Do you agree with this statement?

[Jaymus]

Here's what I think:

Everyone here is giving their THEORIES while major oil manufacturers have done TESTS that PROVE what they say. Now, this benefits them in no way. If they wanted to benefit, they would say to change your oil sooner. I'm a skeptic to a lot I hear, but I can't believe all the people saying they are wrong.

Here is what they said.. "Engine wear actually decreases as oil ages." I don't think there is any arguing to be done here. Take it like in the first 1000 miles, you may have the ppm of copper, then the next 1000 miles, only 1 or 2, and so on. No one says to run your dino 10,000 miles, but it pretty much says that changing every 1000-2000 miles would cause more wear in the long run (300k miles) than changing every 4000 miles.

With that said, it still depends on other factors, like if you are riding off road a lot, or racing your engine on the track for a few hours. But, let's not play word games. On your average highway cruising car, you are better off going 4k - 5k instead of 1k-2k. At least that can be agreed on.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Take it like in the first 1000 miles, you may have the ppm of copper, then the next 1000 miles, only 1 or 2, and so on. No one says to run your dino 10,000 miles, but it pretty much says that changing every 1000-2000 miles would cause more wear in the long run (300k miles) than changing every 4000 miles.


This pops up every once and a while on BITOG. I'll go through the motions here since it's, once again, getting a life of its own.

This is an implication from an observation. No cause was ever disclosed on the original document that started this "truth".

Sure you can see the event. Does it mean that it's "wear"? Suppose it's part of a unavoidable process that's merely liberating embedded particles that are entrained in the AW film formations?

Is anyone aware of a study where the tester first did a normal UOA survey at VOA, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, etc. and then followed it up with two or three 500 mile OCI's w/UOA and repeated the 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, etc. sequence to see if the event occurred at the same point? That would tell you if it's a purging of existing embedded material or introduced new material from residing structures ..or at least strongly suggest it.

Right now, AFAIK, no one knows.

I'd love to put this one to rest ...but I'm already up to my neck in other longer term projects. Anyone else out there getting annoyed at not knowing?? If so, please pick up the ball and run with it.

 

[FZ1]

The statement is correct;your observation is incorrect.

 

[Gary in Sandy Eggo]

Originally Posted By: Jaymus
Here is what they said.. "Engine wear actually decreases as oil ages." I don't think there is any arguing to be done here. Take it like in the first 1000 miles, you may have the ppm of copper, then the next 1000 miles, only 1 or 2, and so on. No one says to run your dino 10,000 miles, but it pretty much says that changing every 1000-2000 miles would cause more wear in the long run (300k miles) than changing every 4000 miles.

I have no comprehension of what you said here other than to repeat the illogical "Engine wear actually decreases as oil ages" phrase.

Originally Posted By: Jaymus
Take it like in the first 1000 miles, you may have the ppm of copper, then the next 1000 miles, only 1 or 2, and so on.

What does that sentence mean?

Originally Posted By: Jaymus
it pretty much says that changing every 1000-2000 miles would cause more wear in the long run (300k miles) than changing every 4000 miles.

Yes, it does say that. I repeat, it is illogical and counter- intuitive, and lacks substantitive explanation as to why it would be so.

 

[glennc]

A lot of science (AKA "reality") is counter-intuitive. That is one reason that it is often scorned by people who fail to understand it. It certainly does not make it incorrect.

I have no trouble believing that fresh oil might cause slightly accelerated wear compared with "mature" oil. I don't know the mechanism, and I it could well be that it is in fact not true, however there are now some indications suggesting that it might be.

In addition to the paper talked about here, there has been independent speculation in the UOA forum that it sometimes appears to be the case based on a UOAs. Independent observations suggesting the same conclusion must be given some weight.

A couple of mechanisms have been suggested as to how it could be true.

A couple of mechanisms have been suggested as to how it could appear true, yet not be.

