ST 5w-30; 10k miles; Nissan VG30E 240k miles

[cp3]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

I realize this isn't for everyone; it's pushing the accepted envelope. But Ford proved it can be done safely; validated in SAE article. My UOAs are proof it can be done. And a few other brave souls are also getting there as well.


Be careful Dave. Trying to use a UOA as proof here is a slippery slope with some.

I applaud your research and dedication to your principles. That said, it seems to me that some may think you are disproving your signature statement as many wouldn't run synthetic that long. Are we getting to a point where there is less performance difference between conventional and synthetic? Maybe more cost is just buying better specs? And a little more cleaning ability...

 

[cp3]

Clevy, I don't think TBN has to be depleted for deposits to begin. We've seen lots of pics of engines with known maintenance that are varnished. Some say unchecked varnish will become or form sludge. Some say varnish is completely harmless. I don't really know but I do know that I would like my engines to look like the cleaner un-varnished ones weather it matters or not.

It would be very cool to see if the newer conventionals would compete with synthetics in this area too.

 

[dnewton3]

As I've stated countless times before, this isn't for everyone. To do this, it takes a balanced approach of not just the UOAs, but visual inspections, compression checks, etc. I would NEVER, EVER tell someone to BLINDLY extend OCIs. I use the tools I have to make informed decisions, and manage the risks.

Varnish does not concern me. In fact, some amount of oxidation is desirable. Purchase and read the SAE article I often reference; they clearly establish that the tribochemical barrier laid down by the oxidation of the lube is what greatly reduces wear. Clean metal on clean metal is not desirable. The boundary layer of oxidized components is what helps. It increases with age and heat. Obviously, too much of anything is not a good thing. But in moderation, the oxidation is the main player in wear reduction. That layer is not only effective in reducing wear, but understandably also reduced friction. There would be a balance point between oil that thickens from oxidation, and the friction reduction. Thicker oil takes more effort to pump, but the oxidation layers counteract that effect. Only if the oil GREATLY thickened, would I be concerned. Heavy sludge is a concern for sure; everyone would agree with that. That is why I often pop off a valve cover for some visual clues. Additionally, I check compression to see if rings are coking. So far, after two successive 10k mile runs, all is well. I will not sludge up my motor just to save a few bucks; I doubt any BITOGer would.

What I'm trying to show folks is that there is a lot of potential in a bottle of house brand conventional lube. So very often, we hear the claim (I perceive it as an excuse) that people use syns because of the "cheap insurance" they provide. I counter with this: it's not "cheap" when you waste the vast majority of performance potential. If a typical house brand dino oil can go 2x or 3x the "normal" OCI, then there is already a huge safety margin available. Therefore, using a syn for "normal" distances isn't "safety" informed; it's fiscally ignorant.

 

[DemoFly]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I'm not sure which it is to be honest; the containers are gone long ago. I can check what's on the shelf at the store now, but that may not indicate what I used at the time; it's been a while since I bought that load of oil.

This current load (tested at 10k and running to 15k) will be my last load of ST. I'm impressed with it; there is plenty of proof that it's fully capable.

My next load will be an API certified lube of little note, but I'm going to keep it secret until the UOAs are run.

If it is house brand, I think I have a good guess.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Varnish does not concern me. In fact, some amount of oxidation is desirable. Purchase and read the SAE article I often reference; they clearly establish that the tribochemical barrier laid down by the oxidation of the lube is what greatly reduces wear.

I think that's where unchecked varnish is the concern, not varnish on its own. Unchecked varnish might be a precursor to sludge. Sensibly maintained vehicles certainly can get some varnish, as has been well established in threads here. That's a big leap to sludge, though.

Heck, the taxis had rather clean internals. There certainly was varnish in some instances, but no sludge.

 

[KCJeep]

DNewton that last post was a great explanation I have a better understanding of what you are trying to do now, thanks!

 

[Sam_Julier]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
DNewton that last post was a great explanation I have a better understanding of what you are trying to do now, thanks!


+1

Dnewton3 has changed my maintenance plans and the oils for each vehicle. In the long run I'll save a lot of money and time.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Dave,

I may have missed it; have you owned this one from new or was it purchased used with some miles on it?

I am curious about that because if you have had it from new and have always extended the worry of sludge would be evident or not by this point in time.

