RLI 5w40, 4362mls, 07 MS6

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I don't disagree that the RLI could be cleaning. But it's certainly not cleaning any "better" than many of the previous loads.


RLI will attack the oxidation layer far more than the other oils, so yes it will be cleaning "better" than the previous oils.

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
We've seen this before with some engine when a switch is made to something like Redline. It will kick off any free copper or Pb ..anything really. It can last an OCI or two. It didn't happen in every engine, but enough to validate the reaction to the way over additized AW package.


Gary off hand do you recall seeing consecutive UOAs of RLI showing the spike in some wear metals in the initial or even subsequent interval and then a decrease in these same wear #s later on?

Too often all we see is that first, unsettling UOA of RLI.

 

[Gary Allan]

I dunno. Most of my observations with this oil have been with really trouble prone engines that were riddled with complications due to DI fuel dilution. That poor guy with the Acadia comes to mind.

I hope that RLI is used for a couple of more UOA's of comparable mileage/service. It's way too hard for me to integrate that mass of data that's altered on a multiple axis basis. There's the break in trending that's disrupted by both mileage and oil, mileage was highly variable up and down, and there was only one back to back UOA with the same product, and all of them were either PAO, POE, and whatever other 3 letter strings you can imagine.

 

[Nederlander75]

I am planning on at least 5 more UOAs on this oil, FWIW.

 

[Gary Allan]

Oh, I wanted to add that whatever Terry says comes into focus sooner or later. Some stuff that we tend to write off as the process variable is usable data to him. He has REALLY surprised me on several occasions. He'd comment on something ..ask me about it ..I'd check it ...he'd ask again "ARE YOU SURE" ..and on and on ..and THEN I found the source of his otherwise unexplained interest in one little annoying tidbit (not so little, actually). He saw fuel and said ..hmmm..this might not be fuel ..and sure enough, deeper into the same sump it went away (aromatics?).

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I don't disagree that the RLI could be cleaning. But it's certainly not cleaning any "better" than many of the previous loads.


RLI will attack the oxidation layer far more than the other oils, so yes it will be cleaning "better" than the previous oils.



I have two thoughts.

1) The data supports my statment. Period. I would challenge anyone to show me statistically viable methodology that can purport otherwise.

2) I disagree with your idea of "cleaning". First of all, we're talking about Fe in regard to the "ester based oil cleaning". I do NOT equate the stripping of metals (due to a chemical reaction that would otherwise not be loose) to be the same as "cleaning". To be achieving a "cleaning" action, I think of detergents and dispersents and how they are to pick up, and suspend, loose contamination that would otherwise collect in undesirable places. Soot is bad and nasty because not only can it be produced, but it can grow in size, by agglomeration. But wear metals cannot do that; once they shed, they may become more in number, but not in size. Fe that is "cleaned" via chemical stripping was likely never a threat in the first place, and it likely would never have come loose from wear, so it took chemicals to break it free.

Fundementally, the claim is that ester based products will react with existing metals that are bound to the base metal components, typically in an oxidation layer. First of all, oxidation layers of metal are not at all detrimental. Once developed, they stay put until something overcomes them (such as the chemical reaction from the esters). The MAIN protection any lubricant can provide is the hydraulic boundry layers seperating the moving/fixed metal parts. That oil boundry layer does not care if it lays upon pure clean metal, or some oxidized layer of metal on top of the base metal. As long as the oil can develop its boundry layer, the first and foremost effect of component seperation is achieved. That is why we can see engines last a very long time with dino oils changed in moderate OCIs. The oxidation layer only grows to a certain point, and then it stagnates. It becomes a micro thin addition to the bearing, cylinder wall, etc. The oxidation layer does not inhibit or otherwise hurt the "wear protection" ability of a lubricant.

So, when a "new" ester based product goes in and "cleans" out Fe or Cu, it's often credited to "cleaning" up old stuff. But I contend that this "cleaning" is removing stuff that is simply not needed to be removed. There is no benefit to "cleaning" Cu or Fe that is fimrly attached to a base component, where wear cannot dislodge it. If it takes a chemical reaction to affect the removal, and wear cannot remove it, then why praise it's removal? The safe operation of the equipment is not dependent upon the removal of the oxidation layer. The chemical reaction that the esters provide do not necessarily provide a desireable result, at least to me, because the removal of that oxidation layer provides no credible advantage. Where is the benefit of a chemical cleaning that is not needed? Esters remove Fe and Cu that would otherwise stay put indefinitely? Where is the benefit to that?????

