Long oil run over roughly six months. Crazy what conventional can do.
Mobil Clean 5000 5W30 '09 Subie Legacy 2.5i 9296mi
- Thread starter aigochamaloh
- Start date
- Status
I would say that is pretty impressive...
That 2.5 engine pretty easy on oil for the most part? It must be.
That 2.5 engine pretty easy on oil for the most part? It must be.
Was the same oil used for each UOA? The Moly numbers appear to be all over the map...strange.
I thought Mobil Clean 5000 had Titanium within it's additive package? Never mind that's Mobil Super 5000.
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
When did you add the quart of makeup oil?
This is first report i've seen them tell soemone to double their interval.
GREAT report!
GREAT report!
Originally Posted By: SLCraig
I would say that is pretty impressive...
That 2.5 engine pretty easy on oil for the most part? It must be.
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
When did you add the quart of makeup oil?
Yea, the engine seems pretty good on oil. I put the quart in at 5k miles. I am a quart low at that point.
Originally Posted By: Hallmark
Was the same oil used for each UOA? The Moly numbers appear to be all over the map...strange.
Originally Posted By: volk06
Looks like the make up was Mobil super and the initial fill was Mobil clean. Explains the titanium and sodium.
Same oil used for the past 3 or 4 UOAs. The make up quart was the same oil as well. I bought a bunch of them last year during the Autozone deal. I had like 150 quarts of Mobil Clean 5000.
edit: Er, I guess it might be Super. I need to check the garage. Clean 5000 was the one that was discontinued right?
I would say that is pretty impressive...
That 2.5 engine pretty easy on oil for the most part? It must be.
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
When did you add the quart of makeup oil?
Yea, the engine seems pretty good on oil. I put the quart in at 5k miles. I am a quart low at that point.
Originally Posted By: Hallmark
Was the same oil used for each UOA? The Moly numbers appear to be all over the map...strange.
Originally Posted By: volk06
Looks like the make up was Mobil super and the initial fill was Mobil clean. Explains the titanium and sodium.
Same oil used for the past 3 or 4 UOAs. The make up quart was the same oil as well. I bought a bunch of them last year during the Autozone deal. I had like 150 quarts of Mobil Clean 5000.
edit: Er, I guess it might be Super. I need to check the garage. Clean 5000 was the one that was discontinued right?
Last edited:
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: Artem
Really nice run for a supposedly only good to 5k oil. I'd cap it at 10k and call it a day.
+1
The reason I asked when the oil was added, is because adding a quart of fresh oil near when the oil is drained with have a much greater effect on the UOA results than 5/9th through the OCI, such as when you added it.
I'm not saying it doesn't affect the results, but adding a quart of oil at, say, 8k miles to oil that is in poor condition can skew the results of an UOA 1k miles later in a falsely positive direction.
The report doesn't show TAN, but the FP didn't fall too far, nor did the oil shear too much. With that being said, I'd cap my interval at 9k, with 1k of buffer.
Really nice run for a supposedly only good to 5k oil. I'd cap it at 10k and call it a day.
+1
The reason I asked when the oil was added, is because adding a quart of fresh oil near when the oil is drained with have a much greater effect on the UOA results than 5/9th through the OCI, such as when you added it.
I'm not saying it doesn't affect the results, but adding a quart of oil at, say, 8k miles to oil that is in poor condition can skew the results of an UOA 1k miles later in a falsely positive direction.
The report doesn't show TAN, but the FP didn't fall too far, nor did the oil shear too much. With that being said, I'd cap my interval at 9k, with 1k of buffer.
Very nice UOA. Good oil + nice engine + non-severe driving = 7-8k+ OCI with conventional oil is possible. Many on here still do 6-7k OCI with syn.
dnewton3
Staff member
Excellent report. Anyone who tells you this lube is done does not understand real condemnation limits.
I cannot agree more that the oil has not only done a good job, but it is indeed capable of furhter performance.
I ran a 10k mile OCI on ST dino; had great results. There is no reason to think that this oil cannot go futher on the next run. I am running mine to 15k miles; can you accept the challenge and do the same?
