is this true?
- Thread starter sky jumper
- Start date
- Status
I've had several new cars and trucks. Ran them to well over 150,000 miles and on several occasions did engine tear downs. Have always stuck to 3,000 mile oil and filter changes. Been there and done it. Take it from me, there was little if any wear on the parts or bearings. Some of these cars and trucks are still on the road today running just fine with no rebuilds. Sounds odd to me when I see studies like these.
Exactly my thoughts...To me it sounds like a theory that someone who believes in rediculously long OCI's would put out to justify his/her reasoning for doing it.
If that theory is true, then everybody should be lining up and willing to pay top dollar for the oil from all the "suckers" who still like to do 3,000 OCI's...
I'll have some Chevron Supreme 10W30 with 3,000 miles on it ready and for sale in about about a month or so for anyone who wants it! It's been a good oil...reduce your wear and buy my black used oil!
I'm assuming the "theory" is based on used oil analysis..
I've read responces, from different oil manufacures, and addative makers, on these boards, that UOA results, are good for watching trends, but do not account for oil performance well at all. Spacific example- Redline... We have all seen the sqeaky clean engines, and good results with redline, but we also see, generally, slightly higher wear numbers in UOAs..
Maybe someone who has read the article, can shine light on what the article is refering to- tear-downs and measurements of engines? or UOAs?
[edit]nevermind... i was reading though one of them that used radioactive tracer technology to measure wear.
So... If having some very small wear metals in the oil, is good.. then maybe there is more to that "engine-restore" stuff than previously thought. (I've used it before.... only negative side effects I can speak of at this point, is bizzare UOAs showing a lot of copper and lead)
[ November 05, 2005, 07:00 AM: Message edited by: mdocod ]
I've read responces, from different oil manufacures, and addative makers, on these boards, that UOA results, are good for watching trends, but do not account for oil performance well at all. Spacific example- Redline... We have all seen the sqeaky clean engines, and good results with redline, but we also see, generally, slightly higher wear numbers in UOAs..
Maybe someone who has read the article, can shine light on what the article is refering to- tear-downs and measurements of engines? or UOAs?
[edit]nevermind... i was reading though one of them that used radioactive tracer technology to measure wear.
So... If having some very small wear metals in the oil, is good.. then maybe there is more to that "engine-restore" stuff than previously thought. (I've used it before.... only negative side effects I can speak of at this point, is bizzare UOAs showing a lot of copper and lead)
[ November 05, 2005, 07:00 AM: Message edited by: mdocod ]
I think you hit the nail on the head, buster!
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I hope to find the time to either confirm or debunk this assertion. The simple method would be to do a 1k,3k - 2k,3k OCI's using the same oil. You would then see if the upramp in metals occurs at between 2k and 3k. There should be no residuals. The, now infamous "film formations" would be of the same AW composition ..and polarity bonding should be at saturation or near saturation. Hence there should be no (psuedo) ion exchange where the saturation of the new oil overwelms the existing AW film (which has bonded with free metals just floating around in its trip to surfaces) ..and kicks it the eff out of there. ..or ..it's just kicking off existing metal
In my opinion, although the data "suggests" one thing ..it's a play on words sorta presentation. There are plenty of events that you can just quote the apparent effects ..and allow speculative conclusions to be drawn from them. We're in a conservation rich mentality in engineering notariety. That is, the most popular SAE papers all point to studies of lighter weight oils and longer drains ..since that is what is popular ..at least the ones that you hear about.
It's all a form of "leading the herd" ..except the herd, in this case, is usually other engineers (in regard to SAE papers).
[ November 06, 2005, 05:49 AM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
In my opinion, although the data "suggests" one thing ..it's a play on words sorta presentation. There are plenty of events that you can just quote the apparent effects ..and allow speculative conclusions to be drawn from them. We're in a conservation rich mentality in engineering notariety. That is, the most popular SAE papers all point to studies of lighter weight oils and longer drains ..since that is what is popular ..at least the ones that you hear about.
It's all a form of "leading the herd" ..except the herd, in this case, is usually other engineers (in regard to SAE papers).
