RLI Bio-Syn 0w-30 - 7,510 miles -'06 Camry 2AZ-FE

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
I can only conclude, then, that the high lead came from the bearings, possibly as a result of the high 8.5 TAN to 2.0 TBN ratio. Iron, by the way, was also higher than I would have expected, though not extreme like the lead.


This I would not argue with except that I've never personally seen Pb as a result of corrosive agents. Fe ..for sure.

So, although the Pb surely came from the bearings, I don't think it is due to the high TAN numbers. I could surely be wrong. The reason I say this is that I've run oils out to the higher TAN levels (admittedly where TBN was still decent) and had no Pb reading at all ..but tons of Fe and maybe Cu.



Run the PP out to the same mileage and the same time span and see what it shows. You may get like indications.

Either way.... switch hitting oils makes it very hard to view clearly.

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
21Rouge - Why? Use the first UOA as the commencement point for Trending!


Because for many the higher levels of wear metals that can be seen in the first UOA can scare people off from even continuing with a second OCI with said oil.


It is the fact that people look at the numbers and get SCARED that is the PROBLEM, not the numbers themselves.


Of course and that is what I was getting at. Being a bit facetious I was implying that one could close one's eyes for the first UOA results and then open for the second as it is then you will see reasonable less scary numbers.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
21Rouge - Why? Use the first UOA as the commencement point for Trending!


Because for many the higher levels of wear metals that can be seen in the first UOA can scare people off from even continuing with a second OCI with said oil.


It is the fact that people look at the numbers and get SCARED that is the PROBLEM, not the numbers themselves.


Of course and that is what I was getting at. Being a bit facetious I was implying that one could close one's eyes for the first UOA results and then open for the second as it is then you will see reasonable less scary numbers.


But then they are ignoring the first part of the trend

The point is, the vast majority of people have no idea what the numbers MEAN. They just think higher is worse, and then get freaked out.

 

[Built_Well]

Nice explanation, Pablo. I'm sure all novices reading your post appreciate it. But why would I want any lead from the bearings "peeling off" along with the layer of Anti-Wear zinc? Lead is what makes up the bearings, after all.

And if Bio-Syn is peeling off protective zinc (along with the lead), how does a new layer of zinc get applied to the lead bearings when Bio-Syn is being used as the oil?

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Built_well - You are overthinking this. Just run the oil - NO WORRIES. BTW the bearings dont require the "protective layer of Zn". They are close tolerance journal (0.6-3mils diametrical clear) in hydrodynamic lubrication. More at rings, cyl bore tops and bottoms and valvestems - Al, Fe, Si, Ni, Cr. These reported element analysis numbers are noise level. Inconsequential. When you start seeing 50 > 100ppm we'll start to think harder ...

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Built_Well
Nice explanation, Pablo. I'm sure all novices reading your post appreciate it. But why would I want any lead from the bearings "peeling off" along with the layer of Anti-Wear zinc? Lead is what makes up the bearings, after all.

And if Bio-Syn is peeling off protective zinc (along with the lead), how does a new layer of zinc get applied to the lead bearings when Bio-Syn is being used as the oil?


We are talking atoms thick here and parts per million, don't worry - any new oil, including RLI will have it's own AW system go right down.

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Built_well - You are overthinking this. Just run the oil - NO WORRIES.


FWIW and probably not much

I will run two consecutive OCIs of RLI 0W30 (I have right now a couple of gallons in my stash) and UOA each if you promise to finish your current OCI of this same oil! I really don't want you to chicken out

I really want to see how your second UOA will compare; to see the trend. What do you say?

 

[Built_Well]

Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
FWIW and probably not much

I will run two consecutive OCIs of RLI 0W30 (I have right now a couple of gallons in my stash) and UOA each if you promise to finish your current OCI of this same oil! I really don't want you to chicken out

I really want to see how your second UOA will compare; to see the trend. What do you say?


21Rouge, I can see you really are interested in seeing me get a second UOA of Bio-Syn 0w-30. Aside from the lead being 5 times the Pennzoil UOA, I'm concerned about the very, very high ratio of TAN to TBN. So I want to replace this second OCI of Bio-Syn at 3,000 miles. I also want it to stop peeling off protective zinc from my engine's surfaces. After all, the car is only 3.5 years old, and has seen only the best oils (PP and M1). I don't think there's any need for the engine to be cleaned of zinc at this time.

So I will replace Bio-Syn at 3,000 miles (if not earlier) with either green Mobil 1 0w-30 AFE, Amsoil SSO, or Castrol Edge 5w-30. If you really want me to use the Bio-Syn to 5,000 miles and get a second UOA, you'll have to pay for the UOA, as I've stated before. I already know I'm not going to use this oil (with an 8.5 TAN to 2.0 TBN) again, unless I feel the need to clean my engine in a few years.

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: Built_Well
21Rouge, I can see you really are interested in seeing me get a second UOA of Bio-Syn 0w-30. Aside from the lead being 5 times the Pennzoil UOA, I'm concerned about the very, very high ratio of TAN to TBN. So I want to replace this second OCI of Bio-Syn at 3,000 miles. I also want it to stop peeling off protective zinc from my engine's surfaces. After all, the car is only 3.5 years old, and has seen only the best oils (PP and M1).

If you really want me to use the Bio-Syn to 5,000 miles and get a second UOA, you'll have to pay for the UOA, as I've stated before.


I am kind of pulling your leg a little bit Well_Built.

Of course I think there is lots to be learned with a second consecutive run of this specialty oil but no can do with financing your UOA. I have contributed to the knowledge base of BITOG with many UOAs and VOAs.

