Synpower 5w30, 7k miles, '03 GM 4.2L

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Rbarrio's UOA kinda puts my point right in line, does it not?

He averages about 20k miles a year, looking at the last two UOA cycles. Seeing that those UOAs are around 10-11k miles, he's probably doing two OCIs per year.
Dino oil, very low wear rates, low contamination, TBN used to near depletion. Perfect use of his resources. He is letting the data speak to him; he's letting the UOA determine his OCIs.

OTOH, the OP here runs syns to 6k miles. He is seeing low wear rates and contamination, but he's leaving TBN in the crankcase to be dumped into the drain pan. He's throwing away available miles. What does one call that? WASTE! He's letting some preconcieved notion of odometer use dictate his OCI. He gets UOAs done, but to what end? He's not using the data to tell him anything useful. He's using the UOAs like a toy, rather than a tool. In fact, I presume this vehicle has an OLM, and I suspect he's changing oil before the OLM (which is predicated on "normal" oils) tells him to. So the way I see it, he's wasting oil and he's wasting UOA data. He's throwing away tangible assets that cost real money. Actually, it's waste heaped upon waste. He pays for an oil that he does not fully utilize, and then he pays for information he ignores. Waste + Waste = BIG WASTE.

Now, I'd certainly agree we don't know everything about either persons driving cycles, but we DO know that the repeated approach of using syns every 6k miles is NOT maximizing the use of the lube. Even if the syn were to go the same 10k miles as rbarrios, the OP would be paying 2-3x more money for the same wear results. Some people just cannot see the forest for the trees.


Like I said before, why not prove me wrong? Why not test the scenario out? Why not try a few dino OCI cycles for the OP? It's not like the engine is going to be irrevocably damaged. All I'm suggesting is running some 6k mile OCI/UOA cycles with a few dino brands. It's not like consistiencey of brand/grade is a big thing to him; he's clearly willing to experiment. Well - willing to experiment with one exception; he may not want to try dino fluids because he's afraid he might learn how wasteful his program is. It's easy to deny the situation when you don't allow yourself to try the experiment. But if he does try it, and the results are favorable, then there's no denying the results and he'd be left with simple emotional "wants" as his only justification. Yes - I'm calling him out (in a friendly challenge). I'd like to see him do one of two things:
1) try longer syn OCIs
2) try dino at 6k mile OCIs

Why does he change syn oils at 6k miles, when the data clearly, repeatedly tells him he could run further? He "wants" to. He does not "need" to. He maintenance plan is run on emotion and not facts. There is nothing wrong with that approach unless he (or anyone else) trys to justify it as logical. There is no "safety" margin to discuss here. Dino oils and OLMs have safey margins built in. Pre-fixed OCI durations have safety margins built in. Using a syn lube for short OCI durations and ignoring UOA data is not a safety margin; it's nutty. Don't give me that age-old "it's cheap insurance" addage; that's baloney.

Look - I'm not trying to pick on the OP; I'm trying to open his eyes (and a few others). The data is right there for all to see. I'm throwing down the gauntlet (in a playful sense) to see if he can shift his paradigm and get out of the rut he's in.

Folks - consider it an oil intervention. Friends don't let friends drive drunk, and True BTIOGERS don't let other fellow BITOGERS waste lubes.


WOW!!!
Another one of your ridiculously long, bloviated posts about what you feel is "WASTE".

C'mon BITOGER'S, just change your oil based on your driving conditions and don't OVERTHINK it like some do!
 
dnewton, there's nothing inaccurate with what you say.

But, some people don't feel comfortable running their lubes to the ragged end. I don't think there's a problem with that - leaving a buffer isn't the end of the world. Not everyone is interested - for many on here a UOA is a fun thing to look at, not a tool to maximize economy. Most oil gets recycled these days so it's a minor hit to the wallet and negligible environmentally. For the cost of even a simple UOA like this, you could run most dino lubes (and many syns) half the time, skip the UOA, and the hit to the wallet would be about the same.

I only hope you cut open toothpaste tubes to scrape out the residue left on the insides, and cut the tips off clogged ball point pens to drain the remaining ink into other pens before throwing them out. See my point?
 
