You are changing your oil way too often you are wasting.
RLI 5w40, 4362mls, 07 MS6
- Thread starter Nederlander75
- Start date
- Status
My high RPM runs last for about 45 to 60 minutes twice daily to keep temps high and burn off fuel. My lowest shear rates so far have been with this tactic, though this time we got a lot of fuel.
Dave, thanks for the detailed reply. My knowledge of the "oxidation layer" is non-existent, but your logic makes sense to me. I've grown up hearing stories of people with million mile vehicles, and there were two common factors: gentle driving and regular maintenance. It would appear the oxidation layer does no harm, although sludge would.
I don't know why they are able to go so far. Perhaps some credit is due to short OCIs. The first link showed changes every 3,000 miles, the second every 2,500 miles. Of course, long OCIs can work with an additive that cleans sludge. This isn't the additive section and too many people are violently opinionated on this topic, so I'm not discussing it.
Caterham, I agree. I think that when comparing the price vs. performance of motor oils, the best value is one of the top Group IIIs. Amsoil is also a good value as a Group IV. I know value is subjective, so some people will inevitably argue in favor of the two extremes, Group II and Group V. Fair enough. It's a matter of perspective.
I don't know why they are able to go so far. Perhaps some credit is due to short OCIs. The first link showed changes every 3,000 miles, the second every 2,500 miles. Of course, long OCIs can work with an additive that cleans sludge. This isn't the additive section and too many people are violently opinionated on this topic, so I'm not discussing it.
Caterham, I agree. I think that when comparing the price vs. performance of motor oils, the best value is one of the top Group IIIs. Amsoil is also a good value as a Group IV. I know value is subjective, so some people will inevitably argue in favor of the two extremes, Group II and Group V. Fair enough. It's a matter of perspective.
Last edited:
I'm curious. Has anybody seen a very high mileage vehicle with 5,000 mile (or greater) OCIs using Group II oil and no additives?
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Conceptually, you can put in some RP or RL or such, and even at 30k miles of vehicle age, somebody is going to profess that "ester based oil cleaning" is taking place.
Well, considering that RP for one isn't an ester based oil, I doubt it.
You're correct; I was being facetious and trying to be overly dramatic in a sarcastic sense. Apparently it got lost in translation. Still, your point is not without its merrit; I made a poor analogy.
In a simpler way, I should state that people want to always credit expensive oils for doing something that they percieve lesser expensive ones cannot. My point is that "cleaning" is a function of the detergents and dispersents. You can have really high quality conventional oils with very robust packages that clean every bit as well as the syns. The "ester based oil cleaning" is, at its core, a reaction to the oxidation layers present throughout the engine. That does not, in my mind, equate to "cleaning", when one removes particles that would otherwise stay put indefinitely, and do no harm. Just as with the concept of wear protection, I do not believe that "cleaning" is any "better" with a syn over a dino. A syn might clean for a longer duration, because of more additives being present, but not necessarily any "better". They both likely clean about as well until one is overwhelmed; only then will one succeed the other.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Conceptually, you can put in some RP or RL or such, and even at 30k miles of vehicle age, somebody is going to profess that "ester based oil cleaning" is taking place.
Well, considering that RP for one isn't an ester based oil, I doubt it.
You're correct; I was being facetious and trying to be overly dramatic in a sarcastic sense. Apparently it got lost in translation. Still, your point is not without its merrit; I made a poor analogy.
In a simpler way, I should state that people want to always credit expensive oils for doing something that they percieve lesser expensive ones cannot. My point is that "cleaning" is a function of the detergents and dispersents. You can have really high quality conventional oils with very robust packages that clean every bit as well as the syns. The "ester based oil cleaning" is, at its core, a reaction to the oxidation layers present throughout the engine. That does not, in my mind, equate to "cleaning", when one removes particles that would otherwise stay put indefinitely, and do no harm. Just as with the concept of wear protection, I do not believe that "cleaning" is any "better" with a syn over a dino. A syn might clean for a longer duration, because of more additives being present, but not necessarily any "better". They both likely clean about as well until one is overwhelmed; only then will one succeed the other.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
There you go again
. Telling people that there is no magic oil. Doug does this stuff too.
That said, if an oil does disrupt resident formation, however innocuous they may be, it will most likely alter the UOA indicators for the sake of interpretation.
That said, if an oil does disrupt resident formation, however innocuous they may be, it will most likely alter the UOA indicators for the sake of interpretation.
I think the real draw of RLI is b/c it's Direct Injection and there's been some threads here where a guy pulled his engine apart, once with good synthetic oils and it had terrible awful deposits (something DI is known for). Later he ran RLI and did the same thing and it was fairly decent looking, though not perfect.
- Status
Similar threads
