Further observations on syn vs. dino

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

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'y have it both ways.

---

The main reason for a used oil analysis ..as an integral tool for anyone ..industrial ..commercial ...whatever ...

IS NOT FOR WEAR. It is for "suitablility for continued use" (visc, tbn, insolubles, oxidation, nitration, TAN, etc.) and to point to potential pending issues (coolant, etc.)

That doesn't mean that you won't attempt to minimise wear metal indicators based on the inferential data.

used oil analysis is a tough deal for most of us. It is far easier for the commercial/industrial user who has ONE spec'd oil and one assumed service duty. They don't have any control over wear ...so the only thing that used oil analysis tells them is how the oil did. They don't have 72 different choices for their engines (Mack/Volvo spec xxxyyyzzzJB2, Ingersol spec 302-AB23 spec ..etc.)

That being said ....surely if you see 24 ppm with one oil over 12 ppm with another in like service ..you're going to go with the one that shows the lower number(s). It can be anything from a change in viscosity ..or a change in viscosity within a given viscosity range ..or "it's a "thicker" 30 weight" (visions of Hudson as he responded to Hicks in Aliens when Hicks said "Man, it's hot a h-ll in here!" ...."Yeah man, but it's a dry heat!" as they entered the steamy reactor building) ..or merely a change from one additive pack over another. We have no way of determining where in the engine the higher metals are coming from ..or why. We don't know whether it is, in the case of bearings, one bearing ..all bearings ..or half the bearings

. We don't know if the Fe is from the cylinder/ring wear ..or, if so fitted, the timing chain.

We've had debate after debate over used oil analysis with the fundamental question being "doe it measure wear?" We can't say that it measures it ..but it surely has some relationship to it ..and we tend to react to it in the belief that less is better.

 

[T-Stick]

Gary,
I understand your point ... but I think my contention is still valid -- that less is better no matter what.


I also am doing a 10k Mobil 1 Extended Performance run right now on the truck. Will need a bit of time yet for results. It will be an interesting comparison.

BTW folks, I don't usually have so much time ... its raining today ... and I am at home. I must leave this discussion to you folks for a while. I enjoyed the debate!!!

 

[Pablo]

Come on guys - we are better than this - just dropping hand selected UOA bombs and screaming "better oil" or "worse oil" is not only a bit ignorant, it just isn't logocal.

 

[T-Stick]

Pablo,
I tried to be fair. If you can find better info, be my guest. Anyway whose screaming?

 

[Winston]

quote:

---

"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."
----------------------------------------------
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????

---

Ummm. My point was that using a used oil analysis for determining oil change intervals is accepted practice. That is different than using ppm of wear metals to show which oil produces less wear.

 

[ekpolk]

Winston, you hit the nail on the head. Many folks are not grasping at all the fundamental difference in using UOA on one engine to make decisions about that engine versus using a scattering of UOA to make global assertions about oils in general. I'm amazed that this concept is not sinking in with some. . .

 

[Pablo]

Amen ekpolk.

T-stick - Actually it would be cool to have better data. I didn't say you weren't being fair. It's fair enough to say "wow - that looks like a great UOA".....it loses it's edge when anyone on either side says "look at these 3 used oil analysis that I selected vs. these 7 that I selected" and make some grandiose declaration. The thought truly nauseates me, really - being a professional statistics type/QE weinie........

 

[T-Stick]

I have stated repeatedly that I recognize that there is no equal relationship between metal numbers and metal wear, so that point is understood and moot.
However to act like there is no relationship at all is absurd, when it is, and we all know it. The higher the numbers the more likelihood of greater wear. This EXACTLY what a lab will infer by the numbers.

Note Blackstone's comments -- "Wear read normally and shows little changed from the first sample. Nice wearing Honda!" on this link: http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001594

Some are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to discount the numbers entirely as a wear indicator!

 

[Gary Allan]

I'm with Winston here. Everyone who truly uses used oil analysis for commercial/industrial work will confirm it. The OIL is what's being tested for continued use. The metal testing falls secondary to it. It will give you reason to do further investigation into the operational aspects of the engine (air filtration .etc).

This is why engine manufacturers will allow extended drains if a used oil analysis program is used. It only needs to assure them that the oil is doing its job and is within spec (visc, flashpoint, fuel, soot level, etc.)

The oil selection is then based on cosumption ..price ..service ..etc.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Stick:
I have stated repeatedly that I recognize that there is no equal relationship between metal numbers and metal wear, so that point is understood and moot.
However to act like there is no relationship at all is absurd, when it is, and we all know it. The higher the numbers the more likelihood of greater wear. This EXACTLY what a lab will infer by the numbers.