Originally Posted By: kender
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Rbarrio's UOA kinda puts my point right in line, does it not?

He averages about 20k miles a year, looking at the last two UOA cycles. Seeing that those UOAs are around 10-11k miles, he's probably doing two OCIs per year.
Dino oil, very low wear rates, low contamination, TBN used to near depletion. Perfect use of his resources. He is letting the data speak to him; he's letting the UOA determine his OCIs.

OTOH, the OP here runs syns to 6k miles. He is seeing low wear rates and contamination, but he's leaving TBN in the crankcase to be dumped into the drain pan. He's throwing away available miles. What does one call that? WASTE! He's letting some preconcieved notion of odometer use dictate his OCI. He gets UOAs done, but to what end? He's not using the data to tell him anything useful. He's using the UOAs like a toy, rather than a tool. In fact, I presume this vehicle has an OLM, and I suspect he's changing oil before the OLM (which is predicated on "normal" oils) tells him to. So the way I see it, he's wasting oil and he's wasting UOA data. He's throwing away tangible assets that cost real money. Actually, it's waste heaped upon waste. He pays for an oil that he does not fully utilize, and then he pays for information he ignores. Waste + Waste = BIG WASTE.

Now, I'd certainly agree we don't know everything about either persons driving cycles, but we DO know that the repeated approach of using syns every 6k miles is NOT maximizing the use of the lube. Even if the syn were to go the same 10k miles as rbarrios, the OP would be paying 2-3x more money for the same wear results. Some people just cannot see the forest for the trees.


Like I said before, why not prove me wrong? Why not test the scenario out? Why not try a few dino OCI cycles for the OP? It's not like the engine is going to be irrevocably damaged. All I'm suggesting is running some 6k mile OCI/UOA cycles with a few dino brands. It's not like consistiencey of brand/grade is a big thing to him; he's clearly willing to experiment. Well - willing to experiment with one exception; he may not want to try dino fluids because he's afraid he might learn how wasteful his program is. It's easy to deny the situation when you don't allow yourself to try the experiment. But if he does try it, and the results are favorable, then there's no denying the results and he'd be left with simple emotional "wants" as his only justification. Yes - I'm calling him out (in a friendly challenge). I'd like to see him do one of two things:
1) try longer syn OCIs
2) try dino at 6k mile OCIs

Why does he change syn oils at 6k miles, when the data clearly, repeatedly tells him he could run further? He "wants" to. He does not "need" to. He maintenance plan is run on emotion and not facts. There is nothing wrong with that approach unless he (or anyone else) trys to justify it as logical. There is no "safety" margin to discuss here. Dino oils and OLMs have safey margins built in. Pre-fixed OCI durations have safety margins built in. Using a syn lube for short OCI durations and ignoring UOA data is not a safety margin; it's nutty. Don't give me that age-old "it's cheap insurance" addage; that's baloney.

Look - I'm not trying to pick on the OP; I'm trying to open his eyes (and a few others). The data is right there for all to see. I'm throwing down the gauntlet (in a playful sense) to see if he can shift his paradigm and get out of the rut he's in.

Folks - consider it an oil intervention. Friends don't let friends drive drunk, and True BTIOGERS don't let other fellow BITOGERS waste lubes.


WOW!!!
Another one of your ridiculously long, bloviated posts about what you feel is "WASTE".

C'mon BITOGER'S, just change your oil based on your driving conditions and don't OVERTHINK it like some do!


I wouldn't say he's over-thinking it. He makes perfectly good sense.

I personally started pulling sample and then wait for the results before dumping the oil. That way, if the results are good and the oil has plenty of life left in it, you run it longer and get your money's worth outta the oil as well as the lab results you paid for.

I personally don't like going below 2.0 TBN on Blackstone's scale but even their 1.0 limit is not saying the TBN is GONE, it's simply getting LOW, so running it down to 1 sounds safe. (I've actually remember reading that their 1.0 is actually higher then that, so even the lab has some safely margin build into the system)

TBN decreases slowly as it gets towards the end. From my own personal UOA i've seen it go from 2.9 to 2.3 after putting on an addition 1,500 miles on the oil. So in reality, i could have put another 2k easy but i choose to dump the oil
33.gif
Oh well, we live and we learn.
 
