Is there any solid scientific evidence that Mobil 1 is good for extended drains?
- Thread starter TooManyWheels
- Start date
- Status
did u or did u not ask me for links? (ans: you did)quote:
Originally posted by Terry:
QuadDriver,
Amazing that I am paid to do what you say can't be done.
Kinda like Smokey and the Bandit....
"web publishing", I read little if any tribological science on the web.
UNCLE ! ........Goodnight Chet. Goodnight David.
I have noticed a trend here, whether it be a request for evidence that UOAs dont specify wear, or if fram filters fail, when the petitioner gets what he wants, he complains.
:rhetorical question on.
Doesnt anybody deal in specifics anymore? Or just feelings and hearsay?
:rhetorical question off.
ps: what exactly are you paid to do that I said cant be done? I said UOAs cannot demonstrate, predict and or quantify wear in a motor and you agreed with me. Your exact words were: Seriously Quad I would agree that the accurate and proper interpretation of the UOA is the missing link or a computer could validate the X # of variables in a cookie cutter fashion. Did I misread that and what you are really saying is that after all these years of UOAs, there is NO ONE that can accurately and properly interpret them? If thats true then you know what that means....the data collected likely has no strong correlation.....ooooppppsss! right back to what I initially said!
QD,
Terry can slap me later for trying to tell you what I think he meant
. You are right, to a point. By itself, a UOA is incomplete. What he was saying is that interpretation of UOA results is art as well as science and what's needed is someone who is experienced and gifted enough take the UOA from numbers on paper to practical result (to true meaning). Modestly, I'm sure, he would tell you that he is one of those folks who can do that (that's why he is paid to do it)...and since a computer can do the science well, but not the art, it takes an experienced and gifted "human in the loop" to make the process work and to make it meaningful.
[ July 10, 2003, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: pscholte ]
Terry can slap me later for trying to tell you what I think he meant
[ July 10, 2003, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: pscholte ]
but therein lies the rub...and connected well to the topic of the post (scientific evidence) - the scientific methodology of trend analysis is gonna weed out strong indicators and weak ones really quickly. What do we know? we know that wear occurs regardless of oil. at some point the wear will exceed some predetermined limit and repair is needed. the rate of wear, as GM, BMW, mercedes now admit publically (with on board oil monitoring) is somewhat a constant - not really a constant, but it is consistantly proportional to engine speed and influenced by load, heat etc. the problem with UOAs since the beginning, is unless something is in the process of failing miserably, its numbers never really show a clear trend. when you get UOAs on a long drain and the 'wear metals' DECREASE from interval to interval, something is hideously broken in the process.quote:
Originally posted by pscholte:
QD,
Terry can slap me later for trying to tell you what I think he meant. You are right, to a point. By itself, a UOA is incomplete. What he was saying is that interpretation of UOA results is art as well as science and what's needed is someone who is experienced and gifted enough take the UOA from numbers on paper to practical result (to true meaning). Modestly, I'm sure, he would tell you that he is one of those folks who can do that (that's why he is paid to do it)...and since a computer can do the science well, but not the art, it takes an experienced and gifted "human in the loop" to make the process work and to make it meaningful.
take this example: there are appx 270M people in the USA. various pollsters can with a 1100-1200 person sample size, effectively predict the outcome of an election. They have their trend analysys nailed with a .000005 sample. For a UOA, 4oz is sent in, or, on a modern v8 appx 1/40th of the population is sampled (.025 or 5000 times larger sample set). Why the gross inaccuracies then? Heck this should be nailed, not only should I be able to be told when I need to rebuild, but what undersize the bearings are gonna be!!!!!!! Now do you understand?, no strong correlation. And functions of compact support or even chaos theory do not apply here, as previously shown, the wear of any motor is predictable. So mebbe u can call it an 'artform', but as I have been told, its nearly close 1/3 of the time...or...like the weather. Which I guess is the danger of using the wrong tool for the job. Like I said, the history and intent was to look for contaminants. The 'artform' of peeking at iron off the block or moving parts, lead from the bearings or silicon (nearly every lab has this horribly wrong: as hypereutectic pistons wear, silicon as well as AL is released - thus puncturing a huge hole in my confidence of their abilities) is relatively new (can u imagine if they tried to read lead counts while we still had leaded fuel????)
