Should I leave a little used oil in? ( DNewton3 )

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Now, frankly I don't really care what the explanation is. Most of you who know me know that I focus on outputs and not inputs.


It's clear that you'll use any ol' data set. Inadequate analytical method? Inappropriate methodology? Half a dozen uncontrolled variables? No Problem! That's just irrelevant minutiae to be summarily dismissed.

Ed
 
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Now, frankly I don't really care what the explanation is. Most of you who know me know that I focus on outputs and not inputs.


It's clear that you'll use any ol' data set. Inadequate analytical method? Inappropriate methodology? Half a dozen uncontrolled variables? No Problem! That's just irrelevant minutiae to be summarily dismissed.

Ed


And it's clear to me that you don't understand the difference between micro and macro analysis.

Not unlike the differences between mathematical modeling and statistical analysis.

But whatever .... you go on believing what you want, and I'll do the same.
 
Originally Posted By: paulri
Thanks for posting the link to this. I'll read it later. I did find a version of it that doesn't require a scribd user account: http://www.plaisance-pratique.com/IMG/pdf/SBN_Oil_3810340__5jun13.pdf



Originally Posted By: userfriendly
https://www.scribd.com/document/193910963/Cummins-Engine-Oil-and-Analysis-Recommendations

The last few paragraphs is of interest to me or anyone who uses wear metals in UOAs to determine engine wear.
I'm not going down the extended oil drain slippery-slope to save a few bucks on oil and ruin an engine in the process.
I would say 20 years of data collecting down the 'ol drain, Lol.




Read the last sentence of that entire paper, please; I'll quote:
"It means that oil analysis becomes meaningless after the engine oil is excessively contaminated."

AFTER oil becomes overtly usurped by contamination, then all bets are off. And I agree with that; never claimed anything different. But most of our BITOG UOAs, and certainly those that I screen in my set of 15k+ UOAs in the database, are not "excessively contaminated". High amounts of soot/ox, or high fuel dilution, or extremely elevated metals, or heavily diluted via replenishment can all affect the validity of UOAs. I could not agree more. BUT .... if those things are NOT present, then the UOA techniques are valid.

That paper (written 10 years ago, and updated occasionally), never said that UOAs are worthless at all stages, nor does it put forth any sort of "proof" for it's claims. There's not one shred of data in that paper. There's no SAE study (or internal Cummins study) they show relevant information for. There's no charts of UOA data and then corresponding tear-down measurements. There's no electron-bombardment data. Etc .... It's just words with no information to prove it's validity. I am not at disagreement with the pretext; UOAs that are heavily contaminated and/or diluted should be under heavy scrutiy for accuracy. But UOAs which are unaffected by those concerns are completely valid. And that paper from Cummins never says to avoid ALL UOAs; it just states reasons why UOAs would be subject for scrutiny and subsequent dismissal IF they are compromised by conditions of the oil.

They also have this to say about UOAs:
"Sample results determined by the same laboratory using the same technique can be safely compared." (using the same lab and methodology is valid)
"Abnormal wear causes abnormal accumulation of wear metals in the used oil." (stuff that is not typical will cause atypical results)
"Abnormal wear, which can indicate a problem, usually only involves elevated levels of one or two metals." (atypical results may be narrow in scope)
I will point out that nowhere in their paper that I can find do they address the topic of "normal wear". Abnormal wear? Yes - it's discussed. But Normal wear? Nope - they don't touch that topic at all.

Now look at the title of my article:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
I discuss "normal" wear. I use statistical analysis in both mirco and macro data collections to determine what is typical of daily use.



I will also point out it's a bit of a dichotomy that some of you will need to resolve in your heads regarding the fact that you would believe this paper from Cummins would indicate that UOAs are worthless, but Cummins (and many OEMs and other trustworthy sources) are cited here as having ppm limits on wear metals ...
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Documents/UsedOil%5C2008020.pdf
(page 11 of the report)
Ironic, if not hypocritical, that Cummins wants to say UOAs are not trustworthy, but then establishes ppm limits on metals that would only be discoverered via UOAs ....



So, in short, even Cummins says it's OK to use UOAs, as long as the lab/methodology is consistent and the oil is not grossly contaminated. They also set condemnation limits for UOA wear metals.

Once again, those of you whom want to take things out of context, and/or morph information to fit your narrow viewpoint, need to take a broader approach to understanding this entire topic(s).




Just sayin'.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
There's no charts of UOA data and then corresponding tear-down measurements.


Cool, so you've got all the papers to share how many PPM is how many um of camshaft wear.

Please share (well at least the SAE paper numbers).

Does 1ppm and 3ppm correlate to the 1 and 3 respective units of camshaft wear ?

How does base circle pitting affect the Fe ppm ?
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
There's no charts of UOA data and then corresponding tear-down measurements.


Cool, so you've got all the papers to share how many PPM is how many um of camshaft wear.

Please share (well at least the SAE paper numbers).

Does 1ppm and 3ppm correlate to the 1 and 3 respective units of camshaft wear ?

