Shel_B
Site Donor 2023
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2020
- Messages
- 5,167
Frequent oil changes cause more wear?!
- Thread starter OM605
- Start date
- Status
Heard adding 100 grams of volcanic ash really quiets down the engine ... for about 15 seconds, lol.
Well life did get better when oil was discovered. The products and such that became available made life a lot easier for the world.
Blasphemy I say! There is no such thing as harm to an engine from changing oil as frequently as our pocketbooks permit.
Who t
Changing engine oil too often is unnecessary and sickening. It supposedly takes like 2-3k miles just to lay down that new protective TCB. So go ahead and waste good oil that has barely reached it's protective peak and start all over again. Oh yes, don't forget to replace that air filter at 5k intervals while you're at it because we all know they're finished by then. Smarten up!
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Finding a sensible OCI, is the key. I don't buy into it taking 2-3k miles to lay down a tribo film, and I doubt the film is stripped by changing the oil leaving no protection behind. There's more than likely a film left behind. Most of the articles I read about that were dated. Given a choice of oil with 10K miles on it in my sump or fresh oil, fresh oil wins. Or given a choice of fresh oil or oil with 5k miles on it, fresh oil wins again. In fact UOA showed me by 6K miles my oil was just about done. So while I might be able to squeeze another 1,000 miles out of my oil, I'd rather not chance it. Following what I mentioned above I never had an engine fail in close to 50 years of maintaining cars.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
No, you typed a non-existent word. Did you drop out of school? What the hell does "who t" mean?
Please explain this for us m'am.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
^^This is a double whammy *** moment haha!
Yeah man you’ve got to give the intelligent molecules time to get situated and learn when to engage the liquid titanium. It’s liquid engineering.
That all you got because I inadvertently typed a "t"?^^This is a double whammy *** moment haha!
Tell you guys what. Type TCB in the search bar and you'll see the discussion between dnewton and shannow then get back to me with your thoughts.
I'm really happy for you, that's a stellar engine maintenance record to be sure. I too can boast the same thing except I got there in a slightly different fashion. I would expect more from a member such as yourself. Those articles concerning thermo chemical barriers are still relevant today.
I'm happy for you as well. Oil chemistry is changing all the time, the articles I read were from years back. If my maintenance history were causing a problem it would have shown up, and my TBN would have indicated I was wasting oil. The data showed my OCIs are good, at the time I tweaked one vehicle adding 1K miles to the interval, CV19 forced me to shorten it a bit. Expect more from a member like me? LOL I used data, not a wild guess. The pros I consulted agreed with my OCIs. I'll be sticking with what works for me.
Last edited:
this shall be goldframed.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
I was just being facetious, just messing with you
You're saying I got lucky? A couple of engines with my regimen, maybe, 50 years not likely. I also find it amusing that you needed data to tell when to OCI at only 5-6k miles. Anyone could make engines last doing that. No big feat. Carry on...
Lucky? I don't recall saying anywhere you were lucky.
Regarding the data from the UOA, I needed it to prove my OLM wasn't working properly. I suspected it was wrong, but to prove it I wanted data, instead of a hunch or wild guess. I've written about it here on the forum. Decades of of car ownership and experience servicing them indicated to me the OLM might be wrong. Data proved it, and assured me the OCI I was using was good, and ignoring the OLM was in fact the way to go. So I soon added a 1,000 miles to it because the data I paid for indicated I could with the vehicle in question. Then there's the added value of knowing I'm not dumping excess fuel in my oil, have good air filtration, and no coolant in the oil. Things that can be caught very early on, some of which people find out after there's a problem, or damage has been done. Not bad for $10+ postage.
Yes, carry on is right, there's also an ignore feature if you'd rather not read my posts.
dnewton3
Staff member
I'll chime in here with actual facts ...