Further, once the chemical "cleaning" has taken place, are we to suppose that oxidation is halted forever? That is just silly. What happens is that the chemical reaction strips off an oxidation layer, spiking some metals, then the process will settle down. But settle to what? To the very same rate of oxidation that existed BEFORE the cleaning. Only now, you're numbers will seem steady, because if you consistently use the ester based product, the cleaning rate will find a balance with the oxidation rate, and your wear numbers will "normalize". But guess what, the very same can be said of a non-ester based product, such as dino oil. Once oxidation normalizes, the actual "WEAR" will become apparent, which is DIFFERENT than oxidation.

I like to make analogies, to put things in a different light. So here goes ...

Condider that you engage a house cleaning service. For several months, a maid comes in and "cleans". She does a decent job, and you become accustomed to a particular level of "clean".
Suddenly, she is removed and a different maid comes in. She cleans more; she removes stuff that the old maid left. But, the stuff she gets out is not really any more helpful, nor is it detrimental. The amount of dust and debris she shows you that the last maid left seems alarming. The "extra" stuff she removes really does not add to your healthful life; it is exaggerated cleaning that is not necessary, nor benefits you. And, after a couple of weeks with the new maid, the amount of cleaning she can do has leveled off. Why? Because the rate of contamination is likely steady; the amount of dirt your kids track in, the amount of pet dander, etc all stay the same. Once the new maid strips off the excess layers, she still has to contend with the "normal" wear rate.

Or, perhaps a different analogy might make sense to others:
Consider hand washing. "Normal" washing with warm water and soap are all that is required to have good sanitary health conditions. Even if you scrub as a surgeon with super-duper soap, it's not needed for safe, daily operation of your life. (Agreed that it's warranted for surgeory, but NOT for "normal" life in us mere mortals). Even if you super-duper clean, as soon as you go back to "normal" life, the "normal" contamination layer returns. And, that "normal" layer does not inhibit a "normal", long life. If you continue the use of the super-duper cleaning, there is no real benefit for the "normal" need; it's overkill. Probably does not hurt anything, but it does not really help anything, in a "normal" sense. And, it does not change the rate of contamination (how much dirt and germs you incur during a day); it only super-cleans at a fixed point in time.

My whole point is that there is a difference between what is true wear, and what is chemical stripping. I don't give a darn about chemical stripping; it does not add to the effectiveness of the boundry layer that seperates the moving components. That boundry layer is the MAIN component of equipment wear protection. That boundry layer can exist with or without oxidation, just as effectively. Once you strip away the oxidation, the wear rate is still likely a constant, unless some outside criteria becomes variable.

The real benefit to using UOAs is the long term steady analysis of wear and contaminants. That is why consistent inputs are most desireable. Hopping from lube to lube, brand to brand, grade to grade does NOT show a true statistical story.

There is no "better" cleaning going on in the RLI sample. It is likely chemical stripping; not "cleaning". It may be evidence that a removal of metal is occuring, but with no real benefit. Further, the "stripping" is not happening (in view of these nine samples) at any greater rate than one standard deviation, which is WELL WITHIN "normal" occurence rates of the other products tested. There were two data points at 16ppm, and the RLI is at 17ppm; that is only around a 7% shift it total magnitude. And it is only ONE standard deviation; that is NOT IN ANY WAY a significant shift in event criteria.

I suspect you and I will have to agree to disagree.

 

[CATERHAM]

Why the switch to a 40wt oil after the third oil change?
Isn't the factory recommended grade in the MS6 a 5w30 or even a 5W-20?

 

[Nederlander75]

It is spec'd for 5w30, never 5w20. The switch was to obtain an oil that would handle the fuel dilution for a longer period of time.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
But I contend that this "cleaning" is removing stuff that is simply not needed to be removed. There is no benefit to "cleaning" Cu or Fe that is fimrly attached to a base component, where wear cannot dislodge it.


I don't think it's necessarily "promoted" as a beneficial aspect ..but more of an explanation of the side effect.

I don't think you're in disagreement.

 

[dnewton3]

There is likely some truth to your comment Gary.

However, it is not unheard of (actually quite common) to hear RL, RP, RLI and at times Amsoil supporters claim that these high-end products are somehow "cleaning" up stuff that other (presumably inferred inferior) products left behind. But I don't equate "chemical stripping" to the same mental concept as cleaning residual "trash" left on the bottom of the pan, in the lifter valley, on the head surface, etc.

