9,000-mile results are in!

[Quattro Pete]

I don't quite understand why some people are saying to dump this oil right now. The main purpose of a UOA is to monitor engine wear, and compared to the previous run of M1, Amsoil is doing an excellent job here, so... let it continue! I've got an employee who's doing an outstanding work, but his blood sugar is down - hmm... let me fire him now. Personally, I've stopped paying much attention to TBN (at least as tested by Blackstone) after seeing it jump on Bryan's M1 from 14.5 (VOA, and already pretty darn high) to 16.5 after 1K miles. And as far as the high viscosity. Is it possible that it's this high viscosity that is actually helping keep the wear down? Maybe this particular engine likes thicker oils?

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quattro Pete: And as far as the high viscosity. Is it possible that it's this high viscosity that is actually helping keep the wear down? Maybe this particular engine likes thicker oils?

---

It does! The LS1 loves an oil that is a thick 30wt to thin 40wt, we see the best UOAs on here with LS1s running something between 12-14cst at 100c.

 

[Spector]

The purpose of this sutdy is the effect of extended drains on engine wear, it is not where does the TBN stand at XXX miles. As long as the wear numbers remain fine and have no significant increase per 1000 miles I feel you have to leave this oil in there even if the stupid TBN became 0. I personally gave up on TBN a while back as an indicator of anything, IMO the old method was also something that one could put soem faith in, this new method sucks IMO!

 

[Pablo]

Can we talk about Cu? Why is it the Cu goes 0 - 31 - 58 - 63 and then stays at 60 something for 6000 miles?? Am I missing the obvious.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo: Can we talk about Cu? Why is it the Cu goes 0 - 31 - 58 - 63 and then stays at 60 something for 6000 miles?? Am I missing the obvious.

---

The LS1 engine has cam bearings made of copper which shed their material like crazy for the first 30-40k, sometimes more sometimes less. Some have claimed this is why the LS1 gets stronger as it gets more miles on it. (mine picked up a TON of power as I put more miles on it, as proven by the dragstrip numbers) So in his case, his engine might finally be at that point where the cam bearings are no longer shedding this copper. Eventually, an LS1 will settle down to the point where you'll see almost no copper at all in the UOA. If you do a UOA on a 75,000 mile LS1 for instance, you'd see less than 5ppm of copper in 3k. I hope to prove that theory real soon myself actually.

 

[3 Mad Ponchos]

The TBN is certainly an interesting conundrum. If it weren't for that, the oil would still be looking pretty good I think (though I personally am not happy with it going out of grade, but we've beaten that one to death). Why it matters is that once TBN expires, acids build up in the engine exponentially. Much as I want to learn from this study, I also don't care to put my engine through that, so the oil WILL get drained when the TBN becomes borderline depleted -- I think the current Blackstone delimiter is 1.0. I realize it might be more satisfying to scientific curiosity if I let it run straight to zero, but there is a point where I have to acknowledge that I'm not ExxonMobil, and if I fry the engine in this car then I'm well and truly screwed. I had anticipated testing this sample with the Dexsil kits, but unfortunately I was travelling when I took the sample (yep when I travel I bring a kit and borrow ramps from some poor slob along the way) so it didn't work out. I'm hoping to test the 10k sample. For those of you who can't see the results, right-click the page and hit refresh. Sometimes browsers are lazy about updating the page. The filter is triggered by insolubles hitting 0.5%, not by any mileage cap. Cheers, 3MP

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

I realize it might be more satisfying to scientific curiosity if I let it run straight to zero, but there is a point where I have to acknowledge that I'm not ExxonMobil, and if I fry the engine in this car then I'm well and truly screwed.

---

We obviously don't want you to cause your engine to suffer, but do you not agree that if the wear numbers look good still, then obviously this means the oil is not damaging anything? If the TBN drops to zero and the wear numbers still continue at a reasonable level, then it's safe to say that the engine is not being killed by the low TBN. I still think that Blackstone's method shows the TBN being unreasonably low. Other labs could possibly show the TBN of this oil being over 5 right now. It might be worthwhile to send a second sample to a different lab on the next 1000 mile interval, in addition to using the Dexsil kit.

 

[quadrun1]

Why all the Blackstone bashing? Blackstone is a good lab. Sure, the Amsoil TBN is falling fast, but 1.9 is still acceptable. If and when it hits 1.0, that's the time to dump this oil. Not sooner, not later! Come on, guys... look at the data objectively, and stop being so emotional.

