Long OCI's and Wear Numbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm hoping one of the Biggs is still following this, but Pablo, you may be sufficiently steeped in filter theory for this one: The study reached the conclusion that insolubles @.06% indicate a need for a filter change. My question would then be, would that not indicate a "loaded" filter forcing the circuit into bypass? My thinking (derived from here and elsewhere of course, I'm no engineer), was that as a filter loads, it actually becomes MORE efficient at small-particle filtering rather than less. If that's true, rising insoluables indicate a loaded and therefore, bypassing, or even a damaged filter, yes? No?

Pablo, Amsoil being the modern-day champ of long-term spin-on filters, maybe you could shed a little light on that?
 
Quote:


I'm curious why some people are recommending a filter change half-way? Unless a $1 junk-filter is used I see no reason to change it more often than the oil is changed on a passenger car/LT.




You may be right. But the resulting top-up of fresh oil gives a TBN boost and a fresh filter has more holding capacity than a used one. I think it just gives a little more margin and peace of mind to some.
 
Quote:


The study reached the conclusion that insolubles @.06% indicate a need for a filter change.




0.06 or 0.6%? I've yet to see a used oil analysis with a 0.06% insolubles posted. Most run around 0.2-0.3%.
 
I have doubts about oil filters' ability to hold on to what they catch. Pressure pulsations and flexing of media should eventually shake loose many trapped particles, if there is a nearby hole there big enough for them to pass through. They do seem to be able to reduce the size of soot particles, perhaps by causing them to break apart into smaller, less harmful ones.
 
Quote:


The study reached the conclusion that insolubles @.06% indicate a need for a filter change. My question would then be, would that not indicate a "loaded" filter forcing the circuit into bypass? My thinking (derived from here and elsewhere of course, I'm no engineer), was that as a filter loads, it actually becomes MORE efficient at small-particle filtering rather than less. If that's true, rising insolubles indicate a loaded and therefore, bypassing, or even a damaged filter, yes? No?

Pablo, Amsoil being the modern-day champ of long-term spin-on filters, maybe you could shed a little light on that?




Well I think you mean 0.6% solids. My take is that there more worry about the condition of the oil at 0.6% vs. the efficiency or holding power of the filter. Maybe they thought in a crude way the filter was clogging (it happens) and were worried, but also some new oil, fresh filter are thought to "rejuvenate" the system.

Certainly to a point a filter does become more efficient with use.
 
Nothing gets past Pablo..Man shoulda been a cop. Yes, Pabbs, .6%. "Thought to rejuvenate the system" would be an understatement. The half quart here, the half quart there along with the new filter at 12K took care of the TBN issues throughout. And the new filter "solved' the particle counts on up to the point they yelled uncle. So! With all this in mind, I'd like to know why:
1) The manufacturers INSIST on such short OCI if that's SO important;

2) If OCI requirements are SO important, why aren't they, for a minimum cost (at manufacture time) installing a by-pass system such as the Amsoil BK system or equivalent?

Surely the prospect of greatly reduced PCMO consumption, supply and disposal issues, fewer filters hitting the landfills, would all be a wonderful contribution to the world ecological picture?

Why not bypass filtration for passenger cars? Someone tell me why this wouldn't be worth it? Other of course, than the EXCELLENT, and frequent opportunity to cash in every time these customers come in for their "necessary" 3000 mile oil change? The PCMO suppliers, the filter manufacturers, garages, dealers, parts stores, man, they'd go through the roof at the restraint of their trade, eh?
 
very interesting.... I want to hear more on this topic. Less wear then two shorter oci's just goes against logic. I would love nothing more then to go back to my 1 year oci's with Amsoil/EaO like I did with my Si. Funny how you bounce back and forth over the years. 10 - 15k miles on ASM with an EaO filter should easily do the trick and stay well under the Amsoil recommended interval.

Ok, need to rethink all this again lol. Those who 'know' please respond more to this
smile.gif
 
Quote:


Nothing gets past Pablo..Man shoulda been a cop. Yes, Pabbs, .6%. "Thought to rejuvenate the system" would be an understatement. The half quart here, the half quart there along with the new filter at 12K took care of the TBN issues throughout. And the new filter "solved' the particle counts on up to the point they yelled uncle. So! With all this in mind, I'd like to know why:
1) The manufacturers INSIST on such short OCI if that's SO important;

2) If OCI requirements are SO important, why aren't they, for a minimum cost (at manufacture time) installing a by-pass system such as the Amsoil BK system or equivalent?

Surely the prospect of greatly reduced PCMO consumption, supply and disposal issues, fewer filters hitting the landfills, would all be a wonderful contribution to the world ecological picture?

