Further observations on syn vs. dino

ekpolk · Oct 12, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by T-Stick:
In regards to start-up wear, the principle is certainly valid; but there is no data here which suggests it occurs in our normal USA climate in excess of synthetic oil wear. In fact the evidence appears to the contrary in the used oil analysis.

{snip}

You've got to be careful on the startup question, going either way. Regardless of the oil type used, the filter is performing a leveling function, pulling out pretty much all the debris above its filtering threshold. Oil A might be allowing a lot more wear on startup than Oil B, but a good filter may mask that difference. A lot of good data gets thrown away with our filters -- how many of us can afford a micro tear-down of the filter on top of a normal UOA???

=======================================

quote:

Originally posted by T-Stick:
{snip}1. There are a number of used oil analysis here above 5k where there were problems. I would not want to drive an additional 10-15k when I had a problem developing at 5k even if it was to establish an initial baseline for testing.
{snip}

We can all easily agree that an engine with a problem that might be aggravated by extended oil use should be run on short intervals. I'd hate to have a syn-only 'vette that fell into that category. . .

=====================================

quote:

Originally posted by T-Stick:
{snip}3. The main issue with extended OCIs is not the TBN i.e. integrity of the oil; but rather the unavoidable accumulation of fine particulates.

There is less risk involved when running dino with 5k OCI than running synthetic to 10-20k. I believe that "normally" freshly installed dino at 5k will show less wear on an engine than synthetic with 5k worth of contaminants, during the next 5k, especially when the synthetic cannot show better wear in the first 5k. With extended OCIs there is always more contamination, hence always more risk.
{snip}

I happen to be one of the few BITOG members who has actually run used oil analysis with particle counts. At least in my vehicles and up to 10k miles, this just is not proving to be a big factor. In fact, even at 10k miles, while using a Mobil 1 filter (which advertises especially fine filtration), I've had almost insignificant particle accumulation at sizes over 5 microns, where damage might really become an issue.

Now unlike some other members, I will decline to extend my limited experience to a global conclusion that particle accumulation will never be an issue for anyone. I just can't tell -- yet anyway. But for me, with my 10k oil still clean enough to pass as airline hydraulic fluid, I'm just not too concerned about particle build-up for the moderate "extended" drains which I am using with syn oils. Assuming my numbers are linear (or close to it), I don't see this risk rising significantly until well beyond when I plan to dump my synthetics anyway.

T-Stick · Oct 12, 2005

"1) PPMwm (synthetic base) = PPMwm (petroleum base)

Let's a call this the null hypothesis (and you can also make one that says they aren't equal)

I will assume 1 is true. Again no analysis has been presented and scrutinized, but we will assume it's true."

______________________________________________

Don't you think that testing labs take any possible differences in base stock into consideration when formulating their criteria and results?
On the other hand, if there is a legitimate testing criteia differential, then there would also be an inability to determine anything specifically from the lab results without knowing the correlating equations. I have never seen one UOA attempted to be interpreted here in this ambiguous way, nor do the labs even insinuate that they should.
In the context of this debate, this reasoning is suspect.

ekpolk · Oct 12, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by T-Stick:
It is understood that metal numbers do not necessarily always equate to wear numbers. But it is unreasonable to assume that they have no substantial correlation, when that is in fact what they are designed to indicate. No matter how this is explained, if synthetics tend to show higher metal numbers, it is most likely a reliable indicator of either higher wear or higher contamination, neither of which are normally a good thing.

By you, yes, thank you. The problem is that we have no basis at all here upon which to assess the degree of correlation. That's my point in this regard. It has been suggested that what are characterized as "wear metals" without any qualification of the adjective used, are some definitive proof of the comparative qualities of dinos and syns. I disagree that anyone can make such conclusive judgments. And as you suggest, contamination is bad. But it needs to be nailed down and isolated before the other part of the number -- that from wear -- can be properly evaluated.

T-Stick · Oct 12, 2005

"You've got to be careful on the startup question, going either way. Regardless of the oil type used, the filter is performing a leveling function, pulling out pretty much all the debris above its filtering threshold. Oil A might be allowing a lot more wear on startup than Oil B, but a good filter may mask that difference. A lot of good data gets thrown away with our filters -- how many of us can afford a micro tear-down of the filter on top of a normal UOA???"

