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!
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!