Note Blackstone's comments -- "Wear read normally and shows little changed from the first sample. Nice wearing Honda!" on this link: http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001594

Some are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to discount the numbers entirely as a wear indicator!

---

No we're not. You're still missing the point. What you say is partly correct, and only so as to the individual vehicle involved, and only so long as the conditions remain similar. That Honda may be nice wearing, and it may be nice wearing with conventional oil used, but until you do controlled studies with multiple vehicles to the point tht you have developed a sufficiently large set of comparable samples, you just can't validly extend your conclusions out to the population at large (i.e. make sweeping general conclusions). Respectfully recommend you take a statistics class some time. The "I just know it's this way or that" thing simply does not cut it. Certainly, you're entitled to your opinions, but you need to keep straight the boundary between proven fact and cherished opinion.

 

[serious II.5]

Would it be fair to say , then, that synthetic oils have a more beneficial effect on your peace of mind than on your engine?

 

[fuel tanker man]

"That Honda may be nice wearing, and it may be nice wearing with conventional oil used, but until you do controlled studies with multiple vehicles to the point tht you have developed a sufficiently large set of comparable samples, you just can't validly extend your conclusions out to the population at large (i.e. make sweeping general conclusions)."

That is basically a true statement. Consumer reports did just that a while back. They ran oil in NYC taxi cabs and found--after ACTUAL ENGINE TEARDOWNS AND MICROMETER MEASUREMENTS--that syns had no wear prevention advantages over conventionals.

http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

The link is above. The study is nearly ten years old--done at a time when the presumed quality spread between conventionals and syns was greater than it is now.

T-Stick. You're a very logical and analytical thinker.

Dan

 

[buster]

Spoke with a guy from Schaeffer's today. I called them bc they use Group II and PAO blends. Basically it's cost. For 99% of most drivers, you won't need a synthetic oil. In arctic conditions and high load/high rpm racing, Synthetics will clearly outperform conventional oils.

*This really isn't an issue I'm surprised it's gone on this far. Ask a NASCAR team if they would use a conventional oil in a 850HP car running at 10k rpms. Oh, and engine protection is the #1 concern. Those who say othewise are clueless.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuel tanker man:
{snip}That is basically a true statement. Consumer reports did just that a while back. They ran oil in NYC taxi cabs and found--after ACTUAL ENGINE TEARDOWNS AND MICROMETER MEASUREMENTS--that syns had no wear prevention advantages over conventionals.

http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

The link is above. The study is nearly ten years old--done at a time when the presumed quality spread between conventionals and syns was greater than it is now.
{snip}

---

That notorious CR study has been debunked many places over the years, including here at BITOG. Look at what they did to reach their conclusion. They test 17 conventional oils in two grades (5w30 and 10w30), and one syn M1 in 10w30 and one blend, also a 10w30. It really would have been nice (and fair and balanced) if they had tested, for example 10 conventionals and 10 syns. OK, maybe you can get past this.

Also note that they ran the oils to only 6,000 miles. I think the results might have been a lot more interesting if they ran to 12k, the number they declared dangerous (why I don't know, they had no data at all to support that judgment). Or if they ran to 6k, but in pattern that matches the use of a private citizen.

But perhaps the silliest thing about the study is their assumption that the service involved would permit the average consumer to extend the results to their cars. These were taxis. They often run all day. They are subjected to far fewer starts per OCI than a normal car would be. Likewise, they don't endure the number of cold-hot-cold cycles a "civilian" car does. And a taxi is virtually never going to be put away "wet." On the other hand, they likely endure a lot more idling than a private car, which it probably an increased stressor. But all this points to one thing: that data is useful for taxi fleet operators who run short-ish OCIs. I'd really like to see a similar (but more balanced) study done with real people using cars in a more typical fashion.

The study also contains this gem: "The bottom line. Modern motor oils needn't be changed as often as oils did years ago. More frequent oil changes won't hurt your car, but you could be spending money unnecessarily and adding to the nation's energy and oil-disposal problems." Maybe I'm spending a premium on my synthetics, but you're surely adding to our nation's tragic excess waste oil problem!

 

[fuel tanker man]

I think the Consumer Reports study is notorious only to the syn gurus.

I think the study proves that dinos wear just like syns at least up to 6000 miles--which of course, is the topic.

Dan

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuel tanker man:
I think the Consumer Reports study is notorious only to the syn gurus.

I think the study proves that dinos wear just like syns at least up to 6000 miles--which of course, is the topic.

Dan

---

Again, one syn in one grade. Seventeen dinos. I see an agenda there (yours...