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
...now the catch: When it was the 'dd' what type of service conditions? Highway? Winters/summers are like ____ what? Idling? Stop and go? Trips shorter than 5 miles in summer? 10 miles in the winter? Not surprising to see dino go that far IF it saw good conditions and ate through those miles in short time...but still one of the best conventional UOAs we've seen.

By the way, most would here don't have the balls to take the TBN that low.
28.gif


I live in Los Angeles.
My daily drives are about 20 miles 1 way. with rush hour stop and go. 20 miles can take anywhere from 45 min to 1:15 depending on traffic conditions. Summer temps can be 80-105. Winter temps 40-75 deg.
I did do 2 oil changes per year- and each oil change interval was roughly 10-11,500 miles. Never any makeup oil.

Also- my daily driver is now a 2010 Chevy Traverse with the 3.6 DI engine. Same commute as for the Trailblazer, and I still use the same oil- valvoline Dino.
Ive had UOA done on that.... linke below.
Im about 120 miles short of getting another UOA on the Traverse. Im now running Valvoline dino- but its the new Ilsac-GF5 fomulation.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2243016
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: kender


WOW!!!
Another one of your ridiculously long, bloviated posts about what you feel is "WASTE".

C'mon BITOGER'S, just change your oil based on your driving conditions and don't OVERTHINK it like some do!


Why do repeated UOA's if you aren't going to respond to their results?
 
Originally Posted By: cchase
dnewton, there's nothing inaccurate with what you say.

But, some people don't feel comfortable running their lubes to the ragged end. I don't think there's a problem with that - leaving a buffer isn't the end of the world. Not everyone is interested - for many on here a UOA is a fun thing to look at, not a tool to maximize economy. Most oil gets recycled these days so it's a minor hit to the wallet and negligible environmentally. For the cost of even a simple UOA like this, you could run most dino lubes (and many syns) half the time, skip the UOA, and the hit to the wallet would be about the same.

I only hope you cut open toothpaste tubes to scrape out the residue left on the insides, and cut the tips off clogged ball point pens to drain the remaining ink into other pens before throwing them out. See my point?


Your point is not lost on me ...

I think what a lot of people simply do not understand is that there is already a "safey margin" built into OEM OCIs, even with dino fluids.

Let's look at the OPs vehicle, but not his samples; rather we'll look at what would be "normal" for the vehicle. GM designed it with an intelligent OLM. The OLM is predicated upon many factors, and one of them is using a qualifed dino lube. GM cerainly does not intend to run the oil down to total degredation when the OLM hits 0%. I suspect there is lifecycle left in the oil when the OLM hits 0%. In fact, I KNOW it to be true. I've seen plenty of UOAs where the OLM bottomed out, but the wear metals had not seen any adverse effects yet.

Let's remember that while lubes do many things, their main point is to prevent (more appropriately, reduce) wear. Yes, they cool. Yes, the control contamination. Yes, they do many things. But the MAIN goal is to reduce wear. If your wear is under control, the other contributing functions are supplementally working. IOW - if you have good low wear rates and low acumulated wear metals, the value of other characteristic is not as important.

I would challenge anyone to show me a UOA where any oil allowed engine failure, where the wear metals were well in control, the TBN was 2.9 avg, and the contamination was non-existent. You see, the OEM OCIs already have a safety factor built in, and those are predicated on using dino oil. The "cheap insurance" is already built into the OEM OCI. To use a synthetic, and OCI before an OLM tells you to, is HUGELY wasteful. And the only thing yet worse than that is to confirm the potential of life left in the lube with expensive UOAs, and STILL change it.