On a related note...how come no one is running UOAs on dino oils other than the truckers? - we know why they do it - at the end of a PM to see if fuel or coolant is in the oil - not to extend drains. My theory is that the syn oil stalwarts dont want you to see that dino oils will be just a few percentage points off of the syn oils. (and remember, I have been using syn oils for over 10 years, the exploding of the myths surrounding them does not devastate me)
We really need to look hard at what this forum is all about. Are we here to defend preconceived ideas or to enlighten one another? Most of you probably leave me in the dust in regards to practical and "technological" knowledge so, while I try to participate where I think I can add value, I do a lot of listening to what you all have to say...and right now, what I am hearing a lot of (with the exception of Terry and a few others) is "Well I think..." I don't want to know what you "think," especially if what you think is biased 'cause your an Amsoil or Mobil or Schaeffer's diehard; I want to know what you KNOW. Now if you are a diehard because of what you KNOW, I want to hear it. Does that mean we can't give educated opinions or share "war stories?" Of course not, but I think we should at least try to add more light then heat to the discussions. I look forward to what the future holds for this forum, but it surely seems like we are going through some serious growing pains right now that for me at least are adding as much confusion as they are wisdom.
Thanks for listening.
And just to give you a quick fer instance....texaco (which has a large european presense and even larger UK presence) markets only 6 oil lines in only 6 grades for autos over there: havoline 'energy' in 5-30, havoline 'premium' in 15-40, havoline 'extra' in 10-40, havoline 'diesel' in 15-40, havoline 'diesel extra' in 10-40 and lastly
havoline 'synthetic' in 5-40.
valvoline has a smaller presence, but markets more lines in more grades, but once again, most are mineral based.
all I can find on current syn oil pricing is appx $20/litre of oil, or roughly 4 times what we pay - similar to gas. Europeans have less disposable income as you recall.
FYI new BMWs use an electronic service monitor to determine when changes are necessary. In any kind of normal use, the interval usually comes out to about 15K miles. Supposedly it goes by fuel use. The manual says to change it when the monitor says so, or one year, which ever comes first.
The manual also specifically says to use their brand 5w30 synthetic oil. It says you can use Mobil 1 or Castrol Syntec (again explicity) for makeup oil.
BTW the bimmerheads (at least the ones that post on web forums) are rountinely ignoring this and doing intermediate changes, some ever 5K, some every 7.5K. And alot are using M1. Rumor has it that the BMW brand oil is euro Castrol SLX, which is also the German Syntec you can get over here.
This is almost the exact opposite of the situation that started this thread. The Mfgr is calling for a VERY extended drain. Based on the UOAs I've seen here, I find this very questionable. I'd love to see what the TBN of the BMW oil is at 15k.
Also, the BMW makes for a very clean quick top side oil change. The filter is on the top of the engine, and the oil can easily be sucked out instead of drained.
The manual also specifically says to use their brand 5w30 synthetic oil. It says you can use Mobil 1 or Castrol Syntec (again explicity) for makeup oil.
BTW the bimmerheads (at least the ones that post on web forums) are rountinely ignoring this and doing intermediate changes, some ever 5K, some every 7.5K. And alot are using M1. Rumor has it that the BMW brand oil is euro Castrol SLX, which is also the German Syntec you can get over here.
This is almost the exact opposite of the situation that started this thread. The Mfgr is calling for a VERY extended drain. Based on the UOAs I've seen here, I find this very questionable. I'd love to see what the TBN of the BMW oil is at 15k.
Also, the BMW makes for a very clean quick top side oil change. The filter is on the top of the engine, and the oil can easily be sucked out instead of drained.
Pscholte is right on.
Trend analysis is accurate enough if correctly interpreted, QuadDriver you and I couldn't DISAGREE more.
The difference is the analyst given a moderately accurate lab.
I have carefully developed techniques from using low cost predictive trend level accuracy analysis correlated to both highly accurate ASTM screens and tear down inspection for wear analysis and lube performance. How ? by doing all three for 24+ years.
