Mobil Clean 5000 5W30 '09 Subie Legacy 2.5i 9296mi
- Thread starter aigochamaloh
- Start date
- Status
dnewton3
Staff member
Everyone has a limit; some much greater than others.
I live by tangible proof and am data driven.
When UOAs are this good, and you can have independent verification (such as visual sludge checks) then I see everything pointing towards OCI extension.
What would hold you back in this case? Nothing but unverifiable emotion. You said it yourself: " ... This whole thing feels ..." You're ignoring data and visual verification, and running on your feelings (emotion). There is nothing wrong with that for you. Frankly, we all have emotional trigger points for many different topics, and that includes me. But I don't try to hide or otherwise obscure my emotion with lame justification or excuses (not saying that you or the OP is doing that, but many BITOGers are guilty of that practice).
If someone wants to run syn with an M1 filter and OCI every 3k miles, that is their decision to live by. But that does not make it a smart practice.
When there is evidence such as this UOA, showing long OCIs are safe and longers ones are possible, and you can confirm this with additional verification, one must admit that not doing so is a matter of emotion and not intellect.
Everything quantifiable in this UOA is in very good control. There is logical reason to add in both TAN and visual verification (if easily done) of no sludge if one proceeds towards longer OCIs. While not a necessity, it can give more "comfort" in the decsion to extend.
We are just beginning to see here that some members are actually coming into a new light; that OEM OCIs are artifically limited as a means of ultra-safe warranty protection. When folks step outside that box and experiement, it's not turning nearly as ugly as the pundits would profess. My UOA; this UOA; 2010_FX4's UOAs; there is mounting evidence that supplements and completely is in agreement with both my macro UOAs studies, and the SAE study showing OCI extensions are generally much safer, and result in less wear. There are always going to be "oops - darn it" examples such as SL2 and some Toyota sludgers. But should those examples be a reason for the rest of us to never get off the porch?
I would NEVER, EVER suggest someone simply triple their OEM OCI blindly, without knowing any situational conditions surrounding the use and the equipment. But once UOAs are done, and visual clues are examined, then what in the world can be the sane reason for not extending? When you do the experiment, run the data, and confirm the results, why ignore what you spent time and effort to find out?
I live by tangible proof and am data driven.
When UOAs are this good, and you can have independent verification (such as visual sludge checks) then I see everything pointing towards OCI extension.
What would hold you back in this case? Nothing but unverifiable emotion. You said it yourself: " ... This whole thing feels ..." You're ignoring data and visual verification, and running on your feelings (emotion). There is nothing wrong with that for you. Frankly, we all have emotional trigger points for many different topics, and that includes me. But I don't try to hide or otherwise obscure my emotion with lame justification or excuses (not saying that you or the OP is doing that, but many BITOGers are guilty of that practice).
If someone wants to run syn with an M1 filter and OCI every 3k miles, that is their decision to live by. But that does not make it a smart practice.
When there is evidence such as this UOA, showing long OCIs are safe and longers ones are possible, and you can confirm this with additional verification, one must admit that not doing so is a matter of emotion and not intellect.
Everything quantifiable in this UOA is in very good control. There is logical reason to add in both TAN and visual verification (if easily done) of no sludge if one proceeds towards longer OCIs. While not a necessity, it can give more "comfort" in the decsion to extend.
We are just beginning to see here that some members are actually coming into a new light; that OEM OCIs are artifically limited as a means of ultra-safe warranty protection. When folks step outside that box and experiement, it's not turning nearly as ugly as the pundits would profess. My UOA; this UOA; 2010_FX4's UOAs; there is mounting evidence that supplements and completely is in agreement with both my macro UOAs studies, and the SAE study showing OCI extensions are generally much safer, and result in less wear. There are always going to be "oops - darn it" examples such as SL2 and some Toyota sludgers. But should those examples be a reason for the rest of us to never get off the porch?
I would NEVER, EVER suggest someone simply triple their OEM OCI blindly, without knowing any situational conditions surrounding the use and the equipment. But once UOAs are done, and visual clues are examined, then what in the world can be the sane reason for not extending? When you do the experiment, run the data, and confirm the results, why ignore what you spent time and effort to find out?
Last edited:
I'll try 10 or 11k this time, but if I wanted to try to go to 15k, I would have to add another quart at 10k. Wouldn't that skew results some?
dnewton3
Staff member
Yes - it would dilute the numbers a bit and also fresher the add-pack.
However, "new" oil is slightly detrimental in that it removes a portion of the anti-wear layer.