), not a real scientific study at all. And fer cryin' out loud, it's a Consumer Reports study. Gee, they've never shown any tendency to be biased, have they???

Rejected. Easily.

 

[T-Stick]

quote:

---

You're still missing the point. What you say is partly correct, and only so as to the individual vehicle involved, and only so long as the conditions remain similar. That Honda may be nice wearing, and it may be nice wearing with conventional oil used, but until you do controlled studies with multiple vehicles to the point tht you have developed a sufficiently large set of comparable samples, you just can't validly extend your conclusions out to the population at large (i.e. make sweeping general conclusions). Respectfully recommend you take a statistics class some time. The "I just know it's this way or that" thing simply does not cut it. Certainly, you're entitled to your opinions, but you need to keep straight the boundary between proven fact and cherished opinion.

---

I think it would help if you carefully read the context in which the statements are made. The example of the Honda was given to prove one thing -- that metal numbers are used by labs as wear indicators. You would make metal numbers to appear ambiguous, as that is the only way you can support your "unsupportable" proposition. It just so happens that if I must choose between your opinion and theirs, I will go with a professionals'.

Secondly, the examples I gave for comparitive used oil analysis were from 3.4L Tacomas (NOT THE HONDA), and are taken from the same vehicle, same engine, and same approximate mileage. There is a standard of consistency here. You simply cannot prove your counter points with real data so you focus on meticulous variables in order to discard the obvious -- that is to those who can look at this objectively outside their business or personal preferences.
I have given real world data to support my premise. Where is your real world data to either disprove it, or prove your contrary position?

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Stick:
I think it would help if you carefully read the context in which the statements are made. The example of the Honda was given to prove one thing -- that metal numbers are used by labs as wear indicators. You would make metal numbers to appear ambiguous, as that is the only way you can support your "unsupportable" proposition. It just so happens that if I must choose between your opinion and theirs, I will go with a professionals'.

Secondly, the examples I gave for comparitive used oil analysis were from 3.4L Tacomas (NOT THE HONDA), and are taken from the same vehicle, same engine, and same approximate mileage. There is a standard of consistency here. You simply cannot prove your counter points with real data so you focus on meticulous variables in order to discard the obvious -- that is to those who can look at this objectively outside their business or personal preferences.
I have given real world data to support my premise. Where is your real world data to either disprove it, or prove your contrary position?

---

At least you started the thread with the reasonable premise that the things you stated were your opinions.

It is you who needs to read carefully (and take a stats class). I absolutely did NOT state that metal in oil is not an indicator of wear, nor did I say that labs don't use metal as a wear indicator. What I HAVE been saying is that you have to use those readings properly, and that would not include extending to overbroad conclusions that simply are not supported by the data.

By all means, please do listen to the professionals. I've hired one myself (Dyson) and he's a great source of info. I've learned much listening to what he says, and refrains from saying.

Speaking of data, and playing your game for a moment, I guess you missed my recent Toyota Sequoia used oil analysis, 10k miles, one year, engine and oil still going strong. And no escaping from that 20k mile Porsche; call it neglect if you too want to, I call it Porsche's spec-ed OCI. Where are companion dino used oil analysis, BTW? Not there, of course. And how about that 280+k mile VW VR6 (OK, it did its first 90k miles on dino). It is you who are still trying to reach conclusions that with available data, fail hopelessly by any accepted scientific or statistical standards. So no, you don't have "real world data", you have a collection of anecdcotes which you're trying to artificially boost into being more than they really are.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by serious II.5:
Would it be fair to say , then, that synthetic oils have a more beneficial effect on your peace of mind than on your engine?

---

No, it wouldn't. Go to the used oil analysis section. Search on "Cayenne". Review the 20,000 mile OCI Porsche results. Compared to what a dino would have done under the circumstances, the syn did a whole lot more than provide just peace of mind.

If you don't agree, I respectfully challenge you to run any dino of your choice in your engine to 20k miles. Please let us know how it turns out. . .

 

[nickmckinney]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
If you don't agree, I respectfully challenge you to run any dino of your choice in your engine to 20k miles. Please let us know how it turns out. . .

---

OK - SYNTHETIC LASTS AS LONG AS IT STAYS CLEAN - WE HAVE HEARD THIS OVER AND OVER ALREADY - GET OFF THIS SIDETRACK ALREADY!!!!!!!

Now can we please debate the question, does synthetic cause the same, less, or more wear up to 5K of use? Because 99.9% of the motoring public would laugh at a $20 used oil analysis over a $15 Jiffy Lube change.

Shoot 99.999% don't even know what a used oil analysis is