Your comments incorrectly confuse the expensive ASTM Bench testing techniques that include engine testing with "UOA" Trend analysis commonly seen here.
When I mention ASTM, API, SAE,CRC, and others I am talking about the most expensive and advanced testing techniques available in wear and lube performance testing.
Both invasive and non invasive techniques. Elemental analysis using ICP D4951, TFOUT,TEOST, TGA,Gas Chromotagraphy includes mass spec,sonic shear,MRV,Xray flouresence,radiography, API automotive Sequence wear testing including european and JASO specs,Ball rust,HFRR,4 ball,valve train wear,camshaft wear,bearing wear and corrosion,sludge /pistons deposits,Gelation,pdsc,CP wear,MKA24E, dispersant coker, Micro thin sensor technology applied to the wear or bearing surface, and on and on.
To have an analyst/tribologist that has physically inspected components, rated them, analyzed the bench testing data mentioned above and has enough experience to correlate a UOA to all that is rare and effective.
You are focusing on one aspect not using all the tools available.
Don't take my word for it go to SWRI.org website and checkout the cutting edge testing screens they constantly develop for testing of Automotive applications.
Trend analysis is accurate enough if correctly interpreted, QuadDriver you and I couldn't DISAGREE more.
The difference is the analyst given a moderately accurate lab.
I have carefully developed techniques from using low cost predictive trend level accuracy analysis correlated to both highly accurate ASTM screens and tear down inspection for wear analysis and lube performance. How ? by doing all three for 24+ years.
Your comments incorrectly confuse the expensive ASTM Bench testing techniques that include engine testing with "UOA" Trend analysis commonly seen here.
When I mention ASTM, API, SAE,CRC, and others I am talking about the most expensive and advanced testing techniques available in wear and lube performance testing.
Both invasive and non invasive techniques. Elemental analysis using ICP D4951, TFOUT,TEOST, TGA,Gas Chromotagraphy includes mass spec,sonic shear,MRV,Xray flouresence,radiography, API automotive Sequence wear testing including european and JASO specs,Ball rust,HFRR,4 ball,valve train wear,camshaft wear,bearing wear and corrosion,sludge /pistons deposits,Gelation,pdsc,CP wear,MKA24E, dispersant coker, Micro thin sensor technology applied to the wear or bearing surface, and on and on.
To have an analyst/tribologist that has physically inspected components, rated them, analyzed the bench testing data mentioned above and has enough experience to correlate a UOA to all that is rare and effective.
You are focusing on one aspect not using all the tools available.
Don't take my word for it go to SWRI.org website and checkout the cutting edge testing screens they constantly develop for testing of Automotive applications.
Then the 'bet' is on! someone here who has meticulously done maint and done UOAs will 'bring her over' for a teardown at the end of the service life. You will make a prediction on the limits I find in the motor +/- 20%, Ill use hte mic of your chosing. Ill pay for the labor(mostly my own, but I gotta pay a guy to extract/insert it), and parts to reassem the motor!
Since we know dumb things like timing chains stretch and main seals harden and wear, we will look for the following parms: cyl bore oversize, taper and out of round, main. rod and cam bearing clearance, rod side clearance, oil pump gearto cover clearance, wrist pin dia, piston pin inner dia, skirt erosion, ring gap, wear scar depth on rockers, cam lobe profiles, lifter bore size.
Is this acceptable?
Quad, I find what you are saying interesting. So that I am confident I understand what you are asserting, can you confirm or comment on what I think, as summarized below, you have said in this thread.
1) Using Dino vs. Synthetic oil really doesn't matter as far as extended drains relative to engine wear.
2) Using Dino vs Synthetic oil really doesn't matter as far as engine wear for a defined and consistent oil change interval (ie, the OEM's recommendation).
3) UOAs do not produce information that can be used or correlated with determining engine wear or assessing the quality of an oil related to factor like engine wear or suitability for entended drains.
4) Lastly, a question. Why do you use synthetic oil if you believe the above?....
