Detergency vs lubrication

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Shannow


It's pretty well established here that on an oil change, there's a jump in "apparent" wear, when a clean oil picks up "stuff", and the "wear trend" then appears to taper off...it's not wear.


You just lost all of your credibility. All those SEA studies showing accelerating wear with fresh are all lies and conspiracies?
 
All my credibility ?

Because you don't understand what I wrote ?

Point me to all the "SEA" (sic) studies that demonstrate actual wear between moving components before, during and after an oil change...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
All my credibility ?

Because you don't understand what I wrote ?

Point me to all the "SEA" (sic) studies that demonstrate actual wear between moving components before, during and after an oil change...


I got what you wrote, and it makes more sense than a lot of other posts and articles I've read on the topic.
 
I think that _jacek was posting with tongue in cheek.
If he wasn't, I think you're right.
Fresh oil with fresh detergents picks up minor deposits left behind by a fill of used oil.
This may cause an increse in measured wear metals with no increase in wear.
 
There's also a purely mathematical explanation for those who are seeing this phenomenon doing oil changes and UOAs.

Take an engine that sheds 10ppm Fe/1000 miles and run it to 10,000 miles. The oil now contains 100 ppm Fe. Do an oil change, which typically has at least a 10% carry-over of the old oil. Sample every 1000 miles.

This will be the results:

1K = 20.0 ppm/1k
2K = 15.0 ppm/1K
3K = 13.3 ppm/1K
4K = 12.5 ppm/1K
5k = 12.0 ppm/1K
6K = 11.7 ppm/1K
7K = 11.4 ppm/1K
8K = 11.2 ppm/1K
9K = 11.1 ppm/1K
10K = 11.0 ppm/1K

It would appear that new oil causes more wear, when in reality the wear rate was a constant 10 ppm/1K from the first mile driven.

Ed
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: Shannow


It's pretty well established here that on an oil change, there's a jump in "apparent" wear, when a clean oil picks up "stuff", and the "wear trend" then appears to taper off...it's not wear.


You just lost all of your credibility. All those SEA studies showing accelerating wear with fresh are all lies and conspiracies?


Shannow has shown to know what he's talking about. I'd let him explain before loosing any credibility.
The post above about carry over makes sense.
 
Originally Posted By: edhackett
There's also a purely mathematical explanation for those who are seeing this phenomenon doing oil changes and UOAs.

Take an engine that sheds 10ppm Fe/1000 miles and run it to 10,000 miles. The oil now contains 100 ppm Fe. Do an oil change, which typically has at least a 10% carry-over of the old oil. Sample every 1000 miles.

This will be the results:

1K = 20.0 ppm/1k
2K = 15.0 ppm/1K
3K = 13.3 ppm/1K
4K = 12.5 ppm/1K
5k = 12.0 ppm/1K
6K = 11.7 ppm/1K
7K = 11.4 ppm/1K
8K = 11.2 ppm/1K
9K = 11.1 ppm/1K
10K = 11.0 ppm/1K

It would appear that new oil causes more wear, when in reality the wear rate was a constant 10 ppm/1K from the first mile driven.

Ed



Now that makes a lot of sense too. Seems to me it might even be a myth buster.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: edhackett
There's also a purely mathematical explanation for those who are seeing this phenomenon doing oil changes and UOAs.

Take an engine that sheds 10ppm Fe/1000 miles and run it to 10,000 miles. The oil now contains 100 ppm Fe. Do an oil change, which typically has at least a 10% carry-over of the old oil. Sample every 1000 miles.

This will be the results:

1K = 20.0 ppm/1k
2K = 15.0 ppm/1K
3K = 13.3 ppm/1K
4K = 12.5 ppm/1K
5k = 12.0 ppm/1K
6K = 11.7 ppm/1K
7K = 11.4 ppm/1K
8K = 11.2 ppm/1K
9K = 11.1 ppm/1K
10K = 11.0 ppm/1K

It would appear that new oil causes more wear, when in reality the wear rate was a constant 10 ppm/1K from the first mile driven.