BTW - the TBN is NOT "done" as suggested by others. TBN depletion is not linear. Its rate drops and then tapers off. Also, when TBN is lower, you also need to know the TAN number. Just because TBN is low, does not mean acids are high. My TBN was 1.9 after 10k miles, but my TAN was less than 4, where 8-10 is considered high. There was PLENTY of life left with the TBN at 1.9 in my recent UOA!
Further, the SAE study 2007-01-4133 shows that wear rates continue to drop out to 15k miles for most lubes. I can attest that my thousands of UOAs have data that also confirm this in the real world.
Very nice report. Excellent shape of the engine and the lube. 12k miles is easy; 15k miles is likely attainable. 10k miles is NOT the limit here.
One word of caution; check for sludge. Not that it will happen, but it is always of concern when running longer OCIs. Generally, if the engine is not a known sludger, this is not an issue, and 15k miles is doable here. With insolubles low, and the history of the 2.5L, you should be fine, I suspect.
I cannot agree more that the oil has not only done a good job, but it is indeed capable of furhter performance.
I ran a 10k mile OCI on ST dino; had great results. There is no reason to think that this oil cannot go futher on the next run. I am running mine to 15k miles; can you accept the challenge and do the same?
BTW - the TBN is NOT "done" as suggested by others. TBN depletion is not linear. Its rate drops and then tapers off. Also, when TBN is lower, you also need to know the TAN number. Just because TBN is low, does not mean acids are high. My TBN was 1.9 after 10k miles, but my TAN was less than 4, where 8-10 is considered high. There was PLENTY of life left with the TBN at 1.9 in my recent UOA!
Further, the SAE study 2007-01-4133 shows that wear rates continue to drop out to 15k miles for most lubes. I can attest that my thousands of UOAs have data that also confirm this in the real world.
Very nice report. Excellent shape of the engine and the lube. 12k miles is easy; 15k miles is likely attainable. 10k miles is NOT the limit here.
One word of caution; check for sludge. Not that it will happen, but it is always of concern when running longer OCIs. Generally, if the engine is not a known sludger, this is not an issue, and 15k miles is doable here. With insolubles low, and the history of the 2.5L, you should be fine, I suspect.
Last edited:
"One word of caution; check for sludge. Not that it will happen, but it is always of concern when running longer OCIs. Generally, if the engine is not a known sludger, this is not an issue, and 15k miles is doable here. With insolubles low, and the history of the 2.5L, you should be fine, I suspect."
Non-rhetorical question for Mr. Newton. How does sludge come about when the UOA is so sterling?
More rhetorical. Why push it? the UOA costs as much as the oil change. I accept your proposition that the oil lubricates better and better until it fails, but a guy who is running it out to 9K must be getting a lion's share of that effect. Since sludge is evidently possible notwithstanding excellent numbers as you say, isn't this all the more reason to call it a day at 9K and side-step this possible problem? Besides, isn't there test-to-test variation that has to be taken into account? For example, suppose OP successfully runs his oil to the failure point at 15K. Isn't there a fair possibility that the next failure point might be 12K, just as a matter of test to test variability?
Wouldn't the optimal thing be to change the oil every 9K with exactly the same stuff, quit paying for the UOAs and perhaps devote more time and money to the cosmetics of the vehicle? My experience is that the appearance chases a person out of a well-maintained vehicle more than the mechanicals.
Non-rhetorical question for Mr. Newton. How does sludge come about when the UOA is so sterling?
More rhetorical. Why push it? the UOA costs as much as the oil change. I accept your proposition that the oil lubricates better and better until it fails, but a guy who is running it out to 9K must be getting a lion's share of that effect. Since sludge is evidently possible notwithstanding excellent numbers as you say, isn't this all the more reason to call it a day at 9K and side-step this possible problem? Besides, isn't there test-to-test variation that has to be taken into account? For example, suppose OP successfully runs his oil to the failure point at 15K. Isn't there a fair possibility that the next failure point might be 12K, just as a matter of test to test variability?
Wouldn't the optimal thing be to change the oil every 9K with exactly the same stuff, quit paying for the UOAs and perhaps devote more time and money to the cosmetics of the vehicle? My experience is that the appearance chases a person out of a well-maintained vehicle more than the mechanicals.
I think this oil with this engine and driving conditions can be in service for 9-10k miles or more, but for so little money I would do 2 OCI's a year, one around October and second around April, at around 7-10k miles per OCI.