[ November 06, 2005, 05:49 AM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
Another possibility...
The oil's viscosity is going to be on the thick side for at least 2000 miles--perhaps more depending on engine design. Most oils thin a bit after some use, and may then flow better and penetrate into more areas.
We accidentally ran a Caterpillar C12 engine for 35,000 miles on Shell Rotella 15W40 dino oil. (The two drivers each thought the other had had the truck serviced). I did a UOA on it just to see how things looked. It's posted here somewhere, IIRC. The wear metals looked as good as any of the 25K OCI's we had run--and in fact, better than most. But on the viscosity issue, the oil had thickened a bit...
Dan
The oil's viscosity is going to be on the thick side for at least 2000 miles--perhaps more depending on engine design. Most oils thin a bit after some use, and may then flow better and penetrate into more areas.
We accidentally ran a Caterpillar C12 engine for 35,000 miles on Shell Rotella 15W40 dino oil. (The two drivers each thought the other had had the truck serviced). I did a UOA on it just to see how things looked. It's posted here somewhere, IIRC. The wear metals looked as good as any of the 25K OCI's we had run--and in fact, better than most. But on the viscosity issue, the oil had thickened a bit...
Dan
I can't buy the argument. I have over 2000 UOA that would indirectly disprove it.
The biggest variables are air filters, driving habits, fuel, temperatures, wind, maintenance, etc. The oil filter does become more efficient as is fills, and might show less particles of contamination, or even wear in the oil that passes through it, but that does not mean the oil is better. Yea, I know this goes against the tide of people increasing the size of their oil filters).
When you can take a decent oil, run it 6 or 7 thousand Km, and have 4 to 5 ppm of iron and 1 or less of other metals, even if you were then to leave it in the engine and sample it a few thousand km later, were those extra km in the same dust conditions? Same driver? Same load? same roads and speeds?
Also you'd need to do a particle count, as the UOA we all swear by is only looking at the small stuff.
The biggest variables are air filters, driving habits, fuel, temperatures, wind, maintenance, etc. The oil filter does become more efficient as is fills, and might show less particles of contamination, or even wear in the oil that passes through it, but that does not mean the oil is better. Yea, I know this goes against the tide of people increasing the size of their oil filters).
When you can take a decent oil, run it 6 or 7 thousand Km, and have 4 to 5 ppm of iron and 1 or less of other metals, even if you were then to leave it in the engine and sample it a few thousand km later, were those extra km in the same dust conditions? Same driver? Same load? same roads and speeds?
Also you'd need to do a particle count, as the UOA we all swear by is only looking at the small stuff.
scientists at Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) can determine wear rates quickly, first by irradiating wear-sensitive parts to render them radioactive, and then measuring gamma ray emissions from abraded particles as they circulate within the engine's lubricating oil.
http://www.swri.edu/3pubs/ttoday/spring98/trace.htm
http://www.swri.edu/3pubs/ttoday/spring98/trace.htm
What about the filter? I would think that a brand new filter has at least some iron that will contaminate the oil until it cycles through and is then filtered out. I don't know how many filters I've seen, from ST to MC to Puro, that have metal shavings or manufacturing "leftovers".
I make sure I clean the threads before I fill/install a filter.
That would make sense as to why 3K mile oil may have more Fe than oil that cycled through the filter for 6K miles.
I make sure I clean the threads before I fill/install a filter.
That would make sense as to why 3K mile oil may have more Fe than oil that cycled through the filter for 6K miles.
could it be that all the dry engine starts after the frequent oil changes causes an influx of wear metals? The oiling system is completely emptied after an oil change and the filter, oil galleries, sump, pump are all bone dry on that first start up. On some toyotas it takes up to 15 seconds for the oil light to turn off!!! (5SFE)
(Maybe there are some people like me who fill the oil filter separately and unplug the injectors and crank the engine over on starter power until the oil light goes out, usually no more than 10sec)
(Maybe there are some people like me who fill the oil filter separately and unplug the injectors and crank the engine over on starter power until the oil light goes out, usually no more than 10sec)
oil_dealer - "bone dry"? That might be a little, uh, exaggerated.
- Status
Similar threads
