Your van gives me faith that my dad's 2000 Quest will live a long life.
ST 5w-30; 15k miles; Villager 245k miles
- Thread starter dnewton3
- Start date
- Status
dnewton3
Staff member
filter cut open this eve
see this other thread:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3164570&page=3
Thanks for the offer, Jim, but I just couldn't resist getting it out of the way. Your generosity is noted!
see this other thread:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3164570&page=3
Thanks for the offer, Jim, but I just couldn't resist getting it out of the way. Your generosity is noted!
Last edited:
he will say when the west metals start to increase dramatically
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Originally Posted By: Brybo86
he will say when the west metals start to increase dramatically
As compared to the east metals (or north or south)? Just kidding, I know what you mean (wear).
he will say when the west metals start to increase dramatically
As compared to the east metals (or north or south)? Just kidding, I know what you mean (wear).
dnewton3
Staff member
Generally, that would be correct. Even Blackstone calls this TAN out as only "mildly acidic".
Many have asked about the "sludge" concerns. I believe this shows sludge it NOT an issue. The amber staining is from an overheating event 100k+ miles ago when the water pump went out and the wife continued to drive it for a short distance; do not account that discoloration to these two extended OCIs as this color has been that way a LONG time. Note that there is no sludge in any nooks or crannies. These are direct, un-retouched photos from tonight. Essentially, the under-valve-cover condition has not changed in more than 120k miles, even after the last 25k miles of LONG OCIs.
http://s1333.photobucket.com/upload?location=Villager valvetrain
So, in synopsis:
10k miles ST dino OCI with Puro Classic
15k miles ST dino OCI with FL400S
Wear in good control, even with Si leak
TBN/TAN not out of control
insolubles in good shape at .4
vis, FP and such all in good shape
Filter dissection shows no graphic collapse or hint of failure
Valve-train pix show no adverse sludge or heavy varnish
At what point are some of you nay-sayers going to just acquiesce to the reality of normal products having great capability????? If these two back-to-back well documented experiments don't convince you, I doubt anything ever will.
Many have asked about the "sludge" concerns. I believe this shows sludge it NOT an issue. The amber staining is from an overheating event 100k+ miles ago when the water pump went out and the wife continued to drive it for a short distance; do not account that discoloration to these two extended OCIs as this color has been that way a LONG time. Note that there is no sludge in any nooks or crannies. These are direct, un-retouched photos from tonight. Essentially, the under-valve-cover condition has not changed in more than 120k miles, even after the last 25k miles of LONG OCIs.
http://s1333.photobucket.com/upload?location=Villager valvetrain
So, in synopsis:
10k miles ST dino OCI with Puro Classic
15k miles ST dino OCI with FL400S
Wear in good control, even with Si leak
TBN/TAN not out of control
insolubles in good shape at .4
vis, FP and such all in good shape
Filter dissection shows no graphic collapse or hint of failure
Valve-train pix show no adverse sludge or heavy varnish
At what point are some of you nay-sayers going to just acquiesce to the reality of normal products having great capability????? If these two back-to-back well documented experiments don't convince you, I doubt anything ever will.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Generally, that would be correct. Even Blackstone calls this TAN out as only "mildly acidic".
Many have asked about the "sludge" concerns. I believe this shows sludge it NOT an issue. The amber staining is from an overheating event 100k+ miles ago when the water pump went out and the wife continued to drive it for a short distance; do not account that discoloration to these two extended OCIs as this color has been that way a LONG time. Note that there is no sludge in any nooks or crannies. These are direct, un-retouched photos from tonight. Essentially, the under-valve-cover condition has not changed in more than 120k miles, even after the last 25k miles of LONG OCIs.
http://s1333.photobucket.com/upload?location=Villager valvetrain
So, in synopsis:
10k miles ST dino OCI with Puro Classic
15k miles ST dino OCI with FL400S
Wear in good control, even with Si leak
TBN/TAN not out of control
insolubles in good shape at .4
vis, FP and such all in good shape
Filter dissection shows no graphic collapse or hint of failure
Valve-train pix show no adverse sludge or heavy varnish
At what point are some of you nay-sayers going to just acquiesce to the reality of normal products having great capability????? If these two back-to-back well documented experiments don't convince you, I doubt anything ever will.