If you recall my Vulcan engine pictures, there was presious little of anything lying around, after years of just "normal" dino oil changes; that thing was basically spotless. But I suspect if I had run RP or RL, and seen my metals spike in a UOA, someone would have tried to convince me that those two products were "cleaning" my engine better than anything ever seen before.

Ester-based products cause chemical stripping resulting in spikes of metals; we know this. But that doesn't mean it's "cleaning". It's just removing stuff that would have otherwise been just fine, doing no harm, left exactly where it was, typically in an oxidation layer.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Nederlander75
It is spec'd for 5w30, never 5w20. The switch was to obtain an oil that would handle the fuel dilution for a longer period of time.


That's fine except the 40wt oils you've chosen are still in grade at the end of the OCI.
IMO RLI's 0w30 with a 100C vis of 11.3 cSt and a VI of 193 would be a better choice particularly in a Colorado winter.

 

[Nederlander75]

Terry has encouraged the 5w40 over 30wt to allow for extended drain. The only true 30 wts run in the car were the factory fill and the MC. Im not yet comfortable with running an oil with a 100cst of <9 yet either, which a true 30wt seems to get to un about 1500-2000 miles. I keep my RPMs at 3K plus, often 3.7K for up to 15 minutes at a time with multiple runs to redline per 1 way commute to keep things hot and burn off fuel too, so the 40wt should help protect better in theory.

 

[CATERHAM]

I don't want to belabor the point but you're not running extended drain OCI's but you are running a 40wt oil at the end of 4362 miles. RLI's 0w30 is more than 70% lighter at start-up (at 32F).
Are you concerned that RLI's 0w30 is going to shear down to under 9 cSt after 4000 miles? I wouldn't be, it's the grade that William Garmier of RLI runs in his Caddy. They also have a somewhat heavier version of the same grade that's available (was developed for Ali Haas' Enzo).

BTW, the GC you ran once seemed to be an excellent choice that seemed to addressed all of you're concern.

 

[Nederlander75]

No extended OCIs yet, but that is the goal. I too liked the GC, but am banking on the RLIs ability to help mitigate the IM deposit issues of DI.

 

[Bruce T]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The oxidation layer does not inhibit or otherwise hurt the "wear protection" ability of a lubricant.


This is a very interesting thought, but it raises a question. Would the oxidation layer be thick enough to affect lubrication in the tightest clearance points in the engine?

 

[dnewton3]

Interesting thought; here's my conclusion.

Would the oxidation grow? Yes - but probably only to a point, and then it would stagnate. Oxidation is a VERY broad term when applied to metals and lubricants.

To me, the real question is this, (as it better defines the question of whether it's necessary to remove the oxidation layer).

Q: Will the oxidation layer become thick enough in certain places that it would create a restriction so tight that the resultant reduction of lubricant flow would detrimentally affect the lifespan of the equipment?

Dave's Answer:
NO! See below ...

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/01/wisconsin-mans-91-silverado-set-to-hit-1-million-miles/

http://www.knfilters.com/million/

Here are two vehicles that both ran 1 million miles on dino oils and regular oil filters, OCI'ing every 3-4k miles. If there were evidence of oxidation continuing to grow, by gosh, these two vehicles would certainly be the poster children of oxidation build up, would they not? If oxidation continued to build up and restrict oil flow, would these two trucks have been able to go one million miles on just dino oil?

I think it's fair to assume that one of three things happen regarding oxidation build-up.

1) oxidation eventually stagnates of it's own accord at some level low enough so that it will not restrict the flow of lubricant enough to cause damage

or

2) dino oils remove residual oxidation at the same rate as ester based products (such as the super-stripping we see with esters)

or

3) dino oil removes residual oxidation at some level sufficient enough to allow seriously long operation of equipment, even though oxidation continues to occur

Now, if #2 were true, then would we not see high metals in dino UOAs, just like we see when "ester based oil cleaning" is taking place? But we don't see any evidence to this concept. UOAs with ester based lubricants always have high wear metal spikes for the first few cycles, but then they settle to a lower level. That's fairly evident by the many UOAs. After all, let us remember the great claim of ester based cleaning; "it's cleaning", right? If dino oils did this as well, you'd see the evidence of spiked metals in those UOAs too, but you don't. So, #2 cannot be a true statement.

