Pure ONE PL 24651 (cut open)

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

2) shorter OCIs result in elevated wear rates (proven by UOAs and SAE studies)


Hummm ... why?

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

In your current OCI plan, you could easily run 3 years at 4.5k miles on a quality dino oil and normal filter, and safety get the same wear protection.


A 3 year OCI? I've gone slightly over 1-1/2 years with full synthetic, but not sure I'd push it to 3 years with conventional oil, let alone full synthetic.

 

[dnewton3]

As for the first topic, please stay tuned. I have an article to be posted, but it's in editing at this point. Take my full and faithful word for it; it's true and it's proven both in the lab and in the real world via UOAs. I realize it completly counters absolutely everything we're taught about lubes, but it's true. Conceptually, it's not much different that filtration. Most noobs would think that a "new" filter is "better", but we accept that filter loading actually increases efficiency. Used oil (as long as it is not heavily compromised by contamination) actually improves the wear rate, and the longer it's in use, the lower the wear rate. The theorhetical end of that low wear is somewhat hard to define, because most folks never run an OCI out far enough to develop the statistical data to find the uptake of wear increase. Ford/Conoco proved that out to 15k miles miles, the wear rates were still dropping and that was with both GF-3 and GF-4 fluids! (SAE# 2007-01-4133)



As for the other comment ...
I've safely run 3 year dino HDEO OCIs in my Kubota tractor and my 1966 Mustang.

There is a UOA somewhere on here where a guy ran 4 years / 10k miles on Mobil 1 and had a great UOA.


The OP is going 1.5k miles in a year on syn. He can EASILY run much further.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
As for the first topic, please stay tuned. I have an article to be posted, but it's in editing at this point. Take my full and faithful word for it; it's true and it's proven both in the lab and in the real world via UOAs. I realize it completly counters absolutely everything we're taught about lubes, but it's true. Conceptually, it's not much different that filtration. Most noobs would think that a "new" filter is "better", but we accept that filter loading actually increases efficiency. Used oil (as long as it is not heavily compromised by contamination) actually improves the wear rate, and the longer it's in use, the lower the wear rate. The theorhetical end of that low wear is somewhat hard to define, because most folks never run an OCI out far enough to develop the statistical data to find the uptake of wear increase. Ford/Conoco proved that out to 15k miles miles, the wear rates were still dropping and that was with both GF-3 and GF-4 fluids! (SAE# 2007-01-4133)


Would really be interested in that data & article. First time I've ever heard that old oil is better for wear protection than new oil.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
As for the other comment ...
I've safely run 3 year dino HDEO OCIs in my Kubota tractor and my 1966 Mustang.

There is a UOA somewhere on here where a guy ran 4 years / 10k miles on Mobil 1 and had a great UOA.

The OP is going 1.5k miles in a year on syn. He can EASILY run much further.


The only way a 3 year OCI would be "safe" is if the oil was always brought up to max operating temperature every time the car was ran. People who do short engine runs and wait 3 years to change their oil are asking for problems due to condensation and fuel contaminants that have not been burned off or evacuated properly by the PCV system from the engine's internals.

 

[daman]

D i gotta hand it to ya you like to type man,anyway wasted a perfectly good filter could have easy gone way longer. I'm on my third year with a P1 on my INTEK 18.5.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
As for the first topic, please stay tuned. I have an article to be posted, but it's in editing at this point. Take my full and faithful word for it; it's true and it's proven both in the lab and in the real world via UOAs. I realize it completly counters absolutely everything we're taught about lubes, but it's true. Conceptually, it's not much different that filtration. Most noobs would think that a "new" filter is "better", but we accept that filter loading actually increases efficiency. Used oil (as long as it is not heavily compromised by contamination) actually improves the wear rate, and the longer it's in use, the lower the wear rate. The theorhetical end of that low wear is somewhat hard to define, because most folks never run an OCI out far enough to develop the statistical data to find the uptake of wear increase. Ford/Conoco proved that out to 15k miles miles, the wear rates were still dropping and that was with both GF-3 and GF-4 fluids! (SAE# 2007-01-4133)


Would really be interested in that data & article. First time I've ever heard that old oil is better for wear protection than new oil.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
As for the other comment ...
I've safely run 3 year dino HDEO OCIs in my Kubota tractor and my 1966 Mustang.