Regardless of your "experiment" dont expect people on this forum to just stop and start driving to their local Walmarts and buying supertech oil/cheapest oil filter and run their everyday vehicles on 15,000 mile oil changes just because they aren't getting "their" moneys worth according to you.
Generally, that would be correct. Even Blackstone calls this TAN out as only "mildly acidic".
Many have asked about the "sludge" concerns. I believe this shows sludge it NOT an issue. The amber staining is from an overheating event 100k+ miles ago when the water pump went out and the wife continued to drive it for a short distance; do not account that discoloration to these two extended OCIs as this color has been that way a LONG time. Note that there is no sludge in any nooks or crannies. These are direct, un-retouched photos from tonight. Essentially, the under-valve-cover condition has not changed in more than 120k miles, even after the last 25k miles of LONG OCIs.
http://s1333.photobucket.com/upload?location=Villager valvetrain
So, in synopsis:
10k miles ST dino OCI with Puro Classic
15k miles ST dino OCI with FL400S
Wear in good control, even with Si leak
TBN/TAN not out of control
insolubles in good shape at .4
vis, FP and such all in good shape
Filter dissection shows no graphic collapse or hint of failure
Valve-train pix show no adverse sludge or heavy varnish
At what point are some of you nay-sayers going to just acquiesce to the reality of normal products having great capability????? If these two back-to-back well documented experiments don't convince you, I doubt anything ever will.
Regardless of your "experiment" dont expect people on this forum to just stop and start driving to their local Walmarts and buying supertech oil/cheapest oil filter and run their everyday vehicles on 15,000 mile oil changes just because they aren't getting "their" moneys worth according to you.
dnewton3
Staff member
Never said they should do as I do. Even if they choose to do so, they should only do it with great diligence and not blind obedience.
All I set out to do is prove that there is HUGE reserve capability in everyday lube/filter products, and that no one "needs" syns and such for "normal" OCIs.
And I most certainly have.
This is just a big game of yabuts (yeah, but ...)
dnewton3: longer OCIs are easily attainable on normal products
BITOGer: yabut you'll ruin your engine with high wear
dnewton3: wear is well in control, UOA macro analysis shows it safe (normalcy article), personal UOAs back this up (posted)
BITOGer: yabut TBN is too low
dnewton3: TBN being low is not an assurance of high acid
BITOGer: yabut TAN is higher than TBN - it crossed over
dnewton3: TAN has not revealed itself to be at an unsafe level, even after 15k miles
BITOGer: yabut vis will go wildly thick
dnewton3: vis is fine and the UOAs prove it
BITOGer: yabut the filter is likely beyond any serviceable factor
dnewton3: dissection shows the filter to be fine (photo proof posted); media intact, ADBV pliable, etc
BITOGer: yabut the sludge certainly must choking the engine
dnewton3: visual inspections clearly show sludge not an issue even in extended OCIs (photo proof posted)
BITOGer: yabut ... ummmmm ... wait - I'll think of something ....
See a pattern here? Some people will never let go of their bias, regardless of how much data and proof stares them in the face. And that's fine; they can do as they see fit. But there are also some folks here that actually want to learn; they have open minds, and are willing to reason their way through the rhetoric and mythology. My experiments are for me and them.
All I set out to do is prove that there is HUGE reserve capability in everyday lube/filter products, and that no one "needs" syns and such for "normal" OCIs.
And I most certainly have.
