Oil Change interval & Fresh Oil Break-in period

[Kaiser]

Hello all,

I don't know if this article was already posted here, I looked for it but I didn't see it anywhere...

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2007-01-4133/

I had seen on the forum (but I can not find the link) a person said that the oil had a "break-in period" and during this period the engine wear is higher.
So over an interval of 60000km, if we do 6 oil changes (every 10000km) instead of 2 oil change (every 30000km) we multiply by 3 the engine wear that was caused by the "running in oil".

What do you think about that ?

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: Kaiser


What do you think about that ?


Incorrect. We know for a fact that extended oil change intervals increase cam chain and balancer chain wear. We also know that UOA wear metals testing shows lower wear metals in extended drain intervals. However, this is not indicative of wear rates. There have been many UOA results showing excellent wear metals on catastrophically failing engines.

Particulates build up and increase real world wear rates. Folks, change your oil and choose your viscosity carefully.

 

[Kaiser]

So the UOA are just a good way to know how an oil keeps its specs during its life and not to know the engine health

 

[Shannow]

That paper takes engine oils that are used.

Some have thickened to over double their original viscosity, and have TBNs that should be condemned.

Then applies those (used) oils to wear suurfaces and measures reductions in wear and friction.

The paper does NOT say that extended drains mean less wear.

 

[Kaiser]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
That paper takes engine oils that are used.

Some have thickened to over double their original viscosity, and have TBNs that should be condemned.

Then applies those (used) oils to wear suurfaces and measures reductions in wear and friction.

The paper does NOT say that extended drains mean less wear.


That what I was thinking but I wasn't sure.
thank for this confirmation

 

[69GTX]

Originally Posted By: Kaiser
So the UOA are just a good way to know how an oil keeps its specs during its life and not to know the engine health


UOA's are a good way to determine the health of the oil....not necessarily the health of the engine.

 

[Linctex]

Should I leave a little used oil in?

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4432777

 

[irv]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: Kaiser


What do you think about that ?


Incorrect. We know for a fact that extended oil change intervals increase cam chain and balancer chain wear. We also know that UOA wear metals testing shows lower wear metals in extended drain intervals. However, this is not indicative of wear rates. There have been many UOA results showing excellent wear metals on catastrophically failing engines.

Particulates build up and increase real world wear rates. Folks, change your oil and choose your viscosity carefully.


This is the second time I have read this, which is confusing as one would think, with the longer drain intervals, wear metals and the like would also read higher.

If I am understanding this correctly, an OCI with 1000 kms would show a lot higher wear metal readings than an oil that had 10,000 kms on it?
What am I missing or not understanding. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: Kaiser
So the UOA are just a good way to know how an oil keeps its specs during its life and not to know the engine health


UOA's are a good way to determine the health of the oil....not necessarily the health of the engine.


Have seen some flame out on iron PPM even when engine has an iron block and a formula change took place …
To even get halfway in a steady state mode … would it not take minimum 20k on unit miles to be mostly “worn in” … then 3x with brand A followed by 3x with brand B … same OCI miles and driving habits … but who does that … ?
Then when the oil companies do bench testing they get attacked for “not real world” …
The most subjective materials tend to draw some nasty comments on this site …

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted By: irv
... If I am understanding this correctly, an OCI with 1000 kms would show a lot higher wear metal readings than an oil that had 10,000 kms on it?
What am I missing or not understanding. ...
First, we have to get clear whether we're talking about absolute levels of wear metals, or levels per km (or mile). If, for example, other things being equal, your example oil with 10,000 has 9 times the level of the oil with 1000 km, that would appear to suggest a slightly declining wear rate.

 

[Jim Allen]

That is not an "Article," it's a brief snippet, not a full summary even. How do I know? I have the full article and it's 14 pages long!

So, is all this commentary and opinion based on merely reading the preview or has anyone actually ponied up and gotten the entire paper? If you are debating this on half the facts, what useful conclusions can actually be reached?

