Originally Posted by gonefishing
Originally Posted by dnewton3
The data:
Compared to macro data, this engine is doing just about as well as all other 5.3L Vortec engines. They tend to shed more Fe than some other brands but this has not been shown to be detrimental overall. It's just a trait of the Vortec engines; they shed more metals than some others like the Ford mod-motors (old and Coy), for example. I am not intimately familiar with this particular engine, but many GM engines use a copper tube oil cooler, so that may be where the Cu is coming from.
The questions:
The distances of your OCIs are driven by what? Is the OLM telling you to OCI? Or is this a self-imposed limit?
The harsh reality:
You'd probably fare every bit as well just using a conventional lube. At 7.5k miles, you're no where close to taxing any lube to a breaking point. All you're proving is that you can consistently waste money (syns and UOAs which have not caused you to alter your maintenance program). Either run the OCIs much further out, or ditch the syns and the UOAs. You can certainly continue down this current path; it's not hurting the engine whatsoever. But it's killing your wallet; a cautionary tale for others to note.
I get UOA's done strictly out of curiosity.
Fair enough. What are you curious about? Wear trends? Contamination? What?
You've got a long string of UOAs that show completely normal wear, and that longer OCIs would easily sustain a safe operational pattern.
I just am repeatedly perplexed by folks that pay for information, and then promptly ignore it. You have every right to do so; no one can take that away from you. But there are folks here that actually want to LEARN and make reasonable, rational decisions. The lessons to learn from your UOAs are two-fold:
1) using a syn and different grades are doing nothing to lessen wear; it's totally "normal" to get these values
2) you're spending a lot of money on lubes and data that you don't manage with ROI in mind
Again - nothing wrong with your approach, if waste is not of concern to you.
But many people will point to your UOAs, and say "See how good brand M is! See how great syns are! See how grades make a difference!"
Hogwash is what I say, and I have more than 500 UOAs of this engine series alone to back up what I claim. Brand/grade/vis don't matter when 7.5k miles is your self-imposed limit. You could run a dino oil to 2x that OCI limit, and get the same basic results.
So, again, what "curiosity" are you trying to satisfy here? I'm not trying to belittle you, but I don't understand why you pay for premium products and then willingly waste them. What itch are you trying to scratch with the UOAs? What info are you gleaning from the UOAs that makes you happy? Low wear rates? Low contamination? What? You cannot point (with any accuracy) to your UOAs and say "Syns and moderate OCIs are the best combination; look how great they make the engine wear." You cannot do this because those inputs (bas stock and vis and OCI) are not proven to be unique in these kind of results; other brands, other vis; other OCI limits will give you the very same output. You can safely double your OCI (cutting your costs in half) and you'd get exactly the same wear rates (within a tenth of a ppm, statistically).
I realize my approach, and demeanor, often take the fun out of UOAs. But that's because most BITOgers use UOAs as toys, not tools. UOAs, when properly used with both benefits and limitations in mind, are tools for a ROI approach. But you, and most all other BITOGers seem to think they are toys, and play unwitting games with them that serve no purpose other than to illuminate the obvious, and ignore the reality. You have every right to do so with your equipment and your money. But when you post it in a public format, I have every right to call it out for what it is; waste of oil and information.
So, please expound on what "curiosity" you are satisfying. I'm not trying purposely to demean you, so if it comes off that way then I apologize. I just want to know what you're learning from your string of UOAs. What have you proven to yourself? What curiosity is getting satisfied here?
)