_____________________________________________

I agree with you on the filter variable. It is unlikely though, that the filters would all be stacked against synthetics, when synthetic users will typically run the higher quality filters.

In regards to particles, it my understanding that a full flow filter cannot remove all harmful particulates -- hence the bypass filter on extended drains. In addition you still have the possibilities of contaminant issues.

farrarfan1 · Oct 12, 2005

Last year I purchased a Chrysler Concorde, totally unaware of the sludge problem with the 2.7L engine.After what I learned on this site and another one dedicated to Chrysler owners I got rid of it this year by trading it in on a Chevy Uplander van, partly because I didn't want to deal with a possible sludge issue down the road but my wife, the primary driver, didn't like the Concorde all that well. After getting the Uplander I started thinking that since the 3.5L V-6 engine is a relatively new design what assurance do I have that it might not be a sludge producer in the future? I feel better with Mobil 1 in it just in case it has an issue years from now.Probably overkill, but how many of the Chrysler owners bought those cars thinking they where getting a troublefree engine when they purchased them only to be plagued with problems after a few years?

T-Stick · Oct 12, 2005

Though the "degree of correlation" between wear metals and wear numbers is unknown, yet the presence of high wear metals is still a negative indicator, still making the data point toward dino in a positive light.

jsharp · Oct 12, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by T-Stick:
In regards to start-up wear, the principle is certainly valid; but there is no data here which suggests it occurs in our normal USA climate in excess of synthetic oil wear. In fact the evidence appears to the contrary in the used oil analysis.

In regards to explaining going above 5k being risky:
1. There are a number of used oil analysis here above 5k where there were problems. I would not want to drive an additional 10-15k when I had a problem developing at 5k even if it was to establish an initial baseline for testing.

2. Any initially sound vehicle can easily develop minor problems within a 10-20k range which may not be detected because a number of used oil analysis were already done and everything was OK.
These issues may be non-issues at 5k OCIs, but can become serious detriments with extended OCIs.

3. The main issue with extended OCIs is not the TBN i.e. integrity of the oil; but rather the unavoidable accumulation of fine particulates.

There is less risk involved when running dino with 5k OCI than running synthetic to 10-20k. I believe that "normally" freshly installed dino at 5k will show less wear on an engine than synthetic with 5k worth of contaminants, during the next 5k, especially when the synthetic cannot show better wear in the first 5k. With extended OCIs there is always more contamination, hence always more risk.

I found it interesting when a technician of an oil analysis lab told me in a private e-mail that their records indicate a history of better protection on the average with dino over synthetic in most engines. In the strict scientific sense, this not empirical data -- obtained in a controlled environment under identical repeatable testing; but it certainly is evidence from which general conclusions may be safely drawn by a technician in this field.

You've actually made a better case here for more frequent used oil analysis than for more frequent changes or any particular type of oil...

Gary Allan · Oct 12, 2005

quote:

In regards to start-up wear, the principle is certainly valid; but there is no data here which suggests it occurs in our normal USA climate in excess of synthetic oil wear. In fact the evidence appears to the contrary in the used oil analysis.

Although some subscribe to that belief ..I'm not one of them (qualified assertion in terms of "normal"). This cannot discount the advantage of a snyth in energy consumption during that event (warm up). A dino can't even compete in the same league. Nope. Not a chance. Now the 'realized' impact of that advantage will vary (YMMV)...but it is an undeniable advantage.

If you've got some special way of differentiating "start up wear" from the static numbers displayed in a used oil analysis ..please ..let us know how you do this. I think some members of the SAE would be interested too. ;^)

quote:

In regards to explaining going above 5k being risky:
1. There are a number of used oil analysis here above 5k where there were problems. I would not want to drive an additional 10-15k when I had a problem developing at 5k even if it was to establish an initial baseline for testing.