TBN is important, but it is NOT the end-all/be-all topic for an OCI. TBN is there to reduce the harmful effects of acids. If one does not have many acids, a low TBN number is not a cause for panic. It's situationally dependent. If you drive good, long full cycles with full heat loading, and have good quality fuel, you're not likely to have a lot of acid. If you drive super short cycles, and have fuel issues, you'll need TBN of greater magnitude. Just because TBN is low is NOT an automatic cause for an OCI.

So, in the OPs case, he OCIs with when his syn has a TBN average of 2.9; there is PLENTY of life left. The two wear metal signs (wear rates and wear accumulation) are both low; he is nowhere near condemnation levels. There is no fuel or dirt or coolant intrusion. He has multiple UOAs to show this engine it tight and runs well, regardless of brand/grade of lube.

Just because the TBN is "low" in his mind, does not mean the engine is in danger. Even 1.0 is not "zero"; it is a trigger point, but it is NOT an assurance of total destruction.

You said it yourself:
Originally Posted By: cchase
... some people don't feel comfortable running their lubes to the ragged end.

EXACTLY - they don't "feel" comfortable. Feeling is an emotional response. There is not logic in it. The FACTS and DATA are telling us here that the syn lubes in these UOAs are not nearly used up. And he pays big money for this information, and then promptly ignores it.


Do I cut open my toothpaste tube, scrape it clean and lick the inner tube liner? No - I do not. But I don't throw out a tube that's only half-used, either ...
Would any of us buy a case of beer and throw away 4 or 5 full cans on purpose, and then load the refrigerator with another 24 cans, to make us "feel comfortable" that we won't run out of beer?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3


Do I cut open my toothpaste tube, scrape it clean and lick the inner tube liner? No - I do not. But I don't throw out a tube that's only half-used, either ...
Would any of us buy a case of beer and throw away 4 or 5 full cans on purpose, and then load the refrigerator with another 24 cans, to make us "feel comfortable" that we won't run out of beer?


Oh dnewton how you
crackmeup2.gif
"crackmeup"
 
rbarrios,

That is a great report. I remember your UOA from when you originally posted it. Probably the best report from a GM DI engine on this board. There is something about the Valvoline oils that seems to make them more resilient in the face of fuel.

VWB is seriously underrated, IMO.
 
Well, that was a long reply.

First of all, I agree that a conventional oil likely would have performed as well as the synthetics in this application. Evaluation of the UOA's posted for conventional oil demonstrates that and RBARRIOS's UOA is a prime example. In the 90’s I used to use the cheapest name brand conventional oil available; usually Mobil or Chevron in the blue bottles. I am considering returning to conventional oil for some of my applications upon depletion of my existing inventory of oil.

I changed my oil at 3k mile intervals when I used conventional and I doubled it when I changed to synthetic. My objective in performing the UOA’s was never to justify extending the mileage between oil changes, as seems to be your motivation, but rather curiosity and perhaps to see how various oils compare when used in the same engine under the same driving conditions. I increased the mileage on this UOA from 6k miles to 7k miles to see if the TBN retention for the Synpower had improved (it has) with the advent of the SN formula.

I am not opposed to extending the oil change interval based upon the results, but your heavy handed insistence that to do anything else is a “waste” is over the top. It probably keeps some people from posting their UOA results here too, and that is a shame because that is one of the best features of this forum. I am not a hyper-miler when it comes to trying to obtain the ultimate fuel mileage from my vehicle nor am I trying to squeeze the last mile out of my motor oil.

Take care,
Jeff
 
First I must apologize, because it's not my intent to offend. As I said, it is a friendly challenge for you to look outside your comfort zone. You owe me exactly nothing. But you might owe it to yourself to really take a second look at what you're doing and why.

OK - so you understand that you're likely wasting oil. Fine. Too many people try to pass off shorter OCIs as "cheap insurance", and they don't understand (or cannot admit) to their condition of waste. As long as you understand your waste, and accept it for that, there's nothing wrong with it from a "human" point of view. There are many things I do in life that others would see as wasteful. I see them, too; but I can admit to them and don't try to "justify" them as anything other than an emotional response.

As for your UOA processes, you're not really getting what you think you're getting ...