#3 is possible, but again, would you not see some level of increased wear metals in continued UOAs, but not near as high as "ester based cleaning"? While possible, I don't see #3 as probable, which is a big difference.

So if the dino oil isn't "cleaning" (or more appropriately stated as chemically stripping) the oxidation off, then it's fair to presume the option #1 is happening. The oxidation stagnates at some safe level that is NOT detrimental to the continued operation of the equipment!

I believe the most likely explination is #1; oxidation stagnates. What might be actually happening is a combination of #1 and #3; the oxidation happens at a steady rate until the surfact is saturated, and then the rate of oxidation greatly slows to a point were the dino oil can keep pace. Regardless, it's clear to me that option #2 is NOT likely. Either way, the oxidation basically comes to some stagnant level; either it flat stops and dino oil does nothing, or it greatly slows, and dino oil can keep up.

So if the oxidation basically ceases at some safe level, where is the harm in it's existence? Why "chemically strip away" something that does no harm, with an "ester based oil cleaning"?

If ester based cleaning (stripping) were necessary to cease continual oxidation growth, would those two trucks have ever gone so far without the "cleansing" of esters? In fact, would ANY vehicle even go past 50k miles? Let's ponder the numbers for a moment. 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. Really? So, I could presume that if I didn't use that ester cleaning process, and extrapolating out the numbers of what was "cleaned" away (via UOA results), and then graphing it on a projected life cycle chart, would I not be able to assume that the oxidation would choke my bearings dry in short order? Seriously, there are times that the "chemical cleaning/stripping" wear metal magnitudes are 10x as high on the first application of ester products. If you had 5 ppm of Cu with dino, you can often see 50ppm after the ester application. If Cu oxidation is THAT grotesque, a bearing would be growing at a HUGE rate. And we know that dino fluids don't strip the oxidation, so what would be the converse? That esters are stripping away Cu at such a rate they the actually eat away the bearing? Geez, these two extremes just can't be happening, folks. It's not logical.

I think it's quite evident that oxidation layers exist, and that they are harmless in most circumstances. They only "grow" to some level, and then stop (or greatly reduce their rate of reproduction).

Esters strip away harmless oxidation. That's fine. But I don't agree that this "cleaning" is necessary to the lifespan of the equipment, and the UOAs and million mile trucks support my point of view.

Oils go on their merry way of building up the necessary hydrodynamic fluid boundry layer to seperate the moving and fixed parts, because the oxidation makes no significant difference in flow restriction. And if it's not great enough to restrict flow even after one million miles, then why bother removing it?

 

[bluesubie]

Originally Posted By: Nederlander75
I keep my RPMs at 3K plus, often 3.7K for up to 15 minutes at a time with multiple runs to redline per 1 way commute to keep things hot and burn off fuel too, so the 40wt should help protect better in theory.

Aren't you just dumping in more fuel while keeping your rpm's up? My highest fuel was sampling right after I did a high rpm short trip while trying to warm the engine.

Why do you folks think that there is no cleaning going on? Just because good oils were used for short OCI's, does that absolutely proove that the engine is clean? Has anyone here looked inside this engine? Playing devil's advocate here.

-Dennis

 

[REDDOG]

I agree with Dennis. One of Terry's mantras here years ago was the fact oils could either clean or lubricate but they couldn't do one without sacrificing the other-even top notch syns. The major reason he posted so much about correction fluids like Auto Rx and LC. The exception was RLI.

Let me also say there is a big difference between VISUALLY clean and analytically clean. I also don't believe metals are the only indicator he uses do determine cleaning is happening or required. I'm also not so sure it is an oxidation layer he is referring to in terms of cleaning.

But he knows and that's what makes Dyson Analysis special and why I use his services.

REDDOG

 

[CATERHAM]

There are a number of advantages to synthetics vs dino mineral oil other than "cleaning".
Dino's will begin to oxidize at temp's as low as 120C, they don't perform well at low temps and their OCI's are restricted. But IMO the single biggest advantage of synthetics is their inherently higher VI before the addition of any VII's. It's not surprising therefore that synthetics are FF with virtually every OEM.

In applications where there are frequent engine starts and stop plus a high percentage of an engines running time in warm up mode dino's are at a clear disadvantage. With the price of GPIII syn's frequently not much more than better quality name brand dino's it begs the question why anyone today would even bother not to run at least a GPIII syn.

 

[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.