Maybe RLI could pay for the UOA...part of their R&D!.

And that reminds me: be sure to post their remarks re your UOA.

 

[Built_Well]

By the way, my "Built_Well" user name refers to Toyotas. Toyotas are "Built_Well."

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: Built_Well
By the way, my "Built_Well" user name refers to Toyotas. Toyotas are "Built_Well."


Oops a Freudian slip

. Sorry Built_Well!

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
And if Bio-Syn is peeling off protective zinc (along with the lead), how does a new layer of zinc get applied to the lead bearings when Bio-Syn is being used as the oil?

You're almost like Jethro in NCIS in an interrogation. Capitalizing on every comforting expression and turning it inside out to mean something bad

Add packs vary. Generic oil ..generic add pack. They don't bump each other around too much. You get one with an aggressive add pack ..with highly polar properties, and it wants to bond more thoroughly with the resident surface. It displaces the resident boundary layer ..which may shake some minor stuff loose - INITIALLY.

Or ...(big

) ..you can figure that we really want to see you use RLI as Amsoil dealers ..and want you to grenade your engine so we can say "See what RLI did to his engine!!?". We're just trying to lull you into a truly false sense of security

We've seen this happen with complex oils before. Not with every engine, nor with every complex oil ..but enough to figure that the first run, if unexpected results occur, is nothing to draw conclusions from.

You may have indeed run this oil too long. That is, you're not Bizarro about the TAN/TBN issue.

 

[Pablo]

Gary that's just plain mean.

 

[21Rouge]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: Pablo
but you don't really need RLI.


Pablo what do you think is the right situation(s) for RLI?


That's a good question. The GODs used to say "high fuel dilution situations". Then we saw some other oils do really well with tons of fuel.


Pablo which oils do you recall did very well in the presence of fuel?

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Gary that's just plain mean.

I was just watching NCIS in reruns and Gibbs was interrogating someone. I then switched channels and Stabler was doing it to someone in the interrogation room.

Slim pickin's on the tube. Then I came back here. I guess I had an "episode".

 

[postjeeprcr]

Originally Posted By: Built_Well
Several people have suggested that the high lead (17 ppm) in this Bio-Syn UOA (compared to a mere 3 ppm of lead in my Pennzoil Platinum UOA, with 2 ppm being the universal average) may be a result of Bio-Syn cleaning off Anti-Wear additives from the engine's surfaces that have accumulated over the 3.5 years the car has been alive. Apparently, some oils have lead in them as an Anti-Wear additive, but these lead-containing oils seem to be rare.

In my signature, you'll see that the previous oils I've used have been Pennzoil Platinum, Mobil 1 5w-30, and Valvoline dino (the Valvoline was a dealer bulk supply before I started doing my own oil changes. I think I only used the Valvoline bulk once--no more than twice).

I've been looking at many Virgin Oil Analyses on this site, and I don't understand from which of my previous oils the lead could have come from. PP, M1 5w-30, Valvoline dino, and RLI Bio-Syn 0w-30 don't appear to use lead as an anti-wear additive.

I can only conclude, then, that the high lead came from the bearings, possibly as a result of the high 8.5 TAN to 2.0 TBN ratio. Iron, by the way, was also higher than I would have expected, though not extreme like the lead.

Others have noted that ester oils like BioSyn start off with a high TAN, and that's true, but the Virgin Oil Analyses I've seen usually show a virgin TAN for BioSyn between roughly 2 and 3. My UOA's TAN was 8.5.

Can anyone point out a UOA of Bio-Syn on this site that had a TAN over 6?


If a virgin TAN for BioSyn starts off at 2 or 3 and yours ended at 8.5. Then it sounds like yours is more like 5.5 to 6.5 (being as it went from 2 or 3 to 8.5) to your 2.5 TBN which is closer to what you were expecting (5 TAN to 3 TBN.

 

[ADFD1]

Sounds like a lot of theories as to why the lead is higher, but not really any facts. The oil is quite costly, and if a UOA is all that a lot of us think it is then I'd stick to PP. At $20 for a 5 qt jug, I can do OCI's at half the RLI interval have an engine that will last longer, and some beer money.

I guess maybe if the OP has his heart set on running this oil he should give it one more try and one more UOA, but the costs just keep adding up. Will the engine last that much longer making it worth it?

JMO
AD

 

[Built_Well]

PostJeepCr, thank you for your post, but I'm afraid it probably doesn't work that way. It's called TAN: *Total* acid number, not *Partial* acid number.

But even the partial numbers don't look that good.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: ADFD1
Sounds like a lot of theories as to why the lead is higher, but not really any facts.

Agreed. That's why the higher lead number is probably nothing to worry about.

Originally Posted By: ADFD1
The oil is quite costly, and if a UOA is all that a lot of us think it is then I'd stick to PP.

Have you been reading the thread? Half the posts have talked about how a UOA is NOT all that a lot of us think it is.

 

[ADFD1]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
Sounds like a lot of theories as to why the lead is higher, but not really any facts.

Agreed. That's why the higher lead number is probably nothing to worry about.

Originally Posted By: ADFD1
The oil is quite costly, and if a UOA is all that a lot of us think it is then I'd stick to PP.

Have you been reading the thread? Half the posts have talked about how a UOA is NOT all that a lot of us think it is.


I read the thread and a lot of UOA's hoping to learn about them. Some people see the UOA as the end all be all, I don't. Based on my limited experience with them, they're telling me this oil is not worth the money. I'm pretty sure others will agree, and some won't. JMO BTW I am not bashing the oil.

AD