Why not bypass filtration for passenger cars? Someone tell me why this wouldn't be worth it? Other of course, than the EXCELLENT, and frequent opportunity to cash in every time these customers come in for their "necessary" 3000 mile oil change? The PCMO suppliers, the filter manufacturers, garages, dealers, parts stores, man, they'd go through the roof at the restraint of their trade, eh?




1) Who insists on a short OCI? I've seen 7,500 or higher for most manufacturers, or some sort of OLM system.

2) Its not a minimum cost when talking about millions of units. Also, manufacturers of "average" cars don't want customers going in for an oil change and being told it will be $100 because the bypass filter(s) need to be replaced. Also, for most vehicles at most OCIs, I doubt the manufacturers see ANY benefit at all to a bypass system, especially with most original owners selling the vehicle LONG before the engine wears out. If you've noticed, most manufacturers have gone to longer maintenance intervals in order to make the vehicles to appear to have cheaper running costs. When most preventative maintenance occurs for the first time at 60K or 100K a lot of new car purchasers know they won't even hit that mileage before selling the car. It then becomes a simple habit of changing the oil and adding gas as needed, then selling the car in a couple of years, rinse and repeat.
 
Quote:


very interesting.... I want to hear more on this topic. Less wear then two shorter oci's just goes against logic. I would love nothing more then to go back to my 1 year oci's with Amsoil/EaO like I did with my Si. Funny how you bounce back and forth over the years. 10 - 15k miles on ASM with an EaO filter should easily do the trick and stay well under the Amsoil recommended interval.

Ok, need to rethink all this again lol. Those who 'know' please respond more to this
smile.gif





I won't profess to be in the "know" but I've looked at the Mobil/Amsoil study and a lot of UOA on here and other places. There does definitely seem to be a spike in wear within the first 1000-2000 miles after an oil change that does level off after that. Once the oil has run its course, the wear starts to go up fast. In between the first, let's say, 2000 miles, and the point when the oil is no longer providing protection, it definitely appears that there isn't much wear taking place. The "trick" is to find out when the oil is almost depleted and change it at that point, not sooner, not later. On my first 10K OCI on my V8 gas engine, I found out that my oil and supplement combination was close to being depleted, yet wear was very low (IMO). On that combination, I wouldn't go past 10K. I've basically decided to try a couple other oils but still hang with a maximum 10K OCI because its so easy to remember. I'm still going with a 20K filter change though. On a different engine (hypothetical) I would keeping pushing the OCI longer and longer until I found the limit. I could live with a 20K, or even 25K OCI if I received good results from used oil analysis.
 
Last edited:
Well, Well, Crfo, the so-called "severe" service in most owner's manuals is still 3K, Hyundai is 3750 with "normal" interval, 7500. But the garages, the quick change places ALL suggest 3 months, 3000 miles, regardless. And, there are dozens of folks here that do it 3K regardless of all that is posted, written and proven in support of long drains because, as so many say, "Oil and filters are cheap, my engine is expensive". But the trend in the industry is 3K. It just IS. There are a few manufacturers with the oil life monitors, but then you have the Stealerships out there with their own agenda ALWAYS pushing maintenance outside the boundaries of the owner's guide. "Free" oil changes every 3K provide fine opportunities to stick the unaware (who number far higher than the aware) with maintenance they simply don't need.

I'm a long drain advocate CF, but the industry is still stuck on pushing 3K OCI because, frankly, a goodly percentage of the industry lives off it. You KNOW the folks who (or is it whom?) provide our favorite finished product, PCMO, LOVE and push the 3K OCI.
 
crazy, you are ignoring some used oil analysis where TBN nearly depleted at 4k miles... Suggesting long OCI in such types of cases, IMHO can cause trouble (debatable how much but you get the idea)
 
In some engines the 10k will be better than 2 5k intervals or at least as good. There are many caveats though. This assumes "normal" service in temperate climates (nothing at less than -20F or more than 100F) in a well built engine with no problems. I sent a sample to Terry today with 14000 miles on the oil, I'll report what I can in the used oil analysis section next week. You can look for my 12002 mile report (search on 12k Mobil 0w20) on my 2004 Prius to see that wear per mile has been pretty consistent at 1 ppm FE/1000 miles. I seem to be seeing a slight drop in fuel economy compared to last year, I am going to change the air filter to see if that helps first (it has been about 15k/9 months since it was replaced). Depending on what Terry thinks I may change out the oil early (I was aiming for 20000 miles/1 year).

