Not sure where to post this. We know the car really used 1.5 qts of oil over the 13k mile period. We also know that from sampling every 1k miles, another 4qts was used. So if 5qts were taken out of a 6qt. sump, isn't the ONLY thing we can get from this study are the numbers during the first 6k miles or so? If we compare numbers during the time frame where no more then lets say, 3qts of oil were used, then it would tell us something. After that, the car almost had an oil change. I hate to say this with all of this work going into this study but it seems seriously flawed from this. Any thoughts?
Question about 3MP's study
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Hmmm... 3MP did say he would've sampled differently if he knew how long the oil would last. Didn't someone else suggest M1 be run again at the end, as a "control" against being run first? Maybe he does need to consider revising the test & putting M1 back in at the end of the line?
Since we're still on the first oil, now's the time to plan changes. 2k mile samples like 3MP suggested? That's still a lot of oil, but longer sample intervals may not be good for dino oils. Maybe the sampling procedure could be changed to reduce oil loss? Change to a suction pump rather than dribble/drain from underneath, & that way the same amount of fresh oil goes back in (just fill up a clean sample bottle to the same level as the UOA sample & dump it in). You'll have a better idea of how much actual "oil burning" is going on as well.
So then what do we do with this test? Kill it at 15k?
[ July 17, 2003, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Eiron ]
Since we're still on the first oil, now's the time to plan changes. 2k mile samples like 3MP suggested? That's still a lot of oil, but longer sample intervals may not be good for dino oils. Maybe the sampling procedure could be changed to reduce oil loss? Change to a suction pump rather than dribble/drain from underneath, & that way the same amount of fresh oil goes back in (just fill up a clean sample bottle to the same level as the UOA sample & dump it in). You'll have a better idea of how much actual "oil burning" is going on as well.
So then what do we do with this test? Kill it at 15k?
[ July 17, 2003, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Eiron ]
I've run a quick calculation of the average age after N samplings. At each sampling, we replace a fraction (5.0/13.0)/6.0 = 6.4% of the sump (using the numbers given above). Since we're replacing it with unused oil, the average age after a sample is 93.6% what it was before the sample. Here is a table of the results:
This calculation is only meaningful if engine oil ages in a roughly linear way; that is, if 2,500 mile oil is as good as a 50-50 combination of fresh and 5,000 mile oil.
ok, i started to make this post once and canned it. will make it now. the problem with the test is not that 3MP has pulled 4oz of oil out at every 1k for under 2 quarts total before the oil filter change. it's that he has a oil burning GM tolerance monster as a test bed. which makes the test very relevent to at least half of us . for those, like me, who drive cars that typically don't use oil (in my case the miata uses 1/2 qt in 10K), it is of slightly less use, but still gives alot of information. before now, i would have just let the oil level drop and figure it would be full after the change. now i top it off. i have also started think changing the filter at 5K may be a really good idea. should have the UOA soon.
don't let the makeup oil throw you. sure, this test is not the same as running 15k and then sampling for the first time, but we know now, that without the free TBN boost from the oil burn replacement, 15K would be the limit, or perhaps even over the limit. unless the engine suddenly seals itself during the amsoil run, it will benefit from the same pattern of top offs, if we keep the tests the same.
there are three questions posed on the website.
1. can oils be run 10K?
certainly mobil 1 can, proved from this test.
2. what is the "safe" limit of the oils?
this one is harder, and what this test has proved is it depends on how "tight" the motor is, and if you change the filter every 5K (or 3K). i think, with some assumptions, we will in the end be able to determine some conclusions based on the data.
3. how do the oils stack up against each other?
again, as long as we don't change anything, this will definitely be proven, at least for GM cars using this engine.
again, an excellent test. beats **** out of the next best test i've seen.
[ July 17, 2003, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: cheetahdriver ]
don't let the makeup oil throw you. sure, this test is not the same as running 15k and then sampling for the first time, but we know now, that without the free TBN boost from the oil burn replacement, 15K would be the limit, or perhaps even over the limit. unless the engine suddenly seals itself during the amsoil run, it will benefit from the same pattern of top offs, if we keep the tests the same.
there are three questions posed on the website.
1. can oils be run 10K?
certainly mobil 1 can, proved from this test.
