Thank you for posting. Also she looks good. 500,000 ack phew with that go for a million.
Amsoil 0W-30 Honda S2000 40,700 OCI w/bypass
- Thread starter slalom44
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Artem
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
The OP added too much makeup oils that it really skew the UOA.
What i don't understand is; with the bypass filters removing a lot more of the particles from the oil, doesn't that mess up the UOA as well? The engine technically could be shedding A TON of metal (wear) from the long OCIs but we can't see that due to the filters removing all the metal.
Also, the 10qt top off also dilutes the results even more on top of that, making it seem as if the engine is healthy as can be when in fact, a bunch of the metallic bits could be blown outta the exhaust pipes.
As i understanding this correctly?
The bypass does not filter out the normal wear metals that you see in UOAs. It remove mainly soot particles and large particle contaminants (dirt, engine corrosion, sludge, etc.) that could cause more wear.
Every time he added a quart he reduced the wear metal amount by 20% and he did this ten times.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
The OP added too much makeup oils that it really skew the UOA.
What i don't understand is; with the bypass filters removing a lot more of the particles from the oil, doesn't that mess up the UOA as well? The engine technically could be shedding A TON of metal (wear) from the long OCIs but we can't see that due to the filters removing all the metal.
Also, the 10qt top off also dilutes the results even more on top of that, making it seem as if the engine is healthy as can be when in fact, a bunch of the metallic bits could be blown outta the exhaust pipes.
As i understanding this correctly?
The bypass does not filter out the normal wear metals that you see in UOAs. It remove mainly soot particles and large particle contaminants (dirt, engine corrosion, sludge, etc.) that could cause more wear.
Every time he added a quart he reduced the wear metal amount by 20% and he did this ten times.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Every time he added a quart he reduced the wear metal amount by 20% and he did this ten times.
It doesn't exactly work that way with oil consumption. Yes this may seem correct if the oil is 100% homogenous and if exactly the amount taken out is replaced - "taken out" meaning removed. But when oil is burned, especial via the ring/cylinder combustion path it is not much more than the oil and anything well in solution being "taken out" - which could include some Fe detected in a UOA, but not all the Fe, for example.
Every time he added a quart he reduced the wear metal amount by 20% and he did this ten times.
It doesn't exactly work that way with oil consumption. Yes this may seem correct if the oil is 100% homogenous and if exactly the amount taken out is replaced - "taken out" meaning removed. But when oil is burned, especial via the ring/cylinder combustion path it is not much more than the oil and anything well in solution being "taken out" - which could include some Fe detected in a UOA, but not all the Fe, for example.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Every time he added a quart he reduced the wear metal amount by 20% and he did this ten times.
It doesn't exactly work that way with oil consumption. Yes this may seem correct if the oil is 100% homogenous and if exactly the amount taken out is replaced - "taken out" meaning removed. But when oil is burned, especial via the ring/cylinder combustion path it is not much more than the oil and anything well in solution being "taken out" - which could include some Fe detected in a UOA, but not all the Fe, for example.
Good point, but adding oil does replenish the ad pack. As far as wear metals, my guess is an oil burner will show less since some of the metals are being burnt or blown out of the engine with the oil it is consuming.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Every time he added a quart he reduced the wear metal amount by 20% and he did this ten times.
It doesn't exactly work that way with oil consumption. Yes this may seem correct if the oil is 100% homogenous and if exactly the amount taken out is replaced - "taken out" meaning removed. But when oil is burned, especial via the ring/cylinder combustion path it is not much more than the oil and anything well in solution being "taken out" - which could include some Fe detected in a UOA, but not all the Fe, for example.
Good point, but adding oil does replenish the ad pack. As far as wear metals, my guess is an oil burner will show less since some of the metals are being burnt or blown out of the engine with the oil it is consuming.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Good point, but adding oil does replenish the ad pack. As far as wear metals, my guess is an oil burner will show less since some of the metals are being burnt or blown out of the engine with the oil it is consuming.
Somewhat less, but not 1:1. I mean this UOA is a perfect example. Look at the wear metals. Almost a perfect model of consistency. Then look at the last 3 which are closest to 40K miles - for whatever reason he added 2X the amount of oil the last run. Wear metals stayed the same.
Another way to think about it - what if the oil had a terrible NOACK and the oil was evaporating? Would the metals evaporate as well?
Good point, but adding oil does replenish the ad pack. As far as wear metals, my guess is an oil burner will show less since some of the metals are being burnt or blown out of the engine with the oil it is consuming.