Especially, OP has around 150 quarts Mobil Clean 5000. He should use up all those oil in 8-10 years.
Especially, OP has around 150 quarts Mobil Clean 5000. He should use up all those oil in 8-10 years.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
I think this oil with this engine and driving conditions can be in service for 9-10k miles or more, but for so little money I would do 2 OCI's a year, one around October and second around April, at around 7-10k miles per OCI.
+1.
I think this oil with this engine and driving conditions can be in service for 9-10k miles or more, but for so little money I would do 2 OCI's a year, one around October and second around April, at around 7-10k miles per OCI.
+1.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: jimbrewer
"One word of caution; check for sludge. Not that it will happen, but it is always of concern when running longer OCIs. Generally, if the engine is not a known sludger, this is not an issue, and 15k miles is doable here. With insolubles low, and the history of the 2.5L, you should be fine, I suspect."
Non-rhetorical question for Mr. Newton. How does sludge come about when the UOA is so sterling?
More rhetorical. Why push it? the UOA costs as much as the oil change. I accept your proposition that the oil lubricates better and better until it fails, but a guy who is running it out to 9K must be getting a lion's share of that effect. Since sludge is evidently possible notwithstanding excellent numbers as you say, isn't this all the more reason to call it a day at 9K and side-step this possible problem? Besides, isn't there test-to-test variation that has to be taken into account? For example, suppose OP successfully runs his oil to the failure point at 15K. Isn't there a fair possibility that the next failure point might be 12K, just as a matter of test to test variability?
Wouldn't the optimal thing be to change the oil every 9K with exactly the same stuff, quit paying for the UOAs and perhaps devote more time and money to the cosmetics of the vehicle? My experience is that the appearance chases a person out of a well-maintained vehicle more than the mechanicals.
There are predictors such as the insoluble count; when that is good, it's unlikely that sludge/coking is a big issue.
However, I had good UOAs from my old Taurus that had seriously coked rings. I was unaware of it until I did a compression check.
We go with what we know. And the more we know, the better decisions we make.
If the valve cover is easy to pop off for an inspection, why not confirm the low insolubles with an independent visual check?
Nearly every example I have (with the exception of known heavy sludgers) shows wear numbers still dropping out to 15k miles. That does not mean the wear starts to escalate there; it means that is where the data drastically tapers off. Same goes for the Ford/Conoco study; they didn't see wear rise at 15k miles, that is just where they stopped the testing.
I would love to put together a troop of brave soles that are willing to find the fundemental edge of sanity (with a nod towards the necessity of safe equipment operation). I would include myself in that; I am willing to put my money (and vehicles) where my mouth is. Let's run up some 10-15k mile OCIs, and track all the inputs/results we can. In longer OCIs, I see the logic of "better" filters being a possibility, simply due to the much greater holding capacity. (Of course, one could also get that from an upsized filter or twined FF filters.).
Jim - Why push it? For the sake of knowledge. Yes - small sump systems will likely never be able to meet any ROI that includes a UOA, especially a Blackstone with TBN/TAN ($$$). But that is the point I try to make; learn from others! I have MOUNDS of data that shows longer OCIs are safe, and I have personal UOAs that show dinos are way more capable that others are typically willing to admit, or will admit but only begrudgingly. In the face of clear evidence, some just cannot accept the reality. So, they/he/we/she all experiment to see what we can find out, realitve to what is important to us as individuals.
Ironically, if one is seeking the "best" ROI, you have to spend money up front to make it back in the end. I would never suggest folks just blindly run up to 15k miles without a few UOAs for confirmation. To many other potential issues that also need tracked. This is where folks who run synthetics and premium filters falter; they never run out the system long enough to make back the money. And then they often UOA and ignore what it tells them.
Sometimes knowledge is worth the price of admission. I would be the first to admit I often UOA simply out of a sense of curiosity and cannot justify the cost; it's an emotional satisfaction I seek at times. I can be cheaper to OCI than to UOA for sure, at times.