 

[TooSlick]

Blackstone labs came back with a TBN of only 5.1 after 2000 miles on this oil.... For those of us who have run 12,000-20,000+ mile drains with Amsoil for over two decades, this is clearly an indication that the test method is flawed. I recently ran a sample of this same Amsoil 5w-30 for 12,000 miles/1 year in my '95 Tacoma with about 0.5 qts of makeup oil and no oil filter change; using an Amsoil SDF-96, oversized filter. Results are posted in the UOA section from this analysis. The TBN came back @ 7.2, using the ASTM D-2896 method - this is roughly equivalent to a TBN of perhaps 5.5 using the more conservative ASTM D-4739 protocol that Oil Analyzers now uses. In this 9000 mile sample, lead and copper wear are still well controlled and the viscosity is unchanged from the 8000 mile sample. If the oil were turning acidic, this is the first place to look for trouble. Since you added a quart of fresh oil after the 9000 mile sample, the TBN will be boosted a bit. The TBN of the 10k sample should be > 2.0; given the fresh oil and the wear metal concentrations will most likely go down a bit. If this were my engine, I would have used a high efficiency, Amsoil Super Duty filter and changed it after six months, as per the Amsoil recommendations. But other than that, I see no reason to stop running the test. As for the 40wt nonsense, the baseline viscosity of this oil is approx 12 Cst, so it only has to thicken by about 5% to technically go out of grade. By comparison, Mobil 1 starts out at approx 10 Cst, so it would have to thicken by 25% to go out of grade. In other words, this is much ado about nothing....Most oil analysis labs will "flag" a sample when it thickens by 20% or thins by 10% and I believe those are reasonable parameters to use here. Amsoil could formulated a 30wt oil with a viscosity of only 9.3 Cst and it would technically never thicken out of grade. However, this reduced viscosity is NOT optimum in terms of minimizing wear and that's a more important consideration. As a practical matter, I doubt you will find many LS-1 owners running drain intervals > 10,000 miles. If you are looking for the lowest wear rates for 6k-10k drains, there is no doubt that the Amsoil ASL product is performing the best of all the oils tested to date ....I don't expect any other oil, including Redline, to match the Amsoil wear rates after 10,000 miles of use. Finally, since every engine is different, I strongly encourage folks to run their own comparison tests of Amsoil and any other synthetic. I think you'll find Amsoil provides the lowest wear rates over long drain intervals and holds up very well .... Tooslick www.lubedealer.com/Dixie_Synthetics

 

[joatmon]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spector: The purpose of this sutdy is the effect of extended drains on engine wear, it is not where does the TBN stand at XXX miles. As long as the wear numbers remain fine and have no significant increase per 1000 miles I feel you have to leave this oil in there even if the stupid TBN became 0. I personally gave up on TBN a while back as an indicator of anything, IMO the old method was also something that one could put soem faith in, this new method sucks IMO!

---

Are you serious? I just don't understand why you would expect someone to put an engine at risk! BTW, this stated purpose of the study seems to be: "The best solution would be to conduct a long-term oil analyis study to track the degradation of oil and determine the mileage that it's at, say, 20% of its remaining life. Then once we've got a relatively "safe" number to live by, we can use that as our lifelong oil change interval, as long as we don't do anything drastic like take up desert racing or something." [from 3MPs web site] On the rational for considering TBN, this thread somes it up well. Again, keep in mind the 3MPs stated purpose of the study. Discussion of Sulphuric Acid, TBN, etc. I find this test fascinating, but don't risk losing an engine.

 

[Bio-T]

The same TBN test method is being used since day one on the Mobil test. The numbers are as they are, read them and weep. If Mobil I is a 15K oil and Amsoil is a 10K oil in this engine then so be it. I could live with that as this is real world testing. Don't shoot the messenger (lab) they don't have a duck in this race, they are neutral.

 

[Pablo]

QR1 - I agree, emotions not necessary. Not ragging on Blackstone, but their TBN methodology is not standard ASTM, so it should be subject to some questioning. TS - we shouldn't need to recommend any oil filter for the oil to go any distance, but I do agree the thickening is just a fact, not an out of control situation. JMon- your linkage no workie for me vetteman -

quote:

---

The same TBN test method is being used since day one on the Mobil test.