Quote:
We know for a fact that extended oil change intervals increase cam chain and balancer chain wear. We also know that UOA wear metals testing shows lower wear metals in extended drain intervals. However, this is not indicative of wear rates. There have been many UOA results showing excellent wear metals on catastrophically failing engines.


How do "we" know for a fact? Is there some comparable paper to be evaluated illustrating testing down on chain wear and extended oil change intervals? In 2007-01-4133 the focus was on cams and followers, though the test vehicles used Ford 4.6L Triton engines (they started off as new engines), which do have quite an elaborate system of roller chains. If an extended interval was detrimental to chains, you'd have thought that would have shown up in the oil analysis?

The tests prove the theory that friction and wear go down as the oil ages. But like many other things, there is (or could be) a flipside to it not covered in the test. Maybe that's chain wear, so how about some study citations? I would point out that many, if not most, engines these days do not have chains at all (cam belts) so any downsides related specifically to chains would be moot for a significant number of oil-heads.

Finally, how do the significant reductions in ZDDP since that test was done apply to this? This is a ten year old paper. If your vehicle is operating under the conditions under which this 2007 (or earlier) test was done, i.e. similar engines, similar oils, then it would apply more strongly. If you are using current levels of ZDDP, or a more modern engine, remember in that test they were using GF3 or GF4 oils and engines that are no longer in production. We really don't know how strongly it would apply outside of that era. Certainly the basic premise holds as long as ZDDP is in the mix. And then there are the other anti-friction/wear additives they use now. My point here is not to debate wear rates vs extended intervals, but to show that the "flag" you intend to "wave" RE your particular oil crusade or line of inquiry may or may not be current or applicable to YOUR situation or suitable for the broad generalizations that so routinely occur on BITOG.

I am interested in a citation on chain wear, though, since one of my current extended interval engines has a chain, I'd like review them and consider if I need to reevaluate my current OCI. I don't recall ever investigating chain wear specifically.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
That is not an "Article," it's a brief snippet, not a full summary even. How do I know? I have the full article and it's 14 pages long!

So, is all this commentary and opinion based on merely reading the preview or has anyone actually ponied up and gotten the entire paper? If you are debating this on half the facts, what useful conclusions can actually be reached?


:raises hand:

That's why I'm critical of many of the "facts" claimed on BITOG referencing that paper.

The used oils have a more (for want of better description) "broken down", or "activiated" additive package...more reactive than virgin...and form tribofilms quicker.

Most of the oils would have been condemned in a UAO

 

[mx5miata]

For me 1000-1500 miles I change my oil on a new vehicle.

Good synthetic and filter 6 month changes are fine. The vigorous testing that the oil goes through, no one on here will outperform that.. a filter will fail on you before the oil.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
That is not an "Article," it's a brief snippet, not a full summary even. How do I know? I have the full article and it's 14 pages long!

So, is all this commentary and opinion based on merely reading the preview or has anyone actually ponied up and gotten the entire paper? If you are debating this on half the facts, what useful conclusions can actually be reached?


:raises hand:

That's why I'm critical of many of the "facts" claimed on BITOG referencing that paper.

The used oils have a more (for want of better description) "broken down", or "activiated" additive package...more reactive than virgin...and form tribofilms quicker.

Most of the oils would have been condemned in a UAO


Gee, in looking at the UOA results on the charts in that paper, they looked pretty good to me! Even at 15K! 3.2 TBN.

Anyway, I think it was a valid test. Then. To what degree it applies today or whether it can be used as a universal yardstick can be debated. ZDDP levels have dropped and probably will drop more and that changes the value and applicability of that paper.

I thing the indications are that most oils dumped in regular maintenance are greatly to moderately underutilized, changed before they need to be. I think that is a universal fact but the devils are in the individual details of each vehicle. How to determine individual needs is the big question. I think the "average Joe" could extend his OCI safely in most circumstances but to stretch it out to the far end requires a little more knowledge and testing. And confidence.

 

[mx5miata]

I come here to get knowledge on certain things that leave me stumped.

I don't find myself wanting to know how my oils performing all I am interested in is that my vehicles maintained and is running right.

