OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Mobil 1 uses AN's, yes.
Synth. Oil has only 11% the BL Wear as Conv. Oil
- Thread starter CrawfishTails
- Start date
- Status
wemay
Site Donor 2023
From:
https://wearcheck.com/about-oil-analysis/
'When the oils reserve alkalinity (TBN) falls below the minimum safe level, higher component wear can be expected.'
Originally Posted By: Capa
I'm surprised by the number of people in this thread trying to utilize UOA's as evidence of wear. I thought that it was BITOG 101 that UOA's do not really measure wear.
https://wearcheck.com/about-oil-analysis/
'When the oils reserve alkalinity (TBN) falls below the minimum safe level, higher component wear can be expected.'
Originally Posted By: Capa
I'm surprised by the number of people in this thread trying to utilize UOA's as evidence of wear. I thought that it was BITOG 101 that UOA's do not really measure wear.
Last edited:
I guess the criticism was directed at using wear metal levels (in ppm) as wear measure.
You simply can't do it across different engines and compare results. Furthermore, UOA measures normal wear (small particles) and not abnormal/catastrophic wear (large particles or chunks). On the other hand, if one repeats the same experiment on the same engine, change in wear metal does suggest change in wear rate. So, the use of it in the above experiment was valid.
You simply can't do it across different engines and compare results. Furthermore, UOA measures normal wear (small particles) and not abnormal/catastrophic wear (large particles or chunks). On the other hand, if one repeats the same experiment on the same engine, change in wear metal does suggest change in wear rate. So, the use of it in the above experiment was valid.
Blackstone always comments on wear metals and tell you if your engine is "wearing well".
I guess they want to sell their product?
I guess they want to sell their product?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Blackstone always comments on wear metals and tell you if your engine is "wearing well".
I guess they want to sell their product?
Yes. And are noting that there is nothing "unusual", like a spike. They'd say the same whether FE was 8 or 15ppm for example. But if it was 350 they'd say something, LOL!
Blackstone always comments on wear metals and tell you if your engine is "wearing well".
I guess they want to sell their product?
Yes. And are noting that there is nothing "unusual", like a spike. They'd say the same whether FE was 8 or 15ppm for example. But if it was 350 they'd say something, LOL!
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Crawfish Tails,
great find, and thanks for posting.
Interested that the (dino) ASTM reference 20W30 is no additive, no VII...makes the new 15W30 no VII diesel oils look more realistic.
I like the fact that they acknowledge the move to thinner oils provides wear challenges to overcome...
But the Ionic Liquid really does seem to answer the shortcomings.
I think it's kind of self-serving that they used a 20w30 as the reference oil. Who uses that anyway? Talk about fighting a straw man. But I'm digressing.
What I really was intrigued with was the Ionic Liquid. The wear graph on page 13 of the DOE report shows comparable Iron content, but the Aluminum content for the thin IL oil is 3X as much as for the M1. Coming out of an LSX (or any GM LS engine), that means bearing wear. All the bearings in that engine, be they main, rod, or cam bearing are Aluminum-lined. Maybe the thin IL oil is better at protecting liners than it is bearings?
Crawfish Tails,
great find, and thanks for posting.
Interested that the (dino) ASTM reference 20W30 is no additive, no VII...makes the new 15W30 no VII diesel oils look more realistic.
I like the fact that they acknowledge the move to thinner oils provides wear challenges to overcome...
But the Ionic Liquid really does seem to answer the shortcomings.
I think it's kind of self-serving that they used a 20w30 as the reference oil. Who uses that anyway? Talk about fighting a straw man. But I'm digressing.
What I really was intrigued with was the Ionic Liquid. The wear graph on page 13 of the DOE report shows comparable Iron content, but the Aluminum content for the thin IL oil is 3X as much as for the M1. Coming out of an LSX (or any GM LS engine), that means bearing wear. All the bearings in that engine, be they main, rod, or cam bearing are Aluminum-lined. Maybe the thin IL oil is better at protecting liners than it is bearings?
Originally Posted By: 4wheeldog
Kind of puts the lie to all those folks that espouse conventional being virtually no different from synthetic.
Perhaps. But consider that Mobile...
A. Won't tell you what they are selling you in either oil.
B. Reserve the right to change the formulation at any time, without notice.
There is no guarantee that what works one day will work tomorrow.
I'm sure BITOG's resident 'Thinies' will love this article; the researchers' prototype oil has an HTHS of 1.85!
Kind of puts the lie to all those folks that espouse conventional being virtually no different from synthetic.
Perhaps. But consider that Mobile...
A. Won't tell you what they are selling you in either oil.
B. Reserve the right to change the formulation at any time, without notice.
There is no guarantee that what works one day will work tomorrow.
I'm sure BITOG's resident 'Thinies' will love this article; the researchers' prototype oil has an HTHS of 1.85!
Some posters on this thread have it all wrong... 100% wear is caused by BL/ML? Nope.
Answer this:
Why is there an oil filter on your engine?