So the question becomes this:
Where does the OP want to take this? What balance does he seek between knowlege and ROI? As to this OP and his UOA, I'd say working up towards 15k miles is certainly doable. Will need a TBN/TAN the next time as only knowning TBN is only half the equation. But that is only if he "wants" to do so. The wear metals are very much in control and low; the contamination is low; the TBN is likely OK but needs a TAN to confirm. Other than a pure gut reaction, give me a good reason he shouldn't extend in the pursuit of happiness? To what characteristic in the UOA would anyone point out that necessitates shorter OCIs? What measurable is near condemnation such that longer OCIs are not doable here? Don't give me your gut emotional reaction; point toward the clear evidence that suggests this isn't pragmatic. Because EVERYTHING I see in this UOA says it's safe to extend, and a TAN would be helpful.
"One word of caution; check for sludge. Not that it will happen, but it is always of concern when running longer OCIs. Generally, if the engine is not a known sludger, this is not an issue, and 15k miles is doable here. With insolubles low, and the history of the 2.5L, you should be fine, I suspect."
Non-rhetorical question for Mr. Newton. How does sludge come about when the UOA is so sterling?
More rhetorical. Why push it? the UOA costs as much as the oil change. I accept your proposition that the oil lubricates better and better until it fails, but a guy who is running it out to 9K must be getting a lion's share of that effect. Since sludge is evidently possible notwithstanding excellent numbers as you say, isn't this all the more reason to call it a day at 9K and side-step this possible problem? Besides, isn't there test-to-test variation that has to be taken into account? For example, suppose OP successfully runs his oil to the failure point at 15K. Isn't there a fair possibility that the next failure point might be 12K, just as a matter of test to test variability?
Wouldn't the optimal thing be to change the oil every 9K with exactly the same stuff, quit paying for the UOAs and perhaps devote more time and money to the cosmetics of the vehicle? My experience is that the appearance chases a person out of a well-maintained vehicle more than the mechanicals.
There are predictors such as the insoluble count; when that is good, it's unlikely that sludge/coking is a big issue.
However, I had good UOAs from my old Taurus that had seriously coked rings. I was unaware of it until I did a compression check.
We go with what we know. And the more we know, the better decisions we make.
If the valve cover is easy to pop off for an inspection, why not confirm the low insolubles with an independent visual check?
Nearly every example I have (with the exception of known heavy sludgers) shows wear numbers still dropping out to 15k miles. That does not mean the wear starts to escalate there; it means that is where the data drastically tapers off. Same goes for the Ford/Conoco study; they didn't see wear rise at 15k miles, that is just where they stopped the testing.
I would love to put together a troop of brave soles that are willing to find the fundemental edge of sanity (with a nod towards the necessity of safe equipment operation). I would include myself in that; I am willing to put my money (and vehicles) where my mouth is. Let's run up some 10-15k mile OCIs, and track all the inputs/results we can. In longer OCIs, I see the logic of "better" filters being a possibility, simply due to the much greater holding capacity. (Of course, one could also get that from an upsized filter or twined FF filters.).
Jim - Why push it? For the sake of knowledge. Yes - small sump systems will likely never be able to meet any ROI that includes a UOA, especially a Blackstone with TBN/TAN ($$$). But that is the point I try to make; learn from others! I have MOUNDS of data that shows longer OCIs are safe, and I have personal UOAs that show dinos are way more capable that others are typically willing to admit, or will admit but only begrudgingly. In the face of clear evidence, some just cannot accept the reality. So, they/he/we/she all experiment to see what we can find out, realitve to what is important to us as individuals.
Ironically, if one is seeking the "best" ROI, you have to spend money up front to make it back in the end. I would never suggest folks just blindly run up to 15k miles without a few UOAs for confirmation. To many other potential issues that also need tracked. This is where folks who run synthetics and premium filters falter; they never run out the system long enough to make back the money. And then they often UOA and ignore what it tells them.
Sometimes knowledge is worth the price of admission. I would be the first to admit I often UOA simply out of a sense of curiosity and cannot justify the cost; it's an emotional satisfaction I seek at times. I can be cheaper to OCI than to UOA for sure, at times.
So the question becomes this:
Where does the OP want to take this? What balance does he seek between knowlege and ROI? As to this OP and his UOA, I'd say working up towards 15k miles is certainly doable. Will need a TBN/TAN the next time as only knowning TBN is only half the equation. But that is only if he "wants" to do so. The wear metals are very much in control and low; the contamination is low; the TBN is likely OK but needs a TAN to confirm. Other than a pure gut reaction, give me a good reason he shouldn't extend in the pursuit of happiness? To what characteristic in the UOA would anyone point out that necessitates shorter OCIs? What measurable is near condemnation such that longer OCIs are not doable here? Don't give me your gut emotional reaction; point toward the clear evidence that suggests this isn't pragmatic. Because EVERYTHING I see in this UOA says it's safe to extend, and a TAN would be helpful.