If you're saying that someone detects a problem at 10-15k of an OCI ..that they may have detected it sooner with a 5k oci/uoa ...sure ..no brainer there. I would first take exception to your extreme bias in terms of "well, a .0002/per foot is a much bigger problem when you project the error out to 2.5 million feet" ..there is a broad span of mileages between 5k and 15k-20k. You're going to the extreme that only a very few do ..even with excellent used oil analysis. There are no assurances of catching any problem of any magnetude at any point where it will benefit you. You can just as easily have a severe head gasket leak within the 1st mile of your 5k OCI or at the last of your 5001 - 19,999 mile OCI.

Now that being said, anyone doing extended OCIs should surely follow the guidelines of what the techs (or other experts) say. "Universal averages for your vehicle are based on 3600 miles. Your oil was in a much longer time. You may consider trying 7,000 miles before your next testing".

quote:

2. Any initially sound vehicle can easily develop minor problems within a 10-20k range which may not be detected because a number of used oil analysis were already done and everything was OK.
These issues may be non-issues at 5k OCIs, but can become serious detriments with extended OCIs.

See above. Also the use of extended drains is a choice. Also keep in mind the preponderance of evidence that your 'fears' are unfounded according to the fast majority of engine manufacturers. They have done their risk analysis and have determined (in the absense of any "design flaw") that (for many) 7.5k is an OCI that provides full utility of the engine over the expected life of the vehicle and will result in no appreciable loss of value to the consumer over that life cycle (where everything else is due to be "retired"). I don't see any "weight" to the "over 5k is risky" assertion ..beyond all of life involves risk. You can also do daily OCIs where you exchange one risk for another. You risk missing one step in such a routine event and causing catostophic failure because of it

quote:

3. The main issue with extended OCIs is not the TBN i.e. integrity of the oil; but rather the unavoidable accumulation of fine particulates.

I would assert that people smarter than us have determined that this isn't a major factor in the life cycle of an engine. It falls along my "vitamin therapy" thingy. Sure, less is better ..but it probably has little impact on the usable life of an engine ..and is secondary to how the oil is providing adaquate lubrication (visc, TBN, etc.). There is surely a relationship between filtration and particle suspension/precipitation/production ..but, so far, it is undefined.

ekpolk · Oct 13, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by T-Stick:
{snip}In regards to particles, it my understanding that a full flow filter cannot remove all harmful particulates -- hence the bypass filter on extended drains. In addition you still have the possibilities of contaminant issues.

You have to consider particle size range and engine clearance size. Since the tightest clearances in a normal engine are in the low single micron range, only the particles above that size have the potential to do physical harm to the engine (as they crash through clearances smaller than they are). To clarify, what I've seen in my own UOA is particle counts dropping to very low levels as the sizes increase to the damaging-causing range, non-existent particles above 10-15 microns. Again, these figures, interpreted by Terry Dyson, have left me very comfortable with my usage pattern.

As to contamination, if you're referring to substances other than the particles, perhaps so. This is why I do periodic monitoring UOA and keep on top of other maintenance. On the other hand, unless it's a rare true slow-onset problem, its like people and death -- when it's your time, it's your time, and the difference between long and short OCI probably won't have much effect on whether or not you catch a sudden-death type problem.

T-Stick · Oct 13, 2005

quote:

If you've got some special way of differentiating "start up wear" from the static numbers displayed in a used oil analysis ..please ..let us know how you do this. I think some members of the SAE would be interested too. ;^)

No special way, just saying the wear numbers are not higher so any difference in start-up must be off-set by less wear later, making the advantage for most climates a non-issue.

quote:

You can just as easily have a severe head gasket leak within the 1st mile of your 5k OCI or at the last of your 5001 - 19,999 mile OCI.

That is obvious. The point was that insoluble levels which may be inconsequential at 5k can be dangerous at 15k. I don't think its reasonable to do an analysis at each 5k.

quote:

They have done their risk analysis and have determined (in the absense of any "design flaw") that (for many) 7.5k is an OCI that provides full utility of the engine over the expected life of the vehicle and will result in no appreciable loss of value to the consumer over that life cycle (where everything else is due to be "retired"). I don't see any "weight" to the "over 5k is risky" assertion ..beyond all of life involves risk.