There is a UOA somewhere on here where a guy ran 4 years / 10k miles on Mobil 1 and had a great UOA.

The OP is going 1.5k miles in a year on syn. He can EASILY run much further.


The only way a 3 year OCI would be "safe" is if the oil was always brought up to max operating temperature every time the car was ran. People who do short engine runs and wait 3 years to change their oil are asking for problems due to condensation and fuel contaminants that have not been burned off or evacuated properly by the PCV system from the engine's internals.



The article I wrote if forthcoming, but tied up in editing. The SAE study can be had by you or anyone that wants to pay for it; $23 at the SAE site; study # 2007-01-4133. But trust me, there is overwhelming evidence from both UOAs and lab studies that show extending the OCI lowers the wear rates. I realize this seems like heresy, but it's completely true and my data and sources will confirm my claims in short order, once the data is out. I have submitted the article to our BITOG resources and it's just tied up getting formatting and editing done. Stay tuned.

As for the OCI comment, I would agree. But that is true of ANY situation and not just this one. To really get full value out of any product (not just lubes or filters) the consumer has to know the benefits and limitations of all things involved for the unique situation they are in.

As for this OPs filter and car, we don't really know if he does or does not get it up to temp. Your point is valid to some degree.

But I'll counter and make a few points here:
1) Traditionally, it really does not take all that long to get cars up to temp in summer. His Mustang is presumably a garage queen (1.5k miles a year isn't much at all) and probably goes our for cruising. I suspect it gets to full temp most of the time. Probably not always, but most of the time.
2) Ryan Stark (of Blackstone) has noted, and I concur, that fuel injected engines with sealed PCV systems really don't see the moisture intrusion like the cars of old. The engines are actually fairly well sealed. Obviously the intake air will have moisture, but that immediately goes into combustion and isn't a problem. So only blow-by moisture would be a concern, and that's minimal. Most of the time the moisture of combustion goes out the exhaust (we've all seen the condensation come out the tailpipe and drip on the ground). That really does not directly translate into crankcase moisture. Now, all of this is predicated on a sealed engine that is in good shape (no leaks, intrusion, etc). But this is a 2002 Mustang; it's sealed. The "old" cars (with carbs, open valve cover breathers, etc like my 1966 Mustang) will get natural moisture intrusion from the barometric breathing cycles. But not a car made in perhaps the last two decades. Will SOME mositure be present? Yes. But it's minimal and Blackstone confirms that. They have seen a huge drop in moisture related problems over the years, excluding engines with obvious coolant leaks, and it's dues to systems that are essentially sealed from barometric atmoshperic exchange. Stark has mentioned that in print, he said the same thing at the BITOG meeting in Chicago in his presentation, and he's said it to me personally. Further, I would confirm his affirmation with the data I've collected. Moisture is a concern; that's true. But it's also a much smaller contributor than folks think nowdays. What your heart fears and what your engine experiences is often two separate things. Data tells us that moisture intrusion is not of great concern on modern vehicle in good shape. Finally, the OP lives in Reno, where the air is dry; moisture laden air is not a concern. They have low relative humidity, low annual precipitation, and the temps are not that cold (avg low of +25F).


So I say that a 3-4 year OCI for this situation is perfectly safe, and at the end of that time he could UOA to confirm if he wanted to extend. The high reward is worth the low risk, because running M1 with a P1 filter for a 1.5k mile annual OCI is a complete waste.

If short OCIs are going to continue to be his plan, regardless of all the information and data, then he might as well waste the current stash he has as he sees fit; it's his stuff to do with as he pleases. But going forward, there is zero logic to buy a syn and PureOne for annual 1.5k mile OCIs.

 

[circuitsmith]

Short OCIs cause more engine wear?
I don't think so.
Are there any studies that involved tear down and measurement of wear, not just UOA?

I only drive ~4000 miles a year, but no way would I leave oil in more than a year even if I drove less.

 

[scurvy]

Originally Posted By: circuitsmith
Short OCIs cause more engine wear?I don't think so.
Are there any studies that involved tear down and measurement of wear, not just UOA?


You don't have to think so, you just have to be able to read with an open mind.

The SAE study dnewton3 mentioned above is a gold mine of information. Here's one tidbit that I believe is from it, done not with UOA but radionuclide testing (RNT) which allows for real time monitoring of the wear metals in the oil shed by the various components with extreme accuracy and high resolution.