At this point it is not a matter of certainty by any means but something that seems to require serious consideration.

If nothing else it goes against those who suggest that shorter OCIs are better, even knowledgeable people who suggest that they are only incrementally so.

 

[Gary in Sandy Eggo]

Originally Posted By: glennc
I have no trouble believing that fresh oil might cause slightly accelerated wear compared with "mature" oil. I don't know the mechanism, . . .

Until I DO know the mechanism of something that is "counter-intuitive," I will distrust the thesis as being "(new) urban legend" or just downright repeated false statements. I realize that most people's knowledge of "how things work" can be limited which makes them more susceptible to exaggerated claims. I do not criticize that, but I do cite it as how "urban legends" get started and live a long and prosperous life.

I repeat. If anyone can logically explain why new oil would CAUSE (not just reveal) wear, I can do an about-face so fast it would make your head swim (how many heads have you actually seen swimming).

 

[rg200amp]

The way I see it, No oil maker is going to test this and tell people about it, saying to not buy there oil cause your old stuff is better.

So the only people that would proclaim this, is ones who are die hard, get as many miles on that oil as you can folk. So whoever came up with this concept allready belived it to be true, thus there findings are going to lean one way since they have an agenda. The people who fight about extending OCI for as long as you can are the worst people to argue with, because they have no open mind to the subject, they have there ideas(facts to them) and they do not want to here yours.

I am not speaking of anyone on this post, but other places I have had some battles! I have been crucified for my 4000-5000 mile OCI!!!

I am not saying this subject(new oil is bad?) is wrong, but Its for sure not my view on the subject.

 

[Gary Allan]

Instead of arguing it ...isn't anyone curious enough to find out?? It shouldn't be too hard to configure it to find out of it's the "newness" of oil that's doing it ..or the suspension of old AW formations at some stage in some seating process.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Gary - I believed that the University of Michigan was conducting a long term test covering this. I cannot find any evidence that they actually are however!

If it exists I suspect it has much to do with a superior cleaning phase with the new lubricant plus a carry over from the replaced lubricant's residue

I saw no evidence of the phenomenon in the hundreds of UOAs I have taken on my similar family of engines either. Wear metal uptake rates were "acceptably" linear throughout the OCI cycle

 

[glennc]

Gary and rg200xxx, I will step out on a limb and tell you here that your logic is completely flawed. Gary, by your argument one could still question Einstein and Heisenberg, not to mention virtually anything that has been learned on this site about motor oil: the bottom line is that either one is open to new systematic findings about a particular subject, or one is not. Should you elect to find yourself in the former group, then you would be compelled to reserve judgement on the present issue and, until it is rendered, sustain a certain academic agnosticism.

rg, your assumption is flawed to begin with as it only provides for the possibility of research on the part of "oil makers" themselves. You might consider whether there might be other entities likely to undertake oil studies, and, if you find that there are, you might then learn that their own predilections for bias could be the utter opposite of those of the "oil makers;" or that in fact they could be completely neutral, such as in the case of equipment manufacturers, just to mention one example.

 

[another Todd]

The statement is to vague. "as it ages" as in from new to 500 or 1000 miles or new to 50,000 miles?

 

[Jaymus]

Originally Posted By: Gary in Sandy Eggo
Originally Posted By: Jaymus
Here is what they said.. "Engine wear actually decreases as oil ages." I don't think there is any arguing to be done here. Take it like in the first 1000 miles, you may have the ppm of copper, then the next 1000 miles, only 1 or 2, and so on. No one says to run your dino 10,000 miles, but it pretty much says that changing every 1000-2000 miles would cause more wear in the long run (300k miles) than changing every 4000 miles.

I have no comprehension of what you said here other than to repeat the illogical "Engine wear actually decreases as oil ages" phrase.

Originally Posted By: Jaymus
Take it like in the first 1000 miles, you may have the ppm of copper, then the next 1000 miles, only 1 or 2, and so on.