I agree that 7.5k OCI are engineered (mostly on the basis of dino usage), but simply stuck with the 5k for an insurance factor (as most here would with dino). Your point here, though true, adds nothing either way in the dino/syn debate.

quote:

I would assert that people smarter than us have determined that this isn't a major factor in the life cycle of an engine. It falls along my "vitamin therapy" thingy. Sure, less is better ..but it probably has little impact on the usable life of an engine ..and is secondary to how the oil is providing adaquate lubrication (visc, TBN, etc.). There is surely a relationship between filtration and particle suspension/precipitation/production ..but, so far, it is undefined.

My point is not that TBN is not important, for it is essential to extended drains. My point was that even a good TBN does not eliminate the contaminants/particulates factor, which is why we use additional by-pass filters in the first place. You cannot deny that there is a build-up over time, and that such a build-up is at least potentially detrimental, whether or not it is fully defined. Aye?

Gary Allan · Oct 13, 2005

quote:

quote: If you've got some special way of differentiating "start up wear" from the static numbers displayed in a used oil analysis ..please ..let us know how you do this. I think some members of the SAE would be interested too. ;^)

No special way, just saying the wear numbers are not higher so any difference in start-up must be off-set by less wear later, making the advantage for most climates a non-issue.

Agreed.. in terms of the one dimensional aspect of "wear" as long as it is indexed for "normal". As I stated, there are other aspects of synthetics that dinos cannot compete with.

quote:

I agree that 7.5k OCI are engineered (mostly on the basis of dino usage), but simply stuck with the 5k for an insurance factor (as most here would with dino). Your point here, though true, adds nothing either way in the dino/syn debate.

So ..the assignation of 5k is arbitrary and has nothing to add to the debate either?

That is, if the recommended OCI was 10k ..7.5k would be an acceptable insurance factor if dino was spec'd? The accumlualations would be just as detuned in importance and severity? Can you convert that for me (bear with me here) to an extended OCI that requires a synthetic with very narrow spec's ...and plug a dino into use? If not, why not? What insurance factor would be adaquate? .5 .. .75 .. .25?? ..and would you still use an insurance factor with a spec'd oil (in this case a mandated synthetic). Move that on to a (assumed) "I wouldn't do that" ..then what would be the conversion factor for "peace of mind" 25% ..30% ..50%??

[ October 13, 2005, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]

T-Stick · Oct 13, 2005

First of all a general comment:
I find it interesting to note that synthetic proponents would rely upon a used oil analysis for the basis of an extended drain interval, when they have vigorously objected to drawing any specific performance conclusions from that "ambiguous data base."

quote:

As I stated, there are other aspects of synthetics that dinos cannot compete with.

I think they were already identified and discussed.

quote:

So ..the assignation of 5k is arbitrary and has nothing to add to the debate either?

That is, if the recommended OCI was 10k ..7.5k would be an acceptable insurance factor if dino was spec'd? The accumlualations would be just as detuned in importance and severity? Can you convert that for me (bear with me here) to an extended OCI that requires a synthetic with very narrow spec's ...and plug a dino into use? If not, why not? What insurance factor would be adaquate? .5 .. .75 .. .25?? ..and would you still use an insurance factor with a spec'd oil (in this case a mandated synthetic). Move that on to a (assumed) "I wouldn't do that" ..then what would be the conversion factor for "peace of mind" 25% ..30% ..50%?? ..or woundn't you "risk" a dino in a synthetic spec'd application?

That number is not entirely arbitrary, but based upon reviewing used oil analysis here. That is a conclusion based upon evidence with a bit of safety margin. All labs do the same with their reccomendations. It is the old adage of 3k for dino which has become arbitrary or the erroneous assumption of "one year or 25K, whichever comes first" (guess who?). These same questions could be posed to syn users, so the point is not made either way. Sorry that I confused you

.

Again, we quibble over minute variables in order to overlook the general consensus of the used oil analysis which are identified at the outset of this thread.

Gary Allan · Oct 13, 2005

Well ..my only "objection" to the use of 5k OCI/UOA as some "standard" ...is that is just about the most frequent UOA (within minor standard deviations) performed by the membership. We really don't have a very broad base of figures (at least nearly to the vast amount of 5k) in the (relatively) stratospherice realm of 7.5k and above. So we're kinda back to that wrestler and boxer deal I was babbling about there.