The overwhelming body of real scientific research on this subject goes against your very thought. With an engine that has no mechanical issues, low annual miles can easily lead to 2 year, 3 year or longer OCIs.

I never thought doing something like that was possible until I did my own 1 year, 30k km (18k mile) OCI. Gave me my best wear numbers (in terms of ppm/k km) than any observed before. Obviously the engine, driving conditions, filtration and lubricant have to all work in harmony to make this possible, but it can be done.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
But trust me, there is overwhelming evidence from both UOAs and lab studies that show extending the OCI lowers the wear rates. I realize this seems like heresy, but it's completely true and my data and sources will confirm my claims in short order, once the data is out. I have submitted the article to our BITOG resources and it's just tied up getting formatting and editing done. Stay tuned.


I look forward to reading this - please let us know when it is ready.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: scurvy

That graph is pretty nebulous/vague and has no explanation attached. Any background on what it's supposed to really mean?

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: circuitsmith
Short OCIs cause more engine wear?
I don't think so.
Are there any studies that involved tear down and measurement of wear, not just UOA?

I only drive ~4000 miles a year, but no way would I leave oil in more than a year even if I drove less.


I can assure you all that the SAE paper is VERY well detailed, and worth the money for you to spend on it.

Absolutely yes; Wear is escalated at the front of an OCI due to tribochemical reactions. Proven in the lab in a very well detailed and measured methodology. Also born out in large reams of UOA data. I can understand your doubt; it is a matter of years of marketing programming. But the facts are facts. Before you make up your mind, why not buy and read the study? They specifically measured wear on actual engine components, among other things. Plus, that SAE study (2007-01-4133) references many other studies that also chronical wear as a result of the tribochemical process.

You are free to be a non-believer; but that does not make it untrue.

 

[Texan4Life]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: scurvy

That graph is pretty nebulous/vague and has no explanation attached. Any background on what it's supposed to really mean?


interesting. the way I read the graph, iron wear spikes at the start of a oci, slowly rises, and then begins to peak again at the end.

so I guess the question is how much time (hrs/miles) does it take to reach each stage? I guess that would be engine and oil dependent?

I guess the goal would be to change it as close to the end of "normal operation" as possible without crossing into "wear out"

 

[KevGuy]

Originally Posted By: stang5
Just found out the red flakes are the PTFE coating of the filter gasket..


Use FRAM oil filters and you will not have gasket material issues.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Texan4Life
Originally Posted By: scurvy

Interesting. The way I read the graph, iron wear spikes at the start of a oci, slowly rises, and then begins to peak again at the end.

So I guess the question is how much time (hrs/miles) does it take to reach each stage? I guess that would be engine and oil dependent?

I guess the goal would be to change it as close to the end of "normal operation" as possible without crossing into "wear out"

I agree. Ideally it should be changed just before it crosses into "wear out".

 

[bullwinkle]

Only question is-is that acid buildup that causes that "onset of wear" or something else?

 

[Jim Allen]

Been too busy to post much but the study DNewton3 mentions is the real deal and I also have it. If you go through the whole thing, you will be convinced. It's quite extensive and makes perfect sense. It's been discussed here before within the past coupla years.

My nutshell explanation of this, and I wouldn't mind some fine tuning if it's off base, is that the anti wear agents in the oil (ZDDP & others) create surface films over time that reduce wear at those places where there is actual metal contact (cams, followers, rockers and instances at bearing where there is incidental loss of the hydrodynamic effect). When new oil is introduced, the fresh additive package tends to "clean off" the old films it encounters and it takes time for the fresh oil to "age" and make it's own films. The paper says that dispersant additives often clash with antiwear additives like Mo and ZDDP and reduce their ability to form protective films. The paper said it takes up to 3K miles for the oil to really lay down a good film. It's a pretty complex chemical reaction involved here. What I read makes me even more leery about mixing oils... especially oils with very different basic chemistries.

 

[KCJeep]

Discouraging if it takes 3k to get a decent film and most conventionals are about done at 5k.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Discouraging if it takes 3k to get a decent film and most conventionals are about done at 5k.

That is where you're a bit off base. Most lubes are just getting started at 3k miles. At 5k miles, they are just hitting their stride and capable of far more. By no measure are they "about done" at 5k miles; so very far from it.

