GC+LC+FP 5k km '04 Suzuki Aerio

yugrus · Feb 28, 2005

2.3L 155HP engine, Amsoil oil filter, stock paper air filter, 4.5qt oil sump capacity. LC went in at the beginning of the last OCI, 6 oz, then 6oz @ 1000mi, then 2 oz @2000 mi. I use FP in every tank @ 1oz/5Gal.
60/40% highway/city, stock block heating in the morning to 35C coolant temperature, so only one "cold" start a day.

I'm tied to 3k miles OCI by my warranty requirements. But anyway I decided to run UOA for two consecutive OCIs for GC with and without LC.

From what I've learned at BITOG I can see no evidence that LC provided any direct and measurable benefit that could be shown in UOA. I do realize that UOA is not supposed to deliver sufficient data for each and every comparison test, but I was hoping on some indirect indications...

Although the numbers are pretty low, the sample with LC shows relatively higher metals. Could be the lab variations, for sure.
Sodium might come from our salty roads.

Oxidation, sulfation & nitration seem to have some different base reference point at this lab (Wearcheck Canada in Mississauga).

code:

GC+LC GC

Unit Age 35000k 30200k

Time on Fluid 5000k 5000k

Time on Filter 5000k 5000k

Fluid Maint. Changed Changed

Filter Maint. Changed Changed

Iron (Fe) 3.2 3.4

Chromium (Cr) 0.2 0.1

Nickel (Ni) 0 0

Titanium (Ti) 0.1 0.1

Silver (Ag) 0.3 0.3

Aluminum (Al) 2.1 1.7

Lead (Pb) 1 0.1

Copper (Cu) 4.2 3.8

Tin (Sn) 0 0

Silicon (Si) 5.5 5.7

Sodium (Na) 1.8 0.6

Potassium (K) 0.6 0

Boron (B) 3.3 5.4

Barium (Ba) 0.2 0.2

Molybdenum (Mo)0.7 2.1

Magnesium (Mg) 119 117

Calcium (Ca) 2771 3010

Phosphorus (P) 733 771

Zinc (Zn) 874 891

Sulfur (S) 2846 2654

Manganese (Mn) 1.3 1.6

Vanadium (V) 0.1 0

Oxidation(PA) 50 53

Nitratrion(PA) 36 36

Sulfation(PA) 38 49

Kv@100°C 12.1 12.4

White Metal NONE NONE

Babbitt NONE NONE

Precipitate NONE NONE

Silt NONE NONE

Debris NONE NONE

Dirt NONE NONE

Appearance NORML NORML

Odor NORML NORML

H2O(Emul) NEG NEG

H2O(Free) NEG NEG

novadude · Feb 28, 2005

Interesting... I'm anxious to see what the LC proponents say about this.

ediamiam · Feb 28, 2005

3k miles OCI on GC is probably a waste of the product. For those 3k OCI, any dino should be sufficient. I don't think you realize any major benefit by using LC until you go with the higher OCI as it should extend the ability to go with the higher OCI, if I understand how LC is suppose to be used.

goodvibes · Feb 28, 2005

Thre's a couple of things that may have caused the additional wear that we wouldn't mormally see with LC. One is that you used an additional 6 oz at 1k, That's going to thin the mix more than usual and also diluting the adds more than intended. I don't think this is a big problem but you never know. The other may be more significant. This OCI is from the coldest part of the year and in Canada no less. When don't we show more wear in winter?

yugrus · Feb 28, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by goodvibes:
...you used an additional 6 oz at 1k..

It was my mistake, although I was assured by Jeff from LCD that this was fine.
The oil has seen the same temperature extremes ( about -20C) for about the same duration during both intervals. My driving style is very moderate and my pattern has not changed. The car goes 40km one way twice a day, every day except some weekends.
What are the "low" and "acceptable" levels for Pb, Cu, Al and Fe anyway?

Al · Feb 28, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by yugrus:
.
What are the "low" and "acceptable" levels for Pb, Cu, Al and Fe anyway?

In general your values are quite low. I assume the LC loosened up some stuff.

But you a re throwing away money with these short OCI's...but that's what we do here.

Does anyone still doubt that GC is the best oil on the planet??

yugrus · Feb 28, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by ediamiam:
3k miles OCI on GC is probably a waste of the product.

I completely agree. Although I can afford it and this is a sort of a fetish- to baby my car the best I can...

quote:

Originally posted by ediamiam:

I don't think you realize any major benefit by using LC until you go with the higher OCI as it should extend the ability to go with the higher OCI, if I understand how LC is suppose to be used.

So do we assume that LC in fact does provide some measurable benefits that could be seen in UOA, but not until later into OCI? So had I continued with the same oil + LC it would provide better wear results then without LC even though "initial" numbers were worse?

yugrus · Feb 28, 2005

quote:

But you a re throwing away money with these short OCI's...but that's what we do here.