Somewhat less, but not 1:1. I mean this UOA is a perfect example. Look at the wear metals. Almost a perfect model of consistency. Then look at the last 3 which are closest to 40K miles - for whatever reason he added 2X the amount of oil the last run. Wear metals stayed the same.
Another way to think about it - what if the oil had a terrible NOACK and the oil was evaporating? Would the metals evaporate as well?
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Another way to think about it - what if the oil had a terrible NOACK and the oil was evaporating? Would the metals evaporate as well?
Are you saying Amsoil has terrible NOACK? I highly doubted. The oil is consumed one way or another and when he added another quart the wear metal as PPM in the UOA at that point is now 20% less. The oil just doesn't disappeared and leaving the wear metal behind. How do you think the catalytic converter get killed? What is the purpose of low SAP oil?
His UOA is good, no doubt, but the number is skewed by the makeup oil amount. If I replaced a quart of oil in my engine every 1K miles what do you think the UOA will look like at 5K compares to just leaving the original 5 quarts and not add any makeup oil?
Another way to think about it - what if the oil had a terrible NOACK and the oil was evaporating? Would the metals evaporate as well?
Are you saying Amsoil has terrible NOACK? I highly doubted. The oil is consumed one way or another and when he added another quart the wear metal as PPM in the UOA at that point is now 20% less. The oil just doesn't disappeared and leaving the wear metal behind. How do you think the catalytic converter get killed? What is the purpose of low SAP oil?
His UOA is good, no doubt, but the number is skewed by the makeup oil amount. If I replaced a quart of oil in my engine every 1K miles what do you think the UOA will look like at 5K compares to just leaving the original 5 quarts and not add any makeup oil?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Are you saying Amsoil has terrible NOACK? I highly doubted. The oil is consumed one way or another and when he added another quart the wear metal as PPM in the UOA at that point is now 20% less. The oil just doesn't disappeared and leaving the wear metal behind. How do you think the catalytic converter get killed? What is the purpose of low SAP oil?
No. You missed my point on that. Oil is consumed in multiple ways and it's not always 1:1. Yes, depending on what form the metal (or even additive) is it can be left behind. Cats are killed by Pb, and in recent times P. P is much more volatile than Fe - depending on it's composition and stability in solution.
If your premise is 100% correct, then why didn't wear metals half in this UOA?
Are you saying Amsoil has terrible NOACK? I highly doubted. The oil is consumed one way or another and when he added another quart the wear metal as PPM in the UOA at that point is now 20% less. The oil just doesn't disappeared and leaving the wear metal behind. How do you think the catalytic converter get killed? What is the purpose of low SAP oil?
No. You missed my point on that. Oil is consumed in multiple ways and it's not always 1:1. Yes, depending on what form the metal (or even additive) is it can be left behind. Cats are killed by Pb, and in recent times P. P is much more volatile than Fe - depending on it's composition and stability in solution.
If your premise is 100% correct, then why didn't wear metals half in this UOA?
Originally Posted By: Pablo
No. You missed my point on that. Oil is consumed in multiple ways and it's not always 1:1. Yes, depending on what form the metal (or even additive) is it can be left behind. Cats are killed by Pb, and in recent times P. P is much more volatile than Fe - depending on it's composition and stability in solution.
If your premise is 100% correct, then why didn't wear metals half in this UOA?
Half of what in which UOA? Where is the baseline? He should have done an UOA at 4K to establish a baseline.
Let me repeat one more time. Take a UOA of the oil with 4 quarts in the engine. Add another quart and then take another UOA immediately. Then, "ALL" the wear metal will be 20% less. Now do this 10 times. This has nothing to do with what is burned and what is left behind.
My other point is pretty much everything get burned up, plate to the engine, collect by the oil, or push out of the exhaust otherwise they would not have required cat converter nor DPF nor EGR, etc.
No. You missed my point on that. Oil is consumed in multiple ways and it's not always 1:1. Yes, depending on what form the metal (or even additive) is it can be left behind. Cats are killed by Pb, and in recent times P. P is much more volatile than Fe - depending on it's composition and stability in solution.
If your premise is 100% correct, then why didn't wear metals half in this UOA?
Half of what in which UOA? Where is the baseline? He should have done an UOA at 4K to establish a baseline.
Let me repeat one more time. Take a UOA of the oil with 4 quarts in the engine. Add another quart and then take another UOA immediately. Then, "ALL" the wear metal will be 20% less. Now do this 10 times. This has nothing to do with what is burned and what is left behind.
My other point is pretty much everything get burned up, plate to the engine, collect by the oil, or push out of the exhaust otherwise they would not have required cat converter nor DPF nor EGR, etc.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: slalom44
Here's a picture of my car taken back in November. It still looks and runs great.