You cannot fairly compare/contrast oils when you only run one OCI/UOA cycle per lube. It takes many UOAs with one lube to get two desirable things:
1) chemical normalization
2) unit/lube averages

Originally Posted By: SnPb
... and perhaps to see how various oils compare when used in the same engine under the same driving conditions ...

Because you jump from brand/grade to brand/grade, you have zero abillity to say which lube is "better" or "worse". You have not allowed any typical chemical processes to settle down, and you have not sampled the fluids often enough to get "averages" to develop. Statistically speaking, you have no ability to determine your standard devaitions. You cannot "compare" lubes with this approach. Well - let me be more articulate; you cannot accurately and fairly compare/contrast lubes with your methodology. You, the person, can "compare" whatever you want; but you're not getting data that supports any logical or rational conclusions you might draw in regard to lube performance. Again, back the emotional response thing. You may "feel" that the information is useful, but not in the manner you intend to use it. To determine (compare/contrast) the lubes to each other, you must first allow them to normalize and then develop statistical averages; that ain't gonna happen with single UOA/OCI cycles. It takes many multiple cycles; 30 cycles, actually, to develop statistical standard deviations.

What you can determine is how the equipment (your engine) reacts to overall market choices. Here, you can see that several truths exist:
1) your engine does not have contamination issues
2) your wear rates are low, regardless of lube used
3) your accumulated wear metals are low, regardless of lube used
4) your TBN and other lube characteristics (FP, Vis, etc) are all in safe range, regardless of lube used

UOAs provide two forms of information; they are a direct view of lube health and an indirect view of equipment health. You are confusing the ability to judge lube performance with the ability to judge the equipment response.

Also, there is a difference between micro and macro statistical modeling. Your micro views (singular UOAs with no statitical processing) are, frankly, worthless in judging which lube is "better". Your macro view is telling you that your engine is doing well, and that you are not fully utilizing the lubes you choose to play with.

I say "play" because that's exactly what you're going. You're not using the UOAs as tools fine tune your operation. You're using them as toys, misinterpreting the results, and ignoring the useful information. You cannot accurately conclude that any of these lubes are "better" than another by comparing them. But you CAN reasonably conclude that they all have performed well, and that you are not fully utilizing any of them, and that the engine is in good shape.

In short, you're giving credit where it is not due, and ignoring information where it is due credit. You're incorrectly judging lube performance, and turning away from the knowledge of equipment performance that is actually useful. Nothing wrong with that if that is what you "want" to do.

It may seem "heavy handed", and for that I apologize. But often, the truth hurts. I'm not going to pat you on the back and tell you what a great job you're doing, when there are clearly flaws in your approach in referece to your stated goal (you cannot fairly judge oil to oil with your methodology) and you're clearly wasting oil and UOA information.

I can acknowledge your decision to do so, as you have the right to do as you choose.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: cchase
dnewton, there's nothing inaccurate with what you say.

But, some people don't feel comfortable running their lubes to the ragged end. I don't think there's a problem with that - leaving a buffer isn't the end of the world. Not everyone is interested - for many on here a UOA is a fun thing to look at, not a tool to maximize economy. Most oil gets recycled these days so it's a minor hit to the wallet and negligible environmentally. For the cost of even a simple UOA like this, you could run most dino lubes (and many syns) half the time, skip the UOA, and the hit to the wallet would be about the same.

I only hope you cut open toothpaste tubes to scrape out the residue left on the insides, and cut the tips off clogged ball point pens to drain the remaining ink into other pens before throwing them out. See my point?


Your point is not lost on me ...

I think what a lot of people simply do not understand is that there is already a "safey margin" built into OEM OCIs, even with dino fluids.

Let's look at the OPs vehicle, but not his samples; rather we'll look at what would be "normal" for the vehicle. GM designed it with an intelligent OLM. The OLM is predicated upon many factors, and one of them is using a qualifed dino lube. GM cerainly does not intend to run the oil down to total degredation when the OLM hits 0%. I suspect there is lifecycle left in the oil when the OLM hits 0%. In fact, I KNOW it to be true. I've seen plenty of UOAs where the OLM bottomed out, but the wear metals had not seen any adverse effects yet.