That is so true.

quote:

I assume the LC loosened up some stuff.

I doubt there was any of the "stuff" in the first place, the engine has been on M1 5w30 from 0 to 30k km. Then GC. 5k km OCI.

quote:

Does anyone still doubt that GC is the best oil on the planet??.

As far as I can see we all do, that's why we need to confirm something to ourselves over and over again.

But what would be the good wear metals numbers per 1000mi or km?

Bio-T · Feb 28, 2005

I may be missing something, but the iron in virgin GC reads higher that your used oil. Your wear is almost 0 in this report.

Now look at the Phos, Zinc, Calcium, Boron and a few other additives. They changed by whole numbers, and you are worried about decimal point differences in wear. Called Lab Tolerances. Oil analysis is not a decimal point accurate report for $10 bucks.

Don't flame me for my opinion, just use a bigger hammer.

Bryanccfshr · Mar 1, 2005

I have to agree with Vetteman. You are stressing over a decimal point or 1 or two numbers when the measurement is in parts per million!
I am surprised the lab reports came out as close as they did. But the differentces are insignificant.
This oil isn't even properly seasoned at 3k miles. You aren't going to see any benefit to the antioxidants in LC until after the GC would start showing some oxidation, in other words your going to have to push it alot further than what you are doing to see any significant difference. Excellent results in both samples btw.

yugrus · Mar 1, 2005

quote:

I may be missing something, but the iron in virgin GC reads higher that your used oil. Your wear is almost 0 in this report.

I guess you refer to the older GC batches VOA. I used 042 batch during both runs.
I do accept lab tolerances no problem. What I kinda expected to see was some indication that something was going really better with LC...

I will use LC anyway and I will take a couple more samples with M1 in summer.

yugrus · Mar 1, 2005

quote:

I may be missing something, but the iron in virgin GC reads higher that your used oil. Your wear is almost 0 in this report.

I guess you refer to the older GC batches VOA. I used 042 batch during both runs.
I do accept lab tolerances no problem. What I kinda expected to see was some indication that something was going really better with LC...

I will use LC anyway (or should I?) and I will take a couple more samples with M1 in summer.

ediamiam · Mar 1, 2005

Consider also using LC to minimize oxidation in your power steering fluid and auto transmission fluid if you are not already doing that.

yugrus · Mar 1, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by ediamiam:
Consider also using LC to minimize oxidation in your power steering fluid and auto transmission fluid if you are not already doing that.

You bet I'm doing that as well

deepsquat · Mar 1, 2005

I'm tied to 3k miles OCI by my warranty requirements. But anyway I decided to run UOA for two consecutive OCIs for GC with and without LC

I bet that you are not... cant't think of one manufacturer that requires 3000 mile change intervales ...more along the line of 5000-7500 3000 is for severe driving conditions ..your analysis proves that is not the case ( for your warranty)

yugrus · Mar 1, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by deepsquat:
I bet that you are not... cant't think of one manufacturer that requires 3000 mile change intervales

Well, like I said, I have an explicit schedule for Canadian driving condition. It states 5,000 km no matter what driving conditions are. I guess it was imposed by Suzuki Canada. The other (universal) manual, besides 5k km severe service, gives an option of 12,500km under the "normal" conditions.

goodvibes · Mar 1, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by 59 Vetteman:
I may be missing something, but the iron in virgin GC reads higher that your used oil. Your wear is almost 0 in this report.

Now look at the Phos, Zinc, Calcium, Boron and a few other additives. They changed by whole numbers, and you are worried about decimal point differences in wear. Called Lab Tolerances. Oil analysis is not a decimal point accurate report for $10 bucks.
Don't flame me for my opinion, just use a bigger hammer.

The extra boron is probably left over from M1 and the lower #s in the second OCI could be from that extra LC diluting the mix more than usual. It's possible that the lab got it right.

trooper99 · Mar 1, 2005

I keep reading about GC all over this board, but when I look at the bottles in the store, they all say 'Made in the USA from imported stock...'. How does one tell if it is GC?

BlazerLT · Mar 1, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by Bryanccfshr:
I have to agree with Vetteman. You are stressing over a decimal point or 1 or two numbers when the measurement is in parts per million!
I am surprised the lab reports came out as close as they did. But the differentces are insignificant.
This oil isn't even properly seasoned at 3k miles. You aren't going to see any benefit to the antioxidants in LC until after the GC would start showing some oxidation, in other words your going to have to push it alot further than what you are doing to see any significant difference. Excellent results in both samples btw.

True, but it didn't make the oil any better either.

Hance, it seems to be a waste to use it in the first place.

rugerman1 · Mar 1, 2005

BlazerLT ,
Please send me your address.I might as well send you $20 instead of sending it to Terry to read my analysis results.

GC+LC+FP 5k km '04 Suzuki Aerio

Similar threads