Ed



Now that makes a lot of sense too. Seems to me it might even be a myth buster.


Ya right. Point me to such UOA that has that 100ppm of Fe.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: edhackett
There's also a purely mathematical explanation for those who are seeing this phenomenon doing oil changes and UOAs.

Take an engine that sheds 10ppm Fe/1000 miles and run it to 10,000 miles. The oil now contains 100 ppm Fe. Do an oil change, which typically has at least a 10% carry-over of the old oil. Sample every 1000 miles.

This will be the results:

1K = 20.0 ppm/1k
2K = 15.0 ppm/1K
3K = 13.3 ppm/1K
4K = 12.5 ppm/1K
5k = 12.0 ppm/1K
6K = 11.7 ppm/1K
7K = 11.4 ppm/1K
8K = 11.2 ppm/1K
9K = 11.1 ppm/1K
10K = 11.0 ppm/1K

It would appear that new oil causes more wear, when in reality the wear rate was a constant 10 ppm/1K from the first mile driven.

Ed



Now that makes a lot of sense too. Seems to me it might even be a myth buster.

It would completely explain the extra wear metals found early,and tapers off as the miles rack up.
Interesting indeed
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: edhackett
There's also a purely mathematical explanation for those who are seeing this phenomenon doing oil changes and UOAs.

Take an engine that sheds 10ppm Fe/1000 miles and run it to 10,000 miles. The oil now contains 100 ppm Fe. Do an oil change, which typically has at least a 10% carry-over of the old oil. Sample every 1000 miles.

This will be the results:

1K = 20.0 ppm/1k
2K = 15.0 ppm/1K
3K = 13.3 ppm/1K
4K = 12.5 ppm/1K
5k = 12.0 ppm/1K
6K = 11.7 ppm/1K
7K = 11.4 ppm/1K
8K = 11.2 ppm/1K
9K = 11.1 ppm/1K
10K = 11.0 ppm/1K

It would appear that new oil causes more wear, when in reality the wear rate was a constant 10 ppm/1K from the first mile driven.

Ed



Now that makes a lot of sense too. Seems to me it might even be a myth buster.


Ya right. Point me to such UOA that has that 100ppm of Fe.


He's trying to simplify it, to make it easier to understand that's all.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: edhackett
There's also a purely mathematical explanation for those who are seeing this phenomenon doing oil changes and UOAs.

Take an engine that sheds 10ppm Fe/1000 miles and run it to 10,000 miles. The oil now contains 100 ppm Fe. Do an oil change, which typically has at least a 10% carry-over of the old oil. Sample every 1000 miles.

This will be the results:

1K = 20.0 ppm/1k
2K = 15.0 ppm/1K
3K = 13.3 ppm/1K
4K = 12.5 ppm/1K
5k = 12.0 ppm/1K
6K = 11.7 ppm/1K
7K = 11.4 ppm/1K
8K = 11.2 ppm/1K
9K = 11.1 ppm/1K
10K = 11.0 ppm/1K

It would appear that new oil causes more wear, when in reality the wear rate was a constant 10 ppm/1K from the first mile driven.

Ed



Now that makes a lot of sense too. Seems to me it might even be a myth buster.


Ya right. Point me to such UOA that has that 100ppm of Fe.


He's trying to simplify it, to make it easier to understand that's all.


Doesn't explain the experimental results published in the scientific literature.
 
^^ And ? ^^ . It makes a lot of sense, a least to some of us.

If someone can prove his math wrong I'd love to see it.
 
Last edited:
Dave Newton's was talking about an SAE paper, "The Effect of Oil Drain Interval on Valvetrain Friction and Wear" (2007-01-4133) that showed how friction and wear decreases as the oil aged. With new oil, the anti-wear and dispersant additives of some oils clashed and the anti-wear additives had more difficulty putting a layer of protection down with a strong dispersant working in the oil. That was one reason for wear that was higher with fresh oil than with used oil and it got better and better the more it aged. It wasn't an issue of "detergency vs lubrication."