Let's remember that while lubes do many things, their main point is to prevent (more appropriately, reduce) wear. Yes, they cool. Yes, the control contamination. Yes, they do many things. But the MAIN goal is to reduce wear. If your wear is under control, the other contributing functions are supplementally working. IOW - if you have good low wear rates and low acumulated wear metals, the value of other characteristic is not as important.

I would challenge anyone to show me a UOA where any oil allowed engine failure, where the wear metals were well in control, the TBN was 2.9 avg, and the contamination was non-existent. You see, the OEM OCIs already have a safety factor built in, and those are predicated on using dino oil. The "cheap insurance" is already built into the OEM OCI. To use a synthetic, and OCI before an OLM tells you to, is HUGELY wasteful. And the only thing yet worse than that is to confirm the potential of life left in the lube with expensive UOAs, and STILL change it.

TBN is important, but it is NOT the end-all/be-all topic for an OCI. TBN is there to reduce the harmful effects of acids. If one does not have many acids, a low TBN number is not a cause for panic. It's situationally dependent. If you drive good, long full cycles with full heat loading, and have good quality fuel, you're not likely to have a lot of acid. If you drive super short cycles, and have fuel issues, you'll need TBN of greater magnitude. Just because TBN is low is NOT an automatic cause for an OCI.

So, in the OPs case, he OCIs with when his syn has a TBN average of 2.9; there is PLENTY of life left. The two wear metal signs (wear rates and wear accumulation) are both low; he is nowhere near condemnation levels. There is no fuel or dirt or coolant intrusion. He has multiple UOAs to show this engine it tight and runs well, regardless of brand/grade of lube.

Just because the TBN is "low" in his mind, does not mean the engine is in danger. Even 1.0 is not "zero"; it is a trigger point, but it is NOT an assurance of total destruction.

You said it yourself:
Originally Posted By: cchase
... some people don't feel comfortable running their lubes to the ragged end.

EXACTLY - they don't "feel" comfortable. Feeling is an emotional response. There is not logic in it. The FACTS and DATA are telling us here that the syn lubes in these UOAs are not nearly used up. And he pays big money for this information, and then promptly ignores it.


Do I cut open my toothpaste tube, scrape it clean and lick the inner tube liner? No - I do not. But I don't throw out a tube that's only half-used, either ...
Would any of us buy a case of beer and throw away 4 or 5 full cans on purpose, and then load the refrigerator with another 24 cans, to make us "feel comfortable" that we won't run out of beer?


But I don't drink my motor oil lmao
 
Originally Posted By: kender

C'mon BITOGER'S, just change your oil based on your driving conditions and don't OVERTHINK it like some do!


Let me make it clear first that nothing in my post is directed specifically at anyone, especially neither at the OP nor at Kender....just using Kender's line of thought as a reference (which is the only reason why it's quoted...not so as to call out Kender) and sharing my perspective on that line of thought!


I agree with the first half of Kender's statement as it is a logical one and the oil change suggestion is based on the contributing factor of driving conditions, but I am not so sure about the second half of his statement about some people overthinking on the wasteful aspect! There's nothing individual and isolated about wasting a shared natural resource and it's impact on the environment!

Wasting a natural resource knowingly is socially irresponsible, "knowingly" being the keyword here! It may not matter to some especially in the age and land of abundance today, but that would be extremely irresponsible behavior towards our future!

Just because I can pull the trigger doesn't mean I can shoot at will in a public place!

P.S. I appreciate the effort OP has taken to share the UOAs. Much thanks for that and it is very helpful! I hope OP does not let the various perspectives some of us shared affect his outlook towards the community and hopefully finds this thread constructive!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Unearthed
Originally Posted By: tomcat27
thanks for posting! I notice a few things:

M1 has higher iron (this is noted frequently here)
10W-30 gives you lower wear on copper


I agree - SynPower looks good - and the price is too high


7 vs 8? 3 vs 4? Those are numbers worth noting? I'm sure a $20 UOA has a larger margin of error. 8 vs 50 now that would be something...


Exactly
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top