I'm not saying I agree or disagree. All I am trying to do is understand, in summary form, the points you are advocating. Thanks (and sorry in advance if I misinterpreted any of them if indeed I did).
1) Using Dino vs. Synthetic oil really doesn't matter as far as extended drains relative to engine wear.
2) Using Dino vs Synthetic oil really doesn't matter as far as engine wear for a defined and consistent oil change interval (ie, the OEM's recommendation).
3) UOAs do not produce information that can be used or correlated with determining engine wear or assessing the quality of an oil related to factor like engine wear or suitability for entended drains.
4) Lastly, a question. Why do you use synthetic oil if you believe the above?....
I'm not saying I agree or disagree. All I am trying to do is understand, in summary form, the points you are advocating. Thanks (and sorry in advance if I misinterpreted any of them if indeed I did).
ok, good fair questions....lemme answer, but first off...
syn oil (any maker) and non 'generic' dino oil, differ as I have said numerous times by 10% on average. (I even allow the syn oil blenders to claim 15% to salve their injuries) Product data sheets are avail online and I invite all to peruse them. So I dont believe, but rather *know* syn oil is therefore 10% better. In terms of wear, I dont care much about flash/fire points or pour points....those are other fish for other frying pans. I beleive PAO blends are far superior to polyol esters in car engines, simply because as people I have talked to from mobil or texaco have succinctly pointed out, jet engine oil is not exposed to combustion byproducts, air or moisture due to the construction of the jet engine itself...and jet engine oils are not compatible with car engine seals without a ton of extra additives*(1). Why handicap yourselves? In short, my faith for things technical is placed more on the engineers and less on the entrepaneurs with big vats and mixing spoons.
that said:
1) IF the syn oil is 10% better out of the bottle, I would expect its long-drain characteristics to behave similar. I however do not endorse long drains. AS I said, why handicap yourself? 'New oil' every 'xxxxx' miles is far better than 'acceptable oil with depleted additives and ever increasing solids loading' every 'xxxxx' miles. Thats just common sense. (id still like to see UOAs done on a dino engine right next to the syn engine, but that just makes too much sense and aint no way a syn oil company will EVER do that. 10% performance is 10% performance, but for a 300% price increase?)
2) true.
3) partially true. UOAs are wonderful at showing contaminants. But I still maintain they are poor at showing actual hard wear. A UOA can show if the oil is still 'in grade' but once again, Id like to see the dino oil tested right along side it. Im betting the 10% rule holds...cant get anyone to take me up on it tho - darn.
4) in the machines in which I use syn oil (at proper drain intervals of course) I was for the most part addressing specific items. Aside from the truck and one car which are lifelong syn*(2) I felt the 10% edge would be useful. Please note, thousands of V65s ran for decades without syn oil and didnt lose the cams, hundreds of thousands of ATVs run daily without syn oil, thru mud, thru sand and dont explode. Hundred of thousands of v8 inboard boats run long productive lives on single weight oils and get taken out by corrosion long before bearings spin.
FWIW, lubrication failures just dont occur anymore. Its that 10% edge. If you read carefully the claims in this thread, most of which I challenged, a little tooooo much faith is put in syn oil. This is misplaced.
*(1) = mobil is to my knowledge the ONLY oil maker (not blender) that has pretty much done extreme long range testing and TTD testing on actual motors using their products pretty much 24x7 for the last 15 or so years. Granted they change the oil every simulated xxxx miles, but when you can run a 1/5th million-ish miles at rated power and have wear within service limits...that speaks volumes (again Id like to see a dino oil filled motor right next to it)
*(2) = I am utterly shocked about one thing. As mentioned before, in a short time, an extreme mileage Ford truck is getting a new motor, a truck with tracked maint all on syn oil. I would think the syn guys would be there with baited breath to find out just how clean the insides *do* look after a lifetime of heavy use. If the numbers come out as good as I predict they will, it certainly adds hard evidence to their claims on the next BBS.
QuadDriver,
Your points make sense to me. I don't understand all the tech talk but your last post was quite helpful. I have a couple questions for you.