2. what is the "safe" limit of the oils?
this one is harder, and what this test has proved is it depends on how "tight" the motor is, and if you change the filter every 5K (or 3K). i think, with some assumptions, we will in the end be able to determine some conclusions based on the data.
3. how do the oils stack up against each other?
again, as long as we don't change anything, this will definitely be proven, at least for GM cars using this engine.
again, an excellent test. beats **** out of the next best test i've seen.
[ July 17, 2003, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: cheetahdriver ]
buster,
from the 3MP website
"
Hey, speaking of oil use, what's up with your car using half a quart of oil every 1,000 miles?
It's annoying but pretty typical of today's cars. GM states that LS1 oil usage below 1 quart per 1,500 miles is normal."
as there were a couple of intervals without makeup, i figure that all of the makeup less 4 oz per 1k is burned. that comes to 52oz at 13k and at 32oz per quart that comes to 1.625 qts used in sampling, the rest in other places. with the last filter change, an additional 1 qt due to filter. so we have 5 total makeup, 1.625 due to sample, 1 due to filter and 2.375 due to oil burning.
[ July 17, 2003, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: cheetahdriver ]
from the 3MP website
"
Hey, speaking of oil use, what's up with your car using half a quart of oil every 1,000 miles?
It's annoying but pretty typical of today's cars. GM states that LS1 oil usage below 1 quart per 1,500 miles is normal."
as there were a couple of intervals without makeup, i figure that all of the makeup less 4 oz per 1k is burned. that comes to 52oz at 13k and at 32oz per quart that comes to 1.625 qts used in sampling, the rest in other places. with the last filter change, an additional 1 qt due to filter. so we have 5 total makeup, 1.625 due to sample, 1 due to filter and 2.375 due to oil burning.
[ July 17, 2003, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: cheetahdriver ]
Man, Buster's really got it out for me with this top-up thing.
I dunno what to tell you that will placate you bud, you've seemed to have made up your mind on this one.
My responses are as follows (to be added, retracted, amended, or disowned as I may later find convenient):
1. the primary purpose of the test is to determine the *relative* benefits of one motor oil vs. another. As long as all oils undergo the *exact* same test regimen, this primary purpose will still be valid.
1a. any other thing we learn from this test is bonus.
2. The 1/12th of capacity that I periodically have to add ages along with everything else. So at 6k miles, the 1/2 quart added at 3k miles is 3k old. Therefore to just add up all makeup oil from 3k to 6k and say "well crap it's got 1/3rd fresh oil in it!" is erroneous. Indeed I would suggest it ages faster than the other 5.5 quarts as it is quickly diluted and the elevated contaminants in the used oil will break it down faster.
3. The adjustment to TBN for makeup oil is easily calculated, based on work documented in an SAE paper that I have. At the end of the test I will provide calculated TBN values for both removing the samples and removing all oil consumption completely.
4. Particulates are expressed as a ratio so re-calculating the values to compensate for samples is cake. Expect to see some analysis of this at the conclusion of the test.
5. Viscosity has only shifted by 5% even after 13k miles. I find it doubtful that make-up oil alone is causing this. Note that viscosity did NOT improve even after adding 1.5 quarts at the filter change.
Then there are some other bonus material we've learned:
* we've seen for ourselves how TBN drops sharply and then flattens out.
* we've seen for ourselves that OTC oil filters work very well.
* we've seen for ourselves how risky it is to base a decision on single-point oil analysis, due to the fluctuation of numbers.
* and that winter driving doesn't always severely increase wear numbers.
To say nothing of all the interesting tangents we've pursued along the way.
Of course it's not a perfect study. None are, especially ambitious ones. But we can lay out the assumptions we have to make up front, and figure out what values we can deduce, and be honest about the limitations, while still finding something of use to us in the results.
Let's face it, part of the reason this study undergoes such scrutiny is that every data point and every process is laid out for public view. In Mobil 1's durability studies, do they give you every tidbit of information about how the test is performed? No they do not. They say "hey we made it a million miles!" And you have to take it on faith that they didn't fit the engine with, you know, a 20-gallon oil pan or something.
(a little hyperbole to lighten the mood there, I know they probably didn't really fit it with a 20-gallon oil pan). I realize this is beside the point, and I don't mind being put under the microscope, but I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that other tests may face similar limitations, you just don't know about 'em.