Do you know what erosional wear is? It has nothing to do with metal on metal parts wear, but particles in the oil that do not get removed by standard full flow filters, that, essentially sand blast the moving parts over time. This is where bypass filter come in, they remove most of these particles down to ~1 micron in size (more than 10 times smaller than particles removed by the best full flow filters) and takes them out of the picture. Erosional wear 'can' be the majority of wear in an engines life.
Answer this:
Why is there an oil filter on your engine?
Do you know what erosional wear is? It has nothing to do with metal on metal parts wear, but particles in the oil that do not get removed by standard full flow filters, that, essentially sand blast the moving parts over time. This is where bypass filter come in, they remove most of these particles down to ~1 micron in size (more than 10 times smaller than particles removed by the best full flow filters) and takes them out of the picture. Erosional wear 'can' be the majority of wear in an engines life.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: zpinch
Some posters on this thread have it all wrong... 100% wear is caused by BL/ML? Nope.
Answer this:
Why is there an oil filter on your engine?
Do you know what erosional wear is? It has nothing to do with metal on metal parts wear, but particles in the oil that do not get removed by standard full flow filters, that, essentially sand blast the moving parts over time. This is where bypass filter come in, they remove most of these particles down to ~1 micron in size (more than 10 times smaller than particles removed by the best full flow filters) and takes them out of the picture. Erosional wear 'can' be the majority of wear in an engines life.
Well even some top of the line oil filters like the Fram Ultra can remove such small particles. It is 80% @ 5microns. I'm not sure bypass filters offer much over a filter like that.
Some posters on this thread have it all wrong... 100% wear is caused by BL/ML? Nope.
Answer this:
Why is there an oil filter on your engine?
Do you know what erosional wear is? It has nothing to do with metal on metal parts wear, but particles in the oil that do not get removed by standard full flow filters, that, essentially sand blast the moving parts over time. This is where bypass filter come in, they remove most of these particles down to ~1 micron in size (more than 10 times smaller than particles removed by the best full flow filters) and takes them out of the picture. Erosional wear 'can' be the majority of wear in an engines life.
Well even some top of the line oil filters like the Fram Ultra can remove such small particles. It is 80% @ 5microns. I'm not sure bypass filters offer much over a filter like that.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Crawfish Tails,
great find, and thanks for posting.
Interested that the (dino) ASTM reference 20W30 is no additive, no VII...makes the new 15W30 no VII diesel oils look more realistic.
I like the fact that they acknowledge the move to thinner oils provides wear challenges to overcome...
But the Ionic Liquid really does seem to answer the shortcomings.
I think it's kind of self-serving that they used a 20w30 as the reference oil. Who uses that anyway? Talk about fighting a straw man. But I'm digressing.
What I really was intrigued with was the Ionic Liquid. The wear graph on page 13 of the DOE report shows comparable Iron content, but the Aluminum content for the thin IL oil is 3X as much as for the M1. Coming out of an LSX (or any GM LS engine), that means bearing wear. All the bearings in that engine, be they main, rod, or cam bearing are Aluminum-lined. Maybe the thin IL oil is better at protecting liners than it is bearings?
I think so based on the study, the old saying " thicker protects bearing and thinner protects rings and valve trains" is true?
I will say there was no ring groove and the cross hatching was still visible on my 04 below when the oil pump bypass stuck open took out the engine at 250+k miles. The engine always had a xw30 in it.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Crawfish Tails,
great find, and thanks for posting.
Interested that the (dino) ASTM reference 20W30 is no additive, no VII...makes the new 15W30 no VII diesel oils look more realistic.
I like the fact that they acknowledge the move to thinner oils provides wear challenges to overcome...
But the Ionic Liquid really does seem to answer the shortcomings.
I think it's kind of self-serving that they used a 20w30 as the reference oil. Who uses that anyway? Talk about fighting a straw man. But I'm digressing.
What I really was intrigued with was the Ionic Liquid. The wear graph on page 13 of the DOE report shows comparable Iron content, but the Aluminum content for the thin IL oil is 3X as much as for the M1. Coming out of an LSX (or any GM LS engine), that means bearing wear. All the bearings in that engine, be they main, rod, or cam bearing are Aluminum-lined. Maybe the thin IL oil is better at protecting liners than it is bearings?
I think so based on the study, the old saying " thicker protects bearing and thinner protects rings and valve trains" is true?
I will say there was no ring groove and the cross hatching was still visible on my 04 below when the oil pump bypass stuck open took out the engine at 250+k miles. The engine always had a xw30 in it.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I think it's kind of self-serving that they used a 20w30 as the reference oil. Who uses that anyway? Talk about fighting a straw man. But I'm digressing.
The reason for that is that the ASTM reference oil for Fuel Economy standards is the 20W30 non FM, non VIIed oil (used to be an xW40)...so it's fair usage IMO.
I think it's kind of self-serving that they used a 20w30 as the reference oil. Who uses that anyway? Talk about fighting a straw man. But I'm digressing.
The reason for that is that the ASTM reference oil for Fuel Economy standards is the 20W30 non FM, non VIIed oil (used to be an xW40)...so it's fair usage IMO.
- Status
Similar threads