I would still like some statustician to compile a time weighted UOA comparison and see how it alters our view here. The ideal would be a three axis comparison over fuel usage/time/mileage. I would love to see the thread length on that debate. It would probably shatter paradigms in all camps.

Pablo · Oct 13, 2005

quote:

I find it interesting to note that synthetic proponents would rely upon a used oil analysis for the basis of an extended drain interval, when they have vigorously objected to drawing any specific performance conclusions from that "ambiguous data base."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZAATTTT!

Faulty logic alarm. First of all, a lot of so called "synthetic proponents" say look at the trend, can't judge on one, etc. Secondly you really can't compare one car with one oil vs. the universe ("ambiguous data base.") and draw deep conclusions - the same list of uncontrolled variables applies......to look a used oil analysis and say there is not apparent coolant ingress, or a bearing going south is a whole different kettle of fish than drawing broad conclusions about certain base oils.

T-Stick · Oct 13, 2005

Further I might add, if used oil analysis have so many unidentifiable and thus uninterpretable variables, then there is no real basis at all by which to guage your engine's wear during extended drain. Yet Amsoil is the first to promote the accuracy of the used oil analysis in order to justify the extended drain interval. You can't have it both ways.

Here is a used oil analysis of my Tacoma with GTX (7.3K) and Syntec Blend (5k). I would like to see synthetic used oil analysis that surpasses it in a 3.4 litre with similar mileage.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001528

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001004

________________________________________________
Compare those with these:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001552

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002937

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001407

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001193

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000957

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000670

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000815

Winston · Oct 13, 2005

quote:

I find it interesting to note that synthetic proponents would rely upon a used oil analysis for the basis of an extended drain interval, when they have vigorously objected to drawing any specific performance conclusions from that "ambiguous data base."

Oh, you must not be serious with this comment? The objection over the used oil analysis data is whether or not wear metal concentrations can determine which oil produces the most wear. The use of used oil analysis to confirm that a drain interval is acceptable is based on completely different measurements in the used oil analysis.

Edit: It looks like we were all typing at once.

Winston · Oct 13, 2005

quote:

I would still like some statustician to compile a time weighted UOA comparison and see how it alters our view here. The ideal would be a three axis comparison over fuel usage/time/mileage.

I wish we had the used oil analysis in a downloadable data format.

T-Stick · Oct 13, 2005

Pablo,
I am talking about equal engines and OCIs. See my used oil analysis links above. Don't "assume" the apples and oranges comparison. If the shoe were on the other foot the used oil analysis would be considered indisputable. So far in equal comparisons you have relied upon questioning data to sustain your position, rather than providing data to support it.

BTW, I have no ax to grind either way, as I use both.

T-Stick · Oct 13, 2005

"Oh, you must not be serious with this comment? The objection over the UOA data is whether or not wear metal concentrations can determine which oil produces the most wear. The use of UOA to confirm that a drain interval is acceptable is based on completely different measurements in the UOA."
----------------------------------------------
You cannot be serious with this rebuttal

High metal numbers are generally detrimental no matter what they are. So I would assume that you agree that syns are showing higher metal numbers, we just don't know if its a proclivity for more wear or more contaminants. Either way not good. I would prefer the low numbers myself.

Explain how high metal numbers are irrelevant to an OCI????

jsharp · Oct 13, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by T-Stick:
Further I might add, if used oil analysis have so many unidentifiable and thus uninterpretable variables, then there is no real basis at all by which to guage your engine's wear during extended drain. Yet Amsoil is the first to promote the accuracy of the used oil analysis in order to justify the extended drain interval. You can't have it both ways.

Here is a used oil analysis of my Tacoma with GTX (7.3K) and Syntec Blend (5k). I would like to see synthetic used oil analysis that surpasses it in a 3.4 litre with similar mileage.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001528

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001004

I remember these. I was looking for them last night but forgot it was a Tacoma.

You've traded out some better numbers for worse numbers in other areas if you compare them to mine using 2 kinds of synthetic -

http://home.illicom.net/users/jsharp/personalphotos/OA/Toyota_oil_anaylsis_5.jpg

Which are better and how much longer will one engine last than the other?

Further observations on syn vs. dino

Similar threads