Dennis
 
Quote:


Well, Well, Crfo, the so-called "severe" service in most owner's manuals is still 3K, Hyundai is 3750 with "normal" interval, 7500. But the garages, the quick change places ALL suggest 3 months, 3000 miles, regardless. And, there are dozens of folks here that do it 3K regardless of all that is posted, written and proven in support of long drains because, as so many say, "Oil and filters are cheap, my engine is expensive". But the trend in the industry is 3K. It just IS. There are a few manufacturers with the oil life monitors, but then you have the Stealerships out there with their own agenda ALWAYS pushing maintenance outside the boundaries of the owner's guide. "Free" oil changes every 3K provide fine opportunities to stick the unaware (who number far higher than the aware) with maintenance they simply don't need.

I'm a long drain advocate CF, but the industry is still stuck on pushing 3K OCI because, frankly, a goodly percentage of the industry lives off it. You KNOW the folks who (or is it whom?) provide our favorite finished product, PCMO, LOVE and push the 3K OCI.




Its hard to argue with most of that. I will say though that most cars/drivers don't meet the severe service guidelines and should thus go with the "normal" interval. I did some checking yesterday and I did find a major manufacturer going with "only" a 5K OCI for normal and 3K for severe on most of their vehicles (Ford) but most others are longer. As you mentioned Hyundia is 7,500 unless severe. GM has the OLM and if the OLM doesn't go off they recommend a 1 year OCI. On my mother's Bonneville w/o OLM the manual recommends a 7,500/12mo. As seen on BITOG a lot of GM cars go well past 10K before the OLM kicks.

When you say "industry", I have to imagine you are not talking about most manufacturers, although there are still a few, but rather about dealers and repair shops. I think we (meaning most of us on BITOG) are more "in the know" about maintenance, especially in regards to oil changes, than the average consumer. I for one, put more faith in the maintenance schedule printed in the owner's manual or maintenance booklet, than the board on the wall at a repair shop/dealership. Of course, when someone is right in front of you telling you that you need to do x, y, and z, it is harder to say no, especially when the guilt trip is used. That is but one reason why I do my own maintenance and repairs on vehicles out of warranty. Even in warranty I usually do 90%+ of the maintenance.

Look what happened with cigarettes in the US. For decades the manufacturers and sellers of cigarettes denied the health risks and some even said they promoted GOOD health. Eventually the tide started to turn and some people stopped believing, then more and more people, eventually the manufacturers stopped saying they were healthy, then said they weren't bad, eventually the flood gates opened and they admitted that they were addicting and unhealthy (after being sued). Of course there is resistance, there is big money involved. Eventually, most, or every, manufacturer is going to have an OLM or at least recommend extended intervals. As some point most people are going to see the manufacturer's recommendations and compare that to the board at the shop and put 2 and 2 together and realize that a 3/3 OCI is all about the money. Really the oil change is very little to zero profit at most shops (Jiffy Lube and other high volume, lowest part bidder, $30 oil change shops excluded), its a way to get cars in for inspections which lead to gravy maintenance work and repairs. Once the public at large learns that someone is pulling the wool over their eyes, which can take a long, long time, things will shift, perhaps quickly, just like they did for cigarettes. A major difference though, there are very few people addicted to oil changes and "cutting down" will be a very, very easy proposition with no withdrawal symptoms.

I personally do my part whenever I can and have gotten several people off the 3/3 leash. When/if they don't believe, I tell them about my current and prior vehicles, I also show them their owner's manual. I've got my mom on 12 month OCIs (7,500 miles) per her owner's manual, I've got friends and neighbors actually using their OLM and others without the OLM I have doing 6+ month OCIs with quality filters and (usually) Amsoil XL oils. I've even converted a few riding buddies to yearly OCIs with good synthetics like Redline or Amsoil. When more and more people see that their engine didn't explode after 5 years, then 8 years, then 12, or whatever, they will forever be broken from the marketing hype and lies of the 3/3 OCI.
 
Quote:


From what I gather, 1 man's severe is another's normal.

Therein lies the issue.




Probably true, but it seems pretty specific in most owner's manuals: frequent trailering (easy enough to determine), frequent driving in hilly or mountainous terrain (I guess "frequent" could be debatable), heavy city traffic in extreme heat (usually a temperature is noted, i.e. 90F or 100F), excessive idling like taxi, police or delivery service (should be easy enough to determine). I'm sure different manufacturer's use different language but I'm sure all have some similar definition of "severe". Some other criteria not usually mentioned could be: used in racing or other competitive events, heavily modified vehicles, vehicles not used in accordance with the design parameters of the manufacturer i.e. trailering or towing with a vehicle not so designed or going beyond the weight limit of the vehicle, etc.