1. Do you think syns have other advantages over dinos beyond the "10%" you mention? For instance, turbo protection, sludge prevention, etc. (sorry if you addressed this already, but I simply didn't have the time to go through 4 pages of threads this morning).
2. Your point about not being able to predict wear with UOAs is interesting and I won't disagree. But does this mean UOA's can't tell us *something* about wear? For example, if I compare two oils on the basis of UOA's and one of the oils consistently shows lowering ppm (holding other variables as constant as possible), doesn't this tell me somethingg about the quality of the two oils in terms of wear protection? (I ask this as an honest question because I am trying to learn). In other words, I would *expect* UOA's to be pretty poor at predicting long term wear because too many things can happen over the life of an engine. I guess one analogy I would use is that current interest rates are a pretty poor predictor of GDP 10-15 years from now (likely to get far more than a 20% margin of error) because the economy is essentially a non-stationary environment. Yet in the short run, interest rates contain some pretty valuable information about the current state of the economy so it is not "irrelevant" for economic growth even though its correlation with long run GDP is weak. Can the same not be said about UOA's? (once again, forgive me if you addressed this already. I didn't get chance to go through 4 pages).
Your points make sense to me. I don't understand all the tech talk but your last post was quite helpful. I have a couple questions for you.
1. Do you think syns have other advantages over dinos beyond the "10%" you mention? For instance, turbo protection, sludge prevention, etc. (sorry if you addressed this already, but I simply didn't have the time to go through 4 pages of threads this morning).
2. Your point about not being able to predict wear with UOAs is interesting and I won't disagree. But does this mean UOA's can't tell us *something* about wear? For example, if I compare two oils on the basis of UOA's and one of the oils consistently shows lowering ppm (holding other variables as constant as possible), doesn't this tell me somethingg about the quality of the two oils in terms of wear protection? (I ask this as an honest question because I am trying to learn). In other words, I would *expect* UOA's to be pretty poor at predicting long term wear because too many things can happen over the life of an engine. I guess one analogy I would use is that current interest rates are a pretty poor predictor of GDP 10-15 years from now (likely to get far more than a 20% margin of error) because the economy is essentially a non-stationary environment. Yet in the short run, interest rates contain some pretty valuable information about the current state of the economy so it is not "irrelevant" for economic growth even though its correlation with long run GDP is weak. Can the same not be said about UOA's? (once again, forgive me if you addressed this already. I didn't get chance to go through 4 pages).
QuadDriver
Could you explain what you mean by 10% difference? I have read your previous comments, but never understood this point.
Be patient. It takes me over 6 months to test each oil, and Castrol GTX is pretty far down the list.
Cheers, 3MP
On this point, I agree with QD. That is why I will keep using a dino, and a 3-4000 mile drain interval. $10 / oil change, and 1 hour of my time every few months is not a big deal to me.
Hold on ...
One oil change every few months is no big deal, but what about those of us with multiple drivers/vehicles? If you've got three cars you're maintaining & everyone's driving (commuting to work, let's say), those 3k-4k mi changes could be occurring on one car every two to three weeks. How do you get out of that cycle unless you're willing to extend your drain intervals out longer? And how long are you willing to go on dino? 5k? 6k? 10k? Now add in a turbocharger sharing the same 4qts as the engine ...
Eiron, are you doing all that driving on those vehicles yourself? When do you sleep?
Patman
Staff member
This reminds me of when I bought my first new car, a 1988 Dodge Shadow Turbo, and was driving 600 miles a week, and changing the oil every 2000 miles! So I was changing it every 3 weeks! I was using Castrol XLR 10w30 (if any of you Canadians remember that oil!) I even did a UOA back then, but it was a cheap $8 kit from Canadian Tire that didn't give any specifics, it just said if the engine was in good shape or not, and really didn't mention the condition of the oil or if it was suitable for continued use. If only I knew then what I know now, I could've saved myself a lot of time and money back then!
I only do about 15000-20000 miles / year. The other vehicle I maintain does about the same.
3k works for me... I'll be the first to admit it is not for everyone. Besides, changing oil is fun!
3k works for me... I'll be the first to admit it is not for everyone. Besides, changing oil is fun!
- Status
Similar threads