This is just a big game of yabuts (yeah, but ...)
dnewton3: longer OCIs are easily attainable on normal products
BITOGer: yabut you'll ruin your engine with high wear
dnewton3: wear is well in control, UOA macro analysis shows it safe (normalcy article), personal UOAs back this up (posted)
BITOGer: yabut TBN is too low
dnewton3: TBN being low is not an assurance of high acid
BITOGer: yabut TAN is higher than TBN - it crossed over
dnewton3: TAN has not revealed itself to be at an unsafe level, even after 15k miles
BITOGer: yabut vis will go wildly thick
dnewton3: vis is fine and the UOAs prove it
BITOGer: yabut the filter is likely beyond any serviceable factor
dnewton3: dissection shows the filter to be fine (photo proof posted); media intact, ADBV pliable, etc
BITOGer: yabut the sludge certainly must choking the engine
dnewton3: visual inspections clearly show sludge not an issue even in extended OCIs (photo proof posted)
BITOGer: yabut ... ummmmm ... wait - I'll think of something ....
See a pattern here? Some people will never let go of their bias, regardless of how much data and proof stares them in the face. And that's fine; they can do as they see fit. But there are also some folks here that actually want to learn; they have open minds, and are willing to reason their way through the rhetoric and mythology. My experiments are for me and them.
Last edited:
Well, Mr. Newton, is there then really a practical reason for buying a TBN and TAN test?
I can sorta see just going by the actual wear, viscosity and insoluble numbers. So why do you even bother with those tests?
If the answer is the TAN number can get to condemnation levels or the TBN/TAN ratio would be such that would cause you to change without bad wear numbers, again, the question is, what would those numbers be, as an example?
I can sorta see just going by the actual wear, viscosity and insoluble numbers. So why do you even bother with those tests?
If the answer is the TAN number can get to condemnation levels or the TBN/TAN ratio would be such that would cause you to change without bad wear numbers, again, the question is, what would those numbers be, as an example?
You've certainly gotten your money's worth out of this van as well as the oils you've used in it.
This is a very impressive UOA in that you're probably the only one among us who would've run ST for more than 7K, much less double that. I think you had a good idea of the results you'd see going in and this experiment validates your theory.
This UOA, as well as what you've posted here about UOAs in general as well as the conservative nature of typical OCI recommendations also helps explain why so many neglected engines go on to lead long happy lives.
Even bulk oil that barely meets the applicable spec apparently has the ability to perform for far more miles than most of us would have thought.
Good for you for having proved your point using your own metal.
This is a very impressive UOA in that you're probably the only one among us who would've run ST for more than 7K, much less double that. I think you had a good idea of the results you'd see going in and this experiment validates your theory.
This UOA, as well as what you've posted here about UOAs in general as well as the conservative nature of typical OCI recommendations also helps explain why so many neglected engines go on to lead long happy lives.
Even bulk oil that barely meets the applicable spec apparently has the ability to perform for far more miles than most of us would have thought.
Good for you for having proved your point using your own metal.
I saw your dissected filter pics. The filter obviously did its job. There's most certainly going to be some measurable amount of engine wear metals embedded deep in those media fibers, buried out of site. And these larger wear particles of course are not showing up in the UOA's.
Not saying it would be enough wear to dramatically affect drive-ability after a few extended OCI's, depending on what you demand of your vehicle. But it's still wear that's not being measured nor discussed here.
And now we're back to the old discussion of how truly limited these basic cheap UOA's are.
Not saying it would be enough wear to dramatically affect drive-ability after a few extended OCI's, depending on what you demand of your vehicle. But it's still wear that's not being measured nor discussed here.
And now we're back to the old discussion of how truly limited these basic cheap UOA's are.
dnewton3
Staff member
JimBrewer -
TBN and TAN are effected by three things:
1) use of lube
2) storage of lube
3) inputs of causation (acid inducement via fuel, lube, etc)
NOTE: I am predicating this conversation on equipment that is in good mechanical shape, and fuels that are not compromised/contaminated. If these things are not true, then the following information I discuss is moot.
In short, you can effect the relationship by having high mileage (or equivilant in hours such as stationary or off road equipment), or by letting a piece of equipment sit idle (dormant). Fuel (especially diesel) used to be an issue for Sulphur, as well all know. But even that is now GREATLY reduced as a concern.
I have both types of "use" going on at my home. I have cars that get driven a lot; I have equipment that sits for long periods of time.