- The Ford/Conoco SAE study (2007-01-4133) clearly showed that wear rates are higher at the front of every OCI. Undeniable in the results. They not only used UOA data, but backed that up with a completely separate methodology (IIRC it was component weight analysis), which showed the same wear rate conclusion; that shorter OCIs make for higher wear. Extending the OCIs out actually took the wear rates to their lowest levels.
www.sae.org
- This UOA study covering (literally) thousands of UOAs shows the same conclusion; that shorter OCIs have slightly higher wear rates and longer OCIs see the wear rates drop (out to 15k miles, where my data stopped). This phenomenon was present in every engine series I looked at; 4.6L Ford, 6.6L Dmax, Toyotoa V-6, Detroit D60. This wasn't a few UOAs; this is thousands of UOAs studied with macro statustical analysis. https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
It is completely accurate to say that significantly short OCIs do cause some manner of wear excalation, BUT, that should not be construed to mean it's overly detrimental. Changing oil every 3k miles isn't going to destroy your engine; not by a long shot. It's just that by doing so, you're cheating yourself out of the even lower wear rates of the longer OCIs, as well as the fiscal savings of fewer oil changes. It's not that anal retentive oil changes will kill the engine; it's that they simply don't improve anything, despite the theory to the contrary. There's ZERO PROOF that shorter OCIs reduce wear. There is PLENTY OF PROOF that shorter OCIs do elevate wear. I challenge anyone to show me that data which exhibits facts otherwise. Don't throw theory at me; SHOW ME THE DATA from a credible study.
However, there are things to understand and acknowledge in these general comments:
1) this does not address "new" engines; it's probably a good idea to do a couple "flush" OCIs on brand new equipment
2) this only addresses OCIs ranging from 3k to 15k miles; shorter and longer intervals past those limits were not studied
3) no oil can stop a design flaw in the equipment; it may or may not be able to delay the effects of a design flaw, depending on the severity and propensity of the flaw to reveal itself
4) the OPs question and the focus of the wear-studies was just that - to understand OCIs effect on wear. If someone wants to pay for UOAs studies on OCI effects on cleanliness, that'd be great !!! But let's stick to the topic at hand; OCIs and wear rates.
5) these studies are predicated on normal FF filtration and not use of BP, though data also shows that BP filtration has diminishing effect with shorter OCIs
6) these generalities are based on engine series, not individual engines. To know how your own engine responds, you need to confirm it with data
Side bar on the "yabut" denial of UOAs ...
It is 100% true to stay that UOAs are not a perfect tool, but they are BY FAR the cheapest and quickest means of estimating wear, and when used properly and with the understanding of their limitations, they do as good a job as any other means of estimating wear. They will never catch all means of failures; catastrophic engine failures may not exhibit the means for the UOA to detect it (UOAs need particles less than 5um in size, generally). But for every example of a failure they missed, there's probably 10 examples of impending failures they caught. Many SAE studies that use UOAs as a means of wear analysis also use a secondary independent means to also confirm wear. Whether it be component weight, electron bombardment, or something else, they typically don't rely soley on UOAs, but rather they use multiple methods to track wear metals. Every single means of measuring wear has it's pros and pitfals; not one method is perfect. When you can get two methods to comfirm the same resultant conclusion, that's as good as most any "expert" needs it to be.
If there are a few simple take aways from this topic, they would be these:
Shorter OCIs are not proven to reduce wear rates; though they are not "harmful" in a truly meaning manner.
Longer OCIs are indeed proven to reduce wear rates; obviously not the risk people perceive them to be.
If you're changing oil anywhere from 3k to 15k miles, it's "good enough" that the engine is not at risk. If you're chaning it towards the shorter end, and you feel good about that, well that's just fine. If you tend to the longer end, that's OK to. Anything in that range is going to be good enough for the engine.
- The Ford/Conoco SAE study (2007-01-4133) clearly showed that wear rates are higher at the front of every OCI. Undeniable in the results. They not only used UOA data, but backed that up with a completely separate methodology (IIRC it was component weight analysis), which showed the same wear rate conclusion; that shorter OCIs make for higher wear. Extending the OCIs out actually took the wear rates to their lowest levels.