I have owned many cars new and old and with high mileage never once had an oil analysis performed.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: mx5miata
I come here to get knowledge on certain things that leave me stumped.

I don't find myself wanting to know how my oils performing all I am interested in is that my vehicles maintained and is running right.

I have owned many cars new and old and with high mileage never once had an oil analysis performed.

I'm surprised, then, that you feel the need to make comments as you did in a discussion on a deeply technical topic on which you have no knowledge and, more importantly, no interest? Or even look at such a discussion?

 

[DGXR]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: mx5miata
I come here to get knowledge on certain things that leave me stumped.

I don't find myself wanting to know how my oils performing all I am interested in is that my vehicles maintained and is running right.

I have owned many cars new and old and with high mileage never once had an oil analysis performed.

I'm surprised, then, that you feel the need to make comments as you did in a discussion on a deeply technical topic on which you have no knowledge and, more importantly, no interest? Or even look at such a discussion?

Haha exactly! So Funny! This guy probably walks into an ice cream shop and shouts "I don't like ice cream, I have never eaten ice cream and don't see the point in eating ice cream. I just want foods to taste good."

 

[BrocLuno]

Seems about right for BITOG ...

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen

Gee, in looking at the UOA results on the charts in that paper, they looked pretty good to me! Even at 15K! 3.2 TBN.


Oil RO207 8.4Cst virgin, 15.9Cst at 15,000 miles
Oil RO243 8.7Cst virgin, 15.3Cst at 15,000 miles
Oil RO208 8.3Cst virgin, 17.1Cst at 15,000 miles

I stand by the condemnation statement.

(BTW, that was one of the funniest parts of one of the threads when a usual suspect (who HADN'T read the paper) claimed that obviously the wear results were down, as the oils had thinned and provided more protection)

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: Shannow


Oil RO207 8.4Cst virgin, 15.9Cst at 15,000 miles
Oil RO243 8.7Cst virgin, 15.3Cst at 15,000 miles
Oil RO208 8.3Cst virgin, 17.1Cst at 15,000 miles

I stand by the condemnation statement.

A fair observation but let's keep in mind the focus of the test and the paper... studying wear at different point in the life of the oil. Take note of the wear metal, iron in particular, which remains low. But let's look at what the testers had to say in SAE 2001-01-4133:

"ENGINE OIL ANALYSIS

The elemental oil composition, viscosities and other properties are shown in Tables I-III. The iron content of the oil remained fairly low even for the 150000 mile drain oil. Aluminum and iron wear metals were mostly lower than the target limits of 50ppm and 100 ppm, respectively for all oil drains including 15000 miles. In RO242 oil, the amount of boron in the fresh oil depleted quickly probably due to volatilization. The viscosity increased to some extent as the oil drain interval increased but a significant increase was noticed for 15000 mile intervals. Similar substantial change was noted for TAN and TBN numbers. However, there are some inconsistencies observed in the data; (a) no Mo was present on fresh RO207 but it appeared on all drain samples, the source of which is unknown, (b) the P content in RO207 is expected to be in the 950 ppm range, (c) the 40C viscosity of 3000 mil drain RO208 oil seems to be higher than expected, and (d) the calcium content in fresh RO243 is higher than expected. These issues are currently being investigated."

That is the the gistof the comments in the paper about those oil samples, though there are the data charts for each oil you cited.

I think the focus of that part of the test is found in the wear metals, not the viscosity, and I think they knew the oil was run out past what would normally be done. Since AFAIK Conoco was supplying oil to Ford at the time, Ford/Motorcraft all parties probably looked at this with some interest on many levels. Other than the one "experimental" oil they cited, I'll bet they were ordinary Conoco/Motorcraft oils.

My comment was more in the nature of "that oil looked pretty good for 15K miles" that it was was to say it was still in great shape. I have run some OCIs out that long and the oil looked much better those, including viscositywise... but those tests were done prior to 2007 and mine may have been better oils. Most definitely in an easier operating environment than mine. A taxi in Las Vegas? Oh the horrors! That's a tough environment and viewed in that context, one must acknowledge the oil did pretty good.