This experiement of mine (along with the data from 2010_FX4) have shown to me that TBN/TAN is simply not an issue when it comes to vehicles in use, at least in a manner that would be "normal" or even a bit past normal. I ran 15k miles on ST dino lube, my TAN crossed over TBN multiple times, and yet wear is not effected greatly, if any. It cost me an extra $20 each time I got these tests. Before I had the data, it was questionable, but I had a hypothesis of interaction. I have now proved it to be so. 2010_FX4's data echo's mine. He has seen TAN cross over, and yet nothing horrid happened, and if we had never paid for the testing, none of us would have even been the wiser. So, I see zero reason to ever pay for TBN/TAN again in high-use, low storage equipment when OCIs are at or a bit longer than "normal".
I will include a big caveat here, that we all should pay attention to. This issue ceratinly will have a point where TAN does indeed become too big to ignore, and likely will have some effect on wear by eating away at parts. But my point is that we can see that up to 15k miles, that issue has not revealed itself yet. If someone would like to push the envelope further, then feel free to go for it. But at this point, I'm more than comfortable knowing that 15k miles isn't a problem; TAN will not degrade TBN to a point of massive failure. I wil never again pay for TBN/TAN unless I have a specific cause for concern in this regard.
As for the other topic, that of storage, I am still paying for TBN/TAN. I have multiple piece of equipment that see infrequent use:
Duramax truck, Kabota tractor, Scag gas mower, classic 1966 Mustang, various outdoor power equipment (thes all get 10w-30 HDEO) .....
I seek the data; I need to know how that relationship plays out in my barn. So I am still getting TBN/TAN for my Duramax, which is driven infrequently. But so far, it seems fine. And after three or four years on one OCI, if the data supports a solid relationship, I'll probably not pay for those ever again either. But only time will tell.
I may have a hunch on something, but I actually go out and test my hypothesis, and await the data before actually making a determination. I don't listen to rhetoric or mythology; I test and conclude only after data speaks. What the data tells me is that when in use, the TBN/TAN is not an issue up to 15k miles. The data for long term storage is pending, but the "ongoing" ramp of data is showing it's also favorable. But a conclusion at this point would be premature for that scenario. So, I continue to pay for TBN/TAN until I prove to myself it's moot in low use equipment, as I have with high-use equipment.
TBN and TAN are effected by three things:
1) use of lube
2) storage of lube
3) inputs of causation (acid inducement via fuel, lube, etc)
NOTE: I am predicating this conversation on equipment that is in good mechanical shape, and fuels that are not compromised/contaminated. If these things are not true, then the following information I discuss is moot.
In short, you can effect the relationship by having high mileage (or equivilant in hours such as stationary or off road equipment), or by letting a piece of equipment sit idle (dormant). Fuel (especially diesel) used to be an issue for Sulphur, as well all know. But even that is now GREATLY reduced as a concern.
I have both types of "use" going on at my home. I have cars that get driven a lot; I have equipment that sits for long periods of time.
This experiement of mine (along with the data from 2010_FX4) have shown to me that TBN/TAN is simply not an issue when it comes to vehicles in use, at least in a manner that would be "normal" or even a bit past normal. I ran 15k miles on ST dino lube, my TAN crossed over TBN multiple times, and yet wear is not effected greatly, if any. It cost me an extra $20 each time I got these tests. Before I had the data, it was questionable, but I had a hypothesis of interaction. I have now proved it to be so. 2010_FX4's data echo's mine. He has seen TAN cross over, and yet nothing horrid happened, and if we had never paid for the testing, none of us would have even been the wiser. So, I see zero reason to ever pay for TBN/TAN again in high-use, low storage equipment when OCIs are at or a bit longer than "normal".
I will include a big caveat here, that we all should pay attention to. This issue ceratinly will have a point where TAN does indeed become too big to ignore, and likely will have some effect on wear by eating away at parts. But my point is that we can see that up to 15k miles, that issue has not revealed itself yet. If someone would like to push the envelope further, then feel free to go for it. But at this point, I'm more than comfortable knowing that 15k miles isn't a problem; TAN will not degrade TBN to a point of massive failure. I wil never again pay for TBN/TAN unless I have a specific cause for concern in this regard.