How does base circle pitting affect the Fe ppm ?



No I don't have that.
But, I never claimed to have those, either.

My point was to have people reason their way through the Cummins paper. It's interesting info, but they make a lot of claims and there's no relative focal point. I don't necessarily disagree with some of the things they claim, but I don't see any proof put forth to substantiate them. The Cummins perspective in that paper is to address ABnormal wear, and how extreme conditions can affect UOA validity. I don't disagree with them, but I don't see any data they put forth to prove it. If they had shown relative UOA wear metals either corresponding, converging or diverging, relative to some other means of measuring wear (such as tear-down measurements and/or electron bombardment techniques), then I'd take some heed to the validity of the claims. But they didn't. Fundamentally, I do agree that a UOA that has massive contamination or alteration will be suspect. They just go to no effort in that paper to prove it. So I want folks to use and open mind but a jaundiced eye.

My study focused on "normal" UOA data, under circumstances that are routine and expected. I show how to delineate between normal and non-normal. I explain and give examples as to both micro and macro data sets. My data is self-evident. My article shows the real data, and draws conclusions based upon the evidence presented. How can I say wear-rates drop with the OCI? Because the wear numbers show it to be so. I never said on this website, or in my article, that I can prove "X"ppm = "y"nm of wear on any particular component. I clearly state that the wear data I utilize is overall wear, not component specific.


The inference some folks took here is that Cummins would have us believe UOAs are meaningless. But that is far too broad a brush to paint with. Cummins clearly established wear metal condemnation limits. If they thought ALL UOA wear data was unreliable, why would they provide condemnation limits? If they thought UOAs not trustworthy, why acknowledge them as a tool to condemn fluid based on metal conditions? They are focusing on the fluids, not the engine. If 75ppm were safe upper Fe limit, would you not want to know how fast you got there? 1ppm/1k miles? 10ppm/1k miles? Wear RATES are every bit as important as wear totals.

UOA wear data can give you an indication of where to start looking for problems. It is NOT, in and of itself, an panacea of absolute answer. UOA wear data can also tell you if something is "normal" or "abnormal"; i.e. are you OK to continue or do you need to seek intervention. Intervention may or may not mean something comes out of service; it means some other form of interaction may be required.

UOAs, and lubricants (OCIs) cannot fix a poorly machined bore, or mis-aligned journals, etc. Some things are just not attributable to others. A UOA might be able to tell you that you have a problem, and help refine the search. But it's up to the maintenance program manager to decipher what to do, how to do it, and when. A UOA is not the ONLY tool to use, but it is a low-cost helpful tool. UOAs (wear data in particular) are much better at telling us when things are going right, versus pin-pointing when things are wrong.


An example of how this comes directly from my data base would be the Dmax oil cooler Cu spike issue. The data clearly shows that at times, the Cu will spike in a Dmax UOA. No other complimentary metals will spike. The panic stricken might want to tear down an engine, or sell off a vehicle, due to the huge magnitude in Cu. But the educated understand it's just a phenomenon of reaction to the oil add-pack with the Cu plumbing in the cooler. It's not even unheard of in other engines, but it's very prominent in some Dmaxes at times. Because we know what is "normal" in macro data, we can feel comfortable in ignoring the Cu spike. Hundreds of UOAs show us the risk is worth taking; don't over-react. Regardless of the vis, or the acid/base, or the FP, this phenomenon can occur. There's no reason to OCI due to Cu in this experience. My data study gives a very pragmatic answer to a real-world condition. While chemists can explain WHY the events occur, I explain how to keep them in perspective.

However, if you got a trend of Cu, over successive UOAs, that is escalating, and you see a co-incidence of Pb, you better darn well start considering a concern for damage to a traditional babbitt bearing. Not that you have to tear something down tomorrow, but you'd better start putting a plan together. That is not the same thing as a particle streak; a one-time spike that initiates a downward trend upon the next UOA. Despite how good the oil might be, no matter how perfect the vis or the TBN, it's not going to stop the damage by doing successive OCIs and hoping the problem goes away.


So, "No", I don't have any data that shows how many ppm = some level of wear of any component.
I never claimed to have such.
But that does not make my UOA data observations any less valid.
Normality (and abnormality) of UOA data, in both mirco and marco scope, is very helpful, when understood in full context.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The inference some folks took here is that Cummins would have us believe UOAs are meaningless.

It is important to note that's not the case, that Cummins has placed value in UOAs. We just can't cherry pick a couple quotes from one bulletin.
 
Maybe you can't, but I can. Unless you know the source of wear metals, UOAs have their limitations. For example, what if all the iron came from the top ring turn around point, all the copper came from the oil cooler and the aluminum was oxide from condensation on the block and heads, and not from aluminum bearings or pistons. I don't read DM3's posts as a rule.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
So, "No", I don't have any data that shows how many ppm = some level of wear of any component.
I never claimed to have such.
But that does not make my UOA data observations any less valid.
Normality (and abnormality) of UOA data, in both mirco and marco scope, is very helpful, when understood in full context.