Thanks for posting your story and your car. What a looker. I'd love to have an S2000 one day.
Here's a picture of my car taken back in November. It still looks and runs great.
Thanks for posting your story and your car. What a looker. I'd love to have an S2000 one day.
Has any of this been confirmed by a UOA via the method you mentioned... (Pull a sample after burning a quart of oil, add a quart and pull another sample) ???
I'd imagine that if there's say 100ppm of iron, for example and you add a quart of oil, there's still 100ppm of iron in there, its just now mixed with more fluid.
I also doubt ALL the various metals in the engine are burning off at the same rate as well. I'd imagine that we'd see an increase somewhere, especially over so many miles.
Also, with thr bypass filters removing the dirt outta the engine, its obvious that there will be less engine wear, so metal shed will be less then normal (given that the oil is strong enough to prevent metal to metal contact)
I'd imagine that if there's say 100ppm of iron, for example and you add a quart of oil, there's still 100ppm of iron in there, its just now mixed with more fluid.
I also doubt ALL the various metals in the engine are burning off at the same rate as well. I'd imagine that we'd see an increase somewhere, especially over so many miles.
Also, with thr bypass filters removing the dirt outta the engine, its obvious that there will be less engine wear, so metal shed will be less then normal (given that the oil is strong enough to prevent metal to metal contact)
Originally Posted By: Artem
I'd imagine that if there's say 100ppm of iron, for example and you add a quart of oil, there's still 100ppm of iron in there, its just now mixed with more fluid.
By mixing with more oil the concentration will be less than 100ppm and closer to 80ppm,
I'd imagine that if there's say 100ppm of iron, for example and you add a quart of oil, there's still 100ppm of iron in there, its just now mixed with more fluid.
By mixing with more oil the concentration will be less than 100ppm and closer to 80ppm,
Originally Posted By: slalom44
...........I agree that the bypass filters remove significant amounts of wear metals, making the UOA deceiving. I don't believe you can look at my numbers and conclude that the wear is actually that low. But I also know that Blackstone (and the other labs for that matter) doesn't use a wet chemistry method of anylizing the amount of wear metals. Therefore the total volume of a wear metal isn't measured in the PPM shown on a UOA..........
Just curious if you have considered paying for a Filter Debris Analysis?
...........I agree that the bypass filters remove significant amounts of wear metals, making the UOA deceiving. I don't believe you can look at my numbers and conclude that the wear is actually that low. But I also know that Blackstone (and the other labs for that matter) doesn't use a wet chemistry method of anylizing the amount of wear metals. Therefore the total volume of a wear metal isn't measured in the PPM shown on a UOA..........
Just curious if you have considered paying for a Filter Debris Analysis?
Originally Posted By: buster
4,000 ppm of calcium!
No need to change the oil in this situation. You are continually changing it.
I fully agree with the oil consumption you have. If this were me I would do 15K OCI with the filter set up you have. If you are going to continue these very long OCIs then I would at least change the primary filter every 10-15K.
4,000 ppm of calcium!
No need to change the oil in this situation. You are continually changing it.
I fully agree with the oil consumption you have. If this were me I would do 15K OCI with the filter set up you have. If you are going to continue these very long OCIs then I would at least change the primary filter every 10-15K.
Originally Posted By: slalom44
The UOA basically tells me that my oil is still healthy, my filters are functioning properly and there are no major problems with my engine. The real proof of my setup won't be realized for several years. Until then, I can't do much bragging. But admittedly, my setup and my UOAs make great conversation at parties.
Well, you're certainly getting the miles out of your synthetic, which is the way it should be done!
The UOA basically tells me that my oil is still healthy, my filters are functioning properly and there are no major problems with my engine. The real proof of my setup won't be realized for several years. Until then, I can't do much bragging. But admittedly, my setup and my UOAs make great conversation at parties.
Well, you're certainly getting the miles out of your synthetic, which is the way it should be done!
I run 7.5 to 8k miles on my oil and I don't have to add any oil(thank God the AP2 is better on oil). I would run more miles but the dash keeps flashing me to get me to change it. I run a mix of M1 with a oversize oil filter and like I said my '06 doesn't use any oil, not even down 1/4 qt. I think slalom44 has a good chance to make it to 500k with his set up, good clean oil with a good add package to keep the inside clean.
ROD
ROD
Thanks all for the comments and complinents.
