quote:No question, this is a potential problem with using any indirect OLM. It has no way to know if the oil is really ok. It's only calculating that it *should* be ok from the operating conditions over time. Thinking about it further, it makes the "engine too cold" theory seem less likely and antifreeze or pcv system problems seem more likely to me. If the engine never warmed up, a properly programmed OLM should sense that and adjust the OCI accordingly. Then again, we really don't know how well the BMW OLM works do we...
Originally posted by 59 Vetteman: Cold, PCV system not functioning, antifreeze in the oil, or? I do agree with you, but this is the part where the OLM does not take those problems in consideration and the results are evident. Neither did the Dealer so two strikes, and the third strike is the customer loses.
UOA comparisons, syn versus dino...
- Thread starter fuel tanker man
- Start date
- Status
quote:I'm trying to post in all of them to do my part...
Originally posted by Winston: I cant believe that there are now three threads on the exact same subject!
![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon}
quote:The key is to keep starting new threads until you've got the subject postulation phrased just right, so it makes your argument air-tight and impossible for others to try to pursue their agendas or to deviate from the desired subject at hand.
Originally posted by Winston: I cant believe that there are now three threads on the exact same subject!
![[Cool]](images/icons/cool.gif){kind=icon}
I gave up. Certain of us have difficulty listening.
True enough! ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif)
Gary:
Nicely put. Like a WWI cannon battle (to use the arty analogy again), we stay in our trenches plugging away at one another. I agree that dinos do fine in the short-run (while being unwilling to accept the "Part II" of Dan's position) while he agrees (correct me if I'm wrong, Dan) that syns do fine in the long run. More agreement than disagreement, yet on we go. . .
Let's try to re-channel into a more productive direction. Dan, T-Stick, and like thinkers, here's a question to respectfully test your position: what do you all feel are the significant differences in metal levels on these UOAs? I'm thinking that in the usual "garden variety" healthy-engine UOA, the numbers we are seeing really represent miniscule amounts of metal in the first place. One engine shows single digit iron readings, another similar model is in the teens. Is that a significant difference? You see where I'm going with this, I assume. We can probably all agree that, for example, lead spiking to 50 or above in an engine that's shown single digits previously probably indicates something you want to know about. But how much change (or difference) is necessary before you can say it actually means something? And what "delta" do you need to see before you can conclude that you're seeing a meaningful difference? ![[Cheers!]](/forums/graemlins/cheers.gif)
quote:Still not there yet, are we? Of course, if you define the topic so as to virtually guarantee a stream of half-truth, you've got to expect folks to repond to that and not sit idly by. And Dan, you know what I meant.
Originally posted by Big O Dave:quote:The key is to keep starting new threads until you've got the subject postulation phrased just right, so it makes your argument air-tight and impossible for others to try to pursue their agendas or to deviate from the desired subject at hand.
Originally posted by Winston: I cant believe that there are now three threads on the exact same subject!
My position is solidly defensible without relying upon any of those seven silly-isms you suggested I must accept. I should be more careful in defining and phrasing my responses. . .
quote:
Originally posted by fuel tanker man: The thing is that we're looking at dozens of UOAs comparing several syns to several different dinos. When we compare "like engines," I say that the data gleaned is very relevant. If the stats were not statistically relevant, there would--by definition--be some cases where syns bested the dinos. Finding such cases and linking them here would--if nothing else--go some way toward proving my notion wrong. But we're not finding those links...Dan
Syns were IMHO never touted as lower wear in the early years other than polar esters but I think they are at least good for.
Longer OCI
Lower temp fluidity
Lower evaporation loss
Lower sludge/varnish by products
Longer life of emmissions equipment
with current Di packages most any other improvemnt now is not to much.
bruceDan, respecfully, your initial premise, question, and supporting documentation is flawed because the LINE between "syn" vs. "conventional" lubricants has been blurred in the last 4-6 years of formulation changes.
The PROPER formulation for the application will yield the lowest wear values.
Terry
Along with my numerous other reasons - I agree with Terry. Too blury.
I remember the GM engineer saying that with the recent formulation changes you could slap a "semi-synthetic" sticker on any SM "dino" oil and technically be right?
Is this what Terry is inferring to as well?
This topic has run its course.>>>
- Status