I got and read the paper. It's really interesting.
 
^^ Agreed ^^ However I think based on the math Ed used to illustrate his point, there might be a little more to it.
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacet
Ya right. Point me to such UOA that has that 100ppm of Fe.

Would you like to tell us what you are angry about? No, don't, there are therapist for that. LoL. Surely, residual oil is leftover during every oil change and affects the next fill's wear metal concentration. That effect does not preclude what was discussed in the SAE paper.
 
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Dave Newton's was talking about an SAE paper, "The Effect of Oil Drain Interval on Valvetrain Friction and Wear" (2007-01-4133) that showed how friction and wear decreases as the oil aged. With new oil, the anti-wear and dispersant additives of some oils clashed and the anti-wear additives had more difficulty putting a layer of protection down with a strong dispersant working in the oil. That was one reason for wear that was higher with fresh oil than with used oil and it got better and better the more it aged. It wasn't an issue of "detergency vs lubrication."

I got and read the paper. It's really interesting.


AS did I. Thats where my comment came from earlier in this thread however would they take into account residual oil?
They must.I mean this isnt a high school science experiment,these people are engineers.Dnewton always posts very interesting info,most is behond my scope of understanding,so when i get confused,r dont quite get it Ive found google to be helpful.
 
yep, and I seriously doubt that SAE overlooked the fact that there might be that much carryover oil. Either they made sure that ALL of the oil was drained at least to a neglegable amount or they took that into account in their calculations, or both.

Potential 10% carryover/variation is just too big of an unknown to base any conclusion off of.
 
That paper was based on bench tests, as are the other SAE tests along these lines. It's been a long time since I've read the paper, but as I recall, the results are not derived directly from the engines the oils were run in. The oils were collected from the subject cars and then run in test engines. In order to get this info, the cams were cleaned of any residual anti wear layers. Valid data could only be had by using isotope doped cams, not ppm from a UOA.

There is data in the literature to explain this, as the glass like anti-wear layers are produced by the daughter products of the ZDDP being broken down. The used oil contains a higher percentage of the daughter products and can more quickly put down a hard, effective anti-wear layer on bare metal. It doesn't apply to you and I, as we don't clean off the anti-wear layer at each OCI. It's an important piece of the overall lubrication picture, but isn't an end unto itself.

If I'm confusing this study with others I've read, please feel free to correct me.

Quote:
Ya right. Point me to such UOA that has that 100ppm of Fe.

Take an engine that sheds 1.0ppm Fe/1000 miles and run it to 10,000 miles. The oil now contains 10 ppm Fe. Do an oil change, which typically has at least a 10% carry-over of the old oil. Sample every 1000 miles.

This will be the results:

1K = 2.00 ppm/1k
2K = 1.50 ppm/1K
3K = 1.33 ppm/1K
4K = 1.25 ppm/1K
5k = 1.20 ppm/1K
6K = 1.17 ppm/1K
7K = 1.14 ppm/1K
8K = 1.12 ppm/1K
9K = 1.11 ppm/1K
10K = 1.10 ppm/1K

It would appear that new oil causes more wear, when in reality the wear rate was a constant 1.0 ppm/1K from the first mile driven.

Better?

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Carlostrece
Oil Additives for Lubrication vs Sludge
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
kschachn
tired
Anyone know of someone successfully filing an oil warranty claim with Mobil 1, Pennzoil, et al.?
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
tired
J
Sodium detergent and LSPI
Replies
19
Views
2K
Insertcoolname
john_pifer
Was Your Dad or Granddad a Believer in Non-Detergent Motor Oil?
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
3K
Stumpalump
V
How much cleaning to expect with Renewable Lubricants oil?
Replies
10
Views
783
dkryan
Back
Top Bottom