As for the other topic, that of storage, I am still paying for TBN/TAN. I have multiple piece of equipment that see infrequent use:
Duramax truck, Kabota tractor, Scag gas mower, classic 1966 Mustang, various outdoor power equipment (thes all get 10w-30 HDEO) .....
I seek the data; I need to know how that relationship plays out in my barn. So I am still getting TBN/TAN for my Duramax, which is driven infrequently. But so far, it seems fine. And after three or four years on one OCI, if the data supports a solid relationship, I'll probably not pay for those ever again either. But only time will tell.
I may have a hunch on something, but I actually go out and test my hypothesis, and await the data before actually making a determination. I don't listen to rhetoric or mythology; I test and conclude only after data speaks. What the data tells me is that when in use, the TBN/TAN is not an issue up to 15k miles. The data for long term storage is pending, but the "ongoing" ramp of data is showing it's also favorable. But a conclusion at this point would be premature for that scenario. So, I continue to pay for TBN/TAN until I prove to myself it's moot in low use equipment, as I have with high-use equipment.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: RPMster
I saw your dissected filter pics. The filter obviously did its job. There's most certainly going to be some measurable amount of engine wear metals embedded deep in those media fibers, buried out of site. And these larger wear particles of course are not showing up in the UOA's.
Not saying it would be enough wear to dramatically affect drive-ability after a few extended OCI's, depending on what you demand of your vehicle. But it's still wear that's not being measured nor discussed here.
And now we're back to the old discussion of how truly limited these basic cheap UOA's are.
I don't disagree with that notion, that UOAs are only a portion of the viewpoint and not the total. I embrace that as factual.
However, that concern, of UOAs not showing a complete picture, are not unique to extended OCIs. You could have that same concern for a UOA with only 3k miles on it.
I saw your dissected filter pics. The filter obviously did its job. There's most certainly going to be some measurable amount of engine wear metals embedded deep in those media fibers, buried out of site. And these larger wear particles of course are not showing up in the UOA's.
Not saying it would be enough wear to dramatically affect drive-ability after a few extended OCI's, depending on what you demand of your vehicle. But it's still wear that's not being measured nor discussed here.
And now we're back to the old discussion of how truly limited these basic cheap UOA's are.
I don't disagree with that notion, that UOAs are only a portion of the viewpoint and not the total. I embrace that as factual.
However, that concern, of UOAs not showing a complete picture, are not unique to extended OCIs. You could have that same concern for a UOA with only 3k miles on it.
Well, OK then, Mr. Newton. I have to admit your explanation jibes with my experience; Low use daily driver sometimes with days of inactivity. It seems to me that inactivity is more of an enemy than is commonly thought.
The car had plenty of add pack left at the end of 8.3K miles. It was clear that the car hadn't been heated often enough to keep up with the TAN. It was prety obvious that at the end I could have hopped in it, driven it a couple of thousand highway miles no problem.
The car had plenty of add pack left at the end of 8.3K miles. It was clear that the car hadn't been heated often enough to keep up with the TAN. It was prety obvious that at the end I could have hopped in it, driven it a couple of thousand highway miles no problem.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
There was one 10k mile OCI (220k to 230k miles). UOA was done at 10k miles. OCI at that time.
Then a 15k mile OCI, but there were two UOAs; one UOA at 10k and then 5k miles later at 15k. (from 230k to 240k then 245k miles).
Don't recall exact time when oil was added; typically about .5 qrt per shot. Total of 2 qrts over the 15k miles. One was near the end, which likely bolstered the TBN a little.
Then a 15k mile OCI, but there were two UOAs; one UOA at 10k and then 5k miles later at 15k. (from 230k to 240k then 245k miles).
Don't recall exact time when oil was added; typically about .5 qrt per shot. Total of 2 qrts over the 15k miles. One was near the end, which likely bolstered the TBN a little.
- Status
Similar threads
