserted that the engine is toast or the oil did terribly. We have absolutely no baseline…
Actually I'm in good spirits as well - I'm specifically disagreeing with the logic along the line that all the metals come from wear and others who indicate the engine will die prematurely because of this wear (you didn't say that, I know)
RLI uses copper solutions in some of their oils. I said it can or could protect other metals. I have zero idea as to the effect on the other metals in this UOA, but I highly doubt it was abrasive - that's why I said it in the first place.
Some actually did write that, read above.
I won't speculate right now on your example - in a bit of a hurry.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
5) The conclusion "no question this is a terrible report" comes from what? The oil did terribly? The engine is toast? Methinks some should read Doug Hillary's article.
My bad, it's a fine report. Nothing to see here. What was I thinking.. sorry..
Originally Posted By: Pablo
6) Lazzaro's engine will continue on. His car will in all probability die of rust, a fire or a rear ender from a drunken cigar sucking CEO before the engine fizzles to a smoking , chucking extended OCI death.
Agreed. It probably will. My 'terrible report' statement never implied that his engine wouldn't last forever. However, it's still a terrible report to me. I'd flog myself 50 times for car abuse if it was mine. But that's just an opinion from one newbie...
5) The conclusion "no question this is a terrible report" comes from what? The oil did terribly? The engine is toast? Methinks some should read Doug Hillary's article.
My bad, it's a fine report. Nothing to see here. What was I thinking.. sorry..
Originally Posted By: Pablo
6) Lazzaro's engine will continue on. His car will in all probability die of rust, a fire or a rear ender from a drunken cigar sucking CEO before the engine fizzles to a smoking , chucking extended OCI death.
Agreed. It probably will. My 'terrible report' statement never implied that his engine wouldn't last forever. However, it's still a terrible report to me. I'd flog myself 50 times for car abuse if it was mine. But that's just an opinion from one newbie...
lazaro,
Kudos to you man for running the oil this long, sampling it, and posting it on BITOG which has obviously opened up a can of worms.
What oil is in this truck now, and do you plan to run it 25k miles again? I really hope you have the same type of oil and you do plan to run it the same length.
Kudos to you man for running the oil this long, sampling it, and posting it on BITOG which has obviously opened up a can of worms.
What oil is in this truck now, and do you plan to run it 25k miles again? I really hope you have the same type of oil and you do plan to run it the same length.
- Status
Similar threads