I like mph's table but it needs to be recalculated to reflect actual oil consumption. With the right numbers in there I may include something similar in the final analysis.
Wow, it's getting late, and I'm rambling on. I won't be available Friday but I'll be sure to check in on Saturday to see how our heat:light ratio is doing.
Cheers, 3MP
My responses are as follows (to be added, retracted, amended, or disowned as I may later find convenient):
1. the primary purpose of the test is to determine the *relative* benefits of one motor oil vs. another. As long as all oils undergo the *exact* same test regimen, this primary purpose will still be valid.
1a. any other thing we learn from this test is bonus.
2. The 1/12th of capacity that I periodically have to add ages along with everything else. So at 6k miles, the 1/2 quart added at 3k miles is 3k old. Therefore to just add up all makeup oil from 3k to 6k and say "well crap it's got 1/3rd fresh oil in it!" is erroneous. Indeed I would suggest it ages faster than the other 5.5 quarts as it is quickly diluted and the elevated contaminants in the used oil will break it down faster.
3. The adjustment to TBN for makeup oil is easily calculated, based on work documented in an SAE paper that I have. At the end of the test I will provide calculated TBN values for both removing the samples and removing all oil consumption completely.
4. Particulates are expressed as a ratio so re-calculating the values to compensate for samples is cake. Expect to see some analysis of this at the conclusion of the test.
5. Viscosity has only shifted by 5% even after 13k miles. I find it doubtful that make-up oil alone is causing this. Note that viscosity did NOT improve even after adding 1.5 quarts at the filter change.
Then there are some other bonus material we've learned:
* we've seen for ourselves how TBN drops sharply and then flattens out.
* we've seen for ourselves that OTC oil filters work very well.
* we've seen for ourselves how risky it is to base a decision on single-point oil analysis, due to the fluctuation of numbers.
* and that winter driving doesn't always severely increase wear numbers.
To say nothing of all the interesting tangents we've pursued along the way.
Of course it's not a perfect study. None are, especially ambitious ones. But we can lay out the assumptions we have to make up front, and figure out what values we can deduce, and be honest about the limitations, while still finding something of use to us in the results.
Let's face it, part of the reason this study undergoes such scrutiny is that every data point and every process is laid out for public view. In Mobil 1's durability studies, do they give you every tidbit of information about how the test is performed? No they do not. They say "hey we made it a million miles!" And you have to take it on faith that they didn't fit the engine with, you know, a 20-gallon oil pan or something.
I like mph's table but it needs to be recalculated to reflect actual oil consumption. With the right numbers in there I may include something similar in the final analysis.
Wow, it's getting late, and I'm rambling on. I won't be available Friday but I'll be sure to check in on Saturday to see how our heat:light ratio is doing.
Cheers, 3MP
Originally posted by cheetahdriver:
[QB] 1. can oils be run 10K?
certainly mobil 1 can, proved from this test.
So if you have a vehicle that doesn't use enough oil in 10k to worry about adding then you can go that long without oil changes safely? Or are UOA a must and a filter change at 5k also a must? If you have to do these then wouldn't the benefit of cost be out the window? Better off just changing the oil more often then right? We all know the every engine is different on how it effects oil. With this in mind is it really safe to go 10k without any problems that is if you don't have to add any oil at all,(and are the lucky person to own a vehicle that can do this). Just wondering. All the talk of make up oil and such the question of no make up and 10k total miles will really vary on person to person. Am I making any sense? I was just wondering. It isn't like everyone one that reads this forum is going to go out and start letting their oil in for that long. But then some might.
I think the study is really great and informative. If only more could put the effort and time into doing some of these on their vehicles to get a better understanding and broader base line. Just is a cost that we can't afford. Oh if only I could win the lottery. Wait, NC doesn't have one.So much for that idea.