Last edited:
I'm willing to take the OCI out further because I'm very curious as well. The cost of the UOA doesn't particularly bother me, I'm saving money not doing oil changes at 3k anyway.
I'm almost out of my stash of oil. I service 6 cars at home for the family and we all drive a lot, so the 150 quarts or so has gone fairly quickly.
Note, this report was on a single OEM Honeywell blue filter. I suppose I could pop the valve cover off to look for sludge. I may do that when I do the timing belt and water pump, probably by the end of the year.
A little bit of my driving conditions. During the week, I drive to school every day, which is 1 mile away. Sometimes I go home for lunch break, and come back, so 2 round trips most days. Gym and work during the week is in the area too, so it seems I put about 50 miles during the week. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, I drive 60-80 miles a day going out to LA for work and other things. I go through a tank of gas a week, roughly 400-450 miles. I think this would be defined as severe driving conditions just because the car never gets fully warm during the week.
I'm almost out of my stash of oil. I service 6 cars at home for the family and we all drive a lot, so the 150 quarts or so has gone fairly quickly.
Note, this report was on a single OEM Honeywell blue filter. I suppose I could pop the valve cover off to look for sludge. I may do that when I do the timing belt and water pump, probably by the end of the year.
A little bit of my driving conditions. During the week, I drive to school every day, which is 1 mile away. Sometimes I go home for lunch break, and come back, so 2 round trips most days. Gym and work during the week is in the area too, so it seems I put about 50 miles during the week. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, I drive 60-80 miles a day going out to LA for work and other things. I go through a tank of gas a week, roughly 400-450 miles. I think this would be defined as severe driving conditions just because the car never gets fully warm during the week.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: aigochamaloh
Note, this report was on a single OEM Honeywell blue filter. I suppose I could pop the valve cover off to look for sludge. I may do that when I do the timing belt and water pump, probably by the end of the year.
I think this confirms (or potentially only partially does) that there is more than one approach to oil filters, and both can be effective. Japanese OEMs typically prefer lower efficiency filters, but to the benefit of filter capacity. American OEMs typically prefer higher efficiency, but to the cost of filter capacity. Honda (and possibly Nissan as well) is notorious for recommending filter changes only every OTHER oil change. That's a 15,000 mile or 20,000 mile filter. At only 60 or 65% efficiency, there's no way that will work, right?
Well, maybe it does. You've run an OEM Honeywell filter (likely the same thing as a Honda Honeywell filter) to 10,000 miles with notably fantastic results. Would that same OEM Honeywill filter be equally up to the task of a 15,000 mile OCI? Maybe you'll be able to tell us in another 15,000 miles.
Originally Posted By: aigochamaloh
I think this would be defined as severe driving conditions just because the car never gets fully warm during the week.
Because of your driving conditions, I think your results are even more notable.
Note, this report was on a single OEM Honeywell blue filter. I suppose I could pop the valve cover off to look for sludge. I may do that when I do the timing belt and water pump, probably by the end of the year.
I think this confirms (or potentially only partially does) that there is more than one approach to oil filters, and both can be effective. Japanese OEMs typically prefer lower efficiency filters, but to the benefit of filter capacity. American OEMs typically prefer higher efficiency, but to the cost of filter capacity. Honda (and possibly Nissan as well) is notorious for recommending filter changes only every OTHER oil change. That's a 15,000 mile or 20,000 mile filter. At only 60 or 65% efficiency, there's no way that will work, right?
Well, maybe it does. You've run an OEM Honeywell filter (likely the same thing as a Honda Honeywell filter) to 10,000 miles with notably fantastic results. Would that same OEM Honeywill filter be equally up to the task of a 15,000 mile OCI? Maybe you'll be able to tell us in another 15,000 miles.
Originally Posted By: aigochamaloh
I think this would be defined as severe driving conditions just because the car never gets fully warm during the week.
Because of your driving conditions, I think your results are even more notable.
- Status
Similar threads