 

[Petersubaru]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I can easily remove the front valve cover for visual clues to any formation of sludge, etc. After two successive 10k mile runs, no changes to speak of. I can take pictures now, but I don't have any pictures to show what existed 100k miles ago for comparison.

I also check compression; easy to do as well.

I have actually had the top end off about 100k miles ago when my wife overheated it (continued to drive after the water pump went out and burnt a head gasket so I had to remove them and replace). There seems to be no change on the top end even after two 10k mile runs.

I realize this isn't for everyone; it's pushing the accepted envelope. But Ford proved it can be done safely; validated in SAE article. My UOAs are proof it can be done. And a few other brave souls are also getting there as well.
....I am wondering if you have any thoughts about vehicles with timing chains and extending the OCI...Although I do Not own a vehicle with a timing chain, some cars do have problems with worn out timing gears and chain..sometimes the gears are of poor quality or the tensioner has lost the ability to keep tension when the oil thins out..other manuf. want to use only synthetic...in many cases the oil is exchanged because of concerns with the T/C, thus resulting in shortened OCI ..avoiding vehicles with timing chains is becoming more and more difficult..

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Dave,

I may have missed it; have you owned this one from new or was it purchased used with some miles on it?

I am curious about that because if you have had it from new and have always extended the worry of sludge would be evident or not by this point in time.



I have two high-mileage vehicles:

This UOA is for my wife's 1995 Villager we got new (now has 240k+ miles); have generally followed the OEM OCI for all fluids until recently, when I've been experimenting with longer OCIs. Started out by running OEM 5k mile OCIs, then a slight stretch to 7.5k miles, then a couple 10k miles, and now trudging out to 15k miles.


My 2000 Galant was bought used (now has 201K miles on it; I am third owner). I got this from a close friend, who was the second owner; the first owner didn't have it too long. In fact, I assisted the second owner on most all major matinenance (cam belts, CV alxes, etc) over the last several years, and so it's as if I have owned it for quite some time. That's part of the reason I got it; I know who's worked on it (me!). I will be establishing a series of UOAs for "normal" use (OEM normal OCI is 7.5k miles per the owner's manual), and then trying extended OCIs there as well.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Petersubaru
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I can easily remove the front valve cover for visual clues to any formation of sludge, etc. After two successive 10k mile runs, no changes to speak of. I can take pictures now, but I don't have any pictures to show what existed 100k miles ago for comparison.

I also check compression; easy to do as well.

I have actually had the top end off about 100k miles ago when my wife overheated it (continued to drive after the water pump went out and burnt a head gasket so I had to remove them and replace). There seems to be no change on the top end even after two 10k mile runs.

I realize this isn't for everyone; it's pushing the accepted envelope. But Ford proved it can be done safely; validated in SAE article. My UOAs are proof it can be done. And a few other brave souls are also getting there as well.
....I am wondering if you have any thoughts about vehicles with timing chains and extending the OCI...Although I do Not own a vehicle with a timing chain, some cars do have problems with worn out timing gears and chain..sometimes the gears are of poor quality or the tensioner has lost the ability to keep tension when the oil thins out..other manuf. want to use only synthetic...in many cases the oil is exchanged because of concerns with the T/C, thus resulting in shortened OCI ..avoiding vehicles with timing chains is becoming more and more difficult..



The only thought I have on this is that knowing one's vehicle is paramount. You need to know the personal history of your own vehicle, as well as the history for the vehicle "family" (mass market), so to speak. Yes - timing chains can be an issue, but that does not mean extended OCIs are patently excluded. Extended OCIs must be done with care and caution and knowledge, regardless of the nature of any piece of equipment. Some engines have timing chain issues, others have poor oil return from the heads, while others have weak oil pump drives, and some have thin walls prone to pitting from cavitation in the water jacket, some have poor piston ring design, .... etc, etc .....

Blind OCI extension is foolish; educated extension is a quantifiable managed risk.

At some point, my plan may backfire, but with 240K miles and still running excellent with no clues of failure, I'd have to say the vehicle is already well past it's due. Mid-west cancer (rust) is starting to take it's toll fairly heavily even despite undercoating, and so another 18 years of ownership is unlikely. Like most vehicles, the drivetrain will outlast the rest of the van. And so, there is a practical finite lifecycle to this piece of equipment. With that in mind, I'm experimenting to see where OCI extension can be practical. The "best" plan would be to have the engine seize about one minute before the body cracks at the rockers ...