It will be interesting to see how all the oils compare.
rat,
from the 3MP test, i think it follows that you should be able to get 10K out of mobil1 with almost any engine, w/o any add up. if you are conservative, change the filter at 5k. if you had a 5 qt capacity were doing mobil1 on a 5k schedule @ 4.00.qt, and using a mobil1 filter at 10.00 then over 100k miles you would save 200.00 (not including labor) and not put 50 qts of oil into the enviroment. i am currently running my miata on 10k without the filter change, and will uoa it once to check. same is true for my 2 toyota sludge monsters. my wife's insight is on a dealer supplied 3500 free oil change for the life of the car (and boy will they regret that before it's over).
on the other hand, the longest life car i have had so far got 269,000 out of arco graphite API SC (remember arco graphite?) and 3500 mile changes. i guess the point is, that the synthetics are worth it if you want to pay for them, but you can get good results out of dino too.
from the 3MP test, i think it follows that you should be able to get 10K out of mobil1 with almost any engine, w/o any add up. if you are conservative, change the filter at 5k. if you had a 5 qt capacity were doing mobil1 on a 5k schedule @ 4.00.qt, and using a mobil1 filter at 10.00 then over 100k miles you would save 200.00 (not including labor) and not put 50 qts of oil into the enviroment. i am currently running my miata on 10k without the filter change, and will uoa it once to check. same is true for my 2 toyota sludge monsters. my wife's insight is on a dealer supplied 3500 free oil change for the life of the car (and boy will they regret that before it's over).
on the other hand, the longest life car i have had so far got 269,000 out of arco graphite API SC (remember arco graphite?) and 3500 mile changes. i guess the point is, that the synthetics are worth it if you want to pay for them, but you can get good results out of dino too.
Wow Arco graphite, yea I remember that black stuff. At least that is what I remember of it when I use to change my grandmothers car and that is what she wanted to use. That was back when Arco was a common gas station around here back in the early seventies.
See that is why I like this forum. Things can be explained in a better light to make sense and bring out other interpretations.
See that is why I like this forum. Things can be explained in a better light to make sense and bring out other interpretations.
Not only that, where is the burnt M-1 going? Is it all going out the tailpipe? The UOA show the oil is still good, but what is the condition of the engine with respect to cleanliness? ie. is an oil change necessary even when a UOA says the oil is still "good" for a few thou miles?
i would like to summon 3MP again. 3MP, am i wrong in saying that;
47.5% of the oil added during this test (to 13k) was due to oil usage in the engine.
32.5% from sampling
20% due to filter change (assuming 1 qt for the filter capacity, and .5 qt due to oil usage).
if not, what are the relative (or actual) figures?
47.5% of the oil added during this test (to 13k) was due to oil usage in the engine.
32.5% from sampling
20% due to filter change (assuming 1 qt for the filter capacity, and .5 qt due to oil usage).
if not, what are the relative (or actual) figures?
Patman
Staff member
The amount of oil lost due to actual consumption will be less with Redline and Amsoil, that much I'm almost completely sure of. Most of the guys I talk to who run Mobil 1 in their LS1s find their consumption goes down a lot when they switch to either of those two other oils. The LS1 just doesn't seem to like a thin 30wt oil as much as a thick 30wt.
From the 12k-sample discussion:
5 quarts (160 oz) of make-up oil
* 1 quart (32 oz) from filter
* 1.75 quarts (56 oz) from sample kits
* ~1 quart (32 oz) from pre-sample trickle (est.)
* 1.25 quarts from engine consumption
Percentagewise, that leaves us with:
20% from the filter change
55% from the sampling process
25% from engine consumption
It's Saturday so I'll just hope I did my math right.
Cheers, 3MP
Therefore as of 13k we have:
5 quarts (160 oz) of make-up oil
* 1 quart (32 oz) from filter
* 1.75 quarts (56 oz) from sample kits
* ~1 quart (32 oz) from pre-sample trickle (est.)
* 1.25 quarts from engine consumption
Percentagewise, that leaves us with:
20% from the filter change
55% from the sampling process
25% from engine consumption
It's Saturday so I'll just hope I did my math right.