---

Not true. SEE: M1 [ June 09, 2004, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Pablo ]

 

[buster]

I spoke with Ryan from Blackstone Labs about this test. He is well aware of it and probably does the testing. He said that Blackstone Labs used to use Dexil Kits purchased from MA. He said they always read high. They switched the testing method around last August during the Mobil 1 test. His opinion of this test is that Mobil 1 is holding it's TBN better, but that he would continue on with this test, even at 0. Anything less then 1 they start to get concerned. However, if the viscosity and wear rates are not effected, which in this case they are not, then I'd assume the oil is fine. He also believes that M1's wear rates were higher due to breakin wear. That might be part of it, but I'm jumping on the bandwagon and starting to think LS1's might prefer a thicker oil, one with more ZDP possibly. I'd also say that RL won't do as well as either one of these, but it will have an advantage of an engine that is very worn in. Side note, if 3MP can draw a small sample out, I'd pay to have it looked at by another Lab, maybe OAI? This TBN issue is really ridiculous IMO. Terry? [ June 09, 2004, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[TooSlick]

One thing that might be affecting the comparative TBN results in this case is that Mobil is using a primarily Calcium based detergent system. Amsoil is using a more even mixture of calcium and magnesium. Depending on the type of acid that Blackstone uses, there is a possibility that only the stronger base elements in the oil are being titrated, which would tend to under predict the TBN for formulations that use a more even mixture of detergents/dispersants. I have noticed this same trend from other labs in the past, including Oil Analyzers. It would be interesting to run the Amsoil ASL formulation and Series 3000, 5w-30 under the same conditions and have them tested by Blackstone. The Series 3000 also uses a Calcium based detergent system w/ > 3500 ppm, with very little - about 50 ppm - of Magnesium. I believe the TBN's of the used Series 3000 samples would come back significantly higher, even if the actual # of oil degradation is roughly the same. I will end up doing this comparison in my Audi TT turbo, once I finish testing the xw-30, Amsoil gas engine oils. As I recall, Redline is also using a calcium based detergent systsm. So it will be interesting to look at the TBN's from Blackstone on their formulation and how they drop over time. I predict that results will show less TBN drop over the first 5000 miles with Redline, due to their detergent/dispersant blend. But time will tell .... TS

 

[Drstressor]

A TBN of 1.0 is a very conservative cutoff point for a Blackstone analysis. There is no risk of acid-induced engine damage since their is plenty of alkaline reserve and available detergent at this point. I communicated with one of their engineers last year and discussed their methodology in some detail. There are 2 reasons for their low TBN values: 1) They take a shortcut that reduces the amount of time that a sample needs to be on their autotitrator and 2) they calibrate their electrode at pH 4.0 instead of pH 7.0. This was suggested to them by the equipment supplier. I suspect this is because most autotitrators are used for testing waste water and anything below pH 4.0 is considered to be acidic. Obviously, it takes less KOH to titrate to pH 4.0 than to pH 7. pH is an exponential scale, so the difference is very significant. So the Blackstone TBN readings have an inherent error versus the traditional methods. But this error will be a constant factor in all of their measurements, provides a larger margin of safety, and should not affect the reproducibility of their measurements in any way. Anyone with an understanding of high school chemistry will understand what I'm saying.

 

[Bio-T]

vetteman -

quote:

---

The same TBN test method is being used since day one on the Mobil test.

---

Not true. SEE: M1 [/QB][/QUOTE] Pablo, Just like college, I should not fall asleep during the open book time.

 

[Pablo]

59 vetteman - no issues, you remain a scholar and a gentleman in my eyes. Drstressor - excellent write up! I wish I could have said it so clearly.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 3 Mad Ponchos: {material cut} I had anticipated testing this sample with the Dexsil kits, but unfortunately I was travelling when I took the sample (yep when I travel I bring a kit and borrow ramps from some poor slob along the way) so it didn't work out. I'm hoping to test the 10k sample. {material cut} Cheers, 3MP

---

3MP: I admire your dedication, but I do have one suggestion. With my first couple Blackstone bottles, I ordered their sample pulling pump. This makes taking a sample absurdly easy. I just run the little hose down the disptick tube, draw a couple "purging" samples (which I pour right back into the engine) and then collect the one I will submit. No ramps involved. . .

 

[3 Mad Ponchos]

ekpolk, not on my LS1... I own 4 pumps that don't work on this car. Thanks tho. Cheers, 3MP

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 3 Mad Ponchos: ekpolk, not on my LS1... I own 4 pumps that don't work on this car. Thanks tho. Cheers, 3MP

---

Well, there's that dedication again. I'd have given up in disgust after probably the second pump. I wonder if the engineers set out to make it this way -- you know, making every part of the 'vette ownership experience "special." Still, you'd think they'd try to make some part of the experience easier than footing the bill for it all.