The Effect of Oil Drain Interval on Valvetrain Friction and Wear
Engine oils are subjected to a series of industry standard engine dynamometer tests to measure their wear protection capability, sludge and varnish formation tendencies, and fuel efficiency among several other performance attributes before they are approved for use in customer engines. However, thes
- This UOA study covering (literally) thousands of UOAs shows the same conclusion; that shorter OCIs have slightly higher wear rates and longer OCIs see the wear rates drop (out to 15k miles, where my data stopped). This phenomenon was present in every engine series I looked at; 4.6L Ford, 6.6L Dmax, Toyotoa V-6, Detroit D60. This wasn't a few UOAs; this is thousands of UOAs studied with macro statustical analysis. https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
It is completely accurate to say that significantly short OCIs do cause some manner of wear excalation, BUT, that should not be construed to mean it's overly detrimental. Changing oil every 3k miles isn't going to destroy your engine; not by a long shot. It's just that by doing so, you're cheating yourself out of the even lower wear rates of the longer OCIs, as well as the fiscal savings of fewer oil changes. It's not that anal retentive oil changes will kill the engine; it's that they simply don't improve anything, despite the theory to the contrary. There's ZERO PROOF that shorter OCIs reduce wear. There is PLENTY OF PROOF that shorter OCIs do elevate wear. I challenge anyone to show me that data which exhibits facts otherwise. Don't throw theory at me; SHOW ME THE DATA from a credible study.
However, there are things to understand and acknowledge in these general comments:
1) this does not address "new" engines; it's probably a good idea to do a couple "flush" OCIs on brand new equipment
2) this only addresses OCIs ranging from 3k to 15k miles; shorter and longer intervals past those limits were not studied
3) no oil can stop a design flaw in the equipment; it may or may not be able to delay the effects of a design flaw, depending on the severity and propensity of the flaw to reveal itself
4) the OPs question and the focus of the wear-studies was just that - to understand OCIs effect on wear. If someone wants to pay for UOAs studies on OCI effects on cleanliness, that'd be great !!! But let's stick to the topic at hand; OCIs and wear rates.
5) these studies are predicated on normal FF filtration and not use of BP, though data also shows that BP filtration has diminishing effect with shorter OCIs
6) these generalities are based on engine series, not individual engines. To know how your own engine responds, you need to confirm it with data
Side bar on the "yabut" denial of UOAs ...
It is 100% true to stay that UOAs are not a perfect tool, but they are BY FAR the cheapest and quickest means of estimating wear, and when used properly and with the understanding of their limitations, they do as good a job as any other means of estimating wear. They will never catch all means of failures; catastrophic engine failures may not exhibit the means for the UOA to detect it (UOAs need particles less than 5um in size, generally). But for every example of a failure they missed, there's probably 10 examples of impending failures they caught. Many SAE studies that use UOAs as a means of wear analysis also use a secondary independent means to also confirm wear. Whether it be component weight, electron bombardment, or something else, they typically don't rely soley on UOAs, but rather they use multiple methods to track wear metals. Every single means of measuring wear has it's pros and pitfals; not one method is perfect. When you can get two methods to comfirm the same resultant conclusion, that's as good as most any "expert" needs it to be.
If there are a few simple take aways from this topic, they would be these:
Shorter OCIs are not proven to reduce wear rates; though they are not "harmful" in a truly meaning manner.
Longer OCIs are indeed proven to reduce wear rates; obviously not the risk people perceive them to be.
If you're changing oil anywhere from 3k to 15k miles, it's "good enough" that the engine is not at risk. If you're chaning it towards the shorter end, and you feel good about that, well that's just fine. If you tend to the longer end, that's OK to. Anything in that range is going to be good enough for the engine.
- Status