Cheers, 3MP
Hi,
I am no expert - however, I hope I am a realist
3MP - the test is "real world stuff" thanks and please keep it up. If the testing of other oils follows the sampling principles already established by you we should tolerate the minor variances. Perhaps if the oil consumed is a little less with other brands, just take a little more out at sample time to replicate the actual consumption so far. I wouldn't
When sampling my continuously active highly utilised Detroit Diesels, the oil's life has indeed been driven by the amount of top up required and the analysis has been factored accordingly
Perhaps I may have lost the plot here but the real world is that some engines do use oil, and you do need to top up. Many pesons following your testing fully identify with your testing so far and I am one of those - thanks again
I buy and use the best lubricants I can based on what you are doing - and as I have done! And by the practical experience of other users
I may have sampled every 3k through the dipstick hole, or used white bottles to store the oil or always sampled on Tuesdays at 3.00 am - joke. You didn't - please just replicate what you have already done very very well so far
My offer to pay for a duplicate analysis of the final M1 sample by an ExxonMobil Lab. still stands of course
Regards
I am no expert - however, I hope I am a realist
3MP - the test is "real world stuff" thanks and please keep it up. If the testing of other oils follows the sampling principles already established by you we should tolerate the minor variances. Perhaps if the oil consumed is a little less with other brands, just take a little more out at sample time to replicate the actual consumption so far. I wouldn't
When sampling my continuously active highly utilised Detroit Diesels, the oil's life has indeed been driven by the amount of top up required and the analysis has been factored accordingly
Perhaps I may have lost the plot here but the real world is that some engines do use oil, and you do need to top up. Many pesons following your testing fully identify with your testing so far and I am one of those - thanks again
I buy and use the best lubricants I can based on what you are doing - and as I have done! And by the practical experience of other users
I may have sampled every 3k through the dipstick hole, or used white bottles to store the oil or always sampled on Tuesdays at 3.00 am - joke. You didn't - please just replicate what you have already done very very well so far
My offer to pay for a duplicate analysis of the final M1 sample by an ExxonMobil Lab. still stands of course
Regards
3mp,
thanks for the clarification, i missed the 2oz "stream before test", which now that i write it sounds worse than it did on the way to my fingers. while sampling through the dipstick might have helped the sample number, i still don't think that this is outside the bounds of the test. if you want exact numbers on real world non-repetitously tested oil, i will be pulling a sample (with the same "stream before test") from my miata with 10k, and 1/2 qt makeup at 8.5k.
i go back to my hiesenberg uncertainty principle on oil. the harder you try to keep track of the oil, the more you affect it.
good test 3mp, keep it up. do we have a finish protocol for the oil now?
thanks for the clarification, i missed the 2oz "stream before test", which now that i write it sounds worse than it did on the way to my fingers. while sampling through the dipstick might have helped the sample number, i still don't think that this is outside the bounds of the test. if you want exact numbers on real world non-repetitously tested oil, i will be pulling a sample (with the same "stream before test") from my miata with 10k, and 1/2 qt makeup at 8.5k.
i go back to my hiesenberg uncertainty principle on oil. the harder you try to keep track of the oil, the more you affect it.
good test 3mp, keep it up. do we have a finish protocol for the oil now?
Hi Doug,
I'd be very interested in such an analysis. PM me to make arrangements.
Cheetah,
I completely agree that dipstick sampling would have been better, not only to avoid the trickle but also to save wear & tear on the drain plug (which needs to be replaced now) as well as cut down on hassle (dragging out the ramps all the time, lying on my back in all manner of weather). Unfortunately I tried 4 different suction devices and none worked on my LS1.
So we're stuck with doing it the hard way.
A finish protocol, hm. We still have the TBN floor (now 1 using the new method) and the viscosity ceiling (which the oil seems unlikely to hit). Wear metals are already way beyond Blackstone's comfort level so I am pretty much entirely relying on Terry Dyson's advice at this point, unless the TBN happens to tank.
Cheers, 3MP
I'd be very interested in such an analysis. PM me to make arrangements.
Cheetah,
I completely agree that dipstick sampling would have been better, not only to avoid the trickle but also to save wear & tear on the drain plug (which needs to be replaced now) as well as cut down on hassle (dragging out the ramps all the time, lying on my back in all manner of weather). Unfortunately I tried 4 different suction devices and none worked on my LS1.
A finish protocol, hm. We still have the TBN floor (now 1 using the new method) and the viscosity ceiling (which the oil seems unlikely to hit). Wear metals are already way beyond Blackstone's comfort level so I am pretty much entirely relying on Terry Dyson's advice at this point, unless the TBN happens to tank.
Cheers, 3MP
- Status