What does that sentence mean?

Originally Posted By: Jaymus
it pretty much says that changing every 1000-2000 miles would cause more wear in the long run (300k miles) than changing every 4000 miles.

Yes, it does say that. I repeat, it is illogical and counter- intuitive, and lacks substantitive explanation as to why it would be so.



Hey, if you guys want to use your internet knowledge to argue with big time oil companies doing tests you guys can't do, fine.

And I used that OCI mileage as an example, not as hard facts. I don't get what's so hard to understand. Engine wear decreases as oil ages. It is simply saying that the oil protects better after it's been in use.

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Sure you can see the event. Does it mean that it's "wear"? Suppose it's part of a unavoidable process that's merely liberating embedded particles that are entrained in the AW film formations?


Gary, I'm sure the oil companies know of these factors.

 

[Gary Allan]

But what is the message that they're trying to communicate? If this is the text that I recall, it made no conclusions and merely "suggested". They're trying to convince you that you're smart if you do a longer OCI. Now I actually agree with them ..but I don't necessarily like the packaging that the message comes in.

It's a herding technique. You merely make it appear like you're doing something "bad" if you aren't doing what they suggest. Now they would never convince you to do it out of waste considerations. You're an American Consumer. You set the bar very high for the entire globe to challenge...but if I suggest that you're hurting your toys ...then you may pay attention.


You say barracuda and they think "fish

"
You say SHARK ..and you've got a panic on the 4th of July.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
But what is the message that they're trying to communicate? If this is the text that I recall, it made no conclusions and merely "suggested". They're trying to convince you that you're smart if you do a longer OCI. Now I actually agree with them ..but I don't necessarily like the packaging that the message comes in.

It's a herding technique. You merely make it appear like you're doing something "bad" if you aren't doing what they suggest. Now they would never convince you to do it out of waste considerations. You're an American Consumer. You set the bar very high for the entire globe to challenge...but if I suggest that you're hurting your toys ...then you may pay attention.


You say barracuda and they think "fish

"
You say SHARK ..and you've got a panic on the 4th of July.


+1.......BTW-Great Movie. Frank Mundus who was the fishing character Robert Shaw portrayed in Jaws just died. He was quiet a unique individual!

Frank D

 

[rg200amp]

Originally Posted By: glennc
Gary and rg200xxx, I will step out on a limb and tell you here that your logic is completely flawed. Gary, by your argument one could still question Einstein and Heisenberg, not to mention virtually anything that has been learned on this site about motor oil: the bottom line is that either one is open to new systematic findings about a particular subject, or one is not. Should you elect to find yourself in the former group, then you would be compelled to reserve judgement on the present issue and, until it is rendered, sustain a certain academic agnosticism.

rg, your assumption is flawed to begin with as it only provides for the possibility of research on the part of "oil makers" themselves. You might consider whether there might be other entities likely to undertake oil studies, and, if you find that there are, you might then learn that their own predilections for bias could be the utter opposite of those of the "oil makers;" or that in fact they could be completely neutral, such as in the case of equipment manufacturers, just to mention one example.


I am open to except this if it is true. but there is no real evidence of it being true.
ofcourse wear is going to be "viewed" as high since the oil is brand new, with brand new detergents, and there is still old oil in the motor. That dose not mean new oil causes ware.

The way I look at it: how many times have you heard a motor going bad due to too long of an OCI (sludge)
How many times have you heard of a motor going bad because "you change your oil WAYYY to much?
Thats my logic!

I am just saying No one has showed us any proof, they tell use he said, she said, i read that. . . its all "heresay". we like proof.

 

[Brian Barnhart]

Does anyone know whether the testing referenced in the OP were based on UOA results or teardown measurements?

 

[JAG]

Here is an old thread and a quote of my post in that thread about new oil and old oil wear rates in testing done by SWRI. Whether this is true in other scenarios will depend on many factors.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1053159
Originally Posted By: JAG
Measuring wear with UOAs is not the way to do it, however in this case UOA wear data does match what the much better way of measuring wear of using radiotracers has shown: that wear rates are higher in the early stages of an oil fill than the later steady-state wear. SWRI has used radiotracers to measure wear rates for over 20 years. Below is a paragraph from their results linked here: http://www.swri.org/3pubs/IRD1999/03912699.htm

I think they did a later study dedicated to this topic but I couldn't find it. I'll keep looking.

"Testing with partially stressed oil, which contained some wear debris, produced less wear than testing with clean oil. This finding was unexpected and initially confusing (further inquiry suggested that the result was not so surprising, as many oil chemistries require time and temperature to enhance their effectiveness). Although based on limited data, the finding could be significant, and verification should be pursued. If the finding is verified, the mechanisms should be determined, and ramifications with respect to oil change intervals, filter involvement, and additive packages should be considered. A similar finding for diesel engines could have even greater significance, since the topics of extended oil drain and, in some cases heavy exhaust gas recirculation are of major interest. Although the conditioning run altered the oil, it did not stress or render it unusable (as noted, there is indication that it was tribologically improved). As such, the impact of testing with significantly stressed oil was not measured and remains a future objective."

 

[Gary Allan]

Here's your clues...

Quote:
Although based on limited data, the finding could be significant, and verification should be pursued. If the finding is verified, the mechanisms should be determined, and ramifications with respect to oil change intervals, filter involvement, and additive packages should be considered. A similar finding for diesel engines could have even greater significance, since the topics of extended oil drain and, in some cases heavy exhaust gas recirculation are of major interest. Although the conditioning run altered the oil, it did not stress or render it unusable (as noted, there is indication (my note: Not verification) that it was tribologically improved). As such, the impact of testing with significantly stressed oil was not measured and remains a future objective."



Besides all the "suggestive" results ...there's no metric of REAL impact noted. You could surely be arguing the difference betwee 383,795 miles of engine life vs. 385,836.


Again, it really shouldn't be hard for even the simpleton to see where this comes from (for our benefit) and not have to filter the published and referenced "en vogue" trends from the SAE.

Before you take the REAL data for what it's worth, try and look at WHY the study was performed. This approach (that I take) isn't to invalidate the data ...but to ascertain the ultimate destination that it's trying to lead you to. These research studies aren't done for just no good gosh darn reason "for the good of lubrication-kind. They're all entered into with a sensible desired goal in mind that contour to the industry wide policy shifts that are imposed by regulations that compel the industry to move in that direction.

It's much along the lines of "We want people to conserve resources".

"Okay, lets see what points we can make supporting that idea"

It's not a "True:False" deal. It's more along the lines of highly scientific promotion.


AGAIN: I support longer drains (do you think?) and think that most are wasting money and/or resources. But in the whole mix of the vast variables of automobile ownership ..in that lubrication practices can effect it (on the short side of OCI's) I hardly think that it amounts to any significance of merit.

This is policy reinforcement.

 

[Gary in Sandy Eggo]

Originally Posted By: glennc
I will step out on a limb and tell you here that your logic is completely flawed. Gary, by your argument one could still question Einstein and Heisenberg, not to mention virtually anything that has been learned on this site about motor oil:

That's not true. I'm just not signing up to something that flies in the face of logic without an adequate explanation of why that something would be so.

Originally Posted By: glennc
the bottom line is that either one is open to new systematic findings about a particular subject, or one is not. Should you elect to find yourself in the former group, then you would be compelled to reserve judgement on the present issue and, until it is rendered, sustain a certain academic agnosticism.

I am open to new "findings." Remember, I said I can do an about face in an instant with a logical explanation. After the fact, therefore because of it (After putting in fresh oil, more wear metals showed up in the oil. Therefore, fresh oil causes more wear.) is not sound logic.