I guess if someone is looking to use the severe schedule, they will rationalize it somehow; "Well, I was stuck in traffic once or twice, and it was really hot out". Of course, some people's commute may be like that everyday, in which case, the severe schedule may be appropriate due to fuel dilution. The severe criteria seems to include a lot but when you really look at it, I just doubt most people's vehicles fall into it. As with most things in life, people will be able to rationalize it either way if they already have a preconceived notion going into it. If taken objectively, I bet most vehicles should use the "normal" schedule.
 
The problem, as you've pointed out, cfromc, is a matter of perception and response. I'm sure that both normal and severe service has its "fudge factor". I doubt that 7500 was arrived at by 100% ideal conditions (as our OLM equipped cars show us)..nor that 3k/3m+/- was arrived at without accounting for the worst case scenario where maintenance can alter the effects of the service duty. They are rather polarized ..but the publics habits are typically not an "either or" situation. Hence you're down to "habits".

Now taking into account the common consumer's "habits" ..even with my firm belief in extended OCIs (even before Amsoil), I would feel the need for caution in regard to "uninformed/unmonitored/unqualified" recommendations. Can the average consumer be trusted to adhere to any schedule without relentlessly applied influence? The 3k/3m philosophy will allow the ingor(e)ant to remain numb and not (typically) check their oil (in most cases). Now they pay for this condition in terms of other services that they also receive whether they need it or not ..but that's the price of bliss.

I'd say that the blanket 3k/3m recommendation serves its purpose for what I perceive as the average consumer's comfort zone of numb. I can't know them all. It's like the statement "individuals can be intelligent, but people are stupid". I've known way too many that just don't have the capacity to reason these things on their own since it doesn't interest them beyond its intrusion into their life in the form of inconvenience.

So, do I support the 3k/3m OCI? Nope ..but I also understand that it's a panacea for our resident herd that just can't define their environment beyond their little scope of immediate activity. Some will actually belong there. Most will not.
 
I've tried explaining the following before, but it didn't seem to be understood. Using the Mobil 1 used oil analysis data from

http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html

We get the following raw data:

k miles raw Fe top off
1 10 0.0
2 12 0.0
3 14 0.5
4 19 0.5
5 23 0.5
6 26 0.5
7 27 0
8 35 0.5
9 38 0.5
10 36 0

Adjusting the Fe per top off we get the following Fe per the original (?) 6 qt sump:

k miles oil adj Fe
1 6 10
2 6 12
3 6.5 15
4 7 22
5 7.5 29
6 8 35
7 8 36
8 8.5 50
9 9 57
10 9 54

Now have the typical average Fe per 1000 miles, which is one parameter that people seem to use to judge condition of the oil. The problem with an average is that it is supposed to be relatively insensitive to variation by design, while you might want to know what the varaiation is. The Increment column shows the Fe added at each 1000 mile interval, which this study allows, where there is a jump from 3k to 4k miles. This type of analysis will also show other issues, such as the negative Fe addition at 10k miles. This is probably just a measurement error, but if it's not then one needs to ask where the iron went. The incremental jumps also could be showing the impact of adding fresh oil, where one needs to decide if it's really wear, or if it's a disturbance of films in the engine that have Fe incorporated in them. In any case the incremental data is more interesting than the average data.

k miles Avg Fe Increment
1 10.0 10
2 6.0 2
3 5.1 3
4 5.5 7
5 5.8 7
6 5.8 6
7 5.1 1
8 6.2 14
9 6.3 7
10 5.4 -3
 
This is the one element that tends to track mileage, 1sttruck. If I were to argue against "wear" ..I would surely have picked something else that doesn't appear to have a linear component (however flawed a linear component with "drift").

Furthermore, in it's (albeit imperfect) linear accumulations, it's typically indexed with stuff like fuel dilution. (psst-still points to "wear").
 
Negative Fe addition aside, fresh oil casuing wear aside, the data suggests that if you're looking the incremental additions you may want to change at less than 4k miles, as the Fe addition more than doubles beyond 3k miles.
 
Quote:


Negative Fe addition aside, fresh oil casuing wear aside, the data suggests that if you're looking the incremental additions you may want to change at less than 4k miles, as the Fe addition more than doubles beyond 3k miles.




Sorry, I just can't decipher your data ..if that's what it shows. Now, I'll immediately grant you, I can't get past line three of your explanation of your data ...way too collegian for me....but if I just look over your progressions ...I don't see any "doubling" anywhere.


Again, I'm challenged in this regard (I only got halfway through the idiot-savant process when I had my head trauma as a youngster)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom