I would never pay for a used oil analysis unless I needed to prove there coolant in the motor oil. Or maybe extreme fuel dilution i.e an existing problem. It costs more than an oil change. It was originally a tool for extended oil change intervals, but we have several oil products on the market to guarantee 15,000 miles. I have seen very few posts in this forum testing 15K oil changes, most are very short intervals. It makes no sense at all to me. And to repeat them over and over 28 bucks a pop over and over, for 5K, 6K oil changes and often on newer cars to boot. Over and over again. The data is there but conveys nothing of interest.
M1 5W-30 7,246 miles 2014 GMC Sierra 5.3
- Thread starter gonefishing
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by wdn
I would never pay for a used oil analysis unless I needed to prove there coolant in the motor oil. Or maybe extreme fuel dilution i.e an existing problem. It costs more than an oil change. It was originally a tool for extended oil change intervals, but we have several oil products on the market to guarantee 15,000 miles. I have seen very few posts in this forum testing 15K oil changes, most are very short intervals. It makes no sense at all to me. And to repeat them over and over 28 bucks a pop over and over, for 5K, 6K oil changes and often on newer cars to boot. Over and over again. The data is there but conveys nothing of interest.
Agreed. Suspected oil contamination, such as coolant, fuel, or dirt are the only reasons I can think of to pay for UOAs. 10K OCIs (my normal for 40 years) don't even enter into my thoughts for paying for a UOA.
I would never pay for a used oil analysis unless I needed to prove there coolant in the motor oil. Or maybe extreme fuel dilution i.e an existing problem. It costs more than an oil change. It was originally a tool for extended oil change intervals, but we have several oil products on the market to guarantee 15,000 miles. I have seen very few posts in this forum testing 15K oil changes, most are very short intervals. It makes no sense at all to me. And to repeat them over and over 28 bucks a pop over and over, for 5K, 6K oil changes and often on newer cars to boot. Over and over again. The data is there but conveys nothing of interest.
Agreed. Suspected oil contamination, such as coolant, fuel, or dirt are the only reasons I can think of to pay for UOAs. 10K OCIs (my normal for 40 years) don't even enter into my thoughts for paying for a UOA.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted by tig1
Originally Posted by wdn
I would never pay for a used oil analysis unless I needed to prove there coolant in the motor oil. Or maybe extreme fuel dilution i.e an existing problem. It costs more than an oil change. It was originally a tool for extended oil change intervals, but we have several oil products on the market to guarantee 15,000 miles. I have seen very few posts in this forum testing 15K oil changes, most are very short intervals. It makes no sense at all to me. And to repeat them over and over 28 bucks a pop over and over, for 5K, 6K oil changes and often on newer cars to boot. Over and over again. The data is there but conveys nothing of interest.
Agreed. Suspected oil contamination, such as coolant, fuel, or dirt are the only reasons I can think of to pay for UOAs. 10K OCIs (my normal for 40 years) don't even enter into my thoughts for paying for a UOA.
I am in the same boat now. I used to do UOAs to convince myself that extending OCIs (10-15k miles) is safe and reasonable. The data proves beyond any shadow of a doubt this is true. I no longer do UOAs to track wear that I know historically will be going down. If I suspect an issue, then I'll UOA, but no more until then. I can learn from my experiences, and others, and realize that UOAs are not needed most of the time on an engine that outwardly shows no signs of issues.
Originally Posted by wdn
I would never pay for a used oil analysis unless I needed to prove there coolant in the motor oil. Or maybe extreme fuel dilution i.e an existing problem. It costs more than an oil change. It was originally a tool for extended oil change intervals, but we have several oil products on the market to guarantee 15,000 miles. I have seen very few posts in this forum testing 15K oil changes, most are very short intervals. It makes no sense at all to me. And to repeat them over and over 28 bucks a pop over and over, for 5K, 6K oil changes and often on newer cars to boot. Over and over again. The data is there but conveys nothing of interest.
Agreed. Suspected oil contamination, such as coolant, fuel, or dirt are the only reasons I can think of to pay for UOAs. 10K OCIs (my normal for 40 years) don't even enter into my thoughts for paying for a UOA.
I am in the same boat now. I used to do UOAs to convince myself that extending OCIs (10-15k miles) is safe and reasonable. The data proves beyond any shadow of a doubt this is true. I no longer do UOAs to track wear that I know historically will be going down. If I suspect an issue, then I'll UOA, but no more until then. I can learn from my experiences, and others, and realize that UOAs are not needed most of the time on an engine that outwardly shows no signs of issues.
Ya im very impressed to see the 5-30w giving you less iron wear this is really nice to see good trend from new to high miles on a L83 5.3 engine. I hope you got 5-30 planned again and we see low iron results again that could be interesting data point for L83 owners.
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.
Nothing wrong with that, idk why other guy is knocking ya for doing what your doing. Its hobby to you and thats fine. Plus you have some very interesting data in that chart for L83 owners. The old vortecs arent really comparable to the new L83 - LT1 based vet engines and are much better overall. Good data im impressed like i said in my last post by the 5-30 wear rates. Run another fill of 5-30 im curious if Iron stays low.
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.
Nothing wrong with that, idk why other guy is knocking ya for doing what your doing. Its hobby to you and thats fine. Plus you have some very interesting data in that chart for L83 owners. The old vortecs arent really comparable to the new L83 - LT1 based vet engines and are much better overall. Good data im impressed like i said in my last post by the 5-30 wear rates. Run another fill of 5-30 im curious if Iron stays low.
- Status
Similar threads