Oh...sorry...

I just assumed that when you summarily dismissed the Cummins document for not providing that level of burden of proof that you somehow had a similar level of evidence.

My bad...
 
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
Maybe you can't, but I can. Unless you know the source of wear metals, UOAs have their limitations.

No one said they don't. Where I've read Cummins material that was supporting UOAs, it was in cases where it's designed to determine the continued suitability of the lubricant to remain in service.
 
I knew that all along. I've never once attempted to divine wear from a UOA or compare one grade/brand/specification versus another by UOA. I can hardly get my fingers to type the phrase "wear metals" in a post.
 
Because they obviously have some use in condemning a lubricant. In some cases, they could certainly indicate elevated wear. In many cases, they wouldn't. They sure as heck don't quantify wear.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: paulri
Thanks for posting the link to this. I'll read it later. I did find a version of it that doesn't require a scribd user account: http://www.plaisance-pratique.com/IMG/pdf/SBN_Oil_3810340__5jun13.pdf



Originally Posted By: userfriendly
https://www.scribd.com/document/193910963/Cummins-Engine-Oil-and-Analysis-Recommendations

The last few paragraphs is of interest to me or anyone who uses wear metals in UOAs to determine engine wear.
I'm not going down the extended oil drain slippery-slope to save a few bucks on oil and ruin an engine in the process.
I would say 20 years of data collecting down the 'ol drain, Lol.




Read the last sentence of that entire paper, please; I'll quote:
"It means that oil analysis becomes meaningless after the engine oil is excessively contaminated."

AFTER oil becomes overtly usurped by contamination, then all bets are off. And I agree with that; never claimed anything different. But most of our BITOG UOAs, and certainly those that I screen in my set of 15k+ UOAs in the database, are not "excessively contaminated". High amounts of soot/ox, or high fuel dilution, or extremely elevated metals, or heavily diluted via replenishment can all affect the validity of UOAs. I could not agree more. BUT .... if those things are NOT present, then the UOA techniques are valid.

That paper (written 10 years ago, and updated occasionally), never said that UOAs are worthless at all stages, nor does it put forth any sort of "proof" for it's claims. There's not one shred of data in that paper. There's no SAE study (or internal Cummins study) they show relevant information for. There's no charts of UOA data and then corresponding tear-down measurements. There's no electron-bombardment data. Etc .... It's just words with no information to prove it's validity. I am not at disagreement with the pretext; UOAs that are heavily contaminated and/or diluted should be under heavy scrutiy for accuracy. But UOAs which are unaffected by those concerns are completely valid. And that paper from Cummins never says to avoid ALL UOAs; it just states reasons why UOAs would be subject for scrutiny and subsequent dismissal IF they are compromised by conditions of the oil.

They also have this to say about UOAs:
"Sample results determined by the same laboratory using the same technique can be safely compared." (using the same lab and methodology is valid)
"Abnormal wear causes abnormal accumulation of wear metals in the used oil." (stuff that is not typical will cause atypical results)
"Abnormal wear, which can indicate a problem, usually only involves elevated levels of one or two metals." (atypical results may be narrow in scope)
I will point out that nowhere in their paper that I can find do they address the topic of "normal wear". Abnormal wear? Yes - it's discussed. But Normal wear? Nope - they don't touch that topic at all.

Now look at the title of my article:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
I discuss "normal" wear. I use statistical analysis in both mirco and macro data collections to determine what is typical of daily use.



I will also point out it's a bit of a dichotomy that some of you will need to resolve in your heads regarding the fact that you would believe this paper from Cummins would indicate that UOAs are worthless, but Cummins (and many OEMs and other trustworthy sources) are cited here as having ppm limits on wear metals ...
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Documents/UsedOil%5C2008020.pdf
(page 11 of the report)
Ironic, if not hypocritical, that Cummins wants to say UOAs are not trustworthy, but then establishes ppm limits on metals that would only be discoverered via UOAs ....



So, in short, even Cummins says it's OK to use UOAs, as long as the lab/methodology is consistent and the oil is not grossly contaminated. They also set condemnation limits for UOA wear metals.

Once again, those of you whom want to take things out of context, and/or morph information to fit your narrow viewpoint, need to take a broader approach to understanding this entire topic(s).




Just sayin'.



I don't know why anyone would use data from Cummins for anything.They make poorly designed, archaic engines. To put it in more technical terms, their engines are pieces of [censored].
 
When it was all said and done, I left the filter on and about a quart in the pan, so I wouldn't overflow the drain pan.

After driving 400 miles the oil still looks brand new on the dipstick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
The main reason I change oil at 3000 miles...sludge!
4 5 6
Replies
107
Views
10K
Astro14
TiGeo
Should I push HPL longer than 4K OCIs with track use?
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
SammyChevelleTypeS3
F
5k or 6k in Ford Cyclones
2
Replies
21
Views
831
slo town
G
Can I use PUP in a new C8?
Replies
12
Views
619
Snagglefoot
Al
20,00 Mile OPCI
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
buster
Back
Top