The article I wrote (please read when you get a chance) clearly shows that even dino lubes are viable out to 10k+ miles, depending upon application and predicated on equipment in good mechanical condition.

Wear rates are actually still going DOWN in many examples, at 10k miles. The SAE study I reference even shows that wear becomes almost zero (not absolute, but darn near) when the lubes get aged. I realize that it's hard to believe, but there are multiple SAE studies and lots of UOA data to prove this. Unfortunately, the mass-market sales hype is far louder and broader than I would ever be.

Also, it's not that the engine is really being harmed by short OCIs; that is not borne out by the data. What is happening is that the barrier is being stripped and refreshed; the older it gets the better it gets. What is being harmed is the wallet! Why dump oil at 3k or 5k miles, that is capable of 10k miles? You can change oil at 2k miles, but your wear rate is HIGHER than at 10k miles by far. In fact, the study actually mentioned that the reduction of wear is on an order of magnitude (a factor of 10)! There was even a friction reduction at the valvetrain, but that is likely offset by the drag at the cylinder. The SAE study (Ford/Conoco) notes that wear is still declining at 15k miles of oil use! This is oil that is directly taken from a small fleet of Las Vegas Taxis, and then run in highly-controlled wear measurement testing where they measure the actual parts.

So, together, we have lab studies that measure less wear, and UOA reports that indicate less wear, all as the OCI lengthens. When the lab studies is confirmed by thousands of UOAs, it's pretty hard to deny. To paraphrase a phrase: two rights cannot make a wrong!

First, read the article I wrote. Then buy the SAE study. You will find enlightenment.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

The article I wrote (please read when you get a chance) clearly shows that even dino lubes are viable out to 10k+ miles, depending upon application and predicated on equipment in good mechanical condition.


Here's a link to dnewton's article:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/

 

[KCJeep]

Thanks I'd heard it mentioned but hadn't seen a link.

I'm an easy sell on this dnewton3 it makes sense to me but knowing where the edge actually is would be tricky for those who won't do UOA's. Especially hard for those who won't stick with one lube.

So does that mean more frequent changes are better for cleaning? My Jeep was definitely neglected it ain't pretty through the fill hole. Runs like a top but I've been doing short OCI's for that reason though.

 

[dnewton3]

Well - you bring up some good points that cannot be ignored.

OEM OCIs are by their very nature, ultra conservative. They are such because the OEM in really only concerned about protecting their warranty exposure and nothing more. When oil was cheap (or at least cheaper than it has been for the last 10 years) it was very easy to tell people "3 mo/ 3k mi"; the expense was low and frankly, the lubes and equipment from 30 years ago was not fantastic. While good at the time, they were not at all what they are today. And 20 years from now, we'll scoff at our current products.

Where does that leave Joe the Average Driver? Most often, it's just cheaper to OCI than to UOA. There is 100% assurance that a large portion of contamination will get flushed out. There are many examples of vehicles with up to one-million miles on them with good old 4k mile OCIs with dino oil. It works. But, it's expensive. If you extend your OCIs, you can get there cheaper.

What the industry is starting to embrace (before most BITOGers are willing to do so) is that even "normal" OCIs can be 10k miles or so, give or take a bit. The IOLMs are doing a pretty good job of prediciting a (still conservative) extended OCI. Even the "dumb" OLMs are pushing out to 7.5k miles with fairly regular appearance now. Why? Resouces. Money and raw oil.

Cleaning is a matter not unlike wear. It is both the rate, and the final level, of contamination to be concerned with. While a heavily-dosed detergent package seems like a great idea, it's actually counter productive to wear reduction; it interferes with the chemical barrier the oil is trying to lay down. Like most things in life, oil is a compromise of goals, targets, abilities and costs. As long as an engine is not greatly overwhelming an oil with soot and insolubles, then a ultra-heavy detergent isn't really needed.

So you ask a fairly decent question: where is the edge? Much further out than people think. Generally, wear is still subsiding in most engines even at 15k miles. If the other issues (fuel dilution, coolant ingress, soot, vis) are reasonably acceptable, then there is no cause to OCI. If you UOA, you can know these things. If you don't UOA, then it's a guess. My only point to this is that our "guess" is predicated on really old oil specs, aging equipment, and outdated sales hype. Today's lubes and clean running engines really are much more capable than folks believe.

 

[KCJeep]

Thanks for taking the time for that.