But - and this is criticial to understand - I don't think we have any good data that would establish the two opposed concepts in the UOA/OCI cycle for top-off. In effect, the addition of lube dilutes the physical magnitude count of the ppm; but the new oil will make wear jump up a tiny bit. How much they off-set each other is completely unknown; I don't know of any study that has data, and while I have tons of UOAs (thousands of them) I cannot really find any conclusive data that would allow me to place some hard numbers to it. It is my gut feeling that the dilution would outweigh the wear increase, but that would be completely dependend upon the percentage of lube added as a ratio of total system capacity, and also "turn over" of the sump (how much you replaced in a continuing cycle), as well as WHEN the lube was added in that OCI cycle.
In short - I don't think we have any reliable data to say one way or another how each sub-componet affects the other. But at a high-level view, adding lube (especially a large percent) near the end of the OCI would conceptually shift the numbers a bit. But how much is anyone's guess.
What could be done, if one was into spending money soley for the joy of experimentation, would be to UOA right before a top-off, and then UOA again shortly thereafter. But to get good statistical data, you'd have to do that 30 times or more to find the deviation and variation of the methodology. And I suspect that the small shift in this type trial would be overwhelmed in the total variation of a typical OCI. It is likely that the shift would be in tenths of a ppm; very small. And therefore you'd have to establish your gage R&R first, and then follow a very prescribed DOE methodology. This isn't something the normal BITOGer is going to be able to do in his garage on a whim an with an OCI or two. This is getting down to very find measurements and would take many, many samples to establish statisical criteria with such small magnitudes.
And all that would have to be AFTER you ran base-line UOA cycles of a normal OCI progression in micro-analysis; that in itself would be very time consuming and expensive.
It is hard enough to establish the "normal" variation of the "top off"; to find the sub-contributing nuances (dilution vs. wear increase) is even more so. No BITOGer here likely has the time/money to go this distance; even the zealots here don't have the cash and patience. Anyone that posts a UOA or two and says he/she knows for sure how a top off is predictably affecting a UOA would have no true credible basis to make such claim.
See the conundrum?
However, "new" oil is slightly detrimental in that it removes a portion of the anti-wear layer.
But - and this is criticial to understand - I don't think we have any good data that would establish the two opposed concepts in the UOA/OCI cycle for top-off. In effect, the addition of lube dilutes the physical magnitude count of the ppm; but the new oil will make wear jump up a tiny bit. How much they off-set each other is completely unknown; I don't know of any study that has data, and while I have tons of UOAs (thousands of them) I cannot really find any conclusive data that would allow me to place some hard numbers to it. It is my gut feeling that the dilution would outweigh the wear increase, but that would be completely dependend upon the percentage of lube added as a ratio of total system capacity, and also "turn over" of the sump (how much you replaced in a continuing cycle), as well as WHEN the lube was added in that OCI cycle.
In short - I don't think we have any reliable data to say one way or another how each sub-componet affects the other. But at a high-level view, adding lube (especially a large percent) near the end of the OCI would conceptually shift the numbers a bit. But how much is anyone's guess.
What could be done, if one was into spending money soley for the joy of experimentation, would be to UOA right before a top-off, and then UOA again shortly thereafter. But to get good statistical data, you'd have to do that 30 times or more to find the deviation and variation of the methodology. And I suspect that the small shift in this type trial would be overwhelmed in the total variation of a typical OCI. It is likely that the shift would be in tenths of a ppm; very small. And therefore you'd have to establish your gage R&R first, and then follow a very prescribed DOE methodology. This isn't something the normal BITOGer is going to be able to do in his garage on a whim an with an OCI or two. This is getting down to very find measurements and would take many, many samples to establish statisical criteria with such small magnitudes.
And all that would have to be AFTER you ran base-line UOA cycles of a normal OCI progression in micro-analysis; that in itself would be very time consuming and expensive.
It is hard enough to establish the "normal" variation of the "top off"; to find the sub-contributing nuances (dilution vs. wear increase) is even more so. No BITOGer here likely has the time/money to go this distance; even the zealots here don't have the cash and patience. Anyone that posts a UOA or two and says he/she knows for sure how a top off is predictably affecting a UOA would have no true credible basis to make such claim.
See the conundrum?
Last edited:
That Mobil Super 5k is proving to be an excellent oil.
Our CR-V turns 70,000 miles this month. I will put in a fresh change of PYB 5W-20 and run it for 7,500 miles and will do my first UOA on it and see how it looks. It'll probably be non-eventful, but UOAs like this inspire me to push my own boundaries.
- Status
Similar threads