I notice that several of you put a lot of importance on the PPM levels of the wear metals, and how adding make-up oil affects this. I'm not convinced that the PPM levels in a UOA are spot on, where you can use them to assume trends. I've been involved with mass spectrometer analysis of other materials, and it isn't unusual to see varying results from a sample. If there were order-of-magnitude differences, then yes. But for comparing single-digit PPM levels of wear metals, I'm not too confident in the results.
A long time ago a guy on another forum did multiple UOAs with different filters back-to-back with 500 miles between filters. Then he slapped a bypass filter on, ran 500 miles and retested. The difference in wear metal levels between the various full flow filters varied a little as expected, but the UOA with the bypass filter showed a dramatic drop in wear metals. The results were like night and day. That told me that the bypass filter was definitely filtering out significant amounts of wear metals, and that the only conclusion you can make from the wear metal levels in a UOA using a bypass filter is whether the filter is doing its job. Unfortunately the thread I reference above has been stripped of all its charts and graphs, so it's hard to follow.
Originally Posted By: SubLGT
Just curious if you have considered paying for a Filter Debris Analysis?
No, I'm not that curious. Besides - That's spending more money which would increase my lubrication costs. I've never even cut open any of my bypass filters, although I have several of my used ones sitting on a shelf in my garage...
I notice that several of you put a lot of importance on the PPM levels of the wear metals, and how adding make-up oil affects this. I'm not convinced that the PPM levels in a UOA are spot on, where you can use them to assume trends. I've been involved with mass spectrometer analysis of other materials, and it isn't unusual to see varying results from a sample. If there were order-of-magnitude differences, then yes. But for comparing single-digit PPM levels of wear metals, I'm not too confident in the results.
A long time ago a guy on another forum did multiple UOAs with different filters back-to-back with 500 miles between filters. Then he slapped a bypass filter on, ran 500 miles and retested. The difference in wear metal levels between the various full flow filters varied a little as expected, but the UOA with the bypass filter showed a dramatic drop in wear metals. The results were like night and day. That told me that the bypass filter was definitely filtering out significant amounts of wear metals, and that the only conclusion you can make from the wear metal levels in a UOA using a bypass filter is whether the filter is doing its job. Unfortunately the thread I reference above has been stripped of all its charts and graphs, so it's hard to follow.
Originally Posted By: SubLGT
Just curious if you have considered paying for a Filter Debris Analysis?
No, I'm not that curious. Besides - That's spending more money which would increase my lubrication costs. I've never even cut open any of my bypass filters, although I have several of my used ones sitting on a shelf in my garage...
To me there is more to trying to see this vs a 'normalized' or 'typical' UOA by getting a debris analysis on the bypass filter. (change the full flow at least once please! just had to reiterate that as others have)
Of course, with 40,000 miles you will note some debris I'm sure. One would have to find what is typical in a bypass filter, if you want to read anything into it however. It's essentially a collection point; in theory, for the 'normal' wearing of the engine to accumulated aside from the oil pan. I wonder if magnets placed on the pan or the bypass filter(depending on locations etc), would assist in seeing this UOA in a more normal light?
Adding a new quart every 1,000 is enough to keep things clean, but that in of itself; oil consumption, is not abnormal for this engine. It's a fact. So, oil consumption has nothing to do with seeing the engine's overall health compared to typical UOA. Where as how the bypass setup may/may not deviate from a traditionally seen 'trend', could.
However, it's seeing an oil drain at least once a year and should be enough in this app with current conditions and things seen here. I'd like to see how long it can go at this rate. Of course, this is new territory for passenger cars I suppose, but IMO it's not a big deal in America driving modest speeds and racking up plenty of miles. Not severe service at all, mentioned by the OP.
Of course, with 40,000 miles you will note some debris I'm sure. One would have to find what is typical in a bypass filter, if you want to read anything into it however. It's essentially a collection point; in theory, for the 'normal' wearing of the engine to accumulated aside from the oil pan. I wonder if magnets placed on the pan or the bypass filter(depending on locations etc), would assist in seeing this UOA in a more normal light?
Adding a new quart every 1,000 is enough to keep things clean, but that in of itself; oil consumption, is not abnormal for this engine. It's a fact. So, oil consumption has nothing to do with seeing the engine's overall health compared to typical UOA. Where as how the bypass setup may/may not deviate from a traditionally seen 'trend', could.
However, it's seeing an oil drain at least once a year and should be enough in this app with current conditions and things seen here. I'd like to see how long it can go at this rate. Of course, this is new territory for passenger cars I suppose, but IMO it's not a big deal in America driving modest speeds and racking up plenty of miles. Not severe service at all, mentioned by the OP.
Very interesting! Thanks